The 1B Predicament

[moonslav59]

4 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

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

My position is to keep Devers at DH and play Campbell at 1B.

That does not change my opinion that Cora should not have told Devers he was the DH for 8 years and to "retire his glove." No manager should ever say that to a player, even if we had 1B depth.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

9 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

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

I think our only options until June or July are to roll the dice with what we have.

The first and last lines of your post sum everything up.

Front office may not invest in any more significant reinforcements because it's becoming apparent this year's roster isn't good enough to spend any more resources on it.

[moonslav59]

12 minutes ago, 5GoldGlovesOF,75 said:

The first and last lines of your post sum everything up.

Front office may not invest in any more significant reinforcements because it's becoming apparent this year's roster isn't good enough to spend any more resources on it.

We do have options we have not tried, yet.

We could call up a kid or two.

We could bat Bregman 2nd and Devers 4th.

We could try Criswell as a SP'er, like did so well, last year.

We could give Guerrero another look.

We could try I Campbell out, but we'd have to add him to the 40 (Casas to 60.)

We could try something else and hope a spark ignites a flame.

[Bellhorn04]

37 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

My position is to keep Devers at DH and play Campbell at 1B.

That does not change my opinion that Cora should not have told Devers he was the DH for 8 years and to "retire his glove." No manager should ever say that to a player, even if we had 1B depth.

Maybe Cora did that just to put his mind at ease and let him focus on hitting.  I highly doubt he made any promises about never playing 1B ever.  That'd be pretty foolish since Cora could be gone any time himself.

The bottom line is none of us know jack about what was actually said and we're all just guessing. 

But the fact Devers is hitting like a beast now after all the uproar suggests that however Cora handled it wasn't the worst thing.   

[mvp 78]

 

[Old Red]

14 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

We do have options we have not tried, yet.

We could call up a kid or two.

We could bat Bregman 2nd and Devers 4th.

We could try Criswell as a SP'er, like did so well, last year.

We could give Guerrero another look.

We could try I Campbell out, but we'd have to add him to the 40 (Casas to 60.)

We could try something else and hope a spark ignites a flame.

I would leave Devers, and Bregman right where they are in the batting order, because both are not only getting the RBI opportunities where they are, but they are both driving them in. One big problem is whomever has batted 4th has pretty much sucked, and now KC,  Story are just black holes wherever they are hitting.

[mvp 78]

Dom Smith has a higher May OPS than Mayer and Anthony. They need to trade for him and bring him back to play 1b. It's the only way to fix the vibes. He can pitch too. 

[moonslav59]

14 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Maybe Cora did that just to put his mind at ease and let him focus on hitting.  I highly doubt he made any promises about never playing 1B ever.  That'd be pretty foolish since Cora could be gone any time himself.

The bottom line is none of us know jack about what was actually said and we're all just guessing. 

But the fact Devers is hitting like a beast now after all the uproar suggests that however Cora handled it wasn't the worst thing.   

I've always doubted what people say was said, and the translations of statements made by Devers. Some posters have said Cora told Devers "to retire his glove." I doubt he said it, but if anything like that was said, I think it was wrong, especially with a know shortage of 1B depth and Casas being a China doll.

[moonslav59]

13 minutes ago, Old Red said:

I would leave Devers, and Bregman right where they are in the batting order, because both are not only getting the RBI opportunities where they are, but they are both driving them in. One big problem is whomever has batted 4th has pretty much sucked, and now KC,  Story are just black holes wherever they are hitting.

Well, the 4 slot is more valuable than the 3 slot (and so is the 5 slot,) so Devers or Bregman should bat 4th, IMO. 

We are hitting well, but not scoring the runs that match our OBP and SLG. 

Of course, Bregman and devers are doing great, so I get the argument to leave well enough alone. They both have the most PAs with men on base, but I'm not sure that more about playing every game of their slot in the order.

Either way, this no the reason we are losing, but I do think we need to shake things up, and the 4 slot has been killing us.

.171 BA 7 HRS  23 RBI (.518 OPS)

[notin]

1 hour ago, Bellhorn04 said:

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

I didn’t like Devers original response, and still don’t.  But I don’t hear anything about Cora trying to move him to 1b.  So DH is his role for now.

