Article: Red Sox Rumors: Duran-Padres Link Grows Stronger, Bregman Trade Rumor Shot Down

[sk7326]

39 minutes ago, dgalehouse said:

Defensive metrics are questionable at best. I have yet to see a good explanation of how they are derived. The one I usually hear is that there are trained experts who actually watch every pitch of every game to develop the data used in these metrics. That seems preposterous. Through experience, I have become very skeptical whenever I hear things like " experts agree ", " studies have shown" or " data suggests ".  I can watch the games and see for myself that Rafaela is a terrific centerfielder. 

A lot of this is software as notin pointed out.  Effectively cameras and computers are watching every ball hit - especially now with statcast at all the stadiums.

The defensive stats now are much better than the old fielding percentage days, simply because there is better data going in.  I mean, consider fielding percentage.  If we replaced a Red Sox outfielder with a paint bucket - and just left it there.  If 1 fly ball landed in the bucket, the fielding pct of 1.000 would be amazing.  But we can't say the paint bucket is a good substitute to like, a person.  We just have vastly better information on players getting to the ball - which is really what defensive value is for the most part, no?  

As far as being skeptical - any be-all stat without context deserves skepticism.  Is UZR better than defensive runs saved or outs above average?  I have opinions, but the real answer is that all of them together give good information.  I mean, we accept that batting average, slugging, on-base all provide incomplete pictures of hitting ... but in combination it's not too shabby.  

[Bellhorn04]

10 minutes ago, TedYazPapiMookie said:

First, try to understand the nomenclature.  Errors are not a metric, they are a stat.  Metrics are guesses or estimates.

Wrong.  A metric is a measurement, period.  There's no rule that a metric has to be an estimate.

And errors of course are judgment calls that the play should have been made, so they are just part of the group of measurements that form defensive metrics.   Errors are most certainly a metric.

[TedYazPapiMookie]

5 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Well, you're acknowledging the existence of qualitative differences in range which are not measured by fielding %. 

The answer to the question might be unclear based on those numbers only, but it's easy enough to measure which fielder has more range based on data and video.

If a Player A gets to twice as many balls as Player B and his fielding % is only slightly worse, that means he is generating far more outs and is clearly the better defender.  That is as obvious as it can possibly be.

 

The key point of disagreement is the assumptions you make.  Every play is new and original.  Looking at what has been done in the past is NOT a guarantee for the future.  Too many variables factor into a play to say definitely that what happened in that one instance will always repeat itself.  Consequently, the qualitative differences are NOT guaranteed they are simply history.  To adjust the base data of fielding percentage is to guess an alternative outcome based on history but as I have mentioned history does NOT predict the future so to assume it does creates an ADD ON qualifier that is highly questionable.  

So if the temp is 50 degrees today what is tomorrow's temp?  You can add a ton of influencing factors and come up with a guess or you can guess 50 again.  Which one is guaranteed to be correct?  Neither!!!  Metrics uses a base of the past and then adds on qualifiers that will fine tune the guess.  I stay away from guesses.  I let the actual play stand for itself and I interpret if the team was successful on the play.  An out means yes and everything else means no.  The more yes results from a player, the better off the team is.  I simply refuse to force fine tuning of real data with estimates without accuracy.  If the estimates could be guaranteed, then I would use them but they can't be.  You can't know what Ruth and Bonds might have done under simulated situations any more than you can take one SS that gets specific balls hit to him and compare him to another SS that gets a completely different set of balls hit to him.  You can sub one for the other to see under what circumstances each would be better.  That's simulation or what-if analysis and it has no accuracy like the results of a play does because it goes in the record books.

[TedYazPapiMookie]

6 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Wrong.  A metric is a measurement, period.  There's no rule that a metric has to be an estimate.

And errors of course are judgment calls that the play should have been made, so they are just part of the group of measurements that form defensive metrics.   Errors are most certainly a metric.

If you will stop flip-flopping between baseball and the outside world you will find what I said is correct.

