|
Post by Islandboagie on Feb 12, 2013 20:07:50 GMT -5
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?
Boagie- when is the next book or awards coming out? a year from now? that would be 2 1/2 years, I just rounded up.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 12, 2013 20:10:32 GMT -5
Don(?) -- 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. Rog -- Whom did the Giants have BESIDES Crawford to play shortstop? The Giants were going with Ryan Theriot and Emmanuel Burriss at second base, which was bad enough, but just how weak would they have been had they played BOTH of them up the middle? Joaquin Arias wasn't even with the big club yet, instead playing at Fresno. Didn't the Giants actually start 2012 with Crawford, Theriot and Burriss as their only three middle infielders? If the Giants weren't going to go with Crawford as their shortstop, they would have been pretty much forced to pick up a decent shortstop on the free agent market or trade for one. Instead, the Giants talked about how pleased they were with the progress Crawford made in the Arizona Fall League. One could argue how well he truly did play there, but the Giants made a pretty big showing of talking about how pleased they were. Are our memories accurate here? Rog -- Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1439&page=3#8843#ixzz2KjizFGF4
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Feb 12, 2013 20:14:43 GMT -5
Rog -- Are you implying that Boly is a stats geek because he is the resident Strat-O-Matician?
Boagie- If Boly believes that it can somehow predict actual baseball games, then yes. If he just finds it interesting and enjoys playing it, no, nothing wrong with that.
Actually there's nothing wrong with any of it, I'm just merely stating my opinion on how some people have figured out some other method of judging the game of baseball without knowing about baseball. I know for a fact Boly understands theres more to the game of baseball than math, or a board game. Dewan and James on the other hand think they've discovered a loophole that gives them more insight to the game than anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Feb 12, 2013 20:26:28 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?
Boagie- Why do you think a player who doesn't contribute as much as Blanco does per game would get more playing time? That's kind of a weird question, I'm not sure how to answer it. I'm happy with Blanco as our starter this year if that helps you.
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Feb 12, 2013 20:35:46 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?
Boagie- Yes.
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?
Boagie- I'm not saying he's wrong. But if he said "Stats are for nerds" then I'm pretty sure Dewan would not have asked him to contribute to this project. Dewan asked nobody with that opinion to be a part of it.
One thing you failed to mention that I had quoted before about Glanville, is that he watched the games and had no strong opinion about a player, but looked up the stats and gained an opinion based on stats alone. That's sabermetrics 101. No question why Dewan invited him aboard.
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Feb 12, 2013 20:56:24 GMT -5
Rog- 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. Boagie- I'm allowed to disagree with these guys. Don't they disagree with my side like 95% of the time? I've watched baseball enough to have the credentials to disagree. Blanco was CLEARLY WAY underrated by these people. I made the comment that I think their method is flawed. That's all. The question here is why do you still defend them eventhough you agree that they might have been off with their rankings? It's like you're a cult member of sabermetrics and would die before admitting they need to tinker with their methods. Honestly, I think if I sat down with Dewan or James, showed them clips of Blanco, Crawford, and the footwork of Belt, they would likely agree with me. I am not a sabermetrics hater, Rog. I just think it has to be flawed if they honestly believe Carlos Beltran is better than Blanco in the field. You have this "well it's not perfect" attitude to the information that they're putting out, but they are trying to make it 100% accurate. I fully support them in their quest for perfection. But for that perfection to happen there has to be people like me to disagree. Where as you will just continue to shell out money buying a flawed book and singing their praises. Perhaps you should look to be ahead of the curve, like me
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 13, 2013 1:29:41 GMT -5
