Is this the quantity for quality offseason?

[Gopher74]

LOL...I'm not saying that it wouldn't hurt him more than in New York(I am saying it wouldn't hurt his ERA whatsoever) but I think the impact will be minimal.

 

Gopher, no offense intended here, but if you want to ridicule people base on stats, you should really learn a little more about them - honestly, just a little more. I'm not saying I'm a stats guru, but I have very gradually tried to educated myself more & more, as opposed to assuming I know better than people who devote entire careers to devising accurate statistical measurements.

 

If that's the case, Andrew Jones hasn't been more than a slightly above average CF'er in his entire career, nor has Hunter who's been average or below average since 02.

 

I think you might be surprised in talking to scouts on both of these. Many scouts have been saying this for years now, but most people 'listen' to highlight videos. While you're correct in asserting that defensive metrics have their flaws, one principle error you're making is assigning your own (and honestly, my own until I read up a bit) meaning to "range." If you consider range as I did - the amount of ground a fielder is able to cover - you're going to be confused and frustrated by range-based metrics. But if you're willing to consider range in the way it's utilized for these metrics, you'll find yourself a lot happier.

 

Take how The Hardball Times defines zone: "The areas on a ballfield in which at least 50% of batted balls are handled for outs. Zones are standardized and defined separately for each position."

 

Now, I always considered a player's range to be - as I said - the ground he can cover as an athlete & fielder. However, when you recognize how THT employs "zone" in its Revised Zone Rating (RZR), you can see that it's not used in that way. Sure, you can look at range factor, but most 'statheads' (a group in which I do not count myself as having nearly enough expertise to belong) don't like to use RF, since it has obvious flaws. Hence, the creation of ZR, and then for similar reasons (flaws in ZR), RZR.

 

One stat that, imho, people commonly decide is 'range,' is OOZ (Out of Zone). Range, as it is used in metrics today, as I understand, almost inherently has to include the standard, defined-by-position (based on peers), zone. I think you'll find that many of the players (Braun not one of them) we think to have crazy range merely make more OOZ plays than their peers. There's nothing wrong with that, and there's certainly value in it, but there seems to be more value in handling your position's zone competently.

 

A 3.63 would equate to at least a 3.43 over here just given the standards AL-NL differential.

 

Except for the fact that our defense would cancel out any league-switch difference. Our INF defense has a long way to go just to be respectable - it's not all about errors. Using E's to judge defense is a lot like using W-L or ERA to judge a pitcher - in that it's deceptively inaccurate. Honestly, just take a look at where our defenders ranked in 2007 (THT's stats are nice & sortable! http://static.yuku.com//domainskins/bypass/img/smileys/smile.gif) in both RZR & OOZ. I hope you can take the time to do so, I think you'll really enjoy it. I know I have, and I still have a ton to learn.

First of all, I never ridiculed anyone. Saying I don't agree with them if VERY different than "ridiculing" them. That's absolutely ridiculous. Please point out where I did that. That's just humorous. Second, where did I assume that I knew more than anyone? Saying I disagree with something? You've got to be kidding me? And you've got the nerve to tell me that I'm "ridiculing"?

 

 

 

Second, if I listen to scouts? Perhaps you could point me towards some "scouts" who've said this. The scouts I've read, and I admit, I tend to read about or listen to just a couple, have said that Tori Hunter ranks as one of the greatest CF'er of all time, and Andrew Jones as well. So....I guess I'd have to see the scouts you're talking about, or read them rather.

 

And to round out this post, I was talking about Range Factor, not zone rating, and I was simply talking about the league adjustments.

 

But I'm still waiting for the points where I "ridiculed", or "thought I knew more than" than these people who've devoted their careers to statistics.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Gopher74]

That Grady Sizemore is one of the worst everyday CF'ers in the major leagues?

That Arod has the second worst range in the AL at 3rd?

That Adam Dunn has "average" range in left field?

 

Sizemore had the highest zone rating of all CF's in MLB.

 

ARod was middle of the pack in zone rating at 3B.

