cam780

Stat geeks have a tendency to over think sometimes. My GPA example was just to illustrate that Lowell had an off year in just about every other defensive measure other than RZR it wasn't meant as a comment on either stat. This conversation has gone on way too long at this point. The bottom line is you can't trust either stat as the be and end all and yes maybe baseball analysts prefer RZR maybe it is the defensive measure that all stat guys lust for but personally I don't watch baseball as an analyst. I'm not sitting in Theo's seat so most of what I know is from I what I see and how I interpret it. What I saw was a down year for Lowell and most of the stats support it and like I said previously if you asked Lowell or Tito if he defensively did what he expected to do I don't think he'd respond "hell yeah, my RZR was the second best ever" and thats what it boils down to. As far as stubbornness goes, maybe I'm incorrect but I've never said your opinion was wrong or indefensible or untenable or unjustifiable. I respect that you have a different opinion. Or maybe thats the arrogance instead of stubbornness?

Usually, when you're having a debate - someone makes a point then the other person makes a counterpoint and then the first person addresses the counterpoint and so on and so forth.This one is going like this I make a point. You make a counter. I counter your point. You repeated your initial point. I once again countered your initial. You once again repeated your initial argument and then claimed I can't read. Apparently, I'm supposed to be changing my mind based solely on your opinion. I don't know if you've managed to bully your competition into concession with arrogance in the past but this ain't happening here. In 2007, Lowell's BIZ accounted for 80% of his chances, in 2006 Lowell's BIZ only accounted for 72% of his total chances, in 2005 it was 71% while in 2004 Lowell's BIZ accounted for 67% of his chances. Yes, RZR accounts for everything in the zone and OOZ accounts for everything made out of the zone but what about the other 20-33% of plays that he had a chance to make? If you add to it that the range for third basemen is from zones C-F and zone G is a "hole" that isn't attributed to any position and that ground balls are the only plays taken into account for infielders and you get a less than perfect number much like fielding percentage. Again, I'm not arguing that F% is far and away better than RZR, I'm just arguing that you can't contend that when all of the supporting stats (including OOZ, its sister stat) are down that a player is having a career-average season based on one metric. Of course, my opinion differs from yours which I'm sure you'll remind me is due to my inability to read as opposed to your incorrigible stubbornness.

I don't like the statement because of the "if" if what i did was against better judgement ... it was . take the if away just say you did it and you get a pass. its kind of a squirrelly apology. Just like Rodney's for that matter like Kilo pointed out. As far as Clemens goes, the Sox can't take him back now. I would think it would also be a stretch for Astros to let him on the field. With that being said, I don't think it tarnishes what the Yanks did. They had a bunch of juicers in a league full of them. Its just like Barry Bonds. He was juiced when he hit the homers but some of the pitchers that gave some up to him were too. Its also important to remember that HGH is still undetectable so there is no real way to determine how many players actually used or are using. It just so happens that the guys that spilled the beans worked in NY and Cali. If the pharmacy was located in Cambridge, I'd bet we'd be seeing a lot more Red Sox names. I also think it will be interesting when Pettite pitches in Fenway next year. Think we may see some syringes?