Boagie -- I'm just merely stating my opinion on how some people have figured out some other method of judging the game of baseball without knowing about baseball. I know for a fact Boly understands theres more to the game of baseball than math, or a board game. Dewan and James on the other hand think they've discovered a loophole that gives them more insight to the game than anyone else. Rog -- Not more than anyone else, but more than most. These guys are devoting their lives to baseball, for crying out loud. James is employed by the Boston Red Sox. I can tell you with little hesitation that both Dewan and James know more about the gamer than you or I. You seem to believe the myth that "stats nerds" know nothing else about the game, haven't played it, and don't watch it. You seem to believe incorrectly. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1439&page=4#8846#ixzz2Kl3CMugw
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 13, 2013 1:42:38 GMT -5
Boagie -- But if he said "Stats are for nerds" then I'm pretty sure Dewan would not have asked him to contribute to this project. Dewan asked nobody with that opinion to be a part of it. Rog -- Doug Glanville is a nine-year veteran who didn't make an error in the last 293 games of his career. He also happens to hold an engineering degree from an Ivy League school (UPenn). As for his opinion of "stats nerds," I would guess that as an intelligent man he appreciates their being on the cutting edge of baseball evaluation. But to be honest, I don't truly know where he stands on the issue. The point, Boagie, is that Dewan didn't pick strictly "stats nerds." He had at least some diversity in his panel, including a former major league player, who is a very rare guy who combined baseball with an Ivy League degree. You are offering us nothing concrete here aside from an apparent dislike of those who value analytics as well as scouting. Let me ask you this: Do you think the Gold Glove or the Fielding Bible Award is the better measure? I don't see you complaining about a lack of diversity in the Gold Glove panel, which I believe is made up entirely of major league managers. Your mind seems to be made up before truly examining the facts. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1439&page=4#ixzz2Kl5ebRVJ
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 13, 2013 1:46:00 GMT -5
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? Boagie- when is the next book or awards coming out? a year from now? that would be 2 1/2 years, I just rounded up. Rog -- You like to make the numbers come out just the way you want, don't you? First of all, your angst seems to be mostly with how Brandon Crawford was "underrated." Yet Dewan had some pretty good things to say about him after he played only 66 games. As for being three years behind, each annual uses primarily the most recent season and the penultimate one. Since I wish that John would come out with the book after every season, I would say he is alternately one year behind and right on time. Three years? Don't be ridiculous. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1439&page=4#ixzz2Kl7TFPVU
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 13, 2013 1:49:06 GMT -5
Rog -- 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? Boagie- Why do you think a player who doesn't contribute as much as Blanco does per game would get more playing time? That's kind of a weird question, I'm not sure how to answer it. I'm happy with Blanco as our starter this year if that helps you. Rog -- I didn't make it clear that I was talking only about fielding, not overall contribution. On that basis, what would your answer be? I don't think there is a right or wrong answer here. I merely used it as an intriguing question and one more reason why two intelligent people might come up with different answers. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1439&page=4#ixzz2Kl8Wesfc
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 13, 2013 2:01:01 GMT -5
Boagie -- One thing you failed to mention that I had quoted before about Glanville, is that he watched the games and had no strong opinion about a player, but looked up the stats and gained an opinion based on stats alone. Rog -- That isn't what he said, Boagie. Per what you copied and I am re-copying now, he said: “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." His words weren't that he didn't care before he looked at fielding sabermetrically. As a former player who was known for his glove, I'll bet he cared a LOT. What he said was that when he combined scouting ("what I’ve gained from watching") with data and study, he "learned a lot about every single player, including what their strengths and weaknesses are as defenders." I think you may be guilty of seeing what you WANT to see when you read about someone like Glanville. Wouldn't you agree that you were off in what you believed he said as compared to what he actually said? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1439&page=3#ixzz2Kl9OHvMf
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 13, 2013 2:06:28 GMT -5
