The 1B Predicament

[SPLENDIDSPLINTER]

55 minutes ago, Old Red said:

Beltre was pretty good in his one year here, and Lowell was pretty good too.

That is definitely correct.

[SPLENDIDSPLINTER]

1 hour ago, Old Red said:

Beltre was pretty good in his one year here, and Lowell was pretty good too.

I'd forgotten about Beltre. I'll modify my original post and say Beltre and Bregman are the two best defensive 3rd basemen I've ever seen play for the Sox.

[Michigan Adam2]

23 hours ago, TedYazPapiMookie said:

If someone wrote a book about the normal progression of prospects that get promoted to the MLB it would suggest that Campbell is experiencing a normal promotion.  Think back to many of the Red Sox promoted over the years and even guys like Griffey and Trout.  Here are the steps:

1 - Player gets promoted and starts out hot because pitchers don't have a book on him.

2- A book gets developed with teams cooperating in sharing their experience with regard to the player.

3- The players stats drop dramatically as teams adjust to what they've learned about him.

4- The hitting coaches work with the player to help him make his adjustments to what the opponents have learned about him and his stats start to rise.

5- Repeat the cycle the rest of his career.

 

This is why when fans beg for Anthony and Mayer and start discounting guys like Campbell and Rafaela and even Duran, it's just wrong.  The cycle happens to everyone.  The great ones make adjustments down the road and suddenly have break out seasons like Duran did and Mookie did and Devers did.  The better the farm system history of the player the more likely they will break out.  Campbell had a Mookie-like farm system experience so he will bounce back and have a break-out sometime down the road.  Hopefully, sooner rather than later.  Duran has already made adjustments, and his numbers are climbing again.

When Anthony and Mayer arrive expect the same initial hot streak followed by the same cold streak and watch the adjustment process occur.  The breakout when it comes will dictate at what level the player will create a standard plateau for his skills.  Mookie jumped to elite all-star.  Devers jumped to above league average hitter but never repaired his defense.  Duran improved on defense and jumped to a near perennial all-star offensive level.  

I think you are seeing Rafaela maturing into an above league average player with upside that could lead to being an all-star level player.  His defense is already JBJ-like, his Ks dropped dramatically, and his run production is returning to his 2024 level as third best on the team while hitting out of the 9 hole.  

This team has a ton of talent that should mature in 2026 or 2027.  Give the young guys time to experience the cycle of development and come out the other end with their break-out years.

 

Im beginning to think the Sox need a spark.  As good as rafaela is on D, He isn't cutting it on O consistently. I'm thinking adding Anthony to the OF in LF, Durran in center and Abreau in RF would be a balanced O and D OF.  As for the INF, adding Mayer to SS, story to 2b, and Campbell to 1B(assuming he can handle it).  1B being the biggest risk on D, and Campbell is a versatile athlete, so it is more a matter of time than ability.  Rafaela as super utility...

[TedYazPapiMookie]

6 hours ago, notin said:

The statement about range not mattering if the rate of success falls off doesn’t make sense.  More range still means more chances, which means more outs, even if it does mean more errors.  In fact, every single point you try to make about metrics being wrong applies much better to fielding percentage.

The statement about players like Jeter, Dever being Teflon as a reason to not use metrics is actually a really good argument against fielding percentage, which only concerns itself with errors.  Metrics take many other factors into account.

What metric did you dissect and what were the findings?  Can’t just drop stuff like that and think people should accept it.   I expect every metric to have flaws. I also think in most cases, those flaws are less significant than the glaring ones in fielding percentage, including the ones you inadvertently reminded me of in this treatise…

Range doesn't matter if a ball that is hit farther from the player doesn't generate an out.  The score keeper will either give a hit or an error and either way the team has not benefitted from the extra range if it's not an out.  The out is the measure of the success rate.  It's only if the added range results in an out that it matters.

FYI, you perceive Fielding Percentage incorrectly.  It measures the success rate of the player and the team.  The error is just data.  What's important is the success rate.  Metrics don't document facts, it's a contrived number that is derivative of actual facts like total chances and errors, but metrics interject theoretical normalized data that doesn't relate directly to the play, so it doesn't represent what actually happened in the game!  The additional data in metrics is someone's best guess of what might have happened based on simulation but since the one number fits all theory is so incredibly inaccurate, the metrics are incredibly inaccurate.

You missed the point about me dissecting it and suggesting you should.  I'm not here to teach you.  Do the work yourself and learn.  You wouldn't believe what I write anyway so it's a complete waste of time for me to do that.  You are a player of mine, you are just some guy doubting that I know what I am talking about.  Do the work and don't blame others for not doing the work for you.

Also, you really don't understand the difference between ESTIMATES and STATS.  The fielding percentage is a stat.  It's 100% accurate in documenting whether a fielder was successful or not.  Why he wasn't isn't the critical information provided by the fielding percentage, the success or no success is the critical information because it explains where the team benefitted from the players defense or did not benefit.  Metrics are simulated by using averages of WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN if the exact same event were to happen again and they create an expectation of the fielder's performance.  Accumulating one time event data to simulate future scenarios is a fun exercise but it's a prediction, just like you suggesting it MIGHT rain tomorrow.  The DRS value and all the other fake stats which are estimates all are just a series of guesses.  So statcast posts guesses as if they are stats to define a player.  That's a complete joke.  If you want to play simulation games, got back to your Playstation.  If you want to know if a player is really providing skills on defense, look at stats, especially fielding percentage.  It tells you his success rate.  The higher the rate, the more value provided to the team regardless of where the ball might have been hit because you can't control where the ball will be hit.