The definition in a dictionary is out of context to baseball jargon.  The metrics that are published related to baseball are ALL GUESSES ALSO KNOWN AS ESTIMATES.  That's a fact and undisputable.

Errors are recorded data or facts about what happens in the game.  The accuracy of the error is irrelevant to the actual role it plays in baseball.  It is a recorded fact that may or may not be changed in the future but IT IS NOT a calculated value based on someone trying to fabricate a simulated event.  That's a metric.

[Bellhorn04]

5 minutes ago, TedYazPapiMookie said:

The key point of disagreement is the assumptions you make.  Every play is new and original.  Looking at what has been done in the past is NOT a guarantee for the future.  Too many variables factor into a play to say definitely that what happened in that one instance will always repeat itself.  Consequently, the qualitative differences are NOT guaranteed they are simply history.  To adjust the base data of fielding percentage is to guess an alternative outcome based on history but as I have mentioned history does NOT predict the future so to assume it does creates an ADD ON qualifier that is highly questionable.  

So if the temp is 50 degrees today what is tomorrow's temp?  You can add a ton of influencing factors and come up with a guess or you can guess 50 again.  Which one is guaranteed to be correct?  Neither!!!  Metrics uses a base of the past and then adds on qualifiers that will fine tune the guess.  I stay away from guesses.  I let the actual play stand for itself and I interpret if the team was successful on the play.  An out means yes and everything else means no.  The more yes results from a player, the better off the team is.  I simply refuse to force fine tuning of real data with estimates without accuracy.  If the estimates could be guaranteed, then I would use them but they can't be.  You can't know what Ruth and Bonds might have done under simulated situations any more than you can take one SS that gets specific balls hit to him and compare him to another SS that gets a completely different set of balls hit to him.  You can sub one for the other to see under what circumstances each would be better.  That's simulation or what-if analysis and it has no accuracy like the results of a play does because it goes in the record books.

One of the reasons the Red Sox traded Nomar in 2004 was that they determined he had significantly lost fielding range after his injury.  At first they only suspected this by watching the games, then they hired some people to track Nomar on a play by play basis, and this confirmed their suspicions.

The outcome is well known, they traded for Cabrera, Cabrera played a great SS and they won the WS.

A simple and well known example of the value of metrics beyond fielding %.

 

[Bellhorn04]

10 minutes ago, TedYazPapiMookie said:

If you will stop flip-flopping between baseball and the outside world you will find what I said is correct.

The definition in a dictionary is out of context to baseball jargon.  The metrics that are published related to baseball are ALL GUESSES ALSO KNOWN AS ESTIMATES.  That's a fact and undisputable.

Errors are recorded data or facts about what happens in the game.  The accuracy of the error is irrelevant to the actual role it plays in baseball.  It is a recorded fact that may or may not be changed in the future but IT IS NOT a calculated value based on someone trying to fabricate a simulated event.  That's a metric.

Sure, it's a recorded fact that the official scorer called it an error. But that call is what you are referring to as a guess.  By the same token there are recorded facts that metrics people determined it was a routine play, difficult play or whatever.

There is absolutely no difference between the two types of determinations.

[harmony]

22 minutes ago, TedYazPapiMookie said:

If you will stop flip-flopping between baseball and the outside world you will find what I said is correct.

The definition in a dictionary is out of context to baseball jargon.  The metrics that are published related to baseball are ALL GUESSES ALSO KNOWN AS ESTIMATES.  That's a fact and undisputable.

Errors are recorded data or facts about what happens in the game.  The accuracy of the error is irrelevant to the actual role it plays in baseball.  It is a recorded fact that may or may not be changed in the future but IT IS NOT a calculated value based on someone trying to fabricate a simulated event.  That's a metric.

How many of these 49 baseball metrics are "GUESSES ALSO KNOWN AS ESTIMATES" in comparison to the official scorer's subjective calls on errors?

https://www.mlb.com/glossary/advanced-stats

[TedYazPapiMookie]

2 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

It's a recorded fact that the official called it an error, but that call is what you are referring to as a guess.  By the same token there are recorded facts that metrics people determined it was a routine play, difficult play or whatever.