Boagie -- Where as you will just continue to shell out money buying a flawed book and singing their praises. Rog -- John himself will tell you that judging fielding by any one method is unreliable. Doug Glanville, the guy you accused of not knowing about a player's fielding until he saw numbers, said that the evaluation of defense was just scratching the surface. The thing I would ask you is this: Whom do you know who could make a better evaluation of every major league fielder than Dewan does? Even if you don't agree with Dewan's evaluations, why don't you read the book just to see what someone who essentially studies the defense of baseball players for a living thinks? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1439&page=4#ixzz2KlCPy7jE
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 13, 2013 2:19:48 GMT -5
Boagie -- Honestly, I think if I sat down with Dewan or James, showed them clips of Blanco, Crawford, and the footwork of Belt, they would likely agree with me. Rog -- I think Dewan is in position to be the best and most objective evaluator perhaps of anyone in the world. Here are the things I think he might say in response. One possibility of course is that he would thank you profusely for showing him the way. Another possibility is that he would say, you are right about the footwork, etc., but let me show you the full game of (blank) and (blank), etc. If you put aside your natural like for Giants' players, do you see what I mean? He also could say, you have great points, but I would like to see them do it a little longer before moving them to the very top of the list. Or he might say something like (in the case of Blanco), he might have the best range of any right fielder in the game, but as a right fielder, his arm is deficient. He's still very good, but he's not among the very best. Or maybe something like (regarding Belt), one would think with his pitcher's arm and nice agility (outstanding for a guy who looks as awkward as he) that he would start a double play as well as or better than any first baseman. Especially being left-handed. But somehow he hasn't quite put all those pieces together yet and doesn't get quite as many twin killings as he should. Or regarding Posey, with the soft hands of a shortstop, he could become the best defensive catcher once Yadier Molina retires. But (as Don points out and I argue only results with him, not mechanics) he doesn't get in position to block balls as well as he should. Perhaps it is his soft hands and lack of experience at catcher that keep him from fully developing this tool. He is understandably instructed not to block the plate. That makes complete sense for him as a total ball player, but it does cause him not to make some plays other catchers would make. He has a very strong arm, but sometimes his throws sail to the right. Sometimes when he throws after bending down to field the ball, he's not as accurate as he might be. And then there is this troublesome thing that two former Cy Young winners apparently feel more comfortable pitching to other catchers. And as for Crawford, by the end of the season I felt he was near the very top of shortstops, but overall for the entire season, his early plethora of errors cost him. I'm being hypothetical here, of course, but do you get the idea? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1439&page=4#ixzz2KlDUYVby
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 13, 2013 2:21:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Feb 13, 2013 9:51:01 GMT -5
Rog- I can tell you with little hesitation that both Dewan and James know more about the gamer than you or I.
Boagie- I played t-ball, pony league, little league, noon-league in jr. high, and high school ball. I've lived and breathed Giants baseball since I was 11 years old (25 years and counting.) While they obviously know more about the numbers, I'm not sure they have a better understanding of the game itself. Bill James, maybe, John Dewan is questionable. Thats a matter of opinion though.
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Feb 13, 2013 10:22:58 GMT -5
Rog- You seem to believe the myth that "stats nerds" know nothing else about the game, haven't played it, and don't watch it. You seem to believe incorrectly.
Boagie- That's not true. I call you a stats geek all the time because you are one. I don't intend that to be an offensive term, and I know you understand more about the game than just numbers. This is not an attack on you Rog, it's a dissagreement with defensive sabermetrics that appear to me as very flawed. You just like to protect anything negative said about a method that analysts have agreed isn't perfect.
John Dewan made STATS inc to research the stats on all sports, not just baseball, there's not really enough evidence on whether he is a true baseball fan and understands the game at a high level. As I mentioned, he's a numbers guy, he has a math degree, he may have just saw an oppertunity to make a buck and he took it. Let's not forget he has other people doing the work for him. He may be 100% uninterested in baseball the game. Or, he may be a baseball nut, perhaps somewhere inbetween, We just don't know.
