example1

Really ORS? Really? A new thread to remind Cam that he's wrong? I appreciate opening another forum, but I thought you had finished with him earlier... Yes, lots of stats are better than F%, except errors. Errors are worse.

[quote=One Red Seat;309862 Looks to me like he's saying getting to more balls is more important than being marginally more adept at handling them. Your interpretation of English may vary. I was indeed saying that being able to get to more balls (i.e., to put a major-league caliber player near a potential out) is more important than showing that you can handle balls that are hit at you. I didn't mean to imply anything about adeptness. I think coco is just as capable of handling a fly ball hit right at him as anyone else is, but he is better at getting to balls out of his zone than most, and when out of his zone his ability to catch the ball is roughly the same as anyone elses. The skill is in getting there.

It's not a sign of being dumb, but to make claims without at least referencing the fact that painstaking work was done to calculate as exactly as possible what actually happens on a ball field would be to speak uninformed. I bet nobody here would say they actually KNOW what is going on, but there are definite trends that occur in baseball. For instance, a TREND is that guys with a high OBP tend to keep that high OBP over time. in fact, young players with a high OBP tend to increase that OBP over time, whereas something like AVG is much more variable. In terms of fielding statistics a lot of it is over my head. I can understand what people are talking about, but to some degree it is about "see ball, catch ball" and the players who do it well end up higher on the measurements than guys who do not. Watching the game may give you some indication about who is better at it than others, but looks can be decieving, as can recent memories or the outcome of the game. The point of all these numbers is to isolate the defensive play from what happened around it. I don't know, :dunno: , I think it is interesting discussion but fielding is notoriously hard to quantify, and even if it is well-quantified I don't feel like I could recreate the statistics myself, so it is hard to look for statistical errors or anamolies. In otherwords, Zone Rating is great, but I don't feel that I can go back and evaluate each play to judge whether the data is accurate. it probably is (because that is someone else's job) but it makes the metric seem inaccessable to me. The batting statistics, on the other hand, often have a long formula, but they are accessible in that you could recreate a number of them with some labor and attention to detail (in other words, I could figure out Runs Created if I wanted to, it would just take awhile). Fielding stats don't seem that easy to do. For those with the energy to discusss it, though, please keep it up.

Yes. When you have 30seconds at work to quote and respond sometimes that happens. My point still applies to those who question his biases. Personally, I think he should have left no stone unturned in finding every ounce of PED that Gabe Kaplar pumped into his body.

Wasn't Mo Vaughn a Met for awhile?

I'll trade no A-Rod for no Tek.

Did a quick PDF search for Tek's name. It didn't find it. EDIT: No hits for "Jeter" "Ortiz" "Rodriguez" "Pujols" "Santana" or most of the other players I can think of. Obviously haven't digested the whole thing yet, but there are specific names listed after page 140 or so. David Segui, Roger Clemens, etc.,

I'm curious to know how the birth of Theo's son Jack yesterday affected the negotiations. Is he the type of guy who will just hang out on his cell phone and blackberry and work out a deal while she's in labor? I doubt it, especially with all the other talented execs the Sox have.

Hell yeah. Go get him.

Just to jump in here... I don't think anyone is saying they are actually meaningless, they are just statistically pretty insignificant compared to other things that can be counted for fielders. The statistics that are most meaningful are the ones most closely associated with winning and/or with preventing runs. Raw fielding percentage and raw errors are like raw average or RBIs. It tells you something about how the player performed but it doesn't tell you anything about the particular situations they were in, or whether or not there was luck involved. For instance, a player can be charged with an error because he doesn't make the play that another fielder wouldn't have even gotten to because the first player lined up correctly. If Mike Lowell makes himself available to a lot more balls because he is smarter than other 3B or the Sox have a better scouting report or whatever, he isn't credited with it, and with % or raw error totals the number of opportunities isn't taken into account. Perhaps a great fielder is one who can put himself in a position to make the most plays, rather than one who makes all the plays on balls hit directly at him. As you well-know its a big field.