 

Dunn was near the middle, but look who was beneath him, Lee, Burrell, Bonds...truly poor defensive LF's. It's a weak position, so Dunn is indeed about middle of the pack.

 

Jones has been overrated for several years. He's a product of hype. Hunter used to be really good, but has lost a step. However, his diving attempt he missed was far from an easy play, probably just a couple CF's make it. He should have played it as a single.

 

Zone rating is by far the most consistent metric I've seen, the top guy one year is all but always near the top the next.

 

Cabrera barely rated above Braun, .714 to .697. The idea of someone "going by what I see", when that is always a tiny sample, is just pointless when there's zone rating to use.

And the lowest Range Factor. The stat that endaround used to tell me the Brewers IF'ers had the worst range in the game.

 

And Josh Willingham...and nearly the exact same as Raul Ibanez...

And you're right. Arod was first in one, and second last in the other. My point exactly. So which one is right? Or should both of them be used as part of the equation, but not as the absolute end all?

 

 

[pogokat]

yes, but personal observations vary just as much...i've seen andruw jones play in person about 80 times, and i would describe him as fat and nonchalant, so he must suck, right?

[Gopher74]

doa, in RZR, A-Rod was 8th of 9 qualified AL 3B, and 14th of 21 amongst those qualified in MLB. Sizemore was 12th of 17 in MLB. I realize you cited ZR, but I thought it was worth noting. http://static.yuku.com//domainskins/bypass/img/smileys/smile.gif

Those were my points. Players who are generally considered at the very least quality defensive players.

 

I certainly wasn't "ridiculing" anyone. I was just stating my own opinion on the validity, or lack thereof when regarding defensive ratings.

And that is even more obvious when those two ratings conflict with each other.

[TooLiveBrew]

First of all, I never ridiculed anyone. Saying I don't agree with them if VERY different than "ridiculing" them. That's absolutely ridiculous. Please point out where I did that. That's just humorous.

 

Just as you did there, you said, "LOL...I'm not saying that it wouldn't hurt him more than in New York(I am saying it wouldn't hurt his ERA whatsoever) but I think the impact will be minimal." In post #21. You seem to have a habit of ridiculing those who disagree with you.

 

Perhaps you could point me towards some "scouts" who've said this. The scouts I've read, and I admit, I tend to read about or listen to just a couple

 

I've heard the old "one NL scout"/"several AL scouts said..." stuff. Many scouts, speaking on obvious terms of anonymity, have felt that in recent years, Hunter's d has slipped noticeably (mostly just due to natural aging). Many scouts also agree that Jones has long been an overrated Cfer, though he too once was on a par with all-time greats. Where are you reading published writing from MLB scouts? I would genuinely love to read that stuff, and that isn't me being sarcastic.

 

I'd have to imagine an MLB scout would severely jeopardize his job security by publishing material like that, but I'd have to wait for Blazer to weigh in on that topic (or someone else with far more knowledge than me on that). Did you mean you've read stuff from retired scouts? That I could understand, and would still love to see. I think that at one time both Jones & Hunter were as good as you could find, but now they just aren't at that level anymore.

 

But I'm still waiting for the point where I... "thought I knew more than" than these people who've devoted their careers to statistics.

 

"I'm not sure what to say to that. Have you seen Cabrera play, or are you just going off of Range Factor? I'm asking a honest question here. I think people can get far to wrapped up in defensive ratings which I don't believe have a whole lotta use."

 

 

"There's just no way his range is anywhere near Braun's."

 

"And our IF does have good range. They make a lot of errors ruining their range factor, but they absolutely have good range in terms of balls they get to."

 

"I don't buy that Weeks and Braun, two of the better athletes to play 2nd and 3rd don't have good range simply because they make a lot of errors. And then next year when they don't make as many errors, I won't believe their range improved that much."

