|
Post by Islandboagie on Feb 9, 2013 0:33:54 GMT -5
Boagie- Why do you quote the fielding bible like it's a viable source of information?
Rog -- Because it is? Remember, it is based on watcing every play by every player.
Boagie- that's not even true, I don't know where you heard that. There's one vote that comes from BIS Video scouts. An organization run by Dewan that does what you're talking about. You think they sit down Rob Neyer and Peter Gammons to watch every play made in an entire season? That's ridiculous.
Rog- I was just thinking it might be intriguing to see what he said about Marco Scutaro. Remember, his 3rd Fielding Bible was written a year ago, so Marco was evaluated as a shortstop.
Boagie- The fielding bible is about as intriguing as the smell coming from a steaming pile of cow shit.
Rog- Anyway, Boagie, do you have a better source for fielding evaluation? If you do, tell me about it. Since fielding is so hard to judge, I would love to read it.
Boagie- I do have a better source..Me. This year's fielding bible award went to Jason Heyward in right field. Gregor Blanco is by far a better fielder than Heyward. Last year's right field award went to Justin Upton...I live in AZ and watch D'backs games on a regular basis, Justin Upton is an average outfielder at best.
This season Gregor Blanco received 7 total points in their little voting process..Carlos Beltran received 11...That's right, an aging player with shot knees recieved more votes than someone who was likely the best outfielder in the game.
8 shortstops recieved more votes than Brandon Crawford.
In 2011, Aubrey Huff received 7 votes, Belt recieved 0.
Does this seem like an accurate measure to you? To me it doesn't seem any more accurate than the gold glove voting, which has proven to be very inaccurate at times.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 9, 2013 10:18:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 9, 2013 10:33:36 GMT -5
Boagie- I do have a better source..Me. Rog -- If I felt that way, I would consider myself to be extremely prejudiced. Boagie -- This year's fielding bible award went to Jason Heyward in right field. Gregor Blanco is by far a better fielder than Heyward. Rog -- You haven't read the Bible itself, have you? The Bible is a few hundred pages commenting on pretty much every player who has played a fair amount at a position. The voting consists of humans. They are knowledgeable, but like you and I, haven't seen anything close to every player on every play. Perhaps, like we probably are, they are overly influenced by Sports Center. I don't doubt that Blanco is a better fielder than Heyward, although I'd bet Jayson is pretty darn good too. But just what is Gregor's body of work? Prior to last season, he had all of 4 starts at the position. Last season he started 50 games there. Player's fielding fluctuates, just as hitting and pitching do. As an example, don't you think you have a different opinion of Brandon Crawford's fielding and Angel Pagan's fielding now than you would have had after THEIR first 50 starts last season? Gregor will apparently play left field this year. If he plays enough, I suspect his body of work will begin to get him noticed. Boagie -- Last year's right field award went to Justin Upton...I live in AZ and watch D'backs games on a regular basis, Justin Upton is an average outfielder at best. Rog -- In your opinion. Really, how can we tell with definity? Let me use Gregor's great catch to save Matt Cain's no-hitter. I have mentioned here that I'm not sure any other player at any other time could have caught that ball. Not only is Gregor really, really good in just about every visible aspect as anyone I can think of, he was playing in a position on the field that it is possible no one has ever played before. Let's suppose the ball had been hit toward the right field line. Given his position on the field, Gregor likely would not have been able to catch the ball, even though many other outfielders would have. POSITIONING is so important, and it is something we aren't involved in scouting reports to know how well it is performed by a player. I once asked a scout how Chris Speier, who didn't have the speed to cover as much ground as most shortstops, could be so effective there. The scout said positioning, that if some other shortstops could position themselves as well as Chris did, they would be truly amazing. I think you are WAY wrong in pooh-poohing something I don't think you have ever even read. This season Gregor Blanco received 7 total points in their little voting process..Carlos Beltran received 11...That's right, an aging player with shot knees recieved more votes than someone who was likely the best outfielder in the game. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1439&page=3#ixzz2KPpMOwrH
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 9, 2013 10:35:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 9, 2013 10:39:10 GMT -5
Boagie -- In 2011, Aubrey Huff received 7 votes, Belt recieved 0. Rog -- Again, body of work. By the way, Aubrey was better than the klutz he looked like, since was quite good on throws in the dirt. Or at least that is how I saw it, and in an e-mail, Boly kind of agreed (at least with the scoop part). Here is another example of how a big first baseman who isn't the most graceful may save his players errors by presenting a big target -- especially if he is also good at balls in the dirt. I don't think Brandon is yet the best first baseman, but if he continues to play at a high level, he'll get noticed. What do you bet both Brandon's -- especially Crawford -- get really good reviews in the next Fielding Bible? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1439&page=3#ixzz2KPtW9aFR
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Feb 9, 2013 21:38:48 GMT -5
Rog -- You haven't read the Bible itself, have you? The Bible is a few hundred pages commenting on pretty much every player who has played a fair amount at a position. The voting consists of humans. They are knowledgeable, but like you and I, haven't seen anything close to every player on every play. Perhaps, like we probably are, they are overly influenced by Sports Center.
Boagie- I havent read the fielding bible itself. I would consider purchasing that a waste of money. And I don't watch Sports Center. I did however assume that the fielding bible award somewhat reflects the information in the fielding bible itself.
Rog- Player's fielding fluctuates, just as hitting and pitching do. As an example, don't you think you have a different opinion of Brandon Crawford's fielding and Angel Pagan's fielding now than you would have had after THEIR first 50 starts last season?
Boagie- Yes with Pagan, no with Crawford. I knew Crawford was a stud with the glove even with the errors, he was just getting alot of bad hops, hard hit balls, and they started to mess with his head, which led to a few errors on routine plays. I consider Crawford the best fielding shortstop in the NL right now.
I was wrong about Pagan. I thought he was the worst CF in the game, but he turned out to be average to above average.
Rog- Gregor will apparently play left field this year. If he plays enough, I suspect his body of work will begin to get him noticed.