[illinoisredsox]

With all due respect moon, I did not think it possible for a poster to consistently make you seem pithy.

[moonslav59]

4 hours ago, Old Red said:

Ok I’ll agree with you on the points you are making, but those things just don’t matter that much to me. Rico was a good enough SS to me as was the Rooster.

They were good enough for me, too. Rico was a very good hitter. Burleson was my favorite player after Tommy Harper's days with the Sox ended. Burleson was a good defender, IMO. Rico was good at 3B.

[TedYazPapiMookie]

29 minutes ago, Michigan Adam2 said:

Im beginning to think the Sox need a spark.  As good as rafaela is on D, He isn't cutting it on O consistently. I'm thinking adding Anthony to the OF in LF, Durran in center and Abreau in RF would be a balanced O and D OF.  As for the INF, adding Mayer to SS, story to 2b, and Campbell to 1B(assuming he can handle it).  1B being the biggest risk on D, and Campbell is a versatile athlete, so it is more a matter of time than ability.  Rafaela as super utility...

My thoughts on your suggestions:

1 - Rafaela is cutting it on offense if you look at his recent rise.  He's made his adjustments and has significantly improved his hitting.  March/April batting average .213, May average .306!!!!  I think that shows he's cutting it!!  His May OPS is .803!!!

2 - Anothony won't magically appear and be a better hitter than the players in the outfield today.  That process will take time so adding Anthony full time would actually hurt the team but if you use him as a back-up to het him familiar with the better pitching in the MLB and use him as a late inning pinch hitter then you give him experience that contains pressure that he will see when he is full time.  That would be a good exposure for Anthony as well.

3 - Duran in center and Abreu in RF would NOT be a balanced offense.  Are you aware that Abreu is actually a platoon player because he can't hit lefty pitchers?  Are you aware Abreu hit .295 in March/April and is hitting .228 in May?  Maybe you got Abreu's not cutting confused and blamed Rafaela?  BTW Anthony is also a lefty hitter as is Duran.  You are also suggesting an all-lefty outfield when it comes to hitting and you are removing the best defender and keeping the weakest defender in Abreu and the currently worst hitter of the three.

4 - When you suggest adding Mayer who is the worst defensive infielder of those you list you are downgrading the current defense.  If there is an issue with Story's hitting then you sit him not move him to 2B to bring in a weak fielding, inexperienced injury prone minor league player.  Since the current weak spot is 1B, if you don't do the right thing and go get a real 1B, then use Mayer at 1B so the middle infield defense doesn't suffer.  Mayer is the same height as Campbell and he has more power so he fits the prototype of a 1B much better than Campbell especially with his average to below average defense at SS.  Please check the fielding stats if you doubt what I am saying.  His minor league fielding percentage was a miserable .951.

5 - Campbell is not just a versatile athlete he is a stellar defender.  Story's career at shortstop documents he's a fine defensive shortstop and since coming to Boston his issue has always been hitting.  Campbell should be his back-up due his superior fielding to Mayer.  Remember, Mayer has been in the organization since 2021 and has not hit well except in 2024.  Campbell was drafted in 2023 and hit so well he moved to the MLB in two seasons while Mayer has yet to make the MLB.  Why?  Campbell won Minor League Player of the Year in 2024 beating out both Anthony and Mayer.  If a new shortstop is to replace Story because he's not hitting, FOR THE TEAM'S SAKE, it needs to be Campbell.

[TedYazPapiMookie]

6 hours ago, TheSplinteredSplendor said:

 

Longevity in the game is a bit of an achievement but Jeter's strength in number comes not from his excellence as much as from his 20 years of playing.  He's 6th in all-time hits but it's not nearly as impressive if you review hits per plate appearance.  He drops to 39th.  Who is first?  Ty Cobb, then Sisler and the top 10 is a true representation of the greats in baseball, not the guys that played the longest.

Tony Gwynn, Rod Carew and Ichiro all made the top 25 joining the players from eras prior to them.  Jeter didn't deserve a first ballot election is what I said and i acknowledged he belonged in the HOF.  Clearly, you have some reading and comprehension issues but hey you got a cheap shot in and that's what you are all about.

[TheSplinteredSplendor]

1 hour ago, TedYazPapiMookie said:

Longevity in the game is a bit of an achievement but Jeter's strength in number comes not from his excellence as much as from his 20 years of playing.  He's 6th in all-time hits but it's not nearly as impressive if you review hits per plate appearance.  He drops to 39th.  Who is first?  Ty Cobb, then Sisler and the top 10 is a true representation of the greats in baseball, not the guys that played the longest.

Tony Gwynn, Rod Carew and Ichiro all made the top 25 joining the players from eras prior to them.  Jeter didn't deserve a first ballot election is what I said and i acknowledged he belonged in the HOF.  Clearly, you have some reading and comprehension issues but hey you got a cheap shot in and that's what you are all about.

With each post you make it more clear that you actually never played the game in your life above maybe t-ball.

39th out of thousands of players is still elite.

.310 lifetime average is still elite.

You make me laugh.

[Maxbialystock]

22 hours ago, notin said:

No one is saying errors are a good thing.  But errors are lousy way to judge defense.

I think a higher percentage than you realize are borderline calls, disputed or not…

Oh, for crying out loud, it's a judgment call on errors.  Most are pretty obvious, but seem are close calls.  I'm fine with whatever is decided.  