 

Whether or not you want to use your own definition of what is good range/bad range doesn't change how the stats are defined. Refusal to acknowledge that errors have to do with range is one reason why I tried to offer you some great ways to try to better understand RZR as a reasonably accurate defensive stat. Did you even bother? Errors play a huge part in a player's range. What good is being able to reach a ball if you can't convert it into an out? The number of times where keeping the ball in the infield saves a run (or an extra base) are very, very few - which isn't to say there's no value in doing so. There is, but just not as much as turing the balls that a player reaches into outs.

[TooLiveBrew]

And that is even more obvious when those two ratings conflict with each other.

Of course they do. That was sort of the intent in changing from ZR to RZR. Again, quoth THT: "Zone Rating was invented by John Dewan when he was CEO of Stats Inc. John is now the owner of Baseball Info Solutions, where he has revised the original Zone Rating calculation so that it now lists balls handled out of the zone (OOZ) separately (and doesn't include them in the ZR calculation) and doesn't give players extra credit for double plays (Stats had already made that change). We believe both changes improve Zone Ratings substantially. To get a full picture of a player's range, you should evaluate both his Revised Zone Rating and his plays made out of zone (OOZ)."

 

I'm pretty sure that when endaround mentioned the "range" of players, he was referring to RZR. I know he didn't state that, but I also know end tends to like RZR, iirc. If you like the OOZ factor, and can discount/adjust to the odd bump that some INFs will recieve, try ZR. It's not a bad stat in and of itself. I like RZR, but ZR can be helpful for OFs, imho.

[Gopher74]

First of all, I never ridiculed anyone. Saying I don't agree with them if VERY different than "ridiculing" them. That's absolutely ridiculous. Please point out where I did that. That's just humorous.

 

Just as you did there, you said, "LOL...I'm not saying that it wouldn't hurt him more than in New York(I am saying it wouldn't hurt his ERA whatsoever) but I think the impact will be minimal." In post #21. You seem to have a habit of ridiculing those who disagree with you.

 

Perhaps you could point me towards some "scouts" who've said this. The scouts I've read, and I admit, I tend to read about or listen to just a couple

 

I've heard the old "one NL scout"/"several AL scouts said..." stuff. Many scouts, speaking on obvious terms of anonymity, have felt that in recent years, Hunter's d has slipped noticeably (mostly just due to natural aging). Many scouts also agree that Jones has long been an overrated Cfer, though he too once was on a par with all-time greats. Where are you reading published writing from MLB scouts? I would genuinely love to read that stuff, and that isn't me being sarcastic.

 

I'd have to imagine an MLB scout would severely jeopardize his job security by publishing material like that, but I'd have to wait for Blazer to weigh in on that topic (or someone else with far more knowledge than me on that). Did you mean you've read stuff from retired scouts? That I could understand, and would still love to see. I think that at one time both Jones & Hunter were as good as you could find, but now they just aren't at that level anymore.

 

But I'm still waiting for the point where I... "thought I knew more than" than these people who've devoted their careers to statistics.

 

"I'm not sure what to say to that. Have you seen Cabrera play, or are you just going off of Range Factor? I'm asking a honest question here. I think people can get far to wrapped up in defensive ratings which I don't believe have a whole lotta use."

 

 

"There's just no way his range is anywhere near Braun's."

 

"And our IF does have good range. They make a lot of errors ruining their range factor, but they absolutely have good range in terms of balls they get to."

 

"I don't buy that Weeks and Braun, two of the better athletes to play 2nd and 3rd don't have good range simply because they make a lot of errors. And then next year when they don't make as many errors, I won't believe their range improved that much."

 

Whether or not you want to use your own definition of what is good range/bad range doesn't change how the stats are defined. Refusal to acknowledge that errors have to do with range is one reason why I tried to offer you some great ways to try to better understand RZR as a reasonably accurate defensive stat. Did you even bother? Errors play a huge part in a player's range. What good is being able to reach a ball if you can't convert it into an out? The number of times where keeping the ball in the infield saves a run (or an extra base) are very, very few - which isn't to say there's no value in doing so. There is, but just not as much as turing the balls that a player reaches into outs.

