VORP Bites the Dust!

[garion333]

Originally Posted by aquapong

I didn't change any of the financial settings going in. I'm 5 years into rebuilding the Phillies. There haven't been many elite free agents that have come available to really jumpstart my roster. But Yasiel Puig wants $39 mil per season. I had traded for Salvador Perez earlier and now he also wants $30 mil per season for like 8 years as an almost 30yo catcher. I need the firepower, but the amounts (or years) they want are insane. I've even seen closers ask for and get close to $20 mil per season.

Anyone else having this issue? I suppose once all the other teams are filled up with decrepit, overpaid geezers, I'll be able to scoop up all the newer stars they can't afford to extend and start my dynasty.

I don't think you meant to post this in this thread, but in the general forum itself.

Posting in this thread is ... dangerous.

[OldFatGuy]

Originally Posted by frangipard

Well, yes. They could put, say, me out there, and I'd make way more than 29 errors. They could also build a machine that sits in one spot, scoops up ground balls hit directly at it, and fires them to first base; it would field 1.000, but the team would be obviously worse off. I'm not sure how ridiculous hypotheticals prove anything either way. I'm not going to bother looking, but I doubt there are more than one or two AAA shortstops that made more than 29 errors (or less than 9). Or even AA.

Among actual major-league shortstops in the real world, the difference between the very best at "not making errors" and the very worst at it is about three plays per month. The difference in "getting to balls other guys couldn't" is much greater.

And again, you're talking about player evaluation while all I was talking about was the skill itself.

Yes, in evaluating real world starting major-league shortstops, there is more of a difference in their abilities to get to balls than in their abilities to not make errors. I said as much in my first post.

But the reason there isn't as much difference in not making errors is because they're already passed that test and that's why they're real world starting shortstops to begin with. Thus, making that the most important skill. I didn't say not making errors was the most important player evaluation tool regarding major league players, I said catching the ball with regularity (or not making errors) is the most important skill to have. I'll call your machine that can't move an inch but catches and makes every ground ball hit at it and raise you a machine that can get to EVERY ground ball but can't catch any of them. The first machine would be a better fielder than the second.

[frangipard]

Originally Posted by garion333

Posting in this thread is ... dangerous.

Don't frighten so easily.

[frangipard]

Originally Posted by OldFatGuy

But the reason there isn't as much difference in not making errors is because they're already passed that test and that's why they're real world starting shortstops to begin with.

I suppose then then I agree with you, though I'll admit I don't quite see the relevance.

ISTM we could also say "the first test is they must be a living human being." Which is indeed true...

[OldFatGuy]

Originally Posted by frangipard

ISTM we could also say "the first test is they must be a living human being." Which is indeed true...

Well, yeah, except once upon a time there was a Wizard of Oz at shortstop...

[chucksabr]

Originally Posted by OldFatGuy

I disagree. I think error prevention, or put another way, making outs when outs are there to be made, is THE most important useful skill. All the range in the world doesn't do anyone any good if they kick it when they get there or throw it into the stands at say twice the level of "average" MLB fielders.


Now it's true if one assumes that all MLB player should be capable of making routine plays at a decent rate, fielding percentage becomes less important in distinguishing between MLB players than perhaps other factors, such as range. But it's only when that assumption is made, i.e. that they can in fact catch the damn ball, that those other measurements become important. Which shows catching the damn ball is still the most important skill of all.


Here's a thought experiment to try and explain what I'm saying. Take Chuck Knoblauch at second when he had the yips throwing to first. If Chuck Knoblauch, at that time in his career, had the best range ever in the history of second basemen, he would still not be considered a good, or even average, fielder. I know that's an extreme example, but I just want to point out that no matter what other measures one uses to judge defensive acumen, IMO the most important skill is still to first catch and throw the ball accurately without making errors.

This is why range is not the end-all be-all of defensive evaluation, and no intelligent analyst ever claimed it was.

I think Syd's point might be that in today's game, with the advent of perfectly manicured fields and advanced glove design, it's much, much easier to field the ball when you get to it than it ever has been. Errors are so much less common among fielders that error prevention is not nearly as highly prized a skill as before, because practically everyone in the majors can do that. The other key parts of defense, such as range, arm and throw accuracy, among others, are far more important parts of the equation than they were 100 or more years ago.

But it is also true that players with more range can commit more errors because they get more chances, but they also make more plays by turning more sure hits into outs. That is a highly prized defensive skill, even if a few more errors occur as a result.

[Ruthian23]

Originally Posted by Questdog

Is my hubris showing......sorry....

And what is this data that we are to trust over our eyes except the collection of the observations of other eyes?

Every error marked down as hard fact is actually the result of someone's eyes observing and making a subjective judgement. Every 10% chance or 50% chance in the defensive metric mentioned before is not a hard fact, but a judgement that someone has made with their eyes.

Listen, I am not an anti-sabremetic throwback, but neither am I a bleating sheep swallowing the swill I am fed.

When a metric tells me one thing and my eyes, logic and/or common sense tells me another, am I supposed to say to myself, "You are just an idiot and do not comprehend these weighty matters or am I supposed to examine these metrics and try to figure out why there is the discrepancy between what I see and what I am told?

I am not telling you that you should believe me over what anyone else tells you. I am saying that I see a shortstop (Cozart) with less range than I have ever seen in any shortstop in my life, yet others rate him as one of the best in the business. Some even rate him high while acknowledging his deficiency in range. This makes no sense to me and I want to know how this is possible.

This is absolutely true. Question, question, question. People questioning and criticizing metrics is the only reason we have better metrics now, and we'll only get better metrics as that process continues. That being said, though, I think the point here is that your own beliefs and observations (really, especially your own beliefs and observations) should not be beyond your own questioning.

You mentioned that a lot of these stats are based on other sets of eyes, which is true. I think the circumstances of those eyes is probably more reliable than any single person's, though. Those eyes are probably trained to some extent in how to grade these plays to maintain some level of consistency, and then the eyes see every single play made by every single shortstop over the course of the entire season. A single person just can't do that. There aren't enough hours in the day.

So, on one hand, you have purely statistical defensive metrics, basic statistical defensive metrics, other eye driven defensive metrics, and other informed sets of eyes (and as good as your eye test may be, and as long as you've been watching the game, a lot of the other informed eyes have been watching it/have been directly involved in it longer) all saying one thing. If you're saying common sense says the other, maybe that common sense isn't that common.

[aquapong]

Originally Posted by garion333

I don't think you meant to post this in this thread, but in the general forum itself.

Posting in this thread is ... dangerous.

To quote Marshawn Lynch, "Yeah."

[OldFatGuy]

Originally Posted by frangipard

continuing an old conversation

Ian Desmond of the Nationals just made his 8th error in the 11th game of the season.
Now, yes, there is no way he will end up making 140 errors. In fact, he is likely not to exceed 30 or 40. But it won't be because he's somehow guaranteed to stop making them. It will be because if he gets to say, 20 errors in 25 games, he's not going to keep playing shortstop. And it won't matter if his range is such that he can get to ground balls behind first base (obviously and exaggeration).
This is what I meant by first and foremost, the most important fielding skill is catching the ball and making the plays. Or, if you prefer, not making errors. If Desmond keeps this up for another 11 games or so, someone else will be playing shortstop. And rightfully so.

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by garion333

I don't think you meant to post this in this thread, but in the general forum itself.

Posting in this thread is ... dangerous.

Heh, this THREAD will not bite the dust! I created a monster!!! Bwah, ha, ha, ha!!!