They always seem to, don't they Bill? At least people are looking at numbers and not just talking about hunches. That said, I am also worried that Coco had some sort of anomalous season last year defensively. Statistics do override observation in nearly all cases, but I watched damn near every game last year and what I saw was pretty great. He made catches early in games, late in games, with no outs, two outs, close games, blowouts, the guy caught just about everything that came his way, and a few things that went Manny and JDs way as well. It sure felt (again, large sample size of feelings here ) like a lot of balls were 'perfectly placed' for him to just barely get there. Balls that were out of his zone, but not so far out of his zone that his speed can't get to them. In other words, a foot here or a foot there and we're talking about balls that are impossible to get to. Is there not a point where you have to attribute defense to 'luck' more so than, say, OBP or SLG should be attributed to luck? People are making it out to be like that everything Coco lacks with his bat he makes up for with his glove, which may or may not be true. But a lot of the things he does with his glove I think other highly touted OFs can do as well. Do stats like FRAR and FRAA take throwing into account? If so, was Coco's year last year (43 FRAR/27 FRAA) with the glove and virtually no arm actually better than the best year of Torii Hunter's career (43FRAR/ 26 FRAA in 2001), or Ichiro (32/20 in 2005) or better than all but one season of Willie Mays (second best was 42/19)? If not, shouldn't arm be taken into account? I know Fenway doesn't demand a strong CF arm, but to disregard it all together would seem weird, especially when we're talking about overall defensive prowess. We're either talking about a guy who, compared to other tremendous fielders with strong arms, outshines them all so much with his glove that their arms don't count, or we're using a measurement that doesn't really take his arm strength (in terms of put-outs and holding runners) into account, aren't we? :dunno: ------------ The above aside, my larger point is that I really don't think it is absurd to think that Coco's fielding is bound to fluctuate and if it fluctuates it is more likely to fluctuate downward than upward. I think the difference between Crisp and Ellsbury (overall) is significantly more than many here do. I think it is enough to warrant some SERIOUS haggling from the Sox in terms of the 4th player in the deal, when names like Masterson are also already on the table. As a GM I'm not offering anything in my top 20 prospects for that 4th piece, and certainly not a high-upside young guy like Kalish or Bowden or Lars. The Minnesota Twins Welcome: Third Baseman Scott White, along with Jacoby Ellsbury, Justin Masterson and Jed Lowrie.

People around here don't really talk steroids (slack verbage; better defined as HGH/PEDs) as if they are a real problem. You are absolutely right SITN, teams would be foolish not to wait a day or two before making these acquisitions. ...cough Miguel Tejada ...cough Andruw Jones There are so many players of whom I'm suspicious. Santana is one of them. Pujols, A-Rod, Varitek (a few years back especially), Clemens, the list of players could go on and on. Maybe it is hard because we have had one of the best offensive ball clubs the past few years (03 especially). That's one of the things that makes Ellsbury (and Pedroia, and Youkilis) so attractive to me. If we throw out the last 15 years of statistics, a "great" player looks different from a "great" player now. Ellsbury's ceiling is not what Andruw Jones's was 10 years ago, and that's seen as a detriment, even though it appears Ellsbury is not taking anything. Similarly, we could all be lamenting the fact that Pedroia isn't putting up Brett Boone numbers (37 HR one year), but we're not because we understand what a "good" 2B should look like (and it doesn't include 30+ HR). In the past, a "great" CF did not put up Vernon Wells or Andruw Jones numbers; or if they did they were called Willie Mays or Mickey Mantle. Anyway, I digress... but good point. They could also be pretty certain that Santana is clean, and just be working out an extension. I can't imagine that a deal will be 'announced' until the extension is agreed upon. :dunno:

Talk about overvaluing a small sample size. If MN is really only more excited about Ellsbury because of his short stint in the 'bigs then the Sox should sell high. However, MN likely was this high on Ellsbury regardless of his WS performance. Perhaps the fact that he was ready to take over CF for the World Champion Red Sox, or the fact that Theo and Co. were ready to give him the starting spot right away were better indicators.