Just as you did there, you said, "LOL...I'm not saying that it wouldn't hurt him more than in New York(I am saying it wouldn't hurt his ERA whatsoever) but I think the impact will be minimal." In post #21. You seem to have a habit of ridiculing those who disagree with you

Are you joking? First of all, how is that in any way ridiculing? I'm agreeing with him, but simply stating that I don't think that it's be as bad as he thinks. So maybe you can show me how that's ridiculing him?

 

Never mind you said that I was ridiculing people based on stats. I have to believe you have more than this one quote, and then a quote of me asking you to show me when you clearly attacked me. You said I ridiculed someone based on stats. Either show it, or don't bring it up.

 

I disagreed, and I did so incredibly respectfully.

 

I've heard the old "one NL scout"/"several AL scouts said..." stuff. Many scouts, speaking on obvious terms of anonymity, have felt that in recent years, Hunter's d has slipped noticeably (mostly just due to natural aging). Many scouts also agree that Jones has long been an overrated Cfer, though he too once was on a par with all-time greats. Where are you reading published writing from MLB scouts? I would genuinely love to read that stuff, and that isn't me being sarcastic.

And I've heard Buster Olney and Peter Gammons talk about how they, and people inside of Baseball feel as though Tori Hunter is the greatest defensive CF'er of all time, and Andrew Jones is one of the best in the game.

 

And I'm reading it from BaseballAmerica, Baseball Prospectus, and ESPN.com mainly. Among others, but those are my main sources.

 

"I'm not sure what to say to that. Have you seen Cabrera play, or are you just going off of Range Factor? I'm asking a honest question here. I think people can get far to wrapped up in defensive ratings which I don't believe have a whole lotta use."


"There's just no way his range is anywhere near Braun's."

"And our IF does have good range. They make a lot of errors ruining their range factor, but they absolutely have good range in terms of balls they get to."

"I don't buy that Weeks and Braun, two of the better athletes to play 2nd and 3rd don't have good range simply because they make a lot of errors. And then next year when they don't make as many errors, I won't believe their range improved that much."

 

So basically you've decided that I'd better adhere to YOUR opinion,or else I'm ridiculing, and apparently, the people on this board who I don't agree with, respectfully, but all the same, don't agree with have dedicated their lifes to statistics?

Whether or not you want to use your own definition of what is good range/bad range doesn't change how the stats are defined. Refusal to acknowledge that errors have to do with range is one reason why I tried to offer you some great ways to try to better understand RZR as a reasonably accurate defensive stat. Did you even bother? Errors play a huge part in a player's range. What good is being able to reach a ball if you can't convert it into an out? The number of times where keeping the ball in the infield saves a run (or an extra base) are very, very few - which isn't to say there's no value in doing so. There is, but just not as much as turing the balls that a player reaches into outs. This is honestly your argument? You call me out, bash me, and you clearly haven't read the start of this argument.

 

Refusal to acknowledge? Amazing.

 

Could you perhaps tone down the condescending tone? Once again, I understand, I don't agree. '

 

First of all, thank you VERY much for pointing out that it doesn't matter if you reach a ball if you make an error. Really, very helpful. Doesn't have anything to do with the point that I'm making, or the point that I've made any time that I've argued this point.

I think each time this argument has been brought up, it's been in relation to how it'd effect a pitchers ERA. My argument was that when you eliminate this teams errors(as they don't effect ERA) they get to, at the VERY LEAST, as many balls as most IF'ers. Braun, Weeks..ect..ect.

 

So my point is, they're not going to negatively effect a pitchers ERA. They're going to make a good deal of errors. That's just abundantly obvious, we know this, and it's never been disputed. But because they make a lot of errors doesn't mean they have worse range than Cabrera, or whoever. And THAT is my problem with range factor. That it errors have too much weight, and that you CAN'T accurately judge who has better range because or all the variables involved.

 

You see, it's not that I don't understand it, or that me not agreeing is somehow "ridiculing", it's that I don't agree.