I think what we're talking about is purely semantics. I think in order to get a correct view of a fielders ability you have to consider both but keep in mind that this conversation is about statistics. You could also say that batting average considers walks because it eliminates them but that number that you get has nothing to do with his walks. Personally, I would say that OBP considers walks because that figure that you see has walks factored in. Mike Lowells RZR has nothing to do with his OOZ. Each is a separate statistic. I understand how difficult it would be to figure it out but in order to make this a more complete stat I think you need OOZ as a percentage - that is the RZR being opportunities and plays made in the players assigned positional zone and the OOZ being the number of opportunities vs plays made in other zones. When you see a number like 27 (I didn't go back to check it) for Lowell's OOZ maybe he made every play coming to him while he was in the SS zone but what if he had 60 opportunities? I agree that including plays made out of zone gave players some additional benefit in the old ZR but consider your argument. You have said that RZR considers OOZ because it seperates it and you would have to look at them both. But this year, Lowell's RZR was .732 and his OOZ is 27. How would you compare that to Lowell's 2004 - a .654 RZR and a 52 OOZ. You have to admit its difficult because what OOZ presents is an absolute number and not a percentage. Now I don't know the data on how many of Lowell's errors came in zone but what if 5 of Lowell's 15 errors occurred in the SS zone. That wouldn't appear in OOZ because it wasn't a play made and it wouldn't affect the RZR because it was out of zone. The difference there is the difference between Lowell having a .732 and a .720 RZR. I only have the information that Hardball times has on its website so I can't compare it career wise but that number would be less than Lowell's 2005 RZR of .728 and therefore 2nd worst over that span In our previous discussion, you used Lugo's range vs Gonzalez's to state that Lowell didn't have to make as many plays but that is far from a substantiated claim. While I admit its probably not the range you're speaking of, the RF for Gonzo in 04 was 4.33 - and 4.21 for Lugo in '07. If you have another stat that supports your stance on Lugo v Gonzalez, I'm more than willing to consider it. Also, this has nothing to do with Lowell but consider the shift and Ortiz. Obviously based on game situations there are some points when the fielding team can't utilize it but if Ortiz gets to bat 3 times at least once you have to consider that 1 of those at bats the shift would come into play if its a team in the division you're talking about at least 20 plays out of position and thats just for Ortiz. Would it be fair to assume that if you extrapolate that 50-100 plays would take place out of a fielders typical zone both strategically and unintentionally. If you consider that Lowell had 227 plays in zone. That is actually a lot. You also have my original point wrong. If you go back to the original thread, I made a point that Crisp could have a down year that you couldn't count on him making every play that he did in 2007 next year. I stated that Mike Lowell had a down year defensively (again not a bad year). I did not mention RZR or any other stat for that matter in my original thread. Red Sox rules then responded that Lowell didn't have a down year. I mentioned that errors , f% and range factor were all career lows. He stated that he believed that zr (not rzr as he stated it was .778) was a better measure of defense. There was a link to the espn calculator and sure enough his zr was one of the worst in the time span allowed to be calculated. I mentioned the same points I have restated here that I think that if you rely on RZR as the stat of choice to measure someones defense than you basically don't give him credit or admonition for plays he does or doesn't make out of that zone at least fielding percentage takes into account number of plays to a certain player as a whole as opposed to within a certain box. Using an analogy to a different sport, its like pulling apart Rodney Harrison's tackles that he has made playing linebacker because he wasn't playing safety at the time. My original position isn't F% is a better indicator of what Lowell has done vs RZR but instead that Lowell had down year. To that end this is what you have. Errors - 15 worst in his career F% - .961 worst in career RF - 2.51 worst in career RZR - .732 in four years of available statistics 2nd best, his third best year is .728 albeit with 60 more plays in his zone OOZ - 27 in four years of available statistics, the fewest he has made. So if Ksushi is visiting this post while he's studying. Say he typically has a 3.5 GPA in most of his subjects. Let's assume his major is biology. Say this semester he gets a 2.2 in English, a 2.5 in Spanish, a 2.5 History, a 3.2 in Biology and a 2.0 in water color painting. Is he going to say he had an off semester? Or is he going to feel real good about himself because he was just slightly down from his usual GPA in his major? I also don't think its untenable that I prefer a stat that, while flawed, doesn't separate the plays a player makes based on where he makes them. Neither stat is perfect mind you, and like I said, RZR is perfect to differentiate between two players with comparable peripheral stats, but it almost seems too specialized to measure the player as a whole. One question and its because I truly don't know the answer. How does RZR address players that play different positions. For example, Eric Hinske. Say he makes 80 starts at first in a given year and he has one error and fails to convert 6 other plays for outs with a 100 BIZ, he plays left for 40 games with 5 errors and fails to convert 7 outs with a 70 BIZ, he then plays 40 games in right with no errors and 3 outs that weren't converted with a 70 BIZ, and he plays 2 games at third, no errors, 100% of outs converted in 4 chances. Would he qualify at first but not in the other three positions and at that point would the plays he made at the other positions be listed as OOZ? Or would he simply not qualify at the other three spots or would you average them and if you averaged them how would you calculate the OOZ?

I think everyone is implicated in steroids but its a cloud thats been over the sport last year especially with Bonds passing Aaron and baseball still had record revenue and even if it did affect baseball's bottom line - I don't see the Red Sox losing much if any profit. All of the games will still sell out. They still have NESN. Yadda Yadda Yadda. I agree the Mets need him the most but they also have the least to offer unless they throw in Reyes which they won't do. The way I look at it having it public that the Twins want both Ellsbury and Buchholz. It allows Theo to pass and not face the wrath of the fan base. I think the deals that we've seen so far this offseason show the type of value the Twins can expect. The D-backs package for Haren wasn't a wow type package and the Twins should be in line for a similar deal.