There is absolutely no difference between the two types of determinations.

You lost me.  The error is a stat not a guess or estimate.  That's what I've been saying all along.  Guesses are the metrics that try to improve on the errors by suggesting other strengths of a player beyond their ability to field.  

Metric decisions on the difficulty of play are subjective especially once they are rolled into totals then divided by the participants to come up with an average.  The average has absolutely no meaning because it's based on data in the past that doesn't apply to the future.

You are free to believe what you want but I distinguish between facts recorded about MLB games and estimates that are fabricated from base data that must be summarized, indexed and retro actively applied to the actions of past games or projected to future games. 

I never assume that a guy who ran 10 feet to a ball is better than a guy who only ran 5 feet to the ball because i don't know whether that relates to his skills or the distance the ball was hit from him in a real-life unique circumstance.   I do know if one is an out and the other is not that the player producing the out helped his team more.  You can only make plays on the balls that actually happen in a game and that dictates the landscape of the game.  It's a landscape that will never happen again so assuming a play made today will be made in the future is a guess.  The fact in this scenario is that the play was made today.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

4 hours ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Shortstop A gets to 100 balls and turns 96 of them into outs.  Fielding pct. .960.

In the same number of innings, Shortstop B gets to 50 balls and turns 49 of them into outs.  Fielding pct. .980.

Based on this information and nothing else, would you conclude that B is the better shortstop?

Shortstop B is better because he knows better than to risk diving in the hole or up the middle and jamming his shoulder like Story did last year. Range is pretty but it doesn't pay the bills if you're on the IL and haven't yet played enough for a pension or signed an extension that allows you to buy a house on Easy Street.

[Bellhorn04]

57 minutes ago, TedYazPapiMookie said:

You lost me.  The error is a stat not a guess or estimate.

Well, here's where you're simply dead wrong.  Of course it's a guess.  Two different scorers can call the same play differently.  Sometimes they go back and review the play and change the call.  

The fact that it goes into the books as an error doesn't change the fact that it was only one person's opinion.

It makes it easier for you to rely on errors and fielding % and ignore other metrics, but that doesn't make it right.

 

 

[sk7326]

1 hour ago, harmony said:

How many of these 49 baseball metrics are "GUESSES ALSO KNOWN AS ESTIMATES" in comparison to the official scorer's subjective calls on errors?

https://www.mlb.com/glossary/advanced-stats

The statistics and metrics distinctions as being used in this discussion are mostly total rubbish.  

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

1 hour ago, TedYazPapiMookie said:

If you will stop flip-flopping between baseball and the outside world you will find what I said is correct.

The outside world is only where we wait until the next baseball game...

... but I defer to anyone who can sneak a foam pad into the dugout and sleep on the bench until the next first pitch.

[TedYazPapiMookie]

21 hours ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Sure, it's a recorded fact that the official scorer called it an error. But that call is what you are referring to as a guess.  By the same token there are recorded facts that metrics people determined it was a routine play, difficult play or whatever.

There is absolutely no difference between the two types of determinations.

What a wild opinion.  The error is not a guess in my opinion as I have documented 3 times to you.  It is a fact because it's in the record book.  Please pay attention to what is written!  You've gotten the same fact wrong several times now.  

The FACT is the error.  The determination of difficulty is a subjective estimate made by people trying to conjure information from past events that can't be accurately fabricated to solve the questions they want to answer.  The end result is a GUESS that fans buy into as fact, but it is as far from a fact as you can get.  It's an estimate which translates to a GUESS.  Metrics have no credibility for accuracy.  They are at best educated guesses.  The error on the other hand is a fact whether it's right or wrong because it's in the record books.