Boagie- This is where I'm confused. I thought they watch every play..how come a player needs to get "noticed"? Leaving it up to the player to make a name for himself to be acknowledged seems more like a popularity contest, not an accurate judge of fielding like you continuously sell it.
Rog -- Given the size of Brandon's body of work in his career, that's quite a positive result. Not only that, how do we know that there aren't 8 shortstops -- or at least close to it -- who are even better fielders than Brandon? Do we see every play they make?
Boagie- I don't know if Brandon Crawford is the best overall. But I've watched baseball enough to know he's near the top. After his early season struggles he became likely the best fielding shortstop I've seen in a Giants uniform. Plus, I know for a fact he's better than Clint Barmes.
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Feb 9, 2013 21:45:33 GMT -5
Boagie -- In 2011, Aubrey Huff received 7 votes, Belt recieved 0.
Rog -- Again, body of work. By the way, Aubrey was better than the klutz he looked like, since was quite good on throws in the dirt. Or at least that is how I saw it, and in an e-mail, Boly kind of agreed (at least with the scoop part).
Boagie- If it's truely body of work, then why does it change every year? And yes, Aubrey isn't awful, he was actually quite good in 2010, but in 2011 Brandon Belt was clearly better.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 10, 2013 12:45:47 GMT -5
Boagie- If it's truely body of work, then why does it change every year? And yes, Aubrey isn't awful, he was actually quite good in 2010, but in 2011 Brandon Belt was clearly better. Rog -- We're talking about two slightly different things here, Boagie. Aubrey's body of work is still greater than Brandon's, although its impact is ebbing as Huff plays less and less. A year from now, Brandon will get a lot more notice than Aubrey, even if Huff continues to play in the majors. As for fielding ratings fluctuating from season to season, fielders have slumps just as pitchers and hitters do. Would you guess that Tim Lincecum's pitching is rated a bit lower than a year ago? Would you guess that Pablo Sandoval's hitting was rated a little lower after the 2010 season than it had been after 2009 -- and that his rating has bounced back a bit with his resumed success in 2011? Brandon Crawford and Angel Pagan are examples of players whose fielding got a whole lot better as last season went along. Pagan himself had been in a slump for over a season before breaking out. Hunter Pence isn't the right fielder he was two or three years ago when he was rated one of the very best. Pablo Sandoval's fielding has bounced up and down. If Tim Lincecum explodes from a 2.74 ERA to 5.18 and Pablo Sandoval falls from a .943 OPS to .732, don't you think it is possible for fielders to have their up's and down's as well? Concerning Pablo, let's not forget that he was moved AWAY from third base in the minors because he didn't field well there. Then after a couple of years, he was moved back to third base while in the majors. Apparently, the Giants' view of Pablo's fielding at the hot corner changed over time. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1439&page=3#8684#ixzz2KWEOpO2F
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 10, 2013 13:01:28 GMT -5
Boagie- I don't know if Brandon Crawford is the best overall. But I've watched baseball enough to know he's near the top. After his early season struggles he became likely the best fielding shortstop I've seen in a Giants uniform. Rog -- And if Brandon continues that level of fielding in 2013, one can rest assured he will rank considerably higher a year from now. I would agree with you that he played the best shortstop of any SF Giants shortstop, although Omar Vizquel was pretty good too. I'm not sure about this, but I believe I commented late last season that I thought Brandon was at least among the top three shortstops in the NL. I can't remember the other two, but I believe the guy at Cincinnati and/or Washington was among them. Like you, I felt I had seen enough of Brandon to believe he was near the top, but I hadn't seen enough of the other guys to know for sure precisely where I believed he should rank. If we look up baseball fielding ratings or baseball fielding evaluations, we find all kinds of evaluations, not all of which agree with each other. That's kind of like the "expert" panel which you, Don and I have cited in Bill James' Baseball Annual. Sometimes there is near-anonimity; other times there is quite a difference of opinion. By the way, I would rate Crawford and Gregor Blanco as the Giants' top two defenders, followed by Brandon Belt and then Buster Posey. Probably Matt Cain in there too. But others will see it differently, and it is a bit pretentious for me to say my opinion is better. When it comes to pitching and hitting, I can do a pretty good job of evaluating. My evaluation of fielding is far less certain -- especially when it comes to comparing Giants whom I see a lot to players on other teams that I don't. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1439&page=3#ixzz2KWHEybsh
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 10, 2013 13:31:30 GMT -5
As an aside, one of the 10 "voters" used in the Baseball Annual is actually a compilation of fan ratings. I didn't do the ratings this year, but I have done them on the Giants' players a couple of years before and have mentioned them here. The ratings are fairly detailed as to categories, and presumably they are done by fans who well know the players they are judging.
The bottom line to evaluating fielding, whether visually or with the various statistical measures is that it is difficult. And often the best way to evaluate a player is by putting them all together.
Usually a player who scores well overall is a good fielder, while a player who scores poorly overall isn't.
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Feb 10, 2013 14:03:36 GMT -5
Rog -- And if Brandon continues that level of fielding in 2013, one can rest assured he will rank considerably higher a year from now. I would agree with you that he played the best shortstop of any SF Giants shortstop, although Omar Vizquel was pretty good too.