Getting Yoshida into the lineup over Abraham Toro makes all the sense in the world, but it’s clearly not in the Sox immediate plans. Yoshida isn’t even DHing in Worcester yet; no way they bring him right up to Boston. 
 

Reports earlier this week had Campbell working out at 1b.  If Campbell is moving to 1b, this issue is dead.  The fallout is obvious - Toro down (or out), Mayer up.  The only question becomes does Mayer play 2nd or does Story move there?

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

2 minutes ago, notin said:

Reports earlier this week had Campbell working out at 1b.  If Campbell is moving to 1b, this issue is dead.  The fallout is obvious - Toro down (or out), Mayer up.  The only question becomes does Mayer play 2nd or does Story move there?

Initially, 2B.

When I saw KC practicing at 1B, and Mayer at 2B in Woo, my immediate thought was that was the most logical path to get Marcelo in The Show without causing more clubhouse rifts... but once he's established, it also makes it easier to replace Story at SS -- maybe by midseason, if they finally do get a real first baseman.

[TheSplinteredSplendor]

9 minutes ago, notin said:

If Campbell is moving to 1b, this issue is dead.  

Not if he continues to slash .197/.271/.308 as he has over his last 30 games.

[jdc69]

1 hour ago, moonslav59 said:

My position is to keep Devers at DH and play Campbell at 1B.

That does not change my opinion that Cora should not have told Devers he was the DH for 8 years and to "retire his glove." No manager should ever say that to a player, even if we had 1B depth.

Yes and it's not like your 1st baseman getting hurt is some unbelievable bad luck no one could ever predict. It really sounds like not everyone is on the same page.

[moonslav59]

1 minute ago, jdc69 said:

Yes and it's not like your 1st baseman getting hurt is some unbelievable bad luck no one could ever predict. It really sounds like not everyone is on the same page.

Casas was a known China Doll, and we still traded away Meidroth & Gasper- not like these guys were great, but maybe better than Sogard & Toro.

[mvp 78]

17 minutes ago, notin said:

I didn’t like Devers original response, and still don’t.  But I don’t hear anything about Cora trying to move him to 1b.  So DH is his role for now.

Getting Yoshida into the lineup over Abraham Toro makes all the sense in the world, but it’s clearly not in the Sox immediate plans. Yoshida isn’t even DHing in Worcester yet; no way they bring him right up to Boston. 
 

Reports earlier this week had Campbell working out at 1b.  If Campbell is moving to 1b, this issue is dead.  The fallout is obvious - Toro down (or out), Mayer up.  The only question becomes does Mayer play 2nd or does Story move there?

It's going to be Toro DFA, Romy returns from IL. 

[Old Red]

23 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

Well, the 4 slot is more valuable than the 3 slot (and so is the 5 slot,) so Devers or Bregman should bat 4th, IMO. 

We are hitting well, but not scoring the runs that match our OBP and SLG. 

Of course, Bregman and devers are doing great, so I get the argument to leave well enough alone. They both have the most PAs with men on base, but I'm not sure that more about playing every game of their slot in the order.

Either way, this no the reason we are losing, but I do think we need to shake things up, and the 4 slot has been killing us.

.171 BA 7 HRS  23 RBI (.518 OPS)

Would Devers, or Bregman get more RBI opportunities batting 4th, or 5th? I don’t think it really matters what actual position they occupy in the batting order unless you have runners being on base ahead of you. Batting 2nd, and third May get you an extra AB in any one game.

[moonslav59]

15 minutes ago, Old Red said:

Would Devers, or Bregman get more RBI opportunities batting 4th, or 5th? I don’t think it really matters what actual position they occupy in the batting order unless you have runners being on base ahead of you. Batting 2nd, and third May get you an extra AB in any one game.

I think studies have shown the 4 and 5 slot are more important than #3, but the differentials are minimal. It's not the reason we are losing, but maybe spreading Devers and Bregman apart will create more RBI opportunities. 

I don't want to mess up our best two hitters, so I'm fine leaving them where they are. I was just suggesting possible actions to shake things up.

It is very hard to make a major trade in mid May, so I doubt we get a spark that way.

[TedYazPapiMookie]

6 hours ago, TheSplinteredSplendor said:

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.

As usual.  Not a fact in your comment supporting your beliefs.  You opinion must weigh heavy in your circles because you never have to put forth the data that validates what you say.