 

But hey, if you agree that Carbrera has more range than Ryan Braun, you're free to that opinion, and I certainly won't take offense to it. I'd ask you do the same.

 

Whether or not you want to use your own definition of what is good range/bad range doesn't change how the stats are defined.

 

No kidding. Once again, my point is, and always has been that I don't believe in the accuracy of defensive stat, an opinion that is hardly unique. I'd point you to the sports writers around the country who vote for GG'ers.

 

 

[Gopher74]

And that is even more obvious when those two ratings conflict with each other.

Of course they do. That was sort of the intent in changing from ZR to RZR. Again, quoth THT: "Zone Rating was invented by John Dewan when he was CEO of Stats Inc. John is now the owner of Baseball Info Solutions, where he has revised the original Zone Rating calculation so that it now lists balls handled out of the zone (OOZ) separately (and doesn't include them in the ZR calculation) and doesn't give players extra credit for double plays (Stats had already made that change). We believe both changes improve Zone Ratings substantially. To get a full picture of a player's range, you should evaluate both his Revised Zone Rating and his plays made out of zone (OOZ)."

 

I'm pretty sure that when endaround mentioned the "range" of players, he was referring to RZR. I know he didn't state that, but I also know end tends to like RZR, iirc. If you like the OOZ factor, and can discount/adjust to the odd bump that some INFs will recieve, try ZR. It's not a bad stat in and of itself. I like RZR, but ZR can be helpful for OFs, imho.

No, since he quoted their "range factor", I think it's pretty clear he was using that one.

 

But if one has a player among the worse, and another has a player among the best, and both of those are used commonly, can you explain to me(since I don't have a career invested in statistics) as to how they can both be valid?

[brewers19]

Stick to the topic, please. No more arguing about who ridiculed who.

[TooLiveBrew]

No, since he quoted their "range factor", I think it's pretty clear he was using that one.

Endaround's lone post in this thread -

 

"Our infield doesn't have great range. The infield doesn't get to balls, it can't throw the ball and the first baseman can't dig the ball.

And yes Braun has less range than Cabrera"

 

You responded later, "...Range Factor. The stat that endaround used to tell me the Brewers IF'ers had the worst range in the game." No "factor" in end's post. In discussing defense in the past with end, when he mentions range, he is often referring to RZR. In fact, the 2d sentence of that post is describing RZR. Just because you assume that someone means something doesn't make it so. To be fair, I could be incorrect about what he meant, but going on what he's said in the past, this is my conclusion.

 

I'd point you to the sports writers around the country who vote for GG'ers.

 

Since others (a group which includes Tom Haudricourt) ignore more accurate data (not perfect, but more accurate) and rely upon 'who hits the best with the least errors', I'm supposed to accept that it's correct? Look, man, I could honestly care less if you agree or disagree with me - or anyone on this board. I just wish you'd take care to avoid assumptions and look at more than what you already 'know' to be true. If you were willing to be a little more objective and we disagreed, fine, no problem. More power to you.

And I'm reading it from BaseballAmerica, Baseball Prospectus, and ESPN.com mainly. Among others, but those are my main sources.

 

Do they employ retired MLB scouts? I honestly don't know. Buster Olney and Peter Gammons, though, are not scouts. Peter Gammons consistently touts pitchers' W-L records & ERAs.

 

So basically you've decided that I'd better adhere to YOUR opinion,or else I'm ridiculing, and apparently, the people on this board who I don't agree with, respectfully, but all the same, don't agree with have dedicated their lifes to statistics?

 

No, you asked for specific examples of where you 'thought you knew more' than statistical professionals, so I provided them. It has nothing to do with any sort of chest-thumping need to be superior. I answered your question.

 

So my point is, they're not going to negatively effect a pitchers ERA. They're going to make a good deal of errors. That's just abundantly obvious, we know this, and it's never been disputed. But because they make a lot of errors doesn't mean they have worse range than Cabrera, or whoever.