Boagie: Brandon Crawford came up in 2011 and played his fair share. Last year he played a full season. Now you tell me they won't accurately judge Brandon's fielding until after this season? To me, if it takes them 2-3 years to judge a players fielding then I see no need for the book. I guess I was under the impression they had some sort of accurate method of judging defense that we've never seen the likes of. That's why I assumed you read the book and quote their results here.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 11, 2013 0:53:39 GMT -5
Boagie: Brandon Crawford came up in 2011 and played his fair share. Last year he played a full season. Now you tell me they won't accurately judge Brandon's fielding until after this season? Rog -- That's not what I said. What I said is that the voting which is used both in Bill James' Baseball Annual and in the biennial Fielding Bible (up to Fielding Bible III now, and I can't wait for volume IV next winter) will take place a year from now when Brandon has had a year more to get known. If you want to see what Dewan himself wrote about Brandon after half a season, here is some of it. "Crawford impressed with his play at shortstop for the Giants in 2011. ... he struggled to adjust to big league pitching, but his defense did not suffer. He showed above-average range to his left and showed a knack for charging difficult slow grounders. Crawford has soft hands for a shortstop and is excellent at both picking up tough hops on grounders and scooping difficult throws. He was also good at turning the double play. He has the kind of footwork around that bag that allows him to get the throw off quickly and accurately to first. He made many of the rookie mistakes you would expect from a young shortstop, but definitely displayed a skill set that could allow him to become one of the better defenders at the position in the future." That's pretty high praise for a player with so little major league experience. I heard Eric Byrnes defending Brandon during his early-season woest, saying that the scouts he had talked to didn't think he would make the spectacular play, but that he would be very solid on the more routine ones. I would say Dewan perhaps had more insight into Brandon than the scouts did. Boagie -- me, if it takes them 2-3 years to judge a players fielding then I see no need for the book. I guess I was under the impression they had some sort of accurate method of judging defense that we've never seen the likes of. That's why I assumed you read the book and quote their results here. Rog -- I continually talk about how difficult fielding is to evaluate -- both for the scouts and for the more stats-oriented analysts. No one has all the answers, but while scouts have to judge on a small percentage of the plays made by players, Dewan's evaluations are made based on watching every play by every player. So if I feel differently than Dewan does, I try to study even more closely. In other words, his evaluations are pretty good benchmarks to judge your own opinions against. Regarding Crawford, Dewan wrote a lot about him for a player with so little experience. That shows he was impressed. As an example, he wrote about two and a half times more about Brandon than about former Giant Mike Fontenot. Dewan showed some figures for Dee Gordon, also a rookie in 2011, but he had nary a comment. Brandon received more comment than Rafael Furcal, and a bit more than even Stephen Drew. Does Dewan have all the answers? No. Does anyone? Not really. But one of the way I use these experts is to see how my own opinion agrees with theirs. When my opinion disagrees with theirs, I look closely to see which of us is more right. By the way, some here think that statistical analysis should provide the right answer each and every time. I don't see it that way. If they can provide me knowledge that helps me evaluate the game even a little better, I have gained. Some of the stuff I come up with myself, although you can be sure that someone has already thought of it, whether I have read it or not. Can I evaluate minor leaguers better because of K/BB/HR? I would have to say, yes, it has improved my ability to evaluate by a fair amount. Does that mean I'm always right? Heck no. It does help me to put together a good percentage, though. And when I'm wrong, I try to learn from my failure. Gary Brown and Joe Panik will provide a nice test of my methodology. Brown is two years older than Panik and one level above him. Two seasons ago, Brown was outstanding in High A, while Panik was the MVP in the short-season Northwest League. Last season both slowed up a bit, with Brown making the difficult adjustment from High A to AA, and Panik skipping Low A and moving up to High A ball. A year ago everyone I saw rated Brown above Panik, although both received nice reviews. This season both players have dropped behind some of the Giants' young pitchers, and I did see one review this winter that placed Panik ahead of Brown. I believe that is the only time I have seen Panik evaluated higher than Brown. Brown is cited for having good power for a leadoff man, but more than anything for his speed and fielding. Panik is praised for his professional hitting approach. Perhas you saw that I wrote that I foresaw Joe as a slightly better Marco Scutaro at the plate. Like Marco, Panik has played both second base and shortstop. When he was younger, I think Marco was easily the better fielder of the two. Joe will likely move to second base, especially if Brandon Crawford continues to wield the hot glove and hits even a little. Panik has played shortstop most of his minor and fall league careers, but I think he is a little light for the position in both range and arm strength. Panik is praised though for his instincts and fine baseball mind. Back to Brown, the guy is Darren Ford-like in speed and an even better glove with a stronger arm. If he can hit, he could be the Giants' center fielder and leadoff man for a decade. I don't think he will get on base often enough to lead off though, and I could see him batting seventh and Crawford eighth. Both Brown and Crawford are good enough defensively to overcome some deficiencies with their bats. Two or three years from now I can see a lineup of Pagan LF, Panik 2B, Belt 1B, Posey C, Sandoval 3B, Pence (if he has a good 2013 season and is re-signed by the Giants) RF, Brown CF and Crawford SS. There is virtually no question Brown will outshine Panik in the field and almost certainly on the base paths. But even though Brown had considerably more success at San Jose than Panik did, I think Joe will easily be the better hitter. There are a wide variety of opinions on Brown, ranging from All-Star center fielder all the way down to 4th outfielder. My personal feeling is that he will start but not excel (except in the field). With the Giants' question marks in left field, a hot start from Brown in Fresno this season could place him in the Giants' lineup by midseason. I'm not predicting a hot start, but it is certainly possible. We shouldn't forget though how offensive averages have been inflated for so-so players in Fresno. Panik will face his own challenges in AA this year. Just as was the case at San Jose though, Joe will be a year younger in AA Richmond than Brown was last season. There are some who think Panik's professional approach to hitting along with his good plate judgment could propell him all the way to the majors this season. I think he will be called up in September, but I think that's about it. He could be ready by 2014 though, which could create a logjam with him, Scutaro and Crawford. I think my best guess is that Brown will begin the 2014 season in the starting lineup, or at least get there early in the season. I see Panik as more of a midseason callup. But I think Panik's bat will be the more advanced of the two. Just for fun here, Brown's minor league K/BB ratio is 192/76. He was 70/41 in college, and has been worse in two seasons in the Arizona Fall League, albeit in small samples. Panik's K/BB ratio has been an excellent 79/88 in the minors, an outstanding 57/111 in college, and he has held serve in two seasons in the AFL. Brown has hit .302 in the minors, with an .818 OPS. He hit .357 in college with a .953 OPS. He has hit .272 in the AFL. Panik stands at .312 with an .803 OPS in the minors, and went .370 with a 1.071 in college (in a weaker conference than Brown played in). Brown has hit with more power, but doesn't walk nearly as much and strikes out considerably more. Brown has, however, reached base with 23 and then 19 hbp's in his two minor league seasons. Brown is considered by some scouts to have just enough power to cause him to overswing. His stroke is considered to have flaws. He has the speed though to beat out a lot of hits. Randy may be the only one of us who has seen Brown play, and he loves him. Perhaps he has also seen Panik and could weigh in on Joe. Take your pick. Even though Brown thus far has slightly the higher OPS, I'll take Panik at the plate. What I hope though is that Brown will hit enough to complement what should be a dynamic performance in the field. Brown's speed should allow him to steal a ton of bases. Indeed he has stolen 86 over the past two seasons. But he has also been caught 37 times, minimizing his value as a thief. I will say this: Combine Panik's bat with Brown's glove, and we would have a big-time star. That would be like combining Crawford's glove with a slightly better bat than Marco's. And that would be darn good. I think Brown will disappoint as a leadoff man, but his glove should allow him to make a contribution despite hitting lower in the order. Panik's glove should be good for second base, but he'll never be confused with Bill Mazeroski. If Joe plays shortstop, his bat will need to carry the load. Let's see three years from now how the two compare. They are perhaps the best hitters in the Giants' minor leagues. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1439&page=3#8695#ixzz2KYxFoy9p
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Feb 11, 2013 12:13:38 GMT -5
That's all great, but it still doesn't explain why Blanco, Belt and Crawford weren't ranked higher. The only Giant who got an accurate ranking was Posey. I'd have to assume that's because Posey got attention with the MVP and RoY award. Which leads me to believe that it's a popularity contest. But you will die defending any inaccuracies made by a fellow stats geek.