[notin]

2 hours ago, mvp 78 said:

It's going to be Toro DFA, Romy returns from IL. 

As down as I am on Toro, no it won’t be.  They’ll simply demote Sogard and keep the depth.  Toro is safe until a spot needs to be cleared on the 40 man roster…

[TheSplinteredSplendor]

1 hour ago, TedYazPapiMookie said:

As usual.  Not a fact in your comment supporting your beliefs.  You opinion must weigh heavy in your circles because you never have to put forth the data that validates what you say.

Ummm, the only "data" that matters is that all of the writers that vote for the HOF aside from 1 agree with me. As do most people that have more than half a clue about the game.

Talk about lacking reading comprehension skills. Smh.......

[Nick]

3 hours ago, notin said:

Reports earlier this week had Campbell working out at 1b.  If Campbell is moving to 1b, this issue is dead.  The fallout is obvious - Toro down (or out), Mayer up.  The only question becomes does Mayer play 2nd or does Story move there?

Interesting that he's taking another day off to work not only on his hitting but also working out at 1B. 

I really like this idea. It's an internal move. We don't need to wait for trade deadline. 

It will also open up a spot for Mayer.

No brainer. I'm also okay with putting Mayer at short.

Now how can we get Anthony up to the majors?

[TedYazPapiMookie]

4 hours ago, notin said:

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?

Thanks for the response it helped me with some of the oddities of the metric names.

Question - Considering what is most important about defense, why would the difficulty matter if the end result is an out or not an out considering the player has no control over what gets hit to him?  A player can only deal with what gets hit to him so why give BONUS points to a guy who was fortunate to get more difficult plays.  The impact on the game is EXACTLY the same whether the play is easy or difficult. The result is all that matters. 

My take on this is that metrics are about players not the game itself like fielding percentage is.  FPCT focuses on the success of the team and metrics try to pat the players on the back for exceptional play that happens due to ONE TIME circumstances not controlled by the player. 

If a player has the ball hit directly at him all game and he makes every play and the next player must run 15 feet for every ball and he makes errors on 10% of the plays, who did more for his team?  The first player because he did his job perfectly whereas the other player was more challenged due to the luck of the draw but failed more.  Did either player have control over which set of balls were hit to them?  Nope.  It's a ONE-TIME event outside of their control.  Did the guy that got hit the ball every time do ANYTHING wrong?  NO.  Should he be considered a lesser player because balls were hit to him?  NO.  Defensive measurements give bonus points for great plays but unless the other player is provided with the exact same set of plays, the apple to oranges comparison exists and the result is meaningless.  Should metrics attempt to define a formula to equate the apple to orange situation and what degree of inaccuracy is acceptable to apply a formula to define who is better, especially since the players are at the mercy of what ACTUALLY happens in the game. 

This is the point to me that suspends reality and delves into the world on simulation and extensive hypothetical theories with no basis in reality.  Is it fun to suggest who was better Mays or Mantle?  Sure.  Is there an answer that is completely reliable like a fielding percentage?  NOPE.  It's all hypothetical and two concepts reduce the accuracy of an estimation that gets created:

1 - Normalization - It's a great concept when dealing in hypotheticals but to suggest it touches reality is a stretch.  We normalize things to try to make incomparable items comparable.  These are ESTIMATES and fielding percentage is a stat with a minor set of limitations you have pointed out.  These Normalized numbers have a major flaw in them when it comes to baseball.

If you normalize a set of data across all 30 teams the average that is being compared to is significantly below the elite players' average.  Does throwing all SS's data into an "average distance" metric bias the solution because a great majority of the players don't have the same skillset as two elite players like Ozzie Smith and Derek Jeter?  The BONUS points extended to Ozzie will be greater when it comes to range by using all SSs versus a set more comparable to Ozzie and Jeter.  In the end, this exaggerates the metrics in favor of the faster player.  This is why I say metrics are biased toward both the fast and the powerful because if we shifted to offense and measured hitting performance the elite players with speed and power will be deemed as having bigger betas from the league wide average.  Now extend this farther to the normalizations on the parks and the famous "park adjusted" calculation.  It too has biases that incorrectly adjust numbers based on the park due to the same apples to oranges limitations.  That's why Coors field guys often get over adjusted in my opinion.  Remember, these are guesses not facts and that's why i dislike them when evaluating important performance data.