 

But poor defense will affect ERA. No error can occur on a double-play situation where Weeks tosses a wild one in the dirt or past Fielder, preventing a double play. No error occurs when a player gets a friendly 'home-field' scorer's decision, it's just another "Single to 2B Rickie Weeks/Ryan Braun" on Gameday. The last sentence I quote here helps illustrate what I mean about you refusing to accept the manner in which range/zone is defined. Regardless of what you or I would like range/zone to be, the fact that Braun is physically capable of getting to more balls than Cabrera is negated by Braun's horrid throwing accuracy.

 

And THAT is my problem with range factor. That it errors have too much weight, and that you CAN'T accurately judge who has better range because or all the variables involved.

This line of thinking is what OOZ trys to cover. And as I mentioned, if you like what OOZ brings (I personally do), look at ZR. It adds in those plays that one can make (Braun, for your example) that other's can't/don't (Cabrera).

 

But if one has a player among the worse, and another has a player among the best, and both of those are used commonly, can you explain to me(since I don't have a career invested in statistics) as to how they can both be valid?

 

Because they're different stats. I tried to demonstrate this in my last post, but you took it as mean-spirited, which it really wasn't. RZR is quite different from ZR. They're complementary, and in some cases contradictory. No one is saying that defensive metrics don't have weaknesses. In fact, I said that outright. It's just that they aren't worthless or 'don't have a whole lot of use.' To say that ("they don't have a whole lot of use") is to suggest that you (or I, or anyone who'd claim that) know so much that we can't possibly be wrong. I'm fine if you don't agree with me, but I think I'd be much more willing to give you a tip o' the cap if you'd be willing to be a little (and I do honestly just mean a little - not an insult) more objective.

 

I think there's some good debate in this thread, so please stop assuming that I'm being condescending. I'm really trying to not be, but when I'm being told how my claims are "amazing"ly off-base, that I'm forcing you to agree, and being met with an overall argumentative instead of analytical tone in general, it's tough. I made sure to start off by telling you that I meant no offense, and that was honest. I just think you (and I, and any fan) can benefit from exploring some of the newer (though imperfect) defensive metrics.

 

So which one is right? Or should both of them be used as part of the equation, but not as the absolute end all?

 

Right on. That's exactly what I'm getting at, and that in no way makes me "right" or you "wrong." It just means that more than impressions and preferences are included in the discussion.

[And That]

Adam Dunn is a truly terrible defensive player... one of the best! Let's just say Frank Catalanotto would be a marked improvement.

 

If you get Dunn, it's because you desperately need offense. The Brewers don't, so they won't. I mean, experimenting with Prince in left would be fun, but...

[ILuvDaBush]

Back to the point at hand, what would be a vible offer from the Brewz for Rich Harden? I would assume it would be similar to an offer for Ben, given that Ben has the higher ceiling, and has tapped that ceiling on occasion, but is also more expensive and only under contract for one more year. Capuano/Jr. Gwynny/Gross/Estrada? But if I'm Billy Beane, I'm asking for Hart....and getting denied.

[dadofandrew]

Range factor is worthless, unless you are comparing 2 players on the same team, as RF is determined by balls you get to, meaning your pitching staff (right/left, flyball/groundball) controls how many opportunities you have. If you have 2 players who played 50+ games at the same position on the same team, you can compare them. But, on two different teams, it's apples and oranges.

[Gopher74]

Since others (a group which includes Tom Haudricourt) ignore more accurate data (not perfect, but more accurate) and rely upon 'who hits the best with the least errors', I'm supposed to accept that it's correct? Look, man, I could honestly care less if you agree or disagree with me - or anyone on this board. I just wish you'd take care to avoid assumptions and look at more than what you already 'know' to be true. If you were willing to be a little more objective and we disagreed, fine, no problem. More power to you.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't you JUST the one calling me out for "thinking I know more than people who've spent their life" doing something? So it's NOT alright that I don't think that defensive ratings are alright because for some reason that's a insult to people who...come up with stats, but it's alright for you to dismiss who professional sports writers vote for awards? Don't get me wrong, I certainly don't think they're gods on the subject, I just find the contradictions humorous.