[mvp 78]

3 minutes ago, TedYazPapiMookie said:

What a wild opinion.  The error is not a guess in my opinion as I have documented 3 times to you.  It is a fact because it's in the record book.  Please pay attention to what is written!  You've gotten the same fact wrong several times now.  

The FACT is the error.  The determination of difficulty is a subjective estimate made by people trying to conjure information from past events that can't be accurately fabricated to solve the questions they want to answer.  The end result is a GUESS that fans buy into as fact, but it is as far from a fact as you can get.  It's an estimate which translates to a GUESS.  Metrics have no credibility for accuracy.  They are at best educated guesses.  The error on the other hand is a fact whether it's right or wrong because it's in the record books.

A lot of metrics and advanced stats are facts. It seems like you just don't like them. 😎

[TedYazPapiMookie]

20 hours ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Well, here's where you're simply dead wrong.  Of course it's a guess.  Two different scorers can call the same play differently.  Sometimes they go back and review the play and change the call.  

The fact that it goes into the books as an error doesn't change the fact that it was only one person's opinion.

It makes it easier for you to rely on errors and fielding % and ignore other metrics, but that doesn't make it right.

 

 

Why is this concept so hard to grasp?  ANY item recorded in the record books is a fact because it will be the official documentation of the game record going forward.  The metrics are values not recorded as part of the game because they are estimated numbers after the fact.  There is no accuracy to them since changing one assumption or changing the algorithm as people fine tune it will change the number but since the number is not an official part of the game it's irrelevant. 

Additionally, the metric has no guaranteed level of accuracy and it's not an official stat, it's just an interesting perspective that has next to no meaning except to those who choose to believe EVERY parameter of the calculation is correct which nobody should believe except those who construct the metric.  Use the wrong pool of players in the averaging and the number changes.  That's just one example of how the metric is dependent on the assumptions and the assumptions have no validity because they are guesses by the creator of the metric.

[Soxlover]

22 hours ago, TedYazPapiMookie said:

First, try to understand the nomenclature.  Errors are not a metric, they are a stat.  Metrics are guesses or estimates.  Fielding % is also a stat not a metric.  The laughable part is your lack of understanding about what you are talking about.  OAA is WAG also known as a wild ass guess.  It's nothing more than one perspective on a guess at a fabricated concept called Outs Above Average.  That's a joke metric.  It's completely fabricated.  Ultimate Zone Ratings are fabricated.  They are new parameters made up to try to make apples to oranges comparisons that are wild ass guesses.

Most people actually use a measurement to define the best at something.  Go look up who had a better DRS in CF in 2024 - Duran or Rafaela.  I'll give you a hint, it's the guy with 2 errors in 550 total chances in CF since he joined the Red Sox.  It's Duran.  

You do realize that just saying something is so doesn't actually make it so?  Right?  

You are welcome to your opinion, but you must know that nobody cares what that is.  They care about facts, and the fact is Duran outperformed all Red Sox outfielders last year, with Rafaela second and Abreu the gold glove winner finishing 3rd.

It takes a lot of nerve to suggest something is laughable when you have no knowledge about the topic.

The 2024 CF DRS is almost equal per inning

 

Career Rafaela has about 1500 innings to   1400 and leads in DRS 27-11!

 

[TedYazPapiMookie]

8 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

A lot of metrics and advanced stats are facts. It seems like you just don't like them. 😎

You want to confuse the concept of a fact and an estimate to try to make your point but a fact is something recorded for history in the record of the game.  Estimates known as metrics are fabricated data that tries to extend what actually happened in a game to a comparable number to other games and other players because the reality is no two games are identical.  Each game is unique, so you are comparing apples and oranges because as a fan you can't live with just the facts. 

I care whether the team wins or not and what a player does to help them win.  You want to rate players who don't experience the exact same thing by making questionable assumptions about how they are similar BUT NOT THE SAME.  I don't have that need because baseball gives me all I need to evaluate a player's performance, and I don't assume performance from game to game will be identical for any player so to suggest it in a formula is completely bogus.