It gets annoying to have to argue little points, doesn't it? I've been there. :thumbsup: As for your list of potential trades, I know your list was just off the top of your head, but I actually think Coco is a better play than just about all of the guys you listed, except Matt Kemp and maybe Burrell (if he has a decent season). They also largely aren't CFs. Again, I know your list wasn't meant to be definitive by any stretch, but it brings up an interesting point, namely, that Crisp is basically a "B+" CF Option on a team filled with A's and A-s. Nothing to scoff at, actually, and he would have been upgraded to an A- (in my opinion) with Ellsbury, but Santana is such a great pitcher that that upgrade doesn't hold enough weight if the Sox deal is accepted. I can't think of CFs that I would want instead of Crisp if Ellsbury leaves. Note: If Ellsbury leaves we will immediately be ushering in the era of Ryan Kalish on this site. Kid is a really nice prospect, as is Lin. They're both very young, but the Sox are likely willing to deal Ellsbury because they feel that they actually have solid minor-league depth at CF. He has great speed like Ellsbury does, but apparently his name doesn't excite the Twins like Ellsbury. C'est la vie.

I actually agree with TheKilo too, particularly if you add in the fact that they would be replacing a number of Julian Tavarez starts with Buchholz, and a number of other starts with the best pitcher in baseball. Like I said, I think it will be win-win. Ellsbury, to me, is a 'special' player, and not in the sense that "we are all special" or "that boy in the back of the class who keeps banging his head on the desk is 'special'" but in the sense of once-per-generation. If we were talking about trading him for Barry Zito or Jeff Francis I would be upset, downright angry even. But Santana is not someone to worry about (if he's healthy, which is the case for any player) because he's amazing. The idea I DIDN'T like was the one initially thrown around here that "whatever it takes" is what we should do, even if it was offering Ellsbury + Lester + Bowden + Lowrie + whoever else. I thought there was a point at which you are actually trading away more value. This move, in my opinion, is going to be the centerpiece of reproducing MANNY'S production in a year or two. They are pretty confident that they aren't going to be able to bank on landing a Matt Holliday or Miguel Cabrera to replace that LF HOF bat we currently have, so what is the best way to make sure you rrun differential stays the same or gets better? Getting the hands-down best pitcher in baseball is the obvious (but counterintuitive) answer. They will still need to upgrade their offense this year or next, as Manny, Lowell, Varitek etc., will start to slow down. However, the idea of having Santana pitch with a tremendous defense behind him (or at least one with guys like Varitek, Lowell, Crisp, Pedroia, Youkilis on it) is appealing. Long story short, I'm resigned to losing Ellsbury if need be, and am satisfied that the Sox will haggle to the point that they are not overpaying beyond Ellsbury. Walking away from a deal to get Santana with names like Buchholz, Lester and Bowden still on your roster (and Kalish too, now that I think of it) is really a nice coup for a team with as much loot as the Sox.