Again, my issues aren't with John Dewan himself, it's with the format that he claims is so accurate but yet it doesn't accurately portray Blanco for the fielder he is.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 13, 2013 10:41:54 GMT -5
Boagie -- Again, my issues aren't with John Dewan himself, it's with the format that he claims is so accurate but yet it doesn't accurately portray Blanco for the fielder he is. Rog -- The "format" John believes is most accurate is a combination of defensive stats and watching the defensive players themselves. He ranks players statistically, but when he does his own ranking of defenders, they don't fully agree with the statistical rankings, which themselves don't fully agree with each other. He doesn't claim his format is "so accurate," but consistently works to improve it. As for Blanco, let's see what Dewan writes about him when his biennial Fielding Bible comes out after this season. Certainly a year ago he was more complimentary of Brandon Crawford than anyone I had seen at that time. Did you know that the scouts mostly felt prior to his reaching the majors that Brandon wasn't even the best defensive shortstop in the Giants' organization? That's not to say they didn't think he was good. But they had him ranked behind Ehire Adrianza defensively. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1439&page=4#8861#ixzz2KnHjjroQ
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Feb 13, 2013 11:16:06 GMT -5
Rog- First of all, your angst seems to be mostly with how Brandon Crawford was "underrated." Yet Dewan had some pretty good things to say about him after he played only 66 games.
Boagie- No, my main "angst" is with the fact that Blanco was ranked 13th in RF.
My other "angst" is with the fact that you won't give in and say "yeah, perhaps you're right, it is a little flawed" eventhough you know for a fact Blanco is a better fielder than 13th in RF. It's almost as if Dewan and James get a pass on inaccuracies just because they invented some stat.
Let's look into defensive stats...
Range factor is one of the common stats they use to determine fielding nowadays. The stat is about as accurate as Helen Keller with a rifle.
How inaccurate is it? First, It has absolutely nothing to do with range. Catchers and 1st baseman usually end up with a higher range factor because they make the most put outs, but yet those two positions require the least amount of range on the field. Range factor also includes innings played, which is why Blanco is ranked 13th. This stat doesn't even hint at who the best fielder is.
You could have a terrible catcher behind the plate, with a pitching staff that strikes out a ton, and range factor will make that catcher look much better than he is.
You could have a great first baseman, but a pitching staff that are largely fly ball pitchers, and that first baseman will not be ranked very high up as a defensive first baseman because of the pitchers.
This is flawed, but some stats geeks use this as an official stat in grading players defense. This stat is too inaccurate to use as an official stat in judging defense. But how much would you like to bet it's available to them when these people are voting?
|
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Feb 13, 2013 13:56:47 GMT -5
And as for Crawford, by the end of the season I felt he was near the very top of shortstops, but overall for the entire season, his early plethora of errors cost him.
I'm being hypothetical here, of course, but do you get the idea?
dk..early in the season, when everone was complaining about his errors, Crawford was right up there with some of the past Gold Glovers like Tulo...again, there is a big judgement factor when it comes to errors....official scores opinion can be leaning towards protecting pitchers ERA's and call tough plays as errors....or hits, if they are trying to boost up a batters average....it should balance out, but I didn't keep "score"....
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 14, 2013 0:35:18 GMT -5
My other "angst" is with the fact that you won't give in and say "yeah, perhaps you're right, it is a little flawed" eventhough you know for a fact Blanco is a better fielder than 13th in RF. Boagie -- It's almost as if Dewan and James get a pass on inaccuracies just because they invented some stat. Rog -- I keep talking about how even these experts say that fielding is extremely hard to rate accurately -- whether by scouting or by stats, or even the combination of the two. Now one -- including themselves -- is saying they have all the answers. I have said that I believe John Dewan is the best evaluator of fielding I have seen, since his ratings are based on every play by every player, but even he will tell you he is only expressing an opinion, even if it is highly educated. The one thing I believe you're ignoring here is that players need to build up a bit of a body of work in order for their apparently great fielding not being simply the result of a small sample size. I certainly agree with you that Gregor Blanco belongs in the top 10 right fielders, but he has played only 64 career games there. He also has a very poor arm for the position. In those 64 games, he has only one assist, and it's not because runners aren't running on him. That said, Gregor fared extremely well in the two defensive statistics shown for him in the Baseball Annual -- +/- and Runs Saved. Going by those two metrics, Gregor was about as good as there was on a per-inning