 

Do they employ retired MLB scouts? I honestly don't know. Buster Olney and Peter Gammons, though, are not scouts. Peter Gammons consistently touts pitchers' W-L records & ERAs.

 

They were nothing more than two examples. Guys who's opinion I'm sure I should also ignore. They've mentioned what people around baseball say. I must say, I'm not sure how I'm suppose to get a chance to talk to the anonymous scouts you've heard talk about how Hunter is just an average defender.

No, you asked for specific examples of where you 'thought you knew more' than statistical professionals, so I provided them. It has nothing to do with any sort of chest-thumping need to be superior. I answered your question.

Oh, I guess I didn't know anyone on this board was a "statistical professional. Also, the fact that you don't think ERA is a good measure of a pitcher. Wouldn't you be doing the same thing?

 

But poor defense will affect ERA. No error can occur on a double-play situation where Weeks tosses a wild one in the dirt or past Fielder, preventing a double play. No error occurs when a player gets a friendly 'home-field' scorer's decision, it's just another "Single to 2B Rickie Weeks/Ryan Braun" on Gameday. The last sentence I quote here helps illustrate what I mean about you refusing to accept the manner in which range/zone is defined. Regardless of what you or I would like range/zone to be, the fact that Braun is physically capable of getting to more balls than Cabrera is negated by Braun's horrid throwing accuracy.

 

And as related to Braun's "horrid throwing accuracy", he's charged errors for bad throws. And those do not effect an ERA. As I've said time and time again, I believe quite simply that Braun can move further to get to balls that are hit.

As for your argument about Weeks wild throws preventing a double play, I'd argue those are VERY few and far in between. How many times would you say he's done that last year when he hasn't been charged an error? Now how many times would you say that runs scored?

As for the "friendly home field scorer decisions", you're questioning yet again what one does for a living. Quite literally those who work in statistics. I'm not sure how valid the argument is that they get away with errors, but I digress. You go out of your way to call me out for saying that I think I know more than people who dedicate their life to statistics for saying that I don't believe that Braun has less range then Cabrera, a comment that says absolutely nothing of any professional, yet you again profess to know more than a professional.

 

This line of thinking is what OOZ trys to cover. And as I mentioned, if you like what OOZ brings (I personally do), look at ZR. It adds in those plays that one can make (Braun, for your example) that other's can't/don't (Cabrera).

 

Again proving the point that defensive stats are to subjective to be used as the main indication of a defensive players value IMO. I'm not quite sure why it's not alright with you for ME to have this point of view, but RF has been used several times on here. When that is directly contradicting what ZR has to say, or OOZ, then you're just suppose to pick which one you like the best?

 

 

Because they're different stats. I tried to demonstrate this in my last post, but you took it as mean-spirited, which it really wasn't. RZR is quite different from ZR. They're complementary, and in some cases contradictory. No one is saying that defensive metrics don't have weaknesses. In fact, I said that outright. It's just that they aren't worthless or 'don't have a whole lot of use.' To say that ("they don't have a whole lot of use") is to suggest that you (or I, or anyone who'd claim that) know so much that we can't possibly be wrong. I'm fine if you don't agree with me, but I think I'd be much more willing to give you a tip o' the cap if you'd be willing to be a little (and I do honestly just mean a little - not an insult) more objective.

 

So when you told me that if I wanted to ridicule people(something I never did) based on stats that I should learn a little more about them? That wasn't condescending? Alright. Well, once again, I know full well what the stats mean. That's your arrogance assuming that I don't understand what they mean. I absolutely understand what they mean, and simply don't agree with how much value is placed upon them on here. In one thread people are pointing out Range Factor(I was wrong, it wasn't endaround, my mistake, it was steve-o in another thread), and in this thread it's Zone Rating. One has a player listed first, one second last.