Rog- (from a different post)By the way, I would rate Crawford and Gregor Blanco as the Giants' top two defenders, followed by Brandon Belt and then Buster Posey. Probably Matt Cain in there too. But others will see it differently, and it is a bit pretentious for me to say my opinion is better.
Boagie- Now this seems fairly accurate to me, although I think Belt is as good defensively at his position as Crawford and Blanco are at theirs.
As far as pitchers, I think I might rate Timmy to be a better fielder that Matt.
That being said, I think our opinion of the best defensive players (compared to their peers) on the Giants are approximately the same. I'd rank the top 4 as follows:
1. Blanco 2. Crawford 3. Belt 4. Posey
We're the same there..Since we both watch ALOT of Giants games I think we can assume this is accurate.
The way the Fielding Bible Awards ranks them (in comparison to their peers) on the Giants is as follows:
1. Posey - 5th overall 2. Belt - 7th overall 3. Crawford - 8th overall 4. Blanco - tied for 13th among all right fielders
This list is the exact opposite of what we think.
We both agree that Posey's 5th ranking is fairly accurate. That being said, we ranked Belt, Crawford and Blanco to be better than Posey at their positions. It's worth noting that I see no lopsided talent to make the rankings of Belt, Crawford and Blanco accurate, especially Blanco's ranking. In fact, I'd say the most talent is in the catcher category where Posey ranked 5th.
Rog -- I continually talk about how difficult fielding is to evaluate -- both for the scouts and for the more stats-oriented analysts. No one has all the answers, but while scouts have to judge on a small percentage of the plays made by players, Dewan's evaluations are made based on watching every play by every player. So if I feel differently than Dewan does, I try to study even more closely. In other words, his evaluations are pretty good benchmarks to judge your own opinions against.
I don't think fielding is hard to evaluate at all. It may be hard to convince someone else of the fielding because you don't have solid numbers to prove your opinion. But fielding is fairly easy to see. Halfway through spring training last year I knew Blanco was a better centerfielder than Pagan. I knew Crawford and Belt were also studs in the field very early on. With these players it's fairly easy to see what kind of fielders they are, it's their hitting that is still a question mark.
|
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Feb 11, 2013 13:30:10 GMT -5
I wonder where all you guys were last spring when everyone wanted to ship Crawford back to the minors because of his errors and I was the only one left to defend his fielding....and his hitting..
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 11, 2013 14:01:26 GMT -5
Boagie -- That's all great, but it still doesn't explain why Blanco, Belt and Crawford weren't ranked higher. Rog -- Body of work. Blanco was an unknown before last season, and he was mostly a 4th outfielder then. Belt has had just a few months' consistent playing time. Crawford has had the most consistent playing time of the three, yet he has played well less than two full seasons. Let's not forget that Crawford got a very nice review from Dewan himself after Brandon played only 66 games in rookie season of 2011. Posey too got a very nice review despite not yet having played a full season. Belt wasn't reviewed, since Dewan instead picked Aubrey Huff to review as the Giants' first baseman. Gregor Blanco wasn't even playing in the major leagues. I would say Dewan is pretty much on top of evaluating players defensively. I don't believe either you or I have seen every play made by every player. Bogaie -- The only Giant who got an accurate ranking was Posey. Rog -- Don would tell you that Buster was overrated. Some of the metrics agree with him. Most would give Buster a pretty high ranking. Let's not forget though that Belt was ranked #7, Crawford was ranked #9, and Blanco was tied for #13. It isn't as if they were ignored entirely. For two players who have played barely 200 games, that isn't bad. For a player who played all three outfield positions to be rated #13 at one of them isn't bad, either. The guy you seem most upset about is Crawford. I think Blanco was the most slighted, although it is easiest to see the reasons he was. Of the 8 guys ranked above Brandon, can you say with certainty that he was better than all of them? Can you say with certainty that he was better than HALF of them? Can you say with certainty that someone ranked below him wasn't BETTER than he was? Wait until after this coming season, Boagie, when these guys are better known and have put up a bigger body of work from which to judge them. Boagie -- I'd have to assume that's because Posey got attention with the MVP and RoY award. Which leads me to believe that it's a popularity contest. Rog -- As a practical matter, a player must be known and should have put up a substantial body of work before he is recognized as the best. Boagie -- But you will die defending any inaccuracies made by a fellow stats geek. Rog -- A few things here: Fiirst, how do you know these are inaccuracies? We're talking opinion, not fact. You sound like Allen or Don on politics. Second, Dewan isn't truly a stats guy. He does provide defensive stats, but his evaluations are made based on seeing every play by every player. Third, the ratings you are so heavily criticizing are influenced only 1/10th by Dewan himself. He isn't that caught up in himself. Instead, he shares the voting with nine other sources. Perhaps we would benefit from examining them. Bill James is one. Bill is considered the father of analytics, but if you have seen him, he has watched a lot of baseball closely. He probably comes up with more unexpected choices among players than about any reputable source. One could argue that is because he is