notin

Well, by "every play", I was referring to every batted ball in play. No need to watch all the called strikes and balls and certainly no need to count home runs. Now somehow pitch-framing data is also accumulated. I am not sure if that is simply done by a computer or done by an observer. But as robot ump technology exists, it can easily be used to measure OOZ strike calls from an individual catcher. And maybe they do use computer-aided technology to monitor defensive ratings now. If they don't, it certainly cannot be that far off...

It may also not be as complicated as you think. For example, unless they are monitoring catchers for pitch-framing, etc, how many plays does it really entail? There are maybe 50 batted balls in a single game on average, which is all they need to focus on. (This is a guess on my part, but with an average of 66 plate appearances per game, 9 strikeouts per game and an average, 6 walks per game on average, and maybe about 1-2 HR/game that they don't need to make a call on, it's probably close.) By watching a game that is already over and fast forwarding to the batted balls in play, it won't take a full 3 hours to watch a game. They also may have access to camera angles we don't have access to when we watch a televised game. No one has said the system is perfect. In fact, everyone admits it is not. But that doesn't mean it is useless, either. In fact, right now it is the best system in place and th incorporation of StatCast data for launch angles and exit velocity has probably enhanced it even more...

"They" implies multiple people. Presumably they have set of guildelines and/or standards to judge plays against. There will be differences in opinion and judgment on a lot of calls, but every play from every team is taken into account. I also would suspect a game is watched by multiple observers to reduce bias. And I would be shocked if a single observer was assigned to a single team for that exact same reason...

And those are two very different statements. And really, considering that baseball has been attracting more athletic players for the past 20 years or so, it's not surprising we are seeing better defensive center fielders and fewer Jon Kruk/Greg Luzinski/Pete Incavliglia type (although there are a few non-pitcher, non-catchers out here. Hello, Russell Martin, Matt Adams, and of course, Panda.)

While people should be responsible for their tweets, that the media feels the need to incite this issue over tweets some of these players made in high school is the really annoying part. I don't think I have condoned or agreed with any of the controversial sentiments any of the players have tweeted. But a lot of them grew up in an era where this type of communication is more mainstream as opposed to (what I would use Twitter for) a time for a more careful communication. And I'd be crazy naive to think that every player in MLB is a wholesome gentleman without any controversial thoughts in his head. I used to say if I met most of the players on the Sox, I probably would not like a lot of them. It's probably still true...

Especially since a lot of people apparently think that is what the second amendment refers to - keeping the citizenry armed in case the government gets too powerful. I digress politically - back to baseball. Go Sox. Squish the fish!

Exactly. The key is that they watch every play from every game. Certainly they categorize some incorrectly for Bradley, but that also means they are mis-categorizing some of the catches made by other center fielders as well. A lot of it balances out...

Or purée it and give him a straw...

Well how about that?

Yeah that part is a little too reminiscent of the XFL...

Well, not really. The US has no official language (an amendment to make English our official language was introduced in 1981 but never ratified). And in the past couple decades, the US has certainly become more accommodating for Spanish-speaking citizens to the point where most government offices and many businesses have bilingual signs. I could foresee this happening with another language, although who knows which one will be next...

Maybe MLB needs to institute a rule that you can only join a bench-clearing brawl if you are dressed in a clown costume, complete with oversized shoes...

Not necessarily. Don’t forget the last 3 expansions in baseball were not a result of growing popularity; they were needed to pay off collusion lawsuits the owners lost. I’d rather MLB just got rid of this “division” thing and took the best 4 teams from each league, or best 5 teams if they want to keep the wild card (which the networks probably do).

This is easy to believe. The more OOZ plays Betts makes, the fewer JBJ has a chance at. And some of the other better defensive CF’s in the AL are surrounded by some rather inept corner outfielders. However then there is Lorenzo Cain, was putting up great UZR numbers while playing in between Alex Gordon and Jarrod Dyson in KC...

I caught the tail end of Paul Blair’s career. In the 1970s and early 1980s whenI was a kid it was possible to see lots of other teams on Monday Night Baseball and see highlights from around the league onTWIB. ( Who else remembers TWIB?) One player I loved was Terry Puhl of the Houston Astros. He played so shallow and could still get back. Lee Mazzilli of the Mets did the same thing...

It’s tough to say because we see so much of him and so little of the others, unlike the people compiling UZR. Bradley does have a highlight reel this year, but are fans so sure Lorenzo Cain and Kevin Pillar don’t?