2 - Fabricated constants - It's great that metrics tries to reward players for performance but to do so they still have to base their data in reality.  WAR is not only a misnomer for what it represents but it's a complete fabrication because it tries to extend actual data into hypothetical data.  The idea that a win can be assigned to a play is ridiculous.  It's a pure guess and to standardize it means once again creating hypothetical events that define the size of the impact on the game itself without it ever happening.  Yes, this is pure sci-fi.  

With all the REAL stats that exist, why develop an ESTIMATE that doesn't have any basis in reality to judge the skills of a player.  Is there a need for an index to rank players?  NO.  Is it a fun concept to create answers to theoretical questions like who was the greatest hitter of all time or the greatest defender or the greatest player of all time.  But the apples to oranges definition once again raises its ugly head.  Metrics like WAR try to solve the apples to oranges comparison when there is no need to do so except fans prefer absolutes so their opinions can be validated by other opinions.  Fabricated constants come are often the net result of normalization and get plugged into to metric formulas.  There is no tie to reality because the constant is theoretical.  The problem is that statcast supporters don't get that the accuracy of the constants is zero.  Much like a clock strikes 1 twice a day, there is a probability that these constants are right an insignificant number of times when they are produced because the event that triggers it doesn't exist more than once but the number of numbers can be produced by the metric formula is finite so they do accidently align with reality about as often as we see Haley's comet.  

So why use contrived numbers that we know are wrong to try to construct data for make very significant decisions in baseball?  Why not learn to evaluate true stats and create value judgements that don't define a pecking order but rather create groupings for players.  The ranking is contrived but the skill level can be established based on stats that reflect performance.  The world doesn't need to rank everything in life or baseball.  Metrics spend lots of time measuring insignificant components of the game for the sake of entertainment, then they turn around and sell it as accurate and use it for making decisions that don't reflect reality or what they are trying to measure.  

Do we care that the guy successfully fielding balls closer to him receives a higher rating in the form of a higher fielding percentage than another player gets more challenging plays?  No, because the luck of the game dictates who gets the easy and difficult plays and it's yet another million considerations when we try to define easy and hard plays.  Why not just focus on the success of the team related to the fielding of balls hit during a game which is a one-time event.  We can recognize there are differences, and many have argued that they will balance out over time.  That's not true as we all know but there are too many components in evaluating plays and how hard they are that can't be defined universally.  Attempting to do so with generalizations simply makes some people happy because every play more scrutinized and others feel the difference is not significant.  Bill James is to blame for trying to fabricate data that doesn't exist because he was satisfied with praising those that are exceptionally athletic.  He is from Chicago where Jordan was king and was extraordinarily athletic but wasn't the most skilled at basketball like Bird and Magic.  He like providing accolades like GOAT to Jordan for his athletic skills and he biased metrics with that philosophy.  Baseball is a team sport.  His thinking would be more appropriate in Tennis or other non-team sports.  

All we care about is did the player do his job given the events that occur in a game.  An out is his goal regardless of the difficulty.  His success helps the team and failure does not.  Fielding percentage gives you that information.

[TedYazPapiMookie]

49 minutes ago, TheSplinteredSplendor said:

Ummm, the only "data" that matters is that all of the writers that vote for the HOF aside from 1 agree with me. As do most people that have more than half a clue about the game.

Talk about lacking reading comprehension skills. Smh.......

Your statement of factual voting does reflect the travesty that happened with Jeter.  The fact that it happened doesn't mean the evaluation was about performance as much as politics.  That's for each fan to evaluate because the HOF isn't known for being a performance-based organization, it's a political-based organization.

You do realize your last line shows just how bad you are at reading comprehension.  Nothing I wrote had anything to do with reading comprehension unlike your interpretations of my comments with no regard to context.  You might want to stop while you are so far behind.

[moonslav59]

1 hour ago, TedYazPapiMookie said:

Thanks for the response it helped me with some of the oddities of the metric names.

Question - Considering what is most important about defense, why would the difficulty matter if the end result is an out or not an out considering the player has no control over what gets hit to him?  A player can only deal with what gets hit to him so why give BONUS points to a guy who was fortunate to get more difficult plays.  The impact on the game is EXACTLY the same whether the play is easy or difficult. The result is all that matters. 