I completely agree errors are just one part of judging defense, especially with the 2025 Sox.   

[Maxbialystock]

40 minutes ago, TheSplinteredSplendor said:

With each post you make it more clear that you actually never played the game in your life above maybe t-ball.

39th out of thousands of players is still elite.

.310 lifetime average is still elite.

You make me laugh.

20 years is elite.  

[notin]

5 hours ago, TedYazPapiMookie said:

Range doesn't matter if a ball that is hit farther from the player doesn't generate an out.  The score keeper will either give a hit or an error and either way the team has not benefitted from the extra range if it's not an out.  The out is the measure of the success rate.  It's only if the added range results in an out that it matters.

FYI, you perceive Fielding Percentage incorrectly.  It measures the success rate of the player and the team.  The error is just data.  What's important is the success rate.  Metrics don't document facts, it's a contrived number that is derivative of actual facts like total chances and errors, but metrics interject theoretical normalized data that doesn't relate directly to the play, so it doesn't represent what actually happened in the game!  The additional data in metrics is someone's best guess of what might have happened based on simulation but since the one number fits all theory is so incredibly inaccurate, the metrics are incredibly inaccurate.

You missed the point about me dissecting it and suggesting you should.  I'm not here to teach you.  Do the work yourself and learn.  You wouldn't believe what I write anyway so it's a complete waste of time for me to do that.  You are a player of mine, you are just some guy doubting that I know what I am talking about.  Do the work and don't blame others for not doing the work for you.

Also, you really don't understand the difference between ESTIMATES and STATS.  The fielding percentage is a stat.  It's 100% accurate in documenting whether a fielder was successful or not.  Why he wasn't isn't the critical information provided by the fielding percentage, the success or no success is the critical information because it explains where the team benefitted from the players defense or did not benefit.  Metrics are simulated by using averages of WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN if the exact same event were to happen again and they create an expectation of the fielder's performance.  Accumulating one time event data to simulate future scenarios is a fun exercise but it's a prediction, just like you suggesting it MIGHT rain tomorrow.  The DRS value and all the other fake stats which are estimates all are just a series of guesses.  So statcast posts guesses as if they are stats to define a player.  That's a complete joke.  If you want to play simulation games, got back to your Playstation.  If you want to know if a player is really providing skills on defense, look at stats, especially fielding percentage.  It tells you his success rate.  The higher the rate, the more value provided to the team regardless of where the ball might have been hit because you can't control where the ball will be hit.

So you’re righting off range because sometimes it doesn’t lead to outs?  Please tell me I’m reading that incorrectly. Please.  Because it obviously does lead to more outs.

Im perfectly happy engaging with you on this subject, but honestly, you raise more questions than answers.  Nothing you write makes me think you grasp metrics , their purpose, or their usage. But I do agree on one point - they’re not stats, which are a historical record of specific events.

But when you say stuff like “range doesn’t matter if a ball hit farther out doesn’t generate an out”, it raises way more questions than answers.  First one being the obvious “ok, well what about when it DOES lead to an out?”  Doesn’t range matter then?  
 

And the notion of posting about how you dissected some metric and found it to be pure fiction, but when asked say “do the work yourself.” Obviously my first thought is that do that, I’ll be the only one of us that did it.  (And if I did, I would share.  Done it before.)

So right now, I want a serious conversation.  Not some guy who throws around unsupported garbage buried in long sentences and can name Cal Ripken.  Despite this seemingly like an insulting task it isn’t meant to be but I need you to define fielding percentage. Because you and I are clearly not using the same definition.  And I don’t doubt mine…

 

[SPLENDIDSPLINTER]

3 hours ago, TheSplinteredSplendor said:

With each post you make it more clear that you actually never played the game in your life above maybe t-ball.

39th out of thousands of players is still elite.

.310 lifetime average is still elite.

You make me laugh.

I haven't read the tedyazpapi posts. I'm waiting for the Reader's Digest condensed versions.

[moonslav59]

If a tree fell on the range,  would fielding percent hear it?

[TedYazPapiMookie]

6 minutes ago, notin said:

So you’re righting off range because sometimes it doesn’t lead to outs?  Please tell me I’m reading that incorrectly. Please.  Because it obviously does lead to more outs.

Im perfectly happy engaging with you on this subject, but honestly, you raise more questions than answers.  Nothing you write makes me think you grasp metrics , their purpose, or their usage. But I do agree on one point - they’re not stats, which are a historical record of specific events.

But when you say stuff like “range doesn’t matter if a ball hit farther out doesn’t generate an out”, it raises way more questions than answers.  First one being the obvious “ok, well what about when it DOES lead to an out?”  Doesn’t range matter then?  
 

And the notion of posting about how you dissected some metric and found it to be pure fiction, but when asked say “do the work yourself.” Obviously my first thought is that do that, I’ll be the only one of us that did it.  (And if I did, I would share.  Done it before.)

So right now, I want a serious conversation.  Not some guy who throws around unsupported garbage buried in long sentences and can name Cal Ripken.  Despite this seemingly like an insulting task it isn’t meant to be but I need you to define fielding percentage. Because you and I are clearly not using the same definition.  And I don’t doubt mine…

 

Thanks for this response.  To begin here is the definition of fielding percentage according to the MLB.