basis. If we go by the average of the metrics, he fares extremely well. Let Gregor get some exposure. It looks as if left field will be his primary position this year. He's quite possibly at his very best there, since his quick release and ability to get to the ball quickly can better make up for his so-so arm there. And for left field, his arm isn't that bad. Gregor needs to get extended time at one position in order to be highly ranked there. That Gregor finished 13th among right fielders in the Dewan poll even though he has played only 64 career games there is quite an accomplishment. As a right fielder, Blanco gets hurt by his lack of exposure and an arm that is subpar among right fielders (who for the most part have cannons). That he ranked as high as he did attests to how good he is and perhaps also the exposure he got from the play that saved Matt Cain's perfect game. But getting back to the stats. The main criticism of them is that they're not perfect. As long as we judge them on that basis -- especially defensive stats -- they will come up short. If you held scouts to the same high standards you hold stats, the scouts wouldn't far very well either. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1439&page=4#8863#ixzz2KqbW4YCf
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 14, 2013 0:38:29 GMT -5
Boagie -- Range factor is one of the common stats they use to determine fielding nowadays. Rog -- A decade ago range factor was considered to be a good defensive stat, since it was at least as meaningful as fielding percentage. Now it is considered to be among the weaker of the fielding stats. The reason I like John Dewan is that he (or his staff) sees all the plays and used both scouting and statistics to make his judgments. You think he's a slave to stats, but IMO it is you who are a slave to your perception of him. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1439&page=4#ixzz2Kqh4wU1r
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 14, 2013 0:45:01 GMT -5
Boagie -- Catchers and 1st baseman usually end up with a higher range factor because they make the most put outs, but yet those two positions require the least amount of range on the field. Rog -- If I said that range factor is particularly meaningless with regard to catchers and first basemen, would that help? And would it help to know that if range factor is to be used at all, it needs to be compared between players of the same position. Does that help? Does it help that unless range factor is "discounted" by whether the staff is a strikeout staff or not, whether the staff is a ground ball staff or a fly ball staff, and whether the staff is usually pulled or taken the other way helpful? As I mentioned, range factor was once considered a step up. Now it is considered to be a step down. That is how far defensive stats have come. And while you seem to think guys like Dewan and James think they "know it all," part of what makes them great is that they have an idea of what they don't know. I think you've mostly got a convaluted idea of how guys like Dewan evaluate defense and how far they believe they have to go. Remember when Glanville said defensive stats were "just scratching the surface?" Does that sound like someone who doesn't think his excrement excretes? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1439&page=4#ixzz2Kqi2mXMm
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 14, 2013 0:47:27 GMT -5
I can use better examples to show that being a stats guy doesn't mean that guy doesn't understand the game, but let me just use myself.
I don't think anyone here doesn't think I am the biggest "stats nerd" here. But if stats are all I know, how did I manage to have a great conversation with Chris Lincecum about baseball for somewhere between three or four hours? (We kind of lost track.)
Do you honestly think Chris and I discussed things like Fielding Independent Pitching? Get real, guys.
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Feb 14, 2013 15:37:27 GMT -5
Rog- I certainly agree with you that Gregor Blanco belongs in the top 10 right fielders, but he has played only 64 career games there. He also has a very poor arm for the position. In those 64 games, he has only one assist, and it's not because runners aren't running on him.
That said, Gregor fared extremely well in the two defensive statistics shown for him in the Baseball Annual -- +/- and Runs Saved. Going by those two metrics, Gregor was about as good as there was on a per-inning basis. If we go by the average of the metrics, he fares extremely well.
Let Gregor get some exposure. It looks as if left field will be his primary position this year. He's quite possibly at his very best there, since his quick release and ability to get to the ball quickly can better make up for his so-so arm there. And for left field, his arm isn't that bad.
Boagie- Gregor Blanco has played in more games than Darwin Barney or Mike Trout who were rated #1 at their positions in 2012 by the Fielding Bible.
Rog- Gregor needs to get extended time at one position in order to be highly ranked there. That Gregor finished 13th among right fielders in the Dewan poll even though he has played only 64 career games there is quite an accomplishment.
Boagie- He's played most of his games in CF which SHOULD be an indication that he's better than more of the right fielders he's up against. But I guess the basic idea of outfield defense was overlooked by these people who know far more than I. .