My take on this is that metrics are about players not the game itself like fielding percentage is.  FPCT focuses on the success of the team and metrics try to pat the players on the back for exceptional play that happens due to ONE TIME circumstances not controlled by the player. 

If a player has the ball hit directly at him all game and he makes every play and the next player must run 15 feet for every ball and he makes errors on 10% of the plays, who did more for his team?  The first player because he did his job perfectly whereas the other player was more challenged due to the luck of the draw but failed more.  Did either player have control over which set of balls were hit to them?  Nope.  It's a ONE-TIME event outside of their control.  Did the guy that got hit the ball every time do ANYTHING wrong?  NO.  Should he be considered a lesser player because balls were hit to him?  NO.  Defensive measurements give bonus points for great plays but unless the other player is provided with the exact same set of plays, the apple to oranges comparison exists and the result is meaningless.  Should metrics attempt to define a formula to equate the apple to orange situation and what degree of inaccuracy is acceptable to apply a formula to define who is better, especially since the players are at the mercy of what ACTUALLY happens in the game. 

This is the point to me that suspends reality and delves into the world on simulation and extensive hypothetical theories with no basis in reality.  Is it fun to suggest who was better Mays or Mantle?  Sure.  Is there an answer that is completely reliable like a fielding percentage?  NOPE.  It's all hypothetical and two concepts reduce the accuracy of an estimation that gets created:

1 - Normalization - It's a great concept when dealing in hypotheticals but to suggest it touches reality is a stretch.  We normalize things to try to make incomparable items comparable.  These are ESTIMATES and fielding percentage is a stat with a minor set of limitations you have pointed out.  These Normalized numbers have a major flaw in them when it comes to baseball.

If you normalize a set of data across all 30 teams the average that is being compared to is significantly below the elite players' average.  Does throwing all SS's data into an "average distance" metric bias the solution because a great majority of the players don't have the same skillset as two elite players like Ozzie Smith and Derek Jeter?  The BONUS points extended to Ozzie will be greater when it comes to range by using all SSs versus a set more comparable to Ozzie and Jeter.  In the end, this exaggerates the metrics in favor of the faster player.  This is why I say metrics are biased toward both the fast and the powerful because if we shifted to offense and measured hitting performance the elite players with speed and power will be deemed as having bigger betas from the league wide average.  Now extend this farther to the normalizations on the parks and the famous "park adjusted" calculation.  It too has biases that incorrectly adjust numbers based on the park due to the same apples to oranges limitations.  That's why Coors field guys often get over adjusted in my opinion.  Remember, these are guesses not facts and that's why i dislike them when evaluating important performance data.

2 - Fabricated constants - It's great that metrics tries to reward players for performance but to do so they still have to base their data in reality.  WAR is not only a misnomer for what it represents but it's a complete fabrication because it tries to extend actual data into hypothetical data.  The idea that a win can be assigned to a play is ridiculous.  It's a pure guess and to standardize it means once again creating hypothetical events that define the size of the impact on the game itself without it ever happening.  Yes, this is pure sci-fi.  

With all the REAL stats that exist, why develop an ESTIMATE that doesn't have any basis in reality to judge the skills of a player.  Is there a need for an index to rank players?  NO.  Is it a fun concept to create answers to theoretical questions like who was the greatest hitter of all time or the greatest defender or the greatest player of all time.  But the apples to oranges definition once again raises its ugly head.  Metrics like WAR try to solve the apples to oranges comparison when there is no need to do so except fans prefer absolutes so their opinions can be validated by other opinions.  Fabricated constants come are often the net result of normalization and get plugged into to metric formulas.  There is no tie to reality because the constant is theoretical.  The problem is that statcast supporters don't get that the accuracy of the constants is zero.  Much like a clock strikes 1 twice a day, there is a probability that these constants are right an insignificant number of times when they are produced because the event that triggers it doesn't exist more than once but the number of numbers can be produced by the metric formula is finite so they do accidently align with reality about as often as we see Haley's comet.  