[Bellhorn04]

20 minutes ago, TedYazPapiMookie said:

You want to confuse the concept of a fact and an estimate to try to make your point but a fact is something recorded for history in the record of the game.  Estimates known as metrics are fabricated data that tries to extend what actually happened in a game to a comparable number to other games and other players because the reality is no two games are identical.  Each game is unique, so you are comparing apples and oranges because as a fan you can't live with just the facts. 

I care whether the team wins or not and what a player does to help them win.  You want to rate players who don't experience the exact same thing by making questionable assumptions about how they are similar BUT NOT THE SAME.  I don't have that need because baseball gives me all I need to evaluate a player's performance, and I don't assume performance from game to game will be identical for any player so to suggest it in a formula is completely bogus.

Here's a question for you.  Why do you think MLB teams have large analytic departments?

[mvp 78]

11 minutes ago, TedYazPapiMookie said:

You want to confuse

fabricated data

as a fan you can't live with just the facts. 

I care whether the team wins or not and what a player does to help them win.  You want to rate players who don't experience the exact same thing by making questionable assumptions about how they are similar BUT NOT THE SAME.  I don't have that need because baseball gives me all I need to evaluate a player's performance, and I don't assume performance from game to game will be identical for any player so to suggest it in a formula is completely bogus.

There's no confusion on my part except for the mental gymnastics you are doing on the last paragraph. 

It's interesting that you say things like "fabricated data" because it shows a complete lack of understanding of what the advanced stats are, the process to how they are created and why many smart baseball fans like them. 

The only real fact is that you are struggling to get along with people here. Work on your approach and maybe things will get better for you. 

[TedYazPapiMookie]

9 hours ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Here's a question for you.  Why do you think MLB teams have large analytic departments?

They want to have the equivalent information that other teams have so they are not looked at as being at a disadvantage.  The more important question is what a team should do with this information.  There is no one right way to use this information.  Initially, 25 years ago teams started to shift using this information, but the data was in its infant stages when no two companies could come up with the same values for metrics like WAR. 

As companies worked to standardize the formulas to some degree and build industry standards for what was to be measured the popularity of the estimates grew.   I believe the media was well paid to endorse the data because Brian Kenny knew Bill James and tried to establish himself as the biggest promoter of metrics despite many of the REAL baseball people still resisting the accuracy of the data.   The support for metrics varied greatly across baseball with the media pushing the concept that if you didn't use them, you were behind the times and couldn't be as effective as those that do use them.  That opinion was paid for by the new companies that invested heavily in this new data age and as fans grew accustomed to the fun comparisons (despite their inaccuracies due to the apple to oranges challenges) the MLB got behind the data era growth to try to expand the fan base.

Here's the part that I can't seem to get across to you.  The contributing factors that are assembled to evaluate a player by a scout and a metric breakdown are all subjective.  There is no right answer because the future is unknown.  Today most teams are backing off the metrics and reversing the trend to a more balanced combination of human evaluation and the metrics approach.  What will the future hold?  We don't know.  Trends often are cyclical so maybe human evaluation will regain a stronghold like in the past due to the inaccuracies introduced by averaging, normalization and extrapolation.  Who knows!! 

Now let's break down when a metric might be of use. 

Do you need metrics to know how hard Bonds hit a baseball to know he was elite?  How about Judge?  Is there any value in knowing who hit it harder?  ABSOLUTELY NOT.  It might be a fun fact, but it doesn't add value to know it.  If you observe a player like Skenes or Skubal, do you really need to know spin rates or try to measure the break on his off-speed pitches to know they are both outstanding and you would want them on your team?  No but both are still measured. 

So where is the added value in metrics?  What is the information that a scout can't determine?   There isn't any!! BUT scouts have biases that make them not optimal.  So, if two scouts disagree does it help if an estimate that doesn't have to be accurate breaks the tie?  It helps if the scouts are equally respected.

So where is the actual added value from the data gathered today during baseball games?  It's in the stats that are accumulated prior to the misinterpretation of the metric formulas. 