A few things ... Steroids won't affect baseball's bottom line. Its a lingering issue that isn't a surprise. Add to it that most of the players named aren't surprises and are either inactive, fringe, or past their prime. If it was Santana or Pujols instead of Bonds and Clemens implicated then thats a different story. I think the argument on the contract for Santana would work better if he was a position player. Pitchers tend to be more volatile and while at this point the best hitters in the game are making around where Manny is a third or fourth starter (which is what Santana could be if not worse in 7 years) will most likely not be making 20 million a year even given inflation. I think the best comparison would be Mike Hampton's deal. He's making 15 million a year which is in the ball park of the games best but at this point you probably can't count on him to be more than a fourth starter and that is if he makes it onto the field. I wonder if the Twins request for Buchholz was based on a hunch that the Yanks were going to get involved. If you look at the landscape now, with Haren going to Arizona, Santana is really the only option for the Yankees as Bedard isn't being dealt in the division.

I think the most amazing part of this conversation is that the whole thing started with my assertion that Coco Crisp might not have the same season he did this year. But this is the part of our conversation that sticks out to me. I'm not going to quote it but I will instead copy and paste: I don't think you are appreciating what RZR measures. It's been stated already, but I'll repeat it, it measures the rate at which a fielder can turn balls hit into his zone into outs. These balls hit into his zone are either unfielded, fielded and turned into outs, or fielded and not turned into outs. Errors fall into the 3rd category. So, errors are a component of the result. Zone rating goes alot further in identifying bad defensive players than it does identifying good ones and it dissects the field into zones and thus doesn't take into account players making plays out of position. For example, how many times during the course of the year, will Mike Lowell make a play in Lugo's "zone". Doesn't that factor into a players defense in your mind? It does mine. RZR absolutely considers players making plays out of zone. RZR eliminates out of zone plays (OOZ) and creates a new category for them. I'm sure you are thinking, "But Lowell's OOZ plays dropped from 43 to 27. Surely that supports my position." Maybe, but let's look at who was playing next to him. In 2005 and 2006, Alex Gonzalez made 41 and 42 OOZ plays (conveniently they played together in 2005 so we have two years of data to look at), and Mike Lowell made 39 and 43. Looks pretty consistent. Lugo makes 55 last year. Lowell wasn't required to make as many OOZ plays because he was playing next to a SS with superior range. You can't will facts to fit your argument. A stat that considers something is the opposite of a stat the eliminates it. This may be difficult to prove but let me give it shot - Lowell made 227 plays and had a 310 BIZ if you divide the former by the latter you acutally get .732 his RZR or in other words. RZR wouldn't be considering OOZ and OOZ is only a figure of actual out of zone plays not a percentage based on opportunities. Do you know what RZR stands for? It's Revized Zone Rating. One of the flaws in the original ZR was the inclusion of OOZ plays. RZR eliminates them from the ZR, and gives them their own category. I don't know where you are going with this, but it seems this information seems to have eluded you, so there you go. Your first point is basically that I don't know what I'm talking about. My response is I think a players defense isn't limited to his positional "zone" especially in the case of third and and short. You then respond by saying what are you talking about RZR considers out of zone plays because of OOZ. I then respond by saying well zone rating doesn't factor in OOZ because its a seperate category and then you say .. duh, you don't know what you're talking about here's the definition. it's not factored in which was in fact my original point. now the reason why I think there's an issue with RZR is because if you have a good fielder that is consistently making plays outside of his zone then he should receive some credit for it and if your position is that credit is given through OOZ then its not given through RZR. Again, my position is that RZR is a much better way differentiate comparables than to define a season. ie. Inge and Beltre both had 18 E last season and it really is the RZR that serves as the contrast. I realize my defiance to crown RZR the king of defensive stats probably means I'm not getting an inventation to your next tea party but standing alone its not the perfect indicator of defense.

Even though I have alot to respond to I will not to get this thread back to where it should be. The original discussion actually involved other options at center if Ellsbury is included in the deal. Personally, depending on what happens Andy Pettite the Yanks may up their offer which would then put the Sox in a place to make a decision and I think if I'm Theo I include Lester to get that dominant rotation.