Fielding Percentage (FPCT)

Definition

Fielding percentage answers the question: How often does a fielder or team make the play when tasked with fielding a batted ball, throwing a ball, or receiving a thrown ball for an out. The formula is simple: the total number of putouts and assists by a defender, divided by the total number of chances (putouts, assists and errors).

The denominator of this fraction is a 1 if an out is achieved and a 0 if it is not.  The total chances is a 1 with every play that the fielder participates in.  

The numerator is the number of putouts which is NEVER controversial because it is an official out and assists are not controversial because they are directly tied to an official out.  The denominator is where I think people get confused and wrongfully dismiss the statistic.  Since there are three components to the denominator and two are the same as the numerator only the errors create controversy.

Let's start there and expand into concepts like range later.  

When a ball is hit between players it is classified as a "HIT".  He a ball is hit to a player, or a player attempts to field it then two things can happen: 1 - An out 2) a base runner.  The latter is a failure but that's where things get complicated.  The word error has a negative connotation and reflects a score keeper's belief that the ball was playable.  There is no phrase for an unplayable ball except hit, but is it a hit or a misplay because it could have caught by the defender if he was a better player?  This is a shortcoming of defensive statistics.  Mishaps aren't an official they are embedded in the hits during a game.  All balls hit to a player are not included in the total chances, they are hits.  This artificially raises the fielding percentage of a player by the mishaps committed by him.  For every mishap you would need to add 1 more to the denominator lowering his fielding percentage.  Consequently, the fielding percentage is a ceiling value that gets reduced based on mishaps.  Now let's compare two players.  In 2022 as I have explained before Devers made 14 official errors and 38 mishaps.  His fielding percentage that year was .964 (379/393) his best ever.  His 393 total chances was a fairly normal frequency for plays at 3B during his career. 

Let's now build his fielding percentage range.  If he makes no mishaps on the 38 plays that were logged as mishaps by Baseball Reference, then his ceiling fielding percentage is .964.  If EVERY mishap should have been documented as an error his 379/393 fielding percentage drops to 379/431 or .879!!!  Devers range that year was huge due to high volume mishaps.  These numbers are not easily interpreted since there is no video replay that definitively defines the true errors.  So, let's just use the ceiling number and give him the benefit of the doubt like the score keepers.

Now lets look at Bregman.  He had 414 chances and 7 errors so 407 POs and Assists.  His fielding percentage ceiling was .983.  Since I have NOT gone game by game to dig out the "base hit to 3B" noted plays from the 2022 season I have no number to reflect his basement number like Devers .879 but let's just assume it's the midpoint of the Devers total or 19.  Personally, I believe that to be very high so it's a conservative number that favors Devers in this comparison.  Assume 407 assists and put outs like before and add 19 more total chances.  His floor fielding percentage is .940.  Based on these two ranges, it's clear who is by far the superior defender based on fielding percentage.  Is that fair or correct? 

Let's now discuss other factors like range.  I want to start with RF because I used to live near a guy named Bill James who in 1984 when we started our Keeper League was at the infant stage of ruining baseball from a statistical viewpoint.  We communicated with him about our stat categories in the league and we settled on offensive categories only since defensive measurement were hard to find weekly.  We agreed that the components of a scoring system should include Runs Produced (R+RBI=HR), Batting Average, Stolen Bases and we struggled with capturing other data that shows the value of a hitter.  Walks and Extra Base hits along with sacrifices needed to be incorporated so we built a stat called Extra Base Percentage that was the new stat called Isolated Power (Slugging = Batting Average) and Walk rate (OBP-Batting Average).  Unfortunately, James and others agreed on a batting average biased stat called OPS which double accounts batting average (On base percentage plus Slugging Percentage).  This became a popular misrepresentation of measuring a players value as did much of the metrics James invented.

He once wrote that the problem with fielding percentage is that it over emphasizes the importance of efficiency in converted batted balls into outs when the true measure of defense was the range of a player.  That's why today, you believe the things you do about metrics.  That's why so many blindly repeat his viewpoint because it's the basis of modern defensive metrics.  He started with Range Factor.

Range Factor (RF) in baseball is a defensive statistic that measures a player’s range or the number of defensive opportunities they have. It’s calculated differently for infielders and outfielders. 

RF=(Putouts + Assists) / (Games Played)

Enter the world of the Range Factor, a statistic that transcends traditional metrics, offering a deeper glimpse into a player’s ability to cover ground and transform difficult plays into outs.  This is the explanation I found.  This is what you are suggesting is so important.  The guy whose range is so great because he's an athlete and an elite defender.

What's wrong with this formula and what does it actually represent?  If a player plays one game and he gets 2 putouts and 3 assists his RF is 5.0.  That is the number of successful plays he made during the game.  It does NOT include errors or misplays.  The higher the number the higher the DWAR (defensive wins above replacement - Nice name can the name be more obscure?)  If DWAR is a measure of a players defense how is it significant if it doesn't reflect missed opportunities for outs?  It's simply volume data.  Nothing more significant that counting how many times a ball gets hit to a player and he successfully does his job.  Does the player in any way control that number?  No the pitcher and hitter create a result that adds to his count per game.  So what does DWAR tell you about quality of his play?  Absolutely nothing.

Fangraphs evaluates fielding percentage as follows:

all we had were errors, assists, and putouts.

These statistics aren’t very useful, however. You certainly want to avoid errors because in order for something to be called an error you have, by definition, failed to convert a batted ball into an out. Yet there are two key problems with errors. First, they are determined by official scorers who don’t always make the right decision. Human error isn’t a problem, per se, but you’ve all seen enough scoring decisions to be skeptical about the quality of their decision making.