I just think that some people tend to spend too much time focusing on statistics and lose the fact that statistics can essentially tell you anything you want them to. They can tell you(and I bought in hook line and sinker) that Dave Bush really is a front-line starter. They can tell you that Miquel Cabrera has better range than Ryan Braun. They can tell you up is down if you spend enough time staring at them.

 

I think there's some good debate in this thread, so please stop assuming that I'm being condescending. I'm really trying to not be, but when I'm being told how my claims are "amazing"ly off-base, that I'm forcing you to agree, and being met with an overall argumentative instead of analytical tone in general, it's tough. I made sure to start off by telling you that I meant no offense, and that was honest. I just think you (and I, and any fan) can benefit from exploring some of the newer (though imperfect) defensive metrics.

 

It's funny, I usually find the phrase, "I mean no offense", is almost without fail, followed by offensive words. Such as

Gopher, no offense intended here, but if you want to ridicule people base on stats, you should really learn a little more about them

Did you even bother? Errors play a huge part in a player's range. What good is being able to reach a ball if you can't convert it into an out?

Whether or not you want to use your own definition of what is good range/bad range doesn't change how the stats are defined.

You seem to have a habit of ridiculing those who disagree with you.

Nope. None of those were condescending in the least bit.

If you're going to make the comment that I "make it a habbit to ridicule people who I disagree with" then back it up with absolutely anything other than me disagreeing, not just one example of me essentially admitting that I didn't articulate myself well enough, and agreeing with the person I was disagreeing with.

 

It's funny, you take offense to me making statements that I feel to be true, such as "Cabrera does not have better range than Braun", or this statement, which also obviously upset you,

" I don't buy that Weeks and Braun, two of the better athletes to play 2nd and 3rd don't have good range simply because they make a lot of errors. And then next year when they don't make as many errors, I won't believe their range improved that much."

And I'm just curious why. You said it was because I "think I know more than people who've dedicated their lifes to coming up with statistical data", yet you've got no problem claiming to know more than sports writers, the official scorer, and just anyone who disagrees with you(As evidence of you're need to try and explain what the stat was simply because I stated I didn't agree with it's value.

 

I certainly didn't set out to get into an argument, and me saying that I don't believe that Miquel Cabrera, maybe the slowest moving 3rd basemen in the game has better range than Braun is my opinion.

[brewers19]

Remember when I said, "Stick to the topic, please. No more arguing about who ridiculed who."? I wasn't kidding around; I actually meant it. To try and make my point even clearer, I'm going to start deleting posts and doling out strikes to those who are incapable of letting go of this petty bickering.

[MoneyballMan]

Stick to the topic, please. No more arguing about who ridiculed who.

Thank you! Geez, it was getting hard to read through this thread!!

[Weirdos19]

Wow, didn't mean to start an arguement.

 

My idea with Wang is that the Yankees have no patience when it comes to postseason failures. Look at Arod. If he hadn't been there, the Yanks don't see the playoffs in 2006 or 07. Yet, that's all you hear about.

 

With the Yankees, it all depends on who they re-sign. Abreu, Posada, Rivera, Pettitte, and Clemens are free agents. Clemens needs to retire, and Pettitte has hinted at it too. But, Pettitte has never been considered the ace there, so I think he stays.

 

And, I forgot about Pittsburgh. They could have pitching available. I'd love to see Snell here for Bill Hall.

[TooLiveBrew]

...the Yankees have no patience when it comes to postseason failures. Look at Arod. If he hadn't been there, the Yanks don't see the playoffs in 2006 or 07. Yet, that's all you hear about.

 

If the first part of your statement were true, A-Rod would've been gone long ago. If you meant "Yankees fans & the media," then yes, absolutely correct. Those are the ones from whom you hear that stuff, not the franchise. They've stuck up for A-Rod from day one of this critique.

 

EDIT: Geez, it was getting hard to read through this thread!!

Sorry about that. http://static.yuku.com//domainskins/bypass/img/smileys/embarassed.gif

[brewdude15]

I would take Dontrelle for Gross and ZJ in a second.

[kgbaseball]

Would the Fish do that? Absolutely not.