out of touch or is overly influenced by stats. One could also argue that with him it is far from a popularity contest. Doug Glanville is another. Doug is a baseball analyst from ESPN and a former player. I remember him mostly from the Phillies. Is he what you would call a stats guy? Glanville ranked Crawford #7. He ranked neither Belt nor Posey in his top 10, and we can't tell if he was the right fielder Glanville ranked #6 or not. But what we find is that it is the former BALLPLAYER who gave the Giants' players short shrift. The next voter was BIS Video Scouting. Baseball Information Systems is stats-based, but it advertised that "Our highly trained video scouts (are) extremely knowledgeable baseball fans with a history of playing, watching and analyzing the game." I would say this is somewhat typical of the qualifications of "stats nerds." BIS ranked all the Giants we are discussing except Blanco. Next comes Hal Richman. Hal is the founder of the Strat-O-Matic baseball game, one which I know that Boly is a fan of. Joe Posnanski is a sportstwriter. In both 2002 and 2005, he was named the best sports columnist by the Associated Press editor. In his picture at Wikipedia, he appears to be sitting in the stands of a baseball game, looking something like a scout, a writer or a fan like you and me. Posnanski wrote a book about Buck O'Neill which won the CASEY Award as the best baseball book of 2007. He wrote a book about The Big Red Machine which reached #17 on the New York Times best-seller list. We know about John Dewan, who (coincidentally, one would assume) ranked the four Giants almost exactly where they finished. He had Belt 7th, Crawford 8th and Posey 5th. Mark Simon writes a Mets blog. Maybe our Mark can tell us more about him. He was pretty harsh on the four Giants, with his #9 ranking of Crawford being the only player he picked in the top 10. Peter Gammons is next. Although I have already mentioned the story of my dad giving Peter a jab in the elevator at the Oakland Coliseum, Gammons is one of the most respected baseball writers around. He's not a stats guy, but I would think he might be the most prone to popularity in his voting. Gammons ranked Buster #4, Belt #5 and Crawford #7. Rob Neyer is a stats guy who wrote for ESPN for 15 years. He ranked Crawford #6, which is Brandon's highest ranking here aside from the fan's poll. Each year Tom Tango does a fan poll, asking the fans to evaluate several categories of fielding, presumably of their favorite team. His fan poll had Belt #2, Crawford #3 and Buster #3. That might tell us that Giants fans are pretty exuberant. So there you have it. A fairly diverse group, including a former player and the fans. YOU could have been a part of the voting you are criticizing, Boagie. This coming year hopefully you will vote. I didn't vote this year, but I have done so a couple of years in the past. Bottom line here, Boagie, is that I believe you are overreacting on a personal basis that likely isn't as objective as what you're criticizing. Whether you agree with me on that or not, do you now have a better understanding of how these defensive rankings have come down? There are at least two different things coming down here. The first is the annual rankings, of which John Dewan is just 10%. The second is Dewan's rankings in his biennial Fielding Bible. Regarding the second, Dewan considers the available statistics, but he doesn't just go with them (and they themselves don't always agree). He bases his rankings on every play by every player. You and I don't have that luxury. I value your judgment and mine, but we don't have anywhere near as much visual information available to us. Now that you have a better understanding of the rankings that appear annually in James' Annual, do you feel any better about them? It looks to me as if there is diversity among the voters -- and even you and I can be a part if we wish. Why not take advantage of the opportunity? If you don't vote, why should you complain? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1439&page=3#8704#ixzz2KbziEp1P
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Feb 11, 2013 17:32:53 GMT -5
Rog- Fiirst, how do you know these are inaccuracies? We're talking opinion, not fact. You sound like Allen or Don on politics.
Boagie- As long as we agree that these are just opinions then I have no argument.
Rog- Second, Dewan isn't truly a stats guy. He does provide defensive stats, but his evaluations are made based on seeing every play by every player.
Boagie- Are you kidding me? Dewan has a degree in mathematics and founded STATS inc. He's like the king of stats geeks.
Rog- Wait until after this coming season, Boagie, when these guys are better known and have put up a bigger body of work from which to judge them.
Boagie- I don't need to wait to know Belt, Crawford and Blanco are among the top defenders at their position. I just wanted to point out that these stat books you constantly refer to are 3 years behind the curve.
Rog- Doug Glanville is another. Doug is a baseball analyst from ESPN and a former player. I remember him mostly from the Phillies. Is he what you would call a stats guy?
Boagie-
Doug Glanville, on the Growth of Defensive Metrics: “I’m very excited about what’s happening in the world of defensive metrics. I was a center fielder who was glove guy, so it’s great to see someone trying to measure performance and show value on the defensive side of the ball. I’m excited about the detail with which these metrics are breaking down players’ performance. “I’m happy with the results I’ve seen. There has been really diligent work done in terms of trying to measure everything, from good fielding plays to range. I’ve looked at a lot of B.I.S. data and it’s very detailed. That said, I think we’re just scratching the surface. As we get much more involved, and look closer, we’re going to find even more jewels in this research.
