SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 12, 2015 12:00:39 GMT -5
On a possibly more interesting note, Xander ranks 10th among the 30 MLB SS with the most innings, in both DRS / inning and UZR / 150.
And that's with a negative DP runs rating, and he's shown tremendous improvement in that over the year.
UZR breaks down why he's +3 DRS and +2.6 UZR so far: slightly below average range for a SS (-2.5 runs so far) but more than makes up for it with reliability (+6.0). And if you think about it, that's the way you want it to go if you had a choice. An error on an easy play can have a much bigger negative psychological affect on a pitcher than a great play has a positive affect. Xander literally makes nearly all the routine plays and a solid share of good ones
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Sept 12, 2015 18:13:47 GMT -5
On a possibly more interesting note, Xander ranks 10th among the 30 MLB SS with the most innings, in both DRS / inning and UZR / 150. And that's with a negative DP runs rating, and he's shown tremendous improvement in that over the year. UZR breaks down why he's +3 DRS and +2.6 UZR so far: slightly below average range for a SS (-2.5 runs so far) but more than makes up for it with reliability (+6.0). And if you think about it, that's the way you want it to go if you had a choice. An error on an easy play can have a much bigger negative psychological affect on a pitcher than a great play has a positive affect (sic). Xander literally makes nearly all the routine plays and a solid share of good ones Hah Hah Hee Hee. And Derek Jeter was a great defensive SS. Someone actually paid you to do analysis?
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Sept 12, 2015 20:30:28 GMT -5
Greatness with the bat often leads to overlooking some defensive lapses.
Manny was an idiot savant in that all he could do was hit. Look at all the slack he got about his fielding?
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Sept 12, 2015 21:41:59 GMT -5
On a possibly more interesting note, Xander ranks 10th among the 30 MLB SS with the most innings, in both DRS / inning and UZR / 150. And that's with a negative DP runs rating, and he's shown tremendous improvement in that over the year. UZR breaks down why he's +3 DRS and +2.6 UZR so far: slightly below average range for a SS (-2.5 runs so far) but more than makes up for it with reliability (+6.0). And if you think about it, that's the way you want it to go if you had a choice. An error on an easy play can have a much bigger negative psychological affect on a pitcher than a great play has a positive affect (sic). Xander literally makes nearly all the routine plays and a solid share of good ones Hah Hah Hee Hee. And Derek Jeter was a great defensive SS. Someone actually paid you to do analysis? The mature insight you bring is breathtaking.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Sept 12, 2015 21:46:39 GMT -5
Greatness with the bat often leads to overlooking some defensive lapses. Manny was an idiot savant in that all he could do was hit. Look at all the slack he got about his fielding? Manny was a terrible fielder, though. Bogey is above-average and continues to improve. He's far more Ripken than Ozzie, but at least he doesn't make a lot of mental errors. FWIW, Ted Williams wasn't much of a fielder either (nor is Cabrera), but Mattingly did both exceedingly well, and Trout's a pretty good CF. I think it depends on the individual, and whether or not they hyper-focus on one area or work to improve across the board. Frankly, X's improvement across the board is a great sign, I think.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 12, 2015 22:10:46 GMT -5
On a possibly more interesting note, Xander ranks 10th among the 30 MLB SS with the most innings, in both DRS / inning and UZR / 150. And that's with a negative DP runs rating, and he's shown tremendous improvement in that over the year. UZR breaks down why he's +3 DRS and +2.6 UZR so far: slightly below average range for a SS (-2.5 runs so far) but more than makes up for it with reliability (+6.0). And if you think about it, that's the way you want it to go if you had a choice. An error on an easy play can have a much bigger negative psychological affect on a pitcher than a great play has a positive affect (sic). Xander literally makes nearly all the routine plays and a solid share of good ones Hah Hah Hee Hee. And Derek Jeter was a great defensive SS. Someone actually paid you to do analysis? The amusing thing is that people who make posts like this tend to be the same people who rail at the Derek Lowes of the world when they fall apart when someone boots an easy ball behind them. (Or maybe they're not. But it's fun to think that they are!) There's no question in my mind that if you looked at all the data, you'd find a small percentage of pitchers who pitch worse after an error. It might amount to a run over the course of a year for the average team, and it might be less. Or more. My point was that all things being equal, if you were forced to pick between the two, you'd take steady over erratic for fairly obvious, these-guys-are-not-in-fact-random-number-generator reasons. Here's another way of framing it: ask every MLB player whether they'd rather play behind a SS who, in a given game, made all the routine and good plays but failed to make an incredible one (which, BTW, would not be noticed), and one who booted an absolutely routine play but made an incredible one to make up for it. I'm pretty confident that the answer would be close to unanimous in favor of the former. And even if you can't demonstrate that the greater psychological comfort with the guy who is steady and predictable doesn't lead to improved play by his teammates, why wouldn't you bet that way, if you got to make that choice?
|
|
|
Post by bosox81 on Sept 12, 2015 22:17:33 GMT -5
eric, I don't buy everything you tell me. But I have to commend you for taking all the vitriol people have been throwing at you in a calm and collected manner. Not easy to do.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan06 on Sept 12, 2015 22:22:53 GMT -5
Bogaerts is at 4.1 bWAR and 3.8 fWAR.