In fact, defense is also tough to judge by watching games on TV. How can you tell what kind of jump an outfielder gets, for example? On my TV, by the time the camera cuts to Bradley, he’s already in motion and sometimes already under the ball. (On rare occasions the camera behind the catcher is used, I can sometimes see the middle infielders and CF at the start of the play. But again, rare occasions.) Now physically being at Fenway or your local park of choice is another matter...

I don’t recommend contracting. But getting the Rays out of Tampa and to a city of potential Rays’ fans as opposed to retired Yankee fans might help that perennially cash-strapped organization...

WAR also gives larger defensive credit to players who have played multiple positions and potentially inflating their WAR value. I have (unsuccessfully) tried to have this process called “Zobristing”. On the one hand, I can understand the value of their versatility. But on the other hand, I don’t think I agree with the amount of WAR inflation it seems to lead to...

1. DH everywhere. Agreed. 2. No more expansion. If anything, go back to pre-division baseball and just use the best teams rather than giving a team an advantage by being in a division of low-market, constantly-tanking teams. 3. More challenges will lengthen games. And there always becomes the question of baserunner placement. For example, what if a catcher doesn’t throw at a runner moving on a 3-2 pitch because it’s called a ball. If that call gets reversed, what do you do with the baserunner? Send him back? He is legally on second, but the catcher also made the right play by not making an unnecessary throw and risking an error. 4. I’m ok with this, especially if they bring back double headers. Every team used to play two on Sundays. Maybe every team need not do this every Sunday, but there could be a lot more scheduled, which would go a long way to keeping the World Series out of November. 5. Agree except for the DL part and the 3 batter thing. While I hate the LOOGY strategy, it shouldn’t be negated by rules, but rather by strategic decisions. Also what do you do if a pitcher faces only two hitters and ends the inning? Does he have to come back and start the next inning or go on the DL? 6. Some teams do need to move, but it won’t be easy with existing lease agreements. And Boston, while a passionate fan base, might not be as big so as to support two teams. There are several untapped markets that make more sense...

I’m ok with the notion that he explained it better. I do agree with what he said. Heck, I’ve been quoting his previous posts...

Was there something there I didn’t say?

And if you believe in the human element of the game based on your experiences, you really shouldn’t believe in clutch or choke. Especially based on high school games. These guys in MLB are not the ones we played with in high school; they are a different breed entirely. They are among the best in the world at what they do and even the worst player in MLB is better at baseball than any of us are at anything (by “baseball”, in am referring to the sport in general, not MLB). They also all know it. I don’t think you can even get to MLB without levels of confidence and ego most of us cannot fathom. Whatever any of us experienced in high school and college baseball is immaterial comparatively, due to the watered down talent level from “normies”.

What about those of us who have played, coached and see the relevance of stats? Why is it you assume that it is an either/or scenario? That anyone who likes stats could not possibly have played the game? Or anyone who uses math? Do you assume this about people who compile stats, too? That the people at STATS, Inc or Fangraphs do not watch or know baseball and just use spreadsheets? Do you even know the origin of the term "sabermetrics"? Stats don't remove the human element from the game. Stats are a numerical recording of history. And WAR is a stat that attempts to encompass a player's offensive and defensive contribution into a single stats. It's a big task. It's the Manhattan Project of baseball stats. I know you like to say ou have nothing against WAR, but you only mention when in front of the words "is flawed". And saying "i not as important as you think it is" implies you know how strong we think it is." And once again, you refuse to look at alternative viewpoints. you get angry because some fans like stats as proof a concept exists. Yet somehow you think it needs exist because you say so. "Clutch" for example. Someone cites a study someone did that says it does not exist and you say it does but with no proof. Why should anyone believe you over someone with proof? I'm not saying there is no reason, but you never want to provide it. The debate eds these because you get angry your word isn't enough. Sure, you played in high school. So what? So did I. So did a lot of people on this board, and the division isn't "former players vs stat geeks;" the overlap is significant. Even at this stage of the debate, you still want to point out all the flaws of WAR. "Baseball Refernce dWAR sometimes falls behind oWAR." really? (Hint: It doesn't actually say what you said it says.) The problem with arguments like JBJ's defense is you seem to want everyone to believe it because you say so. His dWAR, his DRS and elements like that are only argument starters. not enders. Unless you have nothing else to counter with besides your personal beliefs...

It doesn’t end the debate. It starts it. For example, say you say “Betts deserves AL MVP.” And then I come back with “Jose Ramirez has better WAR.” It only ends the debate there if you quit. But ideally you were basing your nomination of Betts on some sort of data or observation. And this might be a good time to present it...