The scouting reports on each batter.  Not the batter's WAR but the actual pitches that have been historically effective against him as a hitter and other hitters.  The BOOK, as we call it, on a hitter or pitcher.  I don't consider that data metrics because its facts recorded about the game if done properly.  This set of data documents the game just like hits, runs etc.

If you choose to use WAR over base facts, that's your choice but it's an inaccurate one in comparison.  If you want to tell a hitter that the pitcher throws a curveball 72% of the time on this count versus left-handed hitters, that's ok as long as the hitter understands that the future is NOT KNOWN but the pitcher may simply have tendencies to be aware of.

Those analytics departments that I know don't calculate WAR they do the work to summarize the data that I have just mentioned.  That data aids the hitter or pitcher with information relevant to the game he is playing in.  Again, the metrics are for fans that like what-if scenarios.

Now it's your turn.   What do you know about the game?  My family stories date back to my father going to Spring Training with the Boston Braves when Stengel was the manager and big and little poison were in camp with Ernie Lombardi.  My dad was a Red Sox fan, so I grew up a Red Sox fan and started playing at age 8 through age 23 when I finished my playing career with a semi-pro team before I left for grad school.  I actually stopped playing at 53 due to foot neuropathy.  In between, I managed many teams from Little League, through Babe Ruth League, through American Legion ball to HS select teams that competed in National Tournaments.  Then I dedicated 10 years to helping HS players get college opportunities and elite select team opportunities while assisting a hitting coach for Milwaukee and the Astros with testing new technology like the tennis balls that were fired at over 100 mph using multicolored balls and letters on the tennis balls.   So, I have a pretty good understanding of baseball and during my Anheuser Busch days I observed the inner workings of the St. Louis Cardinals from a financial perspective.  You don't have to believe what I wrote but it's awfully specific to be a fabrication and it is factual.

So please explain to me why you think you have the right to be so condescending to me because I don't agree with you on the value of metrics?

 

 

[TedYazPapiMookie]

13 hours ago, mvp 78 said:

There's no confusion on my part except for the mental gymnastics you are doing on the last paragraph. 

It's interesting that you say things like "fabricated data" because it shows a complete lack of understanding of what the advanced stats are, the process to how they are created and why many smart baseball fans like them. 

The only real fact is that you are struggling to get along with people here. Work on your approach and maybe things will get better for you. 

What a bunch of crap!!!  If someone doesn't agree with my knowledge of the game that's fine but you keep trying to prove incorrect concepts and expect me to believe it because the new baseball fans on the site do.  Have you ever considered they only believe your inaccurate thoughts because they have never been presented with the truth?

FYI... this is the first site I've seen where a moderator is one of the most insulting people simply because I don't agree with a word you are saying.  Seems like a bad business model.  How about being a bit more open minded, you might learn something.

Also, your position of authority gives you the ability to brow beat those who don't agree.  Maybe that's why you think people get along with you as opposed to me.  They might just be intimidated by your "my way or the highway" approach to moderating.  You might want to dial it down a bit.  See if people still agree with you and pretend to like you.  I guess maybe you should work on your approach too.

Thanks for your unsolicited advice!!

[Bellhorn04]

6 hours ago, TedYazPapiMookie said:

What a bunch of crap!!!  If someone doesn't agree with my knowledge of the game that's fine but you keep trying to prove incorrect concepts and expect me to believe it because the new baseball fans on the site do.  Have you ever considered they only believe your inaccurate thoughts because they have never been presented with the truth?

FYI... this is the first site I've seen where a moderator is one of the most insulting people simply because I don't agree with a word you are saying.  Seems like a bad business model.  How about being a bit more open minded, you might learn something.

Also, your position of authority gives you the ability to brow beat those who don't agree.  Maybe that's why you think people get along with you as opposed to me.  They might just be intimidated by your "my way or the highway" approach to moderating.  You might want to dial it down a bit.  See if people still agree with you and pretend to like you.  I guess maybe you should work on your approach too.