Say anything you want about him, but if you told me that is that was the kind of value he'd be providing for us at the age of 22, I'd be EXTREMELY happy.
And with his work ethic, he is only going to get better.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 12, 2015 23:32:48 GMT -5
eric, I don't buy everything you tell me. But I have to commend you for taking all the vitriol people have been throwing at you in a calm and collected manner. Not easy to do. Two keys to my measured response: "Backspace" and "Delete."
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Sept 13, 2015 0:59:08 GMT -5
Greatness with the bat often leads to overlooking some defensive lapses. Manny was an idiot savant in that all he could do was hit. Look at all the slack he got about his fielding? Manny was a terrible fielder, though. Bogey is above-average and continues to improve. He's far more Ripken than Ozzie, but at least he doesn't make a lot of mental errors. FWIW, Ted Williams wasn't much of a fielder either (nor is Cabrera), but Mattingly did both exceedingly well, and Trout's a pretty good CF. I think it depends on the individual, and whether or not they hyper-focus on one area or work to improve across the board. Frankly, X's improvement across the board is a great sign, I think. I mean jeter not bogey.
|
|
|
Post by pdangle on Sept 13, 2015 4:44:27 GMT -5
Anyone whose played ball for any length of time would agree 100% here and take the sure handiness. It's demoralizing to watch someone boot, or boot yourself, a gimme. While very rare to go, "man I wish we had some other guy in there that might have got to that tough ball in the hole...". That's more... more, just baseball. But those routine errors sting. While obviously a hit is a hit, making the plays you are supposed to make, and making the throws is part of it too. Sometimes the whole strategy of the inning is to pitch around someone, and get that weak grounder from that poor hitter, or induce that rolling tailor made DP from the next guy. When you blow that, it hurts mentally AND on the scoreboard more than a normal hit to the hole. Quantifying is tough, but I'd easily give up minus 2.5% range for exceptional reliability in a MLB fielder, and more emotionally, definitely as my teammate. All things being equal of course. I'd say as a MLB SS not getting to 4-5 seeing-eye singles a year is worth making all the plays you are supposed to WHEN your are supposed to. So I'd also take the steady glove both for avoiding any in-game mental team morale hit AND the intra-inning defensive management advantage over slightly (oh so slightly) less range. Hah Hah Hee Hee. And Derek Jeter was a great defensive SS. Someone actually paid you to do analysis? The amusing thing is that people who make posts like this tend to be the same people who rail at the Derek Lowes of the world when they fall apart when someone boots an easy ball behind them. (Or maybe they're not. But it's fun to think that they are!) There's no question in my mind that if you looked at all the data, you'd find a small percentage of pitchers who pitch worse after an error. It might amount to a run over the course of a year for the average team, and it might be less. Or more. My point was that all things being equal, if you were forced to pick between the two, you'd take steady over erratic for fairly obvious, these-guys-are-not-in-fact-random-number-generator reasons. Here's another way of framing it: ask every MLB player whether they'd rather play behind a SS who, in a given game, made all the routine and good plays but failed to make an incredible one (which, BTW, would not be noticed), and one who booted an absolutely routine play but made an incredible one to make up for it. I'm pretty confident that the answer would be close to unanimous in favor of the former. And even if you can't demonstrate that the greater psychological comfort with the guy who is steady and predictable doesn't lead to improved play by his teammates, why wouldn't you bet that way, if you got to make that choice?
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Sept 13, 2015 7:10:18 GMT -5
The object of the defense is to turn batted balls into outs
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Sept 13, 2015 7:17:20 GMT -5
The object of the defense is to turn batted balls into outs Thanks for adding to the discussion. The argument that having a reliable defender is more valuable than an erratic one that makes great plays seems reasonable to me. Though as has been acknowledged the difference is likely slight. If you think otherwise than say so. I'd like to hear your thought process.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Sept 13, 2015 7:30:47 GMT -5
I dunno ... this seems like sort of a meaningless distinction. Range is valuable. Reliability is valuable. How you weight the two depends entirely on the quality of each in the player. A guy who has great range but boots things constantly isn't any less valuable than a guy that catches everything but can't move more than a foot in either direction because they both are unacceptable. I get the psychological argument, but I'm quite sure a pitcher would get incredibly frustrated with a guy with absolutely no range, too. I never played past high school, but I did play with one guy on third base that was a statue, seemed to never reach anything. Drove me nuts.
Back to Xander, both his range and his reliability are light-years better than when I saw him at Salem, but, by the eye test, especially the range. He's on the "reliability" side of the scale, for sure, but it's probably his improvement in range that's pushed him over the top into being above average as a defender. It's quite an accomplishment.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Sept 13, 2015 8:20:20 GMT -5
Much the same argument for reliability could be made for every position, although SS probably is the most important. But recall what was going on earlier in the season when Hanley was butchering LF. It was obvious that it was demoralizing the pitchers to see what should have been routine outs turning into hits, sometimes extra base hits.