Now go back to the RANGE described earlier.  Does the accuracy of the errors matter or does the percentage of successful outs matter?  This fangraphs comment is pure ignorance.  They don't understand the fielding percentage statistic and why it is the single most important piece of data about a player's defense.

Next they write: More importantly, however, is that errors are a subset of misplays. Even if official scorers got the rule book definition exactly right and perfectly uniform, we would still be ignoring a huge portion of bad defensive plays. Think back to a moment when you watched a player get a horrible jump on an easy ball. Think about the time an infielder took too long to get the ball out of their glove. Picture an easy pop fly falling four feet from the second baseman. None of those are errors even though they are relatively easy plays.

This is a bit of an exaggeration because if you can't get the ball out of your glove it is an error, but they have just documented what I told you about with respect to fielding percentage.  There is a floor that is unknown normally, but the ceiling is known.

They go on:  Measuring defense using Assists + Put Outs / Assists + Put Outs + Errors  ignores a huge slice of defense. If a player fails to get to an easy ball, there is no penalty. That alone should be reason enough for you to want something better.  (WOW... a gross generalization that does not explain why he didn't get to an easy ball and does this person define what EASY BALL means?)

These types of issues exist because score keepers give the player the benefit of the doubt.  As long as a source like Baseball Reference records it as a hit to 3B or RF or wherever the lazy player exists it becomes a misplay for the player but no error.  It's part of his floor fielding percentage.

This leads to their discussion of UZR and DRZ.  Like in Baseball Reference some balls hit are classified as hits to a specific position and others are simply hits.  Defensive Zones are the same concept.  Credit for performance in your Zone in metrics is the point where what happened in the game gets suspended and a new world is fabricated based on normalized data that may or may not reflect the reality of the play.  The metrics force explanations for the gray areas of plays.  The assumptions built in these metrics could suggest accurate measurements of a player's success just as easily as they can produce completely inaccurate assessments of a player's success.  An example that relates to your comments.  If a player is lazy and doesn't hustle and a ball in his zone goes to the outfield and then the next play he is hustling for a ball and his cleat catches an unseen seem in the turf.  Metrics try to quantify both circumstances where one is a motivational issue and the other is a physical issue out of the hands of the player.  Fielding percentage does NOT attempt to pigeon hole each individual play into a bucket arbitrarily.  Yes the buckets have rules to define the play but their accuracy is crap.  There are simply too many anomalies that can't be correctly slotted into the defined parameters in each metric formula. 

This is called exception processing.  There is a concept of diminishing returns when it comes to exception processing.  I believe metrics have crossed that line and used normalized data as if it was representative of a singular event.  It's a global average that might not be at all like the actual event.

At this point I will pause and send so you can help me understand how RF measures the greatness of a player.  I hope the ceiling concept helps explain why the gray area of misplays doesn't need to be accurate for fielding percentage to clearly represent the upside potential of any fielder.  In Devers case it shows just how incredibly bad he was and why Bregman's defense is light years better.  Those facts are clear with fielding percentage. 

I still can't figure out how Bregman in 2022 can have one of his highest fielding percentages and a -5 RDRS then the next year have a league average fielding percentage and have a positive 5 RDRS.  Maybe you can dig into DRS and all it's offshoots, UZR/DRZ, DWAR and RF.  All I can tell from the formulas is that normalized data which is NOT reflected in the actual play gets used to draw conclusions about the play but may not be appropriate because one size does not fit all.

I know this is long and I hope you are the only one that takes time because we agreed to discuss this.  I'm sure negative feedback will come from those who live in a texting length of messages world.

   

 

[TedYazPapiMookie]

8 hours ago, TheSplinteredSplendor said:

With each post you make it more clear that you actually never played the game in your life above maybe t-ball.

39th out of thousands of players is still elite.

.310 lifetime average is still elite.

You make me laugh.

Why are you so intimidated by me that you must insult me each time you write something.  Grow up.

Reading comprehension is an important skill.  Next time try to pay attention to the topic.

Elite wasn't the discussion.  The point was he didn't perform at a level throughout his career to earn a first year induction into the HOF. 

Do you even realize that you changed the topic to being elite and then quoted meaningless information relating to your new topic of being elite?  And then you have the nerve to suggest I make YOU laugh!! hahaha 

Don't give up your day job.  WOW.

[TheSplinteredSplendor]

4 hours ago, TedYazPapiMookie said:

Why are you so intimidated by me that you must insult me each time you write something.  Grow up.

Reading comprehension is an important skill.  Next time try to pay attention to the topic.

Elite wasn't the discussion.  The point was he didn't perform at a level throughout his career to earn a first year induction into the HOF. 

Do you even realize that you changed the topic to being elite and then quoted meaningless information relating to your new topic of being elite?  And then you have the nerve to suggest I make YOU laugh!! hahaha 

Don't give up your day job.  WOW.

Intimidated? Now that's even funnier. Get over yourself.

And there was no insult, I simply stated that I don't believe that you actually played and/or coached the game.

The point is that he certainly did merit 1st year induction to all but one of the people who's opinions actually matter.

And talk about being unable to comprehend, elite = 1st ballot election.

[moonslav59]

We all know what Fldg % is.

It's as simple an incomplete as BA.