It is difficult making points to brick walls. You can't will facts to fit your argument. A stat that considers something is the opposite of a stat the eliminates it. This may be difficult to prove but let me give it shot - Lowell made 227 plays and had a 310 BIZ if you divide the former by the latter you acutally get .732 his RZR or in other words. RZR wouldn't be considering OOZ and OOZ is only a figure of actual out of zone plays not a percentage based on opportunities. I think your issue is you responded to my defense of my position and not to the position itself or by now you may have realized that our only difference is on the validity of fielding percentage vs RZR and not based on my original position because this is what I said: Crisp comes back and plays spectacular defense again but I have to say that some of the plays he made were almost superhuman and I don't think he gets all of them next year but that being said I also don't think you can rule out an offensive resurgence either Some of the plays may not be there? Marginal Difference? Maybe? My point was to expect a replica of the season that Crisp had last year may not be realistic. Not that he's going into the shitter. As far as .75-.75 - the results of both are the same agreed - but my response was in regards to this statement by you: By your reasoning, you did state you think F% is more important, you'd take a lower out rate with fewer errors over the opposite. Think about that. What is the result of an error? A base, maybe two. What is the result of an unfielded ball at 3B? A base, maybe two. Same results. Only, you are willing to accept the player who allows more hits than the other player makes errors. There's no application of logic that can defend that. I think the emotional impact of an error, you know, "Damn, that should have been an out!", is weighing in here. If the result of an error and a result of an unfielded ball are the same than how can you say that "there's no application of logic" that defends my position if the results are similar? I prefer plays made vs chances as opposed to percentage of outs a fielder makes in his positional zone if only because there are more variables than the fielders skill. I never said that you actually had to agree with me. Its like we're both eating apples and are both very satisfied with the flavor but I'm eating a Granny Smith and you're eating a Delicious and you're continuing to argue the point that the Delicious is obviously better because you like it more when I prefer the Granny Smith. Last point on this as it is now considerably off topic - i'll let you skip by my points on some balls hit into a third baseman's zone are next to impossible to convert into outs and the example that I gave with Lugo committing an error in Lowell's zone (or if you prefer, not converting the out) and not having it adversely affect Lugo's RZR. But I would like your opinion on how you feel Mike Lowell considers his defense compared to 2006?

I knew I could on you.:thumbsup:

Feel free to repeat yourself 10 times and I don't think we'll share the same opinion and it has much less with understanding and much more to do with how I value defense. Example again put it best - reread his last paragraph. Zone rating goes alot further in identifying bad defensive players than it does identifying good ones and it dissects the field into zones and thus doesn't take into account players making plays out of position. For example, how many times during the course of the year, will Mike Lowell make a play in Lugo's "zone". Doesn't that factor into a players defense in your mind? It does mine. RZR is good drill down stat - it is a useful stat to differentiate between players with similar stats- that is to say that Inge and Beltre both had 18 errors - however Inge's RZR is .712 vs .662 for Beltre therefore Inge is a better fielder than Beltre even though they have the same baseline stats. Add to it a certain vagueness of the concepts of ball's handled for outs - I know there is a factor applied but I would tell you that there are some balls that can't be converted into outs regardless of that factor. And then consider this (this is an extreme example so please don't remind me how infrequent it would happen) but Lugo and Lowell are both going for the same ball that is technically in Lowell's zone. Lugo calls off Lowell and drops it. Lowell doesn't make the play in his zone. Lugo gets an error because its a makeable play but his RZR doesn't decrease because it is "out of his zone" And if you asked Mike Lowell to compare his 2006 and 2007 seasons - which was my point to begin with - would he say that he didn't play as well? would he say well it wasn't as good as 06 but it was right in line with my career expectations based on my RZR? You simply can't rely on third generation stats and metrics alone in evaluating performance. You have to take it all in as a whole. I would also argue that the only thing illogical (besides your point that results of a missed play and error are the same and therefore my preference to rely on percentage is illogical) is your failure to understand that different people rely on different things to evaluate a skill set.