That had to be one of the factors in the collapse of the pitching early on. And as evidence of that, since he stopped playing LF, the pitching has improved, especially the starting pitching. Clearly, most of that is due to the pitchers just pitching better, but balls hit to the OF that should be caught now are being caught.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,989
|
Post by jimoh on Sept 13, 2015 12:03:37 GMT -5
Here's another way of framing it: ask every MLB player whether .... Really? This is an argument? I mean, you're making some good arguments and you add this to it? Next we can ask every MLB player whether .... Players should be judged by hr, ba and rbi Pitchers should be judged by wins Relief pitchers should be judged by ERA Many clutch players are reliably clutch The most important thing for a leadoff hitter is speed Jack Morris belongs in the HOF
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 13, 2015 12:17:19 GMT -5
Here's another way of framing it: ask every MLB player whether .... Really? This is an argument? I mean, you're making some good arguments and you add this to it? Next we can ask every MLB player whether .... Players should be judged by hr, ba and rbi Pitchers should be judged by wins Relief pitchers should be judged by ERA Many clutch players are reliably clutch The most important thing for a leadoff hitter is speed Jack Morris belongs in the HOF
Well the question was about the psychological impact of an error on an easy play, not statistics.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 13, 2015 12:48:11 GMT -5
Really? This is an argument? I mean, you're making some good arguments and you add this to it? Next we can ask every MLB player whether .... Players should be judged by hr, ba and rbi Pitchers should be judged by wins Relief pitchers should be judged by ERA Many clutch players are reliably clutch The most important thing for a leadoff hitter is speed Jack Morris belongs in the HOF
Well the question was about the psychological impact of an error on an easy play, not statistics. No, the question was about whether sure-handedness or range was more valuable. The argument presented to support the former was "well, if you asked pitchers, they'd say it was." You don't see why there is skepticism about this line of argument, especially considering who is making it? I mean, Eric even admits that he hasn't looked into it, but that there's no question in his mind that such statistical evidence exists. If it was presented as a hypothesis, I think we'd be fine with it. But it's being presented as an incontrovertible truth despite having no real evidence to support it.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 13, 2015 12:59:07 GMT -5
On a possibly more interesting note, Xander ranks 10th among the 30 MLB SS with the most innings, in both DRS / inning and UZR / 150. And that's with a negative DP runs rating, and he's shown tremendous improvement in that over the year. UZR breaks down why he's +3 DRS and +2.6 UZR so far: slightly below average range for a SS (-2.5 runs so far) but more than makes up for it with reliability (+6.0). And if you think about it, that's the way you want it to go if you had a choice. An error on an easy play can have a much bigger negative psychological affect on a pitcher than a great play has a positive affect. Xander literally makes nearly all the routine plays and a solid share of good ones Well the question was about the psychological impact of an error on an easy play, not statistics. No, the question was about whether sure-handedness or range was more valuable. The argument presented to support the former was "well, if you asked pitchers, they'd say it was." You don't see why there is skepticism about this line of argument, especially considering who is making it? I mean, Eric even admits that he hasn't looked into it, but that there's no question in his mind that such statistical evidence exists. If it was presented as a hypothesis, I think we'd be fine with it. But it's being presented as an incontrovertible truth despite having no real evidence to support it. See above to the bolded part of the post that started the entire argument.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 13, 2015 13:01:17 GMT -5
I had no problem with the initial post. It's the subsequent post with the "I have no doubt in my mind..." that I am reacting to.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 13, 2015 13:09:08 GMT -5
I had no problem with the initial post. It's the subsequent post with the "I have no doubt in my mind..." that I am reacting to. But I'm assuming that he's still proposing to ask players based on their psychological reaction and nothing else. This is Eric. He's not asking players for an advanced statistical analysis.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 13, 2015 13:15:08 GMT -5
Re-read the post. He's suggesting that (a) there is psychological discomfort and that (b) it affects some pitchers' performance on the field. There is no evidence for the latter statement, but he doubles down on it.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Sept 13, 2015 13:45:35 GMT -5
Xander's growth has been fun to watch this year.
The power will come.
O.T. Reading stat guys argue about what goes on in players heads is as interesting as watching sumo wrestlers trying to decide what salad bar for lunch.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Sept 13, 2015 13:53:20 GMT -5
Re-read the post. He's suggesting that (a) there is psychological discomfort and that (b) it affects some pitchers' performance on the field. There is no evidence for the latter statement, but he doubles down on it. Wouldn't it be safer to say for some pitchers sometimes it effects them after the error? Often people assume that other people act 1 way to a situation when it's the situation and everything that happened leading up to the situation that CAN affect your behavior/reaction. In other words we don't all react the same way to the same situation all the time. I know this is obvious to most but it's not being stated and should be.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Sept 13, 2015 14:01:26 GMT -5
Is Xander tired? He doesn't seem able to pull the ball much right now. Everything is kind of weak to the right side. I half expect a reverse shift at some point.
|
|
|