[Maxbialystock]

On 5/15/2025 at 12:39 AM, Thomas Healy said:

What do we think Craig is thinking: Move Rafy to 1B and put Yoshida at DH. OR, Move Rafy to 1B and promote one of Anthony/Mayer. If he does the latter, which I think is highly improbable, could that mean someone like Duran would be moved to DH to make room for Anthony in LF? I just don't see how you can fit Anthony in left without trading/changing Duran's position. Can't remember if it was Bres or Cora who said platooning Anthony doesn't make much sense, which it doesn't. I think the team needs to act fast with whatever they do at 1B, because I think it has an effect on Anthony's arrival.

One more time.  1b was never a predicament because Casas' OPS was .580 and his overall WAR -0.8.  Gonzalez, due back any day now, has much better numbers.

Breslow is the villain in this little charade.  I say that because Cora correctly and wisely told Devers--after he was told he would have to relinquish the position he'd played for 8 years--to embrace DH.  And that's what happened, so much so that Devers could be headed for the best season of his career.  His current OPS, .920, is a tad higher than his best, .916 in 2019.  

Despite that, Breslow not only went directly to Devers (through a translator of course) to tell him he was needed at 1b, he made sure the press knew about it.  Then JH went to KC to make the situation even more public, with the result that Devers has been unfairly condemned as a malcontent.  

I think Breslow is better than Chaim Bloom, plus it now appears he is being given more money/leeway to hire real talent like Bregman and Crochet.  Nevertheless, one of his first moves was to dump Sale and pay his first year salary for the Braves--where Sale flourished and won the NL Cy Young award--and replaced him with Giolito, who is being paid $40M to miss one season and have an ERA of 7.08 this season.  So, despite the additions of Crochet, Chapman, Buehler, Fitts, and Dobbins, the Sox ERA is currently 4.16 and ranked 20th in MLB--compared to last year's 4.04 and 17th.  

Someone has to tell me why Breslow is making all this noise about 1b when it's the pitching that is killing the Sox.  

 

 

 

[mvp 78]

1 minute ago, Maxbialystock said:

Despite that, Breslow not only went directly to Devers (through a translator of course) to tell him he was needed at 1b, he made sure the press knew about it.  

I don't think Breslow went to the press. I think Sammy went to the press. The Sox have the leakiest ship of all time and a lot of it seems to come from his office. Dude can't keep his yap shut. 

[notin]

8 hours ago, TedYazPapiMookie said:

Thanks for this response.  To begin here is the definition of fielding percentage according to the MLB.

Fielding Percentage (FPCT)

Definition

Fielding percentage answers the question: How often does a fielder or team make the play when tasked with fielding a batted ball, throwing a ball, or receiving a thrown ball for an out. The formula is simple: the total number of putouts and assists by a defender, divided by the total number of chances (putouts, assists and errors).

The denominator of this fraction is a 1 if an out is achieved and a 0 if it is not.  The total chances is a 1 with every play that the fielder participates in.  

The numerator is the number of putouts which is NEVER controversial because it is an official out and assists are not controversial because they are directly tied to an official out.  The denominator is where I think people get confused and wrongfully dismiss the statistic.  Since there are three components to the denominator and two are the same as the numerator only the errors create controversy.

Let's start there and expand into concepts like range later.  

When a ball is hit between players it is classified as a "HIT".  He a ball is hit to a player, or a player attempts to field it then two things can happen: 1 - An out 2) a base runner.  The latter is a failure but that's where things get complicated.  The word error has a negative connotation and reflects a score keeper's belief that the ball was playable.  There is no phrase for an unplayable ball except hit, but is it a hit or a misplay because it could have caught by the defender if he was a better player?  This is a shortcoming of defensive statistics.  Mishaps aren't an official they are embedded in the hits during a game.  All balls hit to a player are not included in the total chances, they are hits.  This artificially raises the fielding percentage of a player by the mishaps committed by him.  For every mishap you would need to add 1 more to the denominator lowering his fielding percentage.  Consequently, the fielding percentage is a ceiling value that gets reduced based on mishaps.  Now let's compare two players.  In 2022 as I have explained before Devers made 14 official errors and 38 mishaps.  His fielding percentage that year was .964 (379/393) his best ever.  His 393 total chances was a fairly normal frequency for plays at 3B during his career. 

Let's now build his fielding percentage range.  If he makes no mishaps on the 38 plays that were logged as mishaps by Baseball Reference, then his ceiling fielding percentage is .964.  If EVERY mishap should have been documented as an error his 379/393 fielding percentage drops to 379/431 or .879!!!  Devers range that year was huge due to high volume mishaps.  These numbers are not easily interpreted since there is no video replay that definitively defines the true errors.  So, let's just use the ceiling number and give him the benefit of the doubt like the score keepers.

Now lets look at Bregman.  He had 414 chances and 7 errors so 407 POs and Assists.  His fielding percentage ceiling was .983.  Since I have NOT gone game by game to dig out the "base hit to 3B" noted plays from the 2022 season I have no number to reflect his basement number like Devers .879 but let's just assume it's the midpoint of the Devers total or 19.  Personally, I believe that to be very high so it's a conservative number that favors Devers in this comparison.  Assume 407 assists and put outs like before and add 19 more total chances.  His floor fielding percentage is .940.  Based on these two ranges, it's clear who is by far the superior defender based on fielding percentage.  Is that fair or correct? 