On contributing to “The Fielding Bible”: “I got a chance to evaluate every single position and choose a top 10 for each position. Along with using feel — what I’ve gained from watching — I went through all of the data and studied it. By the end, I learned a lot about every single player, including what their strengths and weaknesses are as defenders. “It was interesting to see who is overrated and underrated. Some guys aren’t flashy in the field, like Ben Zobrist, and you realize, ‘Wait a minute, this guy has done tremendous work.’ Clint Barmes had numbers that are really off the charts last year. He was extremely solid — if the ball was hit to him, he made the play. Nick Markakis made a lot of good fielding plays. He doesn’t necessarily have a ton of range, but whatever he got to, he made a good play on. Those were guys who, at face value, you look at and kind of go, ‘Well, I don’t know.’ But when you look at the numbers, you see how effective they were.
Boagie- Seems like Mr. Glanville is on board the sabermetrics train. He is an ex player, but it's obvious to see, he's there because he's a converted stats geek.
Rog- Next comes Hal Richman. Hal is the founder of the Strat-O-Matic baseball game, one which I know that Boly is a fan of.
Boagie- Strat-O-Matic is a game. Someone who thinks they understand baseball better by playing this game is like me thinking I have a better idea about slaying a dragon if I play Dungeons and Dragons. But, what this tells me is that Hal Richman is also a geek.
Rog- We know about John Dewan, who (coincidentally, one would assume) ranked the four Giants almost exactly where they finished. He had Belt 7th, Crawford 8th and Posey 5th.
Boagie- Shocking.
Rog- Joe Posnanski is a sportstwriter. In both 2002 and 2005, he was named the best sports columnist by the Associated Press editor. In his picture at Wikipedia, he appears to be sitting in the stands of a baseball game, looking something like a scout, a writer or a fan like you and me.
Boagie- I bet he's watching a Giants game. That is, if he's ever seen a team from the west coast play a baseball game.
Mark Simon writes a Mets blog. Maybe our Mark can tell us more about him. He was pretty harsh on the four Giants, with his #9 ranking of Crawford being the only player he picked in the top 10.
Boagie- More east coast bias.
Rog- Gammons ranked Buster #4, Belt #5 and Crawford #7.
Boagie- we're getting warmer.
Rog- Each year Tom Tango does a fan poll, asking the fans to evaluate several categories of fielding, presumably of their favorite team. His fan poll had Belt #2, Crawford #3 and Buster #3. That might tell us that Giants fans are pretty exuberant.
Boagie- This seems like the most accurate.
Rog- So there you have it. A fairly diverse group, including a former player and the fans. YOU could have been a part of the voting you are criticizing, Boagie. This coming year hopefully you will vote. I didn't vote this year, but I have done so a couple of years in the past.
Boagie- This group is headed by the two biggest stats geeks there are, and BIS which is the headquarters of sabermetics. Followed up by an ex player who is now a slave to the stats, a few east coast writers, Gammons, and a poll...You honestly find this diverse? Where's some west coast representation? Where's the voice opposing sabermetrics? There is none.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 12, 2013 12:19:35 GMT -5
Rog- Fiirst, how do you know these are inaccuracies? We're talking opinion, not fact. You sound like Allen or Don on politics. Boagie- As long as we agree that these are just opinions then I have no argument. Rog -- That's all this poll -- like virtually any other poll -- is: opinion. In the case of your opinion or mine, it's the opinion of only one person. In the case of Dewan's poll, it is a compilation of 10 sources. I think some who criticize analytics expect them to provide a perfect understanding of things. There is really no way they -- or any other person or methodology -- can do that. If analytics help us gain a better understanding -- or even just provide a disparate point of view -- they can help us. It's kind of like when Don gives examples that contradict a method someone is using. He acts as though a handful of examples disprove a GENERAL rule. Even ONE contradiction would disprove an absolute rule, but scores or even hundreds may not disprove a GENERAL rule. It's kind of like when Don said that because Buster had four extra base hits in 108 plate appearances or something, he shouldn't bat cleanup. Boy, THAT one surely got proven wrong, didn't it? Don was being too focused, looking at a small sample instead of the whole picture. Don now says that he was talking about not having Buster batting cleanup as a short-term thing, just until he got his power back. He certainly didn't make that clear at the time IMO, but it does bring up an intriguing point: How long do you stick with a guy in order to allow him to break out of a slump? When do you move him to another spot in the order? When do you give him a day or two off? When do you start to platoon him? When do you bench him? When do you send him down to the minors? When do you release him? There is no clear answer here, of course, but one would consider how important and good the player is, how he has reacted to previous slumps, what the alternatives are, how it will affect his development, where the team is in the standings, etc., etc. All I can say with regard to Don's suggestion is that few in baseball would have agreed with it, and those who didn't agree with it have seen the results of not using the strategy Don proposed work out very favorably. By the way, I'm not trying to say here that everything Don says is rubbish. A lot of what he says is good, and he's not afraid to go out on a limb and/or buck tradition. What I am saying is that it's hard to see how Don was right this time. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1439&page=3#8709#ixzz2KhoKectJ
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 12, 2013 12:37:19 GMT -5
Rog- Second, Dewan isn't truly a stats guy. He does provide defensive stats, but his evaluations are made based on seeing every play by every player. Boagie- Are you kidding me? Dewan has a degree in mathematics and founded STATS inc. He's like the king of stats geeks. Rog -- When I first read your comment, I was thinking that the problem was that I hadn't said this very clearly and that I should have written that Dewan wasn't ONLY a stats guy, rather than that he wasn't truly a stats guy. But then I realized I was thinking of a true stats guy as following the definition that prevails among those here who try to discredit analytics: That "stats nerds" are guys who judge things ONLY by the stats, guys who have never played, nor watch the game. Dewan makes his own judgments as much (if not more) on his own observations of players' defense as he does the statistics he has come up with to measure it. He realizes that his statistical method(s) -- or anyone else's -- have limitations. The two biggest criticisms here of so-called "stats nerds" are: . They don't watch or know anything about the game, aside from what the stats tell them. . The methods they come up with don't work 100% of the time. The first just isn't true very often, and the second shouldn't be expected. You may not believe this, Boagie, but before I got into the statistical analysis of baseball, I had already watched and been involved in the game for decades. I had spoken to scouts and to some major league players. I could discuss baseball with just about anyone. Then I found that I could EXPAND my enjoyment and understanding of the game through analytics. It was kind of like finding that while I already had a "degree" in baseball, I had a chance to earn a "masters." Instead of putting analytics down, learn from it. That's what I chose to do, and it has indeed expanded my understanding and enjoyment of the game. With the exception of Boly, I can talk baseball -- without using analytics -- as well as anyone here. I can look at a player's fielding and pick up as much from it as most if not all here. But then a decade or two ago I began to understand the game at a DIFFERENT level -- one which involved more fact and less opinion. If we compare now with the time I began learning about analytics, we saw that analytics were used by teams almost never. Now we see them being used quite a bit, with most if not all teams employing what we might call "analytic experts." Why is it that teams now employ "stats nerds" and that even some players are beginning to pay attention to analytics? Should we become old fogeys who are turned off by "those new-fangled ideas?" Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1439&page=3#ixzz2KhrJLCoB