Rog- But getting back to the stats. The main criticism of them is that they're not perfect. As long as we judge them on that basis -- especially defensive stats -- they will come up short.
If you held scouts to the same high standards you hold stats, the scouts wouldn't far very well either.
Boagie- Scouts are held to a much higher standard than Dewan or the BIS pretend scouts. They are employed by teams to scout players, if they made as many mistakes as Dewan and his book do, they'd have been fired by now. Dewan doesn't have to answer to anyone about inaccuracies, he just sells books.
I wouldn't even know who Gregor Blanco is if it wasn't for the Giants scouts who thought he was worth a look-see. Here we are a year later and the Fielding Bible still hasn't caught up to what the Giants scouts saw. What do you think Jim Leyland would have said if one of his scouts had told him that Blanco is an average right fielder like the Fielding Bible suggests? The guy would have probably been fired.
No offense Rog, but I think you're running out of excuses here. John Dewan, Bill James and the BIS "scouts" have a purpose that I'm all for. I'd like to see defense judged correctly. I'd like to see the little players like Blanco get some credit where credit is deserved.
So far I'm just not seeing a method that is working more than previous methods. The math is there, but the results aren't. I'm just not impressed.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 15, 2013 16:10:26 GMT -5
Boagie- Gregor Blanco has played in more games than Darwin Barney or Mike Trout who were rated #1 at their positions in 2012 by the Fielding Bible. Rog -- That is a good point, Boagie. I don't know all that much about Barney, but Trout is arguably the best young player in baseball, a true five-tool player. I think the four things that most augur against Gregor are: . He has a weak arm for right field. . He didn't play organized ball at all in 2011, limiting his recent track record. . He played all three outfield positions, limiting his body of work in any of the three. . For much if not most of the season, he wasn't a regular starter. Hey, I LOVE Blanco. As a left fielder, I consider him even better than Brandon Crawford as a shortstop. But last season he was a right fielder more than any other position, and I can see how he wasn't ranked higher. As a left fielder after the 2013 season, he could be ranked much higher. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1439&page=4#8891#ixzz2L0JYiWkq
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 15, 2013 16:13:25 GMT -5
Boagie -- This stat is too inaccurate to use as an official stat in judging defense. But how much would you like to bet it's available to them when these people are voting? Rog -- Of course it is. All one has to do is go to Baseball-Reference. Within half a minute I could tell you Brandon Crawford's range factor for both of his two seasons, as well as his range factor for his career. (In other words, less time than it took me to type it.) But those who vote are wise enough to pay it little heed. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1439&page=4#ixzz2L0L3eMBT
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 15, 2013 16:19:02 GMT -5
Boagie- Scouts are held to a much higher standard than Dewan or the BIS pretend scouts. They are employed by teams to scout players, if they made as many mistakes as Dewan and his book do, they'd have been fired by now. Dewan doesn't have to answer to anyone about inaccuracies, he just sells books. Rog -- I don't think you truly understand the inconsistency of the opinions among scouts. John Shuerholtz (spelling?) was a very fine GM when the Braves had much of their success. In his book, he says that the key for a GM is to sort between his scouts' opinions and come up with the right answer. Some of that has to do with which scouts the GM trusts more, and I would imagine the shrewd GM knows the strengths and weaknesses of each scout, including the areas he judges best and judges worst. Dewan does have someone to whom he is responsible. If his work isn't valued highly by those who study defense, he won't sell many books. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1439&page=4#ixzz2L0LwY5LM
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 15, 2013 16:34:35 GMT -5