Let's now discuss other factors like range.  I want to start with RF because I used to live near a guy named Bill James who in 1984 when we started our Keeper League was at the infant stage of ruining baseball from a statistical viewpoint.  We communicated with him about our stat categories in the league and we settled on offensive categories only since defensive measurement were hard to find weekly.  We agreed that the components of a scoring system should include Runs Produced (R+RBI=HR), Batting Average, Stolen Bases and we struggled with capturing other data that shows the value of a hitter.  Walks and Extra Base hits along with sacrifices needed to be incorporated so we built a stat called Extra Base Percentage that was the new stat called Isolated Power (Slugging = Batting Average) and Walk rate (OBP-Batting Average).  Unfortunately, James and others agreed on a batting average biased stat called OPS which double accounts batting average (On base percentage plus Slugging Percentage).  This became a popular misrepresentation of measuring a players value as did much of the metrics James invented.

He once wrote that the problem with fielding percentage is that it over emphasizes the importance of efficiency in converted batted balls into outs when the true measure of defense was the range of a player.  That's why today, you believe the things you do about metrics.  That's why so many blindly repeat his viewpoint because it's the basis of modern defensive metrics.  He started with Range Factor.

Range Factor (RF) in baseball is a defensive statistic that measures a player’s range or the number of defensive opportunities they have. It’s calculated differently for infielders and outfielders. 

RF=(Putouts + Assists) / (Games Played)

Enter the world of the Range Factor, a statistic that transcends traditional metrics, offering a deeper glimpse into a player’s ability to cover ground and transform difficult plays into outs.  This is the explanation I found.  This is what you are suggesting is so important.  The guy whose range is so great because he's an athlete and an elite defender.

What's wrong with this formula and what does it actually represent?  If a player plays one game and he gets 2 putouts and 3 assists his RF is 5.0.  That is the number of successful plays he made during the game.  It does NOT include errors or misplays.  The higher the number the higher the DWAR (defensive wins above replacement - Nice name can the name be more obscure?)  If DWAR is a measure of a players defense how is it significant if it doesn't reflect missed opportunities for outs?  It's simply volume data.  Nothing more significant that counting how many times a ball gets hit to a player and he successfully does his job.  Does the player in any way control that number?  No the pitcher and hitter create a result that adds to his count per game.  So what does DWAR tell you about quality of his play?  Absolutely nothing.

Fangraphs evaluates fielding percentage as follows:

all we had were errors, assists, and putouts.

These statistics aren’t very useful, however. You certainly want to avoid errors because in order for something to be called an error you have, by definition, failed to convert a batted ball into an out. Yet there are two key problems with errors. First, they are determined by official scorers who don’t always make the right decision. Human error isn’t a problem, per se, but you’ve all seen enough scoring decisions to be skeptical about the quality of their decision making.

Now go back to the RANGE described earlier.  Does the accuracy of the errors matter or does the percentage of successful outs matter?  This fangraphs comment is pure ignorance.  They don't understand the fielding percentage statistic and why it is the single most important piece of data about a player's defense.

Next they write: More importantly, however, is that errors are a subset of misplays. Even if official scorers got the rule book definition exactly right and perfectly uniform, we would still be ignoring a huge portion of bad defensive plays. Think back to a moment when you watched a player get a horrible jump on an easy ball. Think about the time an infielder took too long to get the ball out of their glove. Picture an easy pop fly falling four feet from the second baseman. None of those are errors even though they are relatively easy plays.

This is a bit of an exaggeration because if you can't get the ball out of your glove it is an error, but they have just documented what I told you about with respect to fielding percentage.  There is a floor that is unknown normally, but the ceiling is known.

They go on:  Measuring defense using Assists + Put Outs / Assists + Put Outs + Errors  ignores a huge slice of defense. If a player fails to get to an easy ball, there is no penalty. That alone should be reason enough for you to want something better.  (WOW... a gross generalization that does not explain why he didn't get to an easy ball and does this person define what EASY BALL means?)

These types of issues exist because score keepers give the player the benefit of the doubt.  As long as a source like Baseball Reference records it as a hit to 3B or RF or wherever the lazy player exists it becomes a misplay for the player but no error.  It's part of his floor fielding percentage.

This leads to their discussion of UZR and DRZ.  Like in Baseball Reference some balls hit are classified as hits to a specific position and others are simply hits.  Defensive Zones are the same concept.  Credit for performance in your Zone in metrics is the point where what happened in the game gets suspended and a new world is fabricated based on normalized data that may or may not reflect the reality of the play.  The metrics force explanations for the gray areas of plays.  The assumptions built in these metrics could suggest accurate measurements of a player's success just as easily as they can produce completely inaccurate assessments of a player's success.  An example that relates to your comments.  If a player is lazy and doesn't hustle and a ball in his zone goes to the outfield and then the next play he is hustling for a ball and his cleat catches an unseen seem in the turf.  Metrics try to quantify both circumstances where one is a motivational issue and the other is a physical issue out of the hands of the player.  Fielding percentage does NOT attempt to pigeon hole each individual play into a bucket arbitrarily.  Yes the buckets have rules to define the play but their accuracy is crap.  There are simply too many anomalies that can't be correctly slotted into the defined parameters in each metric formula. 

This is called exception processing.  There is a concept of diminishing returns when it comes to exception processing.  I believe metrics have crossed that line and used normalized data as if it was representative of a singular event.  It's a global average that might not be at all like the actual event.

At this point I will pause and send so you can help me understand how RF measures the greatness of a player.  I hope the ceiling concept helps explain why the gray area of misplays doesn't need to be accurate for fielding percentage to clearly represent the upside potential of any fielder.  In Devers case it shows just how incredibly bad he was and why Bregman's defense is light years better.  Those facts are clear with fielding percentage. 