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 12, 2013 12:59:10 GMT -5
Rog- Wait until after this coming season, Boagie, when these guys are better known and have put up a bigger body of work from which to judge them. Boagie- I don't need to wait to know Belt, Crawford and Blanco are among the top defenders at their position. I just wanted to point out that these stat books you constantly refer to are 3 years behind the curve. Rog -- This is the kind of thinking that drives me crazy. How can Dewan's poll be three years behind the curve when Brandon Crawford is ranked in the top 10 despite having played only a year and a half? And if you didn't mean that, why did you write it? By the way, what is your personal top 10 list at shortstop? And don't give us some crap like you don't have a list, but you know Brandon should be in the top 3. Also, I believe you still continue to confuse Dewan't poll with his own fielding BOOK. The book comes out biennually. The last time it came out was after the 2011 season. As I pointed out here, Dewan gave a very nice review to Crawford even tough Brandon had played only 66 major league games. This year he put Brandon in his top 10, even though Brandon had a rather uneven year. You may not remember it, but when at least one poster here was heavily criticizing Crawford's defense when Brandon got off to such a slow start last season, I supported him. I mentioned that I thought he should be in the top three in the Gold Glove voting, although I also noted that he wouldn't win the award (which I agree is based more than it should be on hitting). Just where WOULD you rank Brandon among the major league shortstops? Personally, I think he's pretty darn good. But I don't know where to rank him in my own top 10 shortstops, since I just haven't seen enough of the others. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1439&page=3#ixzz2Khvqxqt2
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 12, 2013 13:16:03 GMT -5
Re: Predicted 2013 Giants Opening Day Roster « Reply #60 on Feb 9, 2013, 12:33am » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Boagie- Why do you quote the fielding bible like it's a viable source of information? Rog -- Because it is? Remember, it is based on watcing every play by every player. Boagie- that's not even true, I don't know where you heard that. There's one vote that comes from BIS Video scouts. An organization run by Dewan that does what you're talking about. You think they sit down Rob Neyer and Peter Gammons to watch every play made in an entire season? That's ridiculous. Rog -- Of course I don't think Peter Gammons or Rob Neyer watches every single play. But I do believe John Dewan's staff does. See what you think from the below: Who are your video scouts and what do they do? BIS video scouts are traditionally former professional, college, and amateur players who help collect and maintain the tremendous volume of data at Baseball Info Solutions. Our video scouts track every MLB game using our specialized software to track hit location, hit type, and hit velocity. They also record pitch types, velocities, and locations. Starting in 2009, we also began recording objective batted ball timer data, which has begun to dramatically improve the accuracy of hitting, fielding, and pitching analysis. How do you train your video scouts? First of all, no one makes it past the first cut without baseball knowledge. Each video scout has to take a rigorous pitch charting test and earn a score high enough to meet our standards. After selecting the video scouts, we bring them in for two weeks of intense training with our full scoring and charting procedures. Between charting and scoring, BIS video scouts are watching an average of two games per day and get to know the whole league better than almost anyone. How do you ensure that you’re providing quality, unbiased data? BIS video scouts are assigned randomly to games. Scorers have a designated number (Ex. Scorer #1009) which are then rotated through different slots in the schedule. If scorers 1007 and 1008 are scoring the late (west coast) games one day, they’ll be rotated to early games the next time around. There’s some miscellaneous switching to accommodate vacation, etc. too. In the end, everyone’s getting a good mix of every team in every park. We also have several different quality control methods in place to make sure that scorers are consistent and accurate with hit locations and types. We’re constantly improving our data quality so that each year’s data is the best ever collected. Dewan makes it clear here that every play is seen and that the "scouts" are traditionally former players at various levels. He says that no one without baseball knowledge can make the cut to become such a scout, that the scouts have to pass a rigorous test. If I were you, Boagie, I would learn a lot more about this stuff before I would criticize it as heavily and off-handedly as you do. And I would participate in Tom Tango's fan poll on fielding, which has been mentioned here before. As I was writing this, something just hit me: Supposedly I don't watch games and see nothing beyond the stats. Just how is it then that I have posted more non-statistical things about Tim Lincecum -- both positive and negative -- than anyone else here? It's kind of like a logic that says, since your knowledge of the game is split between scouting and stats, your percentage of knowledge that is scouting based is lower than ours, so you don't know as much scouting as we do. In fact, according to some here, I don't know anything at all beyond stats. What gives? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1439&page=3#ixzz2Ki2y9wue
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 12, 2013 13:30:04 GMT -5
Boagie- Seems like Mr. Glanville is on board the sabermetrics train. He is an ex player, but it's obvious to see, he's there because he's a converted stats geek. Rog -- Really? "... it's obvious to see, he's there (wherever THERE is) because he's a converted stats geek?" It's OBVIOUS to see? I see you talking about your opinion as though it is OBVIOUS, whereas here is what I see from Glanville: . He is excited by the DETAIL with which defense is now being measured (and that is from the perspective of a former major leaguer who apparently felt his best performance came with the glove). . While admiring the detail, he also says he believes the surface is just being scratched (which indicates he realizes the present limitations). . Using both scouting and stats, he learned a lot about every player's defense, including its strengths and weaknesses. Step back a little and look at your comment here as opposed to Glanville's. Does one look more measured than the other? Does one look like more of a quick reaction? If you were totally objective, which approach would you believe would be right more often than the other? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1439&page=3#ixzz2Ki6HsAef