So why use contrived numbers that we know are wrong to try to construct data for make very significant decisions in baseball?  Why not learn to evaluate true stats and create value judgements that don't define a pecking order but rather create groupings for players.  The ranking is contrived but the skill level can be established based on stats that reflect performance.  The world doesn't need to rank everything in life or baseball.  Metrics spend lots of time measuring insignificant components of the game for the sake of entertainment, then they turn around and sell it as accurate and use it for making decisions that don't reflect reality or what they are trying to measure.  

Do we care that the guy successfully fielding balls closer to him receives a higher rating in the form of a higher fielding percentage than another player gets more challenging plays?  No, because the luck of the game dictates who gets the easy and difficult plays and it's yet another million considerations when we try to define easy and hard plays.  Why not just focus on the success of the team related to the fielding of balls hit during a game which is a one-time event.  We can recognize there are differences, and many have argued that they will balance out over time.  That's not true as we all know but there are too many components in evaluating plays and how hard they are that can't be defined universally.  Attempting to do so with generalizations simply makes some people happy because every play more scrutinized and others feel the difference is not significant.  Bill James is to blame for trying to fabricate data that doesn't exist because he was satisfied with praising those that are exceptionally athletic.  He is from Chicago where Jordan was king and was extraordinarily athletic but wasn't the most skilled at basketball like Bird and Magic.  He like providing accolades like GOAT to Jordan for his athletic skills and he biased metrics with that philosophy.  Baseball is a team sport.  His thinking would be more appropriate in Tennis or other non-team sports.  

All we care about is did the player do his job given the events that occur in a game.  An out is his goal regardless of the difficulty.  His success helps the team and failure does not.  Fielding percentage gives you that information.

It's not simulation. It measures all plays made- the ones hit right at someone, near them, or nearly impossible to get to, but some do.

Why would you think that player A is as good as player B, if they both make the identical plays hit at them or near them: same amount- same error rate, but player B gets to and touches 100 more balls over a season that are just plain out of the range of player A. He makes 80 of them and is charged with an error (glove or throw) on 20. You still think play A is better?

While this is a hypothetical scenario I am presenting to you, these situations are based in reality and can be proven by facts, This happens every year in MLB.

Simple observations can tell you some SSs get to balls hit very far away from them, or ones kinds far but hit sharply, while some just don't seem to make any or many more than 4. 5 or maybe 6-7 steps away, if the ball is hit slower.

Of course some players make plays others never dreamed they could make. How is that not a distinct value (or weakness, if you lack range?)

Sure, some speculation is involved, but when you figure errors are assigned or not based on subjectivity, then we also "speculate" it all evens out over time. Nothing is perfect- not fldg% or metrics.

Fldg% is just one part of defense. Thinking range and athleticism, such as being able to jump higher, run faster, or react quicker is not helpful or of value blows my mind away.

Thinking that some players position themselves better, read the pitch better, get better jumps and take the right angle to the ball better is not speculation or simulation: it is fact and it is observable with the naked eye and also with cameras and high tech data like ball speed, distance from defender, trajectory and more.

[moonslav59]

Do we care that the guy successfully fielding balls closer to him receives a higher rating in the form of a higher fielding percentage than another player gets more challenging plays?

All defenders get challenging plays- mayb e not the same amount, but over time, it's probably pretty close. Some don't even come close to making the play, and a casual observers might think, no error, no problem: the play was unmakeable.  Some come close to making the play- maybe the dive and stop it, but can't get up to make the throw- no error, no problem, all is good. A few can get to the ball and either make an out, don't make an out with no error, or get charged with an error, because the bobble the ball or throw it away.

If those select few players get to 80 more balls a year than most other players, how is that not a big value, even if they make 20 errors, get 6o more outs and 20 go for non error hits, because the scorer judged the play too difficult to make even after the player got to it, but could have got an out if he played it perfectly and threw a gem at 90 mph?

[TheSplinteredSplendor]

2 hours ago, TedYazPapiMookie said:

Your statement of factual voting does reflect the travesty that happened with Jeter.  The fact that it happened doesn't mean the evaluation was about performance as much as politics.  That's for each fan to evaluate because the HOF isn't known for being a performance-based organization, it's a political-based organization.

You do realize your last line shows just how bad you are at reading comprehension.  Nothing I wrote had anything to do with reading comprehension unlike your interpretations of my comments with no regard to context.  You might want to stop while you are so far behind.