Does anyone not think this is a win-win situation? I think Crisp will regress in his fielding and do a little better offensively. I'm skeptical of the numbers in this case, not because he isn't a good fielder or because he didn't make great plays (he is and did) but because the FRAA and FRAR he put up last year were UNGODLY!! They completely and absolutely carried his production. If I knew he could replicate that this year then I would have fewer reservations. To me, I see a guy who got a lot of good jumps on a lot of balls that happened to be catchable. I think that Ellsbury will be JUST as productive defensively during his career and a signficant upgrade offensively. I'm not downplaying his defense (as it made him a 17 WS guy... I think, without checking to verify... while he played (offensively) like a much worse player), I just don't trust it. That said, I do trust HIM to make the plays, so what I am actually worried about is that evil Regression to the Mean Monster that always seems to lurk about in this game. There is NO DOUBT in my mind that the Red Sox would be an absolute MONSTER if they added Santana, none. That would last for a few years and they would be in really, really, really good shape. I think I can (and have) show that Ellsbury and Santana will likely have pretty similar production from here on out, and that given how cheap Ellsbury is he would be the one I prefer to have around long-term. Truth be told, as many of you know, I will miss Ellsbury and feel that he will be a very productive member of this lineup for years. However, it isn't a form of disrespect to him to trade him for the best pitcher on the planet. Actually, if the deal is Ellsbury + Masterson + Lowrie + 4th random guy, it is quite an honor for Jacoby. I will wake up happy in either case. If Santana gets injured or comes back to earth over the next few years then I will regret not having Ellsbury. But if the Sox hold onto Ellsbury and Santana continues being Santana then I will be wondering "what if" for the rest of my life, when, in actuallity, it would just be great to watch Santana mow-down Yankee hitters (and Tiger hitters, and Blue Jay hitters) with the rest of that sick rotation behind him. Ellsbury is one of the few players to whom I've become attached and excited to see in a Sox uniform. I think the risk in trading him is much higher than most people here are acknowledging with visions of Santana dancing in their heads; however I understand the allure that Santana has. Again, its a Win Win (especially if we're not dealing Lester). There is NOTHING that says the Sox can't turn around and make a package out of Lester + Crisp + to land another CF that will be more exciting and offensively minded that Crisp. No, TheKilo, I'm not downplaying his defense, but I can't think of another play that has had such a reliance on his defense to make him valuable. Hopefully Crisp will become the hitter that we all hope he can be (.285/.355/.430), but to me he looks slow and overwhelmed at the plate and I just don't see it happening. In either case, I love it that the Santana discussion has started again. It's my favorite.

Its a TOO fair package for Santana. I would hate to see Ellsbury go in ANY package (not because I love Ellsbury as much as I don't think Crisp will put up similar defensive numbers next year, which was really the ONLY thing that made him valuable). But, to get Santana I guess you gotta give up something. It seems too risky to me, honestly. The Sox are in a good position currently and stand to get into a better one. If they trade Ellsbury and Santana is injured or just comes back to earth, then they will be the losing team in this trade.

Buchholz Hughes Lester Chamberlain Kennedy Delcarmen Hansen

Sorry man, didn't look into the thread and haven't caught up much the past few days. I was lead astray. I'm an idiot. The Mets' chances of topping the Sox package is pretty low without the inclusion of a young MLB established player like Reyes. They have other pieces that are tempting but I think with 'extra' names like Masterson, Bowden, and Lester floating around, along with guys like Crisp, the Sox have a deeper pool to draw from. Dually edited.

I don't see how the Sox could hope to piggyback on that deal, given that the Mets and Twins would be giving up Reyes, Humber/Pelfrey and Santana respectively, while the Sox merely give up Lugo, Coco, Lowrie, Masterson and Bowden. Add Lester or Ellsbury and it might make more sense. removed bit about Kazmir I think it is about time the Mets started bringing back the NL to respectability. There is no reason the NL can't have a strong team that is willing to try to blow other teams out of the water.

I would bet that the Sox have a few offers for Crisp out there and that they have a pretty good idea what they want to do. I think they'll let the Santana trade just sit out there, each variation acceptable to the Sox (ellsbury, masterson, Lowrie or Lester, Masterson, Lowrie, Crisp, +1). They are in no real hurry to get anything done; Santana would be a great addition but they are sleeping comfortably with their team currently.

Good find TheKilo. There's a lot there. I'm not sure what to take away from it. Sounds like he owns the apts as a business venture, does the non-profit thing for PR, and probably isn't overly involved in either of them... :dunno: I doubt he's trying to be malicious, but I also doubt he's ever said "Here's my checkbook, write away!" Dude could do some serious good with his money, and I'm not convinced that he won't eventually. We will see.

He is a bargain in some sense, but he isn't essential to this team. He will eventually step down and, while missed for his consistency and leadership, his spot will be replaceable.

Uhhh yeah, not a shocker. It is one of the things they can do to be competative.