Thanks for your unsolicited advice!!

This post is nothing but a load of insults.  

[jad]

I love the way all these terms blur together and shape-shift as accusations of moral impropriety soar-- error (the physical action on a field vs. the physical act of deciding what to call it), stat, fact  (same confusion),,, I used to make a very amusing living dealing with the logical shenanigans in such discussions.  But I'm retired.  So have at it.

[Bellhorn04]

31 minutes ago, jad said:

I love the way all these terms blur together and shape-shift as accusations of moral impropriety soar-- error (the physical action on a field vs. the physical act of deciding what to call it), stat, fact  (same confusion),,, I used to make a very amusing living dealing with the logical shenanigans in such discussions.  But I'm retired.  So have at it.

Thanks for dropping by to let us know that you're above it all. 😇

[notin]

On 7/13/2025 at 11:33 AM, Bellhorn04 said:

Wrong.  A metric is a measurement, period.  There's no rule that a metric has to be an estimate.

And errors of course are judgment calls that the play should have been made, so they are just part of the group of measurements that form defensive metrics.   Errors are most certainly a metric.

And anyone who thinks errors are clear cut and obvious has never watched MLB.  And probably argued with their son after T-ball games.

”Daddy I got 3 hits today! I got 3 hits!”

”Actually son. Those were errors.  You hit the ball right at the other team.  They just couldn’t catch COVID if they licked every door knob in 2020.”

”But I hit the ball!” :: tears:::

”Yeah.  Off a tee.  What kind of league is this?  Can they at least get a tee that acts like a curveball?”

[notin]

39 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

This post is nothing but a load of insults.  

TPYM blocked me for talking down to a Yankee troll, but most of his posts boil down to “you people just don’t understand this game like I do.”

[Bellhorn04]

6 minutes ago, notin said:

And anyone who thinks errors are clear cut and obvious has never watched MLB.  And probably argued with their son after T-ball games.

”Daddy I got 3 hits today! I got 3 hits!”

”Actually son. Those were errors.  You hit the ball right at the other team.  They just couldn’t catch COVID if they licked every door knob in 2020.”

”But I hit the ball!” :: tears:::

”Yeah.  Off a tee.  What kind of league is this?  Can they at least get a tee that acts like a curveball?”

TYPM's argument about errors is a sort of novel one.  He bases everything on the premise that once an error has been officially scored (or not), then it becomes an irrefutable fact.

[illinoisredsox]

1 hour ago, notin said:

TPYM blocked me for talking down to a Yankee troll, but most of his posts boil down to “you people just don’t understand this game like I do.”

Which if you think about it is a completely true statement on his part.

[notin]

1 hour ago, Bellhorn04 said:

TYPM's argument about errors is a sort of novel one.  He bases everything on the premise that once an error has been officially scored (or not), then it becomes an irrefutable fact.

A point I’ve been countering (with examples) for some time now…

[notin]

On 7/13/2025 at 11:32 AM, sk7326 said:

A lot of this is software as notin pointed out.  Effectively cameras and computers are watching every ball hit - especially now with statcast at all the stadiums.

The defensive stats now are much better than the old fielding percentage days, simply because there is better data going in.  I mean, consider fielding percentage.  If we replaced a Red Sox outfielder with a paint bucket - and just left it there.  If 1 fly ball landed in the bucket, the fielding pct of 1.000 would be amazing.  But we can't say the paint bucket is a good substitute to like, a person.  We just have vastly better information on players getting to the ball - which is really what defensive value is for the most part, no?  

As far as being skeptical - any be-all stat without context deserves skepticism.  Is UZR better than defensive runs saved or outs above average?  I have opinions, but the real answer is that all of them together give good information.  I mean, we accept that batting average, slugging, on-base all provide incomplete pictures of hitting ... but in combination it's not too shabby.  

At least that paint bucket wouldn’t overthrow the cutoff man!