More nonsense.

You stated that I did not provide any data when I clearly stated that he has the 6th most hits all time and a lifetime .310 batting average. Obviously it is you who lacks reading comprehension.

With every post you demonstrate how little you know about the game.

[TheSplinteredSplendor]

1 hour ago, moonslav59 said:

Do we care that the guy successfully fielding balls closer to him receives a higher rating in the form of a higher fielding percentage than another player gets more challenging plays?

All defenders get challenging plays- mayb e not the same amount, but over time, it's probably pretty close. Some don't even come close to making the play, and a casual observers might think, no error, no problem: the play was unmakeable.  Some come close to making the play- maybe the dive and stop it, but can't get up to make the throw- no error, no problem, all is good. A few can get to the ball and either make an out, don't make an out with no error, or get charged with an error, because the bobble the ball or throw it away.

If those select few players get to 80 more balls a year than most other players, how is that not a big value, even if they make 20 errors, get 6o more outs and 20 go for non error hits, because the scorer judged the play too difficult to make even after the player got to it, but could have got an out if he played it perfectly and threw a gem at 90 mph?

This guy is something special.

[moonslav59]

51 minutes ago, TheSplinteredSplendor said:

This guy is something special.

I've seen a lot on sites like this, and some are just plain trolls, but I gotta say, I'm verklempt.

[TedYazPapiMookie]

6 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

It's not simulation. It measures all plays made- the ones hit right at someone, near them, or nearly impossible to get to, but some do.

Why would you think that player A is as good as player B, if they both make the identical plays hit at them or near them: same amount- same error rate, but player B gets to and touches 100 more balls over a season that are just plain out of the range of player A. He makes 80 of them and is charged with an error (glove or throw) on 20. You still think play A is better?

While this is a hypothetical scenario I am presenting to you, these situations are based in reality and can be proven by facts, This happens every year in MLB.

Simple observations can tell you some SSs get to balls hit very far away from them, or ones kinds far but hit sharply, while some just don't seem to make any or many more than 4. 5 or maybe 6-7 steps away, if the ball is hit slower.

Of course some players make plays others never dreamed they could make. How is that not a distinct value (or weakness, if you lack range?)

Sure, some speculation is involved, but when you figure errors are assigned or not based on subjectivity, then we also "speculate" it all evens out over time. Nothing is perfect- not fldg% or metrics.

Fldg% is just one part of defense. Thinking range and athleticism, such as being able to jump higher, run faster, or react quicker is not helpful or of value blows my mind away.

Thinking that some players position themselves better, read the pitch better, get better jumps and take the right angle to the ball better is not speculation or simulation: it is fact and it is observable with the naked eye and also with cameras and high tech data like ball speed, distance from defender, trajectory and more.

Lets start with the it's not simulation.  

The data from each play is captured.  Is the distance defined and are you aware of it?  Does the distance begin when the pitch starts his mechanics or is that movement not counted?  Does the distance begin based on where he is when the batter swings?  Or does the players movement during the swing not count?  I'm going to guess that the distance starts when the ball is contacted and all movement prior to that is not part of the player's range on the play.  After each ball hit to the player's area is his distance captured or is it only captured on balls he touches?  When a player runs to make a play and a numbskull like Devers cuts in front of him what range is given to the player that should have made the play but a team-mate cut him off and attempted to field it?  

Now let's pretend 50 plays are record in the black box that holds the data.  How is the player's range calculated.  Is it simple math?  The total distance divided by the number of plays?  If so, what does that number tell you?  In the past, under 50 unique circumstances that won't ever be repeated the player range to ball hit and successfully made the play or didn't?  Does it suggest he ran his fastest?  Does it suggest he threw the ball as hard as he possibly could?  Or do we simply have a bunch of data that can be interpreted however you want without any accuracy?

Fielding percentage tells you the players success rate and how well he did his job.  How does this additional information get rolled into an evaluation of a player?  What's the formula?  Do you know or are you asked to simply believe it's right?  Does any check the accuracy of the recordings of the data?  What if a player ran 15 feet and it was recorded incorrectly as 5?  Is there a validation process for each piece of data that is to be projected?   