Boagie -- I wouldn't even know who Gregor Blanco is if it wasn't for the Giants scouts who thought he was worth a look-see. Rog -- That is true of every Giants player. Boagie -- Here we are a year later and the Fielding Bible still hasn't caught up to what the Giants scouts saw. Rog -- Again, the last time the Fielding Bible came out was after the 2011 season. It is a biennial publication. The poll that Dewan takes every year is put together to show an overall opinion, not simply his. He has only 10% of the vote. Boagie -- What do you think Jim Leyland would have said if one of his scouts had told him that Blanco is an average right fielder like the Fielding Bible suggests? Rog -- We don't know what the Fielding Bible suggests. It last came out before Gregor had returned to the majors. If I were in Jim Leyland's position, I would want to know how confident the scout was. And if the player had played a long time the scout would have seen enough of him to be confident in his judgment. It is unlikely that too many scouts have seen a lot of Gregor in right field. Boagie -- The guy would have probably been fired. Rog -- I doubt that, unless he were already on the ropes. Boagie -- No offense Rog, but I think you're running out of excuses here. John Dewan, Bill James and the BIS "scouts" have a purpose that I'm all for. I'd like to see defense judged correctly. I'd like to see the little players like Blanco get some credit where credit is deserved. Rog -- I believe the Gold Gloves are picked by the managers. How often have we seen someone who played as little as Gregor win the award? You mentioned Barney and Trout. At least those guys were starters at one position for most of the season, weren't they? Maybe I'm getting overly excited, but I think Mike Trout has a chance to become the best player since Willie Mays. Trout's 20-year-old season was WAY better than Willie's. I suspect things are much closer with regard to fielding, and Willie probably holds the edge in that category. But if so, it would be the only one. Boagie --So far I'm just not seeing a method that is working more than previous methods. The math is there, but the results aren't. I'm just not impressed. Rog -- But let's not forget that you're also thinking Dewan is using range factor, which he is using very, very little, if at all. By the way, you never got back to me with your own ranking of the top 10 defensive players at each position. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1439&page=4#ixzz2L0O8gcIg
|
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Feb 15, 2013 16:52:32 GMT -5
Boagie- Scouts are held to a much higher standard than Dewan or the BIS pretend scouts. They are employed by teams to scout players, if they made as many mistakes as Dewan and his book do, they'd have been fired by now. Dewan doesn't have to answer to anyone about inaccuracies, he just sells books. Rog -- I don't think you truly understand the inconsistency of the opinions among scouts. John Shuerholtz (spelling?) was a very fine GM when the Braves had much of their success. In his book, he says that the key for a GM is to sort between his scouts' opinions and come up with the right answer. Some of that has to do with which scouts the GM trusts more, and I would imagine the shrewd GM knows the strengths and weaknesses of each scout, including the areas he judges best and judges worst. Dewan does have someone to whom he is responsible. If his work isn't valued highly by those who study defense, he won't sell many books. dk...I don't think you understand modern day scouting....you have pro scouts and amateur scouts..they also have cross checkers and area supervisors....so, if an amateur scout sees a high school kid he likes, the cross checker then looks him over and if he is a high choice guy, the area supervisor will take a peek....and if they are going for a million plus bonus, the whole front office might look him over....the private scouting organizations have film clips of almost all the prospects so the extra scouting doesn't tip the competition off...I like when there are a lot of scouts at a game...sitting together in the stands ....if they use their radar gun a lot, you figure they are looking over certain pitchers....the stop watches are evident when one of the better position prospects hits the ball....and it is almost impossible to get one of the scouts to give you an assessment of a kid.... I got friendly with a guy who filmed all the games in the Summer Pro Basketball league in Long Beach..now moved to Vegas...he sold these films to teams...here and abroad...the players, the leagues, the officials.He even sold them to the kids learning to do play by play at these games...I miss those summer games...
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 15, 2013 17:11:20 GMT -5
dk...I don't think you understand modern day scouting.... Rog -- Given that I pretty much already knew most all of what you posted, I just might. One question I would ask: Do teams have scouts specifically to evaluate major league and minor league talent? I would think they would. Or do they use some of their advance scouts to move to that area in certain situations? Or all of the above? Also, do some of the amateur scouts move to the minors as the amateur games dissapate? I'm guessing there are general rules in all these areas, but that they are at least occasionally broken as need dictates. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1439&page=4#8915#ixzz2L0Z4Qmyc
|
|