I still can't figure out how Bregman in 2022 can have one of his highest fielding percentages and a -5 RDRS then the next year have a league average fielding percentage and have a positive 5 RDRS.  Maybe you can dig into DRS and all it's offshoots, UZR/DRZ, DWAR and RF.  All I can tell from the formulas is that normalized data which is NOT reflected in the actual play gets used to draw conclusions about the play but may not be appropriate because one size does not fit all.

I know this is long and I hope you are the only one that takes time because we agreed to discuss this.  I'm sure negative feedback will come from those who live in a texting length of messages world.

   

 

A couple important distinction- Range Factor, despite its name, doesn’t measure range.  It measures how many players a player makes per game regardless of how easy or difficult they are.  It can be heavily influenced by pitchers and park, as well.  An infielder with more groundball pitchers on his team is likely to have a higher range factor than a similar player on a staff loaded with strikeout and flyball pitchers.   I don’t know why they chose the name Range Factor, but it’s no more a measure of range than slugging percentage is a percentage or batting average is an average.
 

It’s false to say dWAR doesn’t incorporate errors.  It absolutely does.  It just doesn’t use them as the sole method of determining defense.

Stats like DRS, UZR and OAA do not treat all groundballs and flyballs equally like fielding percentage does.  It adds or subtracts points on each play based on degree of difficulty.  So if a player makes a catch on a ball where players in his position are only successful 10% of the time, he is awarded 0.90 points. If he fails, he loses 0.10 points.  Not every play is treated equal.  Because they’re not all equal anywhere except in fielding pct.
 

Fielding percentage only takes into account balls the player can touch (per Rule 9.12, an error is only charged if the player touches the ball with few exceptions, like grounders between his legs).  And doesn’t take into consideration how easy or difficult any play not made is. 
 

No metrics incorporate hustle or motivation on their own.  They’re all batted ball vs play made, and each play has its own intrinsic degree of difficulty.   These metrics also have adjustments for position, because not every position is as easy to field as any other one.  It’s easier to play LF than it is to play SS.  But most left fielders will have much higher fielding percentages than most shortstops.  Does that mean left fielders are better fielders than shortstops?

[moonslav59]

33 minutes ago, Maxbialystock said:

One more time.  1b was never a predicament because Casas' OPS was .580 and his overall WAR -0.8.  Gonzalez, due back any day now, has much better numbers.

The idea that casas was going to hit .580 all season is flawed, so thinking that's all we needed to replace to improve is not really the issue.

I'd rather have Casas for the next few months than any other option we have, right now, or to trade for one. I could be wrong about casas getting better, but hey...

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

When I think of range -- not as a label for a metric -- there are some plays that don't result in outs that definitely help a defense, and even victory. 

Example: base-loaded and two outs, the shortstop dives to stop a grounder from reaching the outfield. He can't throw out the batter at first, but only one run scores instead of two because he kept the ball in the infield.

Is there a stat for that, or is this one of those deeds that won't show up in the dWAR Room?

[moonslav59]

42 minutes ago, Maxbialystock said:

Breslow is the villain in this little charade.  I say that because Cora correctly and wisely told Devers--after he was told he would have to relinquish the position he'd played for 8 years--to embrace DH.  And that's what happened, so much so that Devers could be headed for the best season of his career. 

 

I'm not sure Cora told him he'd be the DH for 8 years, and if he did, it was his mistake, unless Breslow told him that's what he should say.

[Bellhorn04]

3 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

I'm not sure Cora told him he'd be the DH for 8 years, and if he did, it was his mistake, unless Breslow told him that's what he should say.

Well maybe Max has a point.  Maybe focusing on DH has worked for Devers.  He's certainly been hitting well.  

[moonslav59]

45 minutes ago, Maxbialystock said:

Someone has to tell me why Breslow is making all this noise about 1b when it's the pitching that is killing the Sox.  

A decision need to be made on who plays 1B.

There is not much we can do, in May, to fix the pitching, except give our starters a start or two more, then try someone else, already in the system. No ace will be traded in May.

We've already tried 8 SP'ers and have yet to get a start from Crawford, Criswell or Sandoval. We have a few on the shorter ILs, now: Buehler, Fitts and Houck. I think our only options until June or July are to roll the dice with what we have.

[mvp 78]

2 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Well maybe Max has a point.  Maybe focusing on DH has worked for Devers.  He's certainly been hitting well.  

1008 OPS since 4/2

[moonslav59]

1 minute ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Well maybe Max has a point.  Maybe focusing on DH has worked for Devers.  He's certainly been hitting well.  

It seems wrong to not foresee an injury to your only 1Bman and think you might need Devers to play there, someday.

We just saw the "promise" Bloom made to devers about 3B overturned, and Cora/Brez learned nothing from it.

[Hitch]

2 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

A decision need to be made on who plays 1B.

There is not much we can do, in May, to fix the pitching, except give our starters a start or two more, then try someone else, already in the system. No ace will be traded in May.

We've already tried 8 SP'ers and have yet to get a start from Crawford, Criswell or Sandoval. We have a few on the shorter ILs, now: Buehler, Fitts and Houck. I think our only options until June or July are to roll the dice with what we have.

Isn't that decision trending towards Campbell?

[Hitch]

2 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

1008 OPS since 4/2

Worst. Teammate. Ever.