Just this last paragraph describes why it's all BS.  The data is a past fact and doesn't suggest it will be accurate in the future.  You might be able to say the average distance to field his 50 plays was 12 feet but how does that help you in boosting or criticizing the players fielding percentage or success rate?  

Bottom line, trying to tweak fielding percentage is a fabrication not a fact.  Observing things with your eyes that can't be accurately quantified is the essence of metrics.  The problem is the data generated is not factual, but it's sold to the public as factual.

I don't disagree with you that a player that has greater range attempts more plays.  They are plays that would be a hit if another player was playing BUT if the player doesn't get the out, he doesn't help his team and it's no different than a normal hit.  If the player makes the play, it's included in his success rate or fielding percentage.  It's only plays that exceed normal ranges that are misplays that have the potential of being given an error dropping the players fielding percentage.  Over the last 50 years of watching baseball, I can't remember too many exceptional plays by a fielder that don't generate an out that are given an error.  Nearly every exceptional play that fails is a hit.  Therefore, to tinker with the fundamental data created by fielding percentage is a fruitless effort that won't significantly change the conclusions generated by the fielding percentage and if it does, one must ask the precise formula used to suggest that fielding percentage isn't accurate.  I have yet to see that proof.  Can you produce it?  Otherwise, fielding percentage remains the most accurate way to measure the defensive skills of a player.

[moonslav59]

7 hours ago, TedYazPapiMookie said:

Lets start with the it's not simulation.  

The data from each play is captured.  Is the distance defined and are you aware of it?  Does the distance begin when the pitch starts his mechanics or is that movement not counted?  Does the distance begin based on where he is when the batter swings?  Or does the players movement during the swing not count?  I'm going to guess that the distance starts when the ball is contacted and all movement prior to that is not part of the player's range on the play.  After each ball hit to the player's area is his distance captured or is it only captured on balls he touches?  When a player runs to make a play and a numbskull like Devers cuts in front of him what range is given to the player that should have made the play but a team-mate cut him off and attempted to field it?  

Now let's pretend 50 plays are record in the black box that holds the data.  How is the player's range calculated.  Is it simple math?  The total distance divided by the number of plays?  If so, what does that number tell you?  In the past, under 50 unique circumstances that won't ever be repeated the player range to ball hit and successfully made the play or didn't?  Does it suggest he ran his fastest?  Does it suggest he threw the ball as hard as he possibly could?  Or do we simply have a bunch of data that can be interpreted however you want without any accuracy?

Fielding percentage tells you the players success rate and how well he did his job.  How does this additional information get rolled into an evaluation of a player?  What's the formula?  Do you know or are you asked to simply believe it's right?  Does any check the accuracy of the recordings of the data?  What if a player ran 15 feet and it was recorded incorrectly as 5?  Is there a validation process for each piece of data that is to be projected?   

Just this last paragraph describes why it's all BS.  The data is a past fact and doesn't suggest it will be accurate in the future.  You might be able to say the average distance to field his 50 plays was 12 feet but how does that help you in boosting or criticizing the players fielding percentage or success rate?  

Bottom line, trying to tweak fielding percentage is a fabrication not a fact.  Observing things with your eyes that can't be accurately quantified is the essence of metrics.  The problem is the data generated is not factual, but it's sold to the public as factual.

I don't disagree with you that a player that has greater range attempts more plays.  They are plays that would be a hit if another player was playing BUT if the player doesn't get the out, he doesn't help his team and it's no different than a normal hit.  If the player makes the play, it's included in his success rate or fielding percentage.  It's only plays that exceed normal ranges that are misplays that have the potential of being given an error dropping the players fielding percentage.  Over the last 50 years of watching baseball, I can't remember too many exceptional plays by a fielder that don't generate an out that are given an error.  Nearly every exceptional play that fails is a hit.  Therefore, to tinker with the fundamental data created by fielding percentage is a fruitless effort that won't significantly change the conclusions generated by the fielding percentage and if it does, one must ask the precise formula used to suggest that fielding percentage isn't accurate.  I have yet to see that proof.  Can you produce it?  Otherwise, fielding percentage remains the most accurate way to measure the defensive skills of a player.

You totally miss the point. Making .980 of 800 plays is better than making .990 of 700 plays, if the 100 extra plays were made due to better range skills. That is just a fact.

I give up. You can't see the broad side of a bright red barn.