yankees228
-
Posts
9,780 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Boston Red Sox Videos
2026 Boston Red Sox Top Prospects Ranking
Boston Red Sox Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
Guides & Resources
2025 Boston Red Sox Draft Pick Tracker
News
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by yankees228
-
1. You claimed FanGraphs has valued him incorrectly, and that he should be valued lower ... which is tantamount to claiming that you can better judge his value than FanGraphs. 2. You said he was good defensively last year ... based on UZR/150 and DRS, the two most reliable defensive metrics, he was much better than that. I also think you're underselling the impact of defense on the game. Anyway, as you said, we've reached an impasse. I think the stats side with me ... he had a good offensive season last year (which you now seem to have acknowledged) and an excellent defensive season. To me, that's a pretty damn good year, which is all I'm claiming.
-
It isn't a straw man because you're claiming your evaluations of Brett Gardner are more accurate than those of FanGraphs. I think the problem here stems from the fact that you're underselling the importance of defense. Games are won by run differential ... meaning that scoring runs and saving runs are of equal importance. When the Red Sox went in that direction last off-season, this point was made numerous times by the smartest people on this site, and done so very well.
-
Right, this.
-
Oh and you're essentially saying you're better at judging player performance than FanGraphs, which is funny.
-
Average is pretty awful? Well that's just flat out wrong. And you're focusing way too much on the dollar values. It's just like that because players are routinely overpaid in free agency.
-
Those numbers place him squarely above the league average. Couple that with his excellent defensive season, and Gardner's 2010 season was really good. No matter where you look, the stats side with my argument, rather than yours. For someone who has a habit of admonishing people for not using advanced stats and instead using basic stats, I'm rather surprised where you fall in this argument.
-
How do those stats support the argument that he was mediocre? They support the argument that in 2010 he was a good offensive player and an excellent defensive player. If you think these are the stats of a mediocre player than there is really no counter argument to be made other than just to tell you that you're wrong.
-
Brett Gardner's 2010 season Offensive Production: wOBA: .358 (league average: .321) wRC+: 121 (league average: 100) wRAA: 16.9 (league average: 0) wRC: 82.3 (league average: 57.7) Speed Score: 8.1 (second among all MLB players ... league average: 5.0) Base Running Runs Above Average: 4.9 (tenth among all MLB players) Defensive Production: UZR/150: 45.7 (tops among all MLB players) DRS: 16 (tied for third among all MLB outfielders and tops among left fielders)
-
-
You've yet to explain why WAR is flawed. All you've said is "WAR is flawed because it says this player is this good and he isn't this good". Until you've explained that you haven't countered the idea that in 2010 Brett Gardner was as good as his WAR suggests.
-
And I love how WAR doesn't work here because it doesn't reflect your personal opinion of the player's ability. Yet I'm the one with the flawed argument. Beautifully done.
-
Or I used fWAR because it's widely regarded in the statistical community as the best statistic when it comes to measuring the production of an individual player. But choose to see it as you will.
-
-
-
So in other words ... "I have a preconceived notion about Brett Gardner and no amount of evidence will change my mind." The fact that you think this argument holds any water is fairly baffling.
-
How is that legitimate? They use weird stats that aren't assists and errors. That stuff has no place in the gritty game of baseball ... keep that garbage in your mother's basement, where it belongs.
-
-
-
-
I agree about Colon. As I mentioned, part of it is lucky. But what I was saying is that, unlike Garcia, Colon's results haven't been lucky. You've mentioned a couple places where they have been lucky (Colon and Garcia), but there are just as many places where they have been unlucky (Hughes, Soriano, Joba, and now Colon). These things typically go both ways, and in this case, they certainly do. If you want to talk about luck, generally the first place you look is PYTH ... and in the Yankees case, their actual record is three games lower than their PYTH record. I'm not saying the Yankees are so unlucky or that they're getting screwed ... nor have I heard any reasonable person say that. But I don't think they're fortunate to be where they are right now, at least record wise.
-
Popularity based on past performance, not popularity based on personality. And I checked Gardner's stats, that's the entire point. 6.2 fWAR last year.
-
-
-
Yeah, left leg injury covering first.
-