If there is a truth inherent to MLB its that whatever your position you can more often than not find a stat to justify your position. Personally, I prefer fielding % over zone rating but I was initially talking about the difference between 2006 and 2007 for Lowell as 2006 was a career year for Lowell defensively and 2007 was a career year for Crisp. The debate ended up heading in a direction I did not anticipate. Of course we both realize that Mike Lowell will not be included in a Johan Santana deal. BTW, I do have a question and you are probably the person to find it if its out there. Is there some record of errors by position player that have lead to unearned runs? I realize it would be a somewhat misleading because while the player has some responsibility in giving a player a base, the pitcher would also bear some responsiblity for putting the next batter or the next one for that matter in play. But I actually disagree with the sentiment that an errors are meaningless because outs are valuable commodities in baseball and there is a difference in a how a pitcher pitches a batter with 1 on and no out and no one on with 1 out. On a team like Boston, with great pitching that matters less than it would a team that doesn't have our wealth of quality arms but second or third opportunities in a game like baseball are important.

Jayhawk, I give you credit but I think people are misunderstanding my point. I'm not saying that Mike Lowell had a bad defensive year. I'm saying that Mike Lowell had a down defensive year. And even by RZR the number is off from last years mark not to mention his OOZ is off tremendously from last year and out of the four seasons that Hardball times has there Lowell's 27 in 07 is the worst of the seasons listed. My point was simply that Mike Lowell didn't have the same '07 as he did '06. Keep in mind I brought it up to outline the possibility that Coco Crisp might not make every play next year that he did this year. Again, one more time - Mike Lowell had an MVP type season but his defense wasn't as good as it was in 2006 and I still haven't seen a stat that says differently be it zone rating, RZR, OOZ or the more standard categories.

I don't think they would announce the deal but the issue is I think they have to file something with the league in order to get the 72 hour window. Once that happens, it becomes public. At least thats what I remember from the A-Rod deal back in 2004. On the issue of steroids, I can see Clemens on the list. I can also see A-Rod on the list (as in one of the reasons I see the Sox steering clear of him in the offseason) Pedro maybe. I don't think Santana would be on it. but I think its going to be interesting tomorrow. A-Rod is supposed to be the new face of baseball and the shiny bearer of everything right in the quest to make everyone forget about Barry Bonds. If he turns up dirty, it'll be interesting especially given the new deal.

You're right it wasn't a well thought out list but there are options other than Crisp. I personally think that Crisp and what he brings to the table is going to give you more for your four million than any of the other options. I personally like Coco and I tend to think that he may play with a bit of a chip on his shoulder next year for whatever team he plays. As far as the depth goes, I'm personally already on the Kalish bandwagon. I don't think its a case of the Twins not being excited as much as Ellsbury is contributing on Opening Day. Kalish is still a few years off with more of an opportunity not to pan out. I think Kalish has that Matt Kemp like power/speed/average potential. I'm very interested to follow him and Will Middlebrooks who appears to be a similar mold.

Edgar Renteria had a .811 Zone Rating in 2005. 'Nuff Said.

Ugh. I was basically agreeing with you. My point was that we don't know what next year brings. Coco is a great defender but so is Mike Lowell and he had a down year last year in that regard compared to what he normally brings to the table. The same COULD happen with Crisp. I am not saying that he will regress just that he could and he could also be better offensively. Personally, I think that the entire package that is Coco Crisp is a an average to a slightly above average center fielder. The one thing that he does extremely well isn't overly sexy and doesn't draw alot of attention except for the nightly web gems. I actually think that example made a spot on point. You need six starters - the Red Sox would have 7 with Santana and two guys in Tavarez and Snyder who could start if necessary. I think the Sox may explore other options if not in the offseason potentially at the deadline. I would think that guys like Shannon Stewart, Willy Taveras, Juan Pierre, Xavier Nady, Joey Gathright, Pat Burrell, and possibly Matt Kemp may be available to some extent for varying cost. I'm not arguing any of those guys value vs Coco but with the pitcher surplus its a possibility.

Or not. The issue with Rowand is he wants a five year deal and he's coming off of a career year. I don't see the Sox adding 40 million dollars of payroll over the next 5 if you include Santana while having to resign Beckett, Youk, Varitek and Paps not to mention Manny's options and eventual replacement. Next year, I would almost guarantee Crisp is with the Sox if Ellsbury is dealt and then they'd probably take a look at the situation next year.

Nope.

I cant believe I'm saying this but I agree with Jacko except the whole overpay thing. I actually think the deal that you propose isn't overpaying. Although the inclusion of Kalish would give me pause if we're including both Ellsbury and Lester if only because Kalish is that guy that would replace Ellsbury as the dynamic leadoff hitter. If we're talking about a just Lester deal then I include him.