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 12, 2013 13:36:26 GMT -5
Boagie -- I was wrong about Pagan. I thought he was the worst CF in the game, but he turned out to be average to above average. Rog -- Let's compare your approach to mine. I pointed out that it appeared Angel had been pretty darn good early in his career but was slumping for more than a season. I never thought he was the worst center fielder in the game, instead wondering why he was slumping so badly. Since I saw his defensive performance as a slump, rather than a lack of ability, I was pleased, not shocked or even necessarily surprised, when he reversed his play. I think you are overreacting here, and I think your comment here -- while I admire it for its honesty -- demonstrates that. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1439&page=3#ixzz2Ki92WAhc
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 12, 2013 16:00:50 GMT -5
Rog- Next comes Hal Richman. Hal is the founder of the Strat-O-Matic baseball game, one which I know that Boly is a fan of. Boagie- Strat-O-Matic is a game. Someone who thinks they understand baseball better by playing this game is like me thinking I have a better idea about slaying a dragon if I play Dungeons and Dragons. But, what this tells me is that Hal Richman is also a geek. Rog -- Are you implying that Boly is a stats geek because he is the resident Strat-O-Matician? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1439&page=3#ixzz2KikWCXRH
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 12, 2013 16:07:02 GMT -5
Rog- Joe Posnanski is a sportstwriter. In both 2002 and 2005, he was named the best sports columnist by the Associated Press editor. In his picture at Wikipedia, he appears to be sitting in the stands of a baseball game, looking something like a scout, a writer or a fan like you and me. Boagie- I bet he's watching a Giants game. That is, if he's ever seen a team from the west coast play a baseball game. Rog -- You're not trying to show an open mind here, are you? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1439&page=3#ixzz2KimII1FJ
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 12, 2013 16:09:10 GMT -5
Mark Simon writes a Mets blog. Maybe our Mark can tell us more about him. He was pretty harsh on the four Giants, with his #9 ranking of Crawford being the only player he picked in the top 10. Boagie- More east coast bias. Rog -- I didn't know quite what to make of this guy. Everyone else on the panel made sense to me. This guy doesn't, although I have to admit I don't really know anything about the guy. One thing I will say though is that I can't believe Dewan would have put him on the panel if he thought Simon was prejudiced or that he didn't know his baseball quite well. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1439&page=3#ixzz2KimU6kh4
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 12, 2013 16:23:18 GMT -5
Rog- Each year Tom Tango does a fan poll, asking the fans to evaluate several categories of fielding, presumably of their favorite team. His fan poll had Belt #2, Crawford #3 and Buster #3. That might tell us that Giants fans are pretty exuberant. Boagie- This seems like the most accurate. Rog -- I think Crawford MIGHT truly be this high, but I don't think Buster is yet #3, and I'm pretty sure that Belt ISN'T #2. I may have been the first guy here to mention that Belt was considered to be a very good defensive player. I think he clearly is, although I was a bit disappointed in his performance last season. It was good, but not as good as I think he can be. It's kind of like his base running. I think that for his speed he's a darn good base runner, and he isn't totally bereft of speed. But I remember one game in which he had TWO clear base running gaffes, and I don't think he was as good overall as I think he can be. A year ago, Brandon was valued at +4 bases. This year he was at a -8. In fact, he had a +8 in stolen bases, which means he had a -16 (!) moving up on hit balls. He took the extra base only 17 times out a potential 52, and he was thrown out on the bases 9 times. So Brandon was actually LOUSY on hit balls, although he was good in stealing bases. I expect a lot more from him. I think he was much closer to his fielding potential than his base running ability, but I still didn't see him as the excellent fielder I expect him to become. Crawford I thought was pretty darn good. With Posey, I certainly think he's above average. And I'm pretty sure he's at least good. He's probably very good right now. But I don't think he has yet reached the excellence I expect from him. I guess with regard to the poll, I would rank Buster nor Belt no higher than they are, although I might move Crawford up two or three places. But I will fully admit that I'm going mostly with my gut, since I don't know where the competition stands. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1439&page=3#ixzz2Kin4ATCO
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 12, 2013 16:28:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 12, 2013 16:30:40 GMT -5
Here's a philosophical question for you. Blanco is pretty darn good. But because most of the season he didn't play regularly and when he did play, he split his time between three positions, would you choose Blanco or a guy who didn't contribute quite as much per game but played two or three times as many games?
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 12, 2013 16:35:54 GMT -5
Rog- So there you have it. A fairly diverse group, including a former player and the fans. YOU could have been a part of the voting you are criticizing, Boagie. This coming year hopefully you will vote. I didn't vote this year, but I have done so a couple of years in the past. Boagie- This group is headed by the two biggest stats geeks there are, and BIS which is the headquarters of sabermetics. Followed up by an ex player who is now a slave to the stats, a few east coast writers, Gammons, and a poll...You honestly find this diverse? Where's some west coast representation? Where's the voice opposing sabermetrics? There is none. Rog -- You make a good point here. While I see diversity, there certainly could be more. My point though was twofold. First, Dewan doesn't simply give us his opinion in the poll. He weights his opinion equally with nine other sources. Second, while I agree with you that his group is oriented toward the sabremetric side, he does include writers, a blogger and a former player, as well. You seem to be giving us your own personal opinion as gospel, and then weighing the pollsters against that "gospel." I too have considered opinions as to how those four players should rank, but I'm not self-righteous enough to say I'm right and they're wrong. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1439&page=3#ixzz2Kisbsnqk
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Feb 12, 2013 19:55:06 GMT -5
I wonder where all you guys were last spring when everyone wanted to ship Crawford back to the minors because of his errors and I was the only one left to defend his fielding....and his hitting..
Boagie- I never thought they should ship Crawford back to AAA.
|
|