|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Sept 23, 2015 12:27:40 GMT -5
IMHO, Byrd has EARNED the right to play every day, and earn that bonus.
Though I do NOT want us spending big money to keep him, he HAS been outstanding for us in Pence' absence.
boly
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member 
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Sept 23, 2015 14:32:30 GMT -5
If the option vests we will be spending 8 million bucks to basically have Byrd ride pine
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Sept 23, 2015 20:08:24 GMT -5
I didn't say I'd do anything to get him back.
If that's what his at bats get him, he can sit.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Sept 23, 2015 20:39:31 GMT -5
If the option vests we will be spending 8 million bucks to basically have Byrd ride pine Rog -- Read somewhere that it is likely the Giants will do a semi-platoon between Marlon and Aoki. An outfield of that pair, Pence, Pagan and Blanco -- perhaps with Perez as the #6 waiting at Sacramento -- should provide the depth that injuries to all but Byrd would imply is needed. The Giants' committed payroll for 2016 is $154 million (assuming Byrd's option vests and Aoki's is picked up). The free agent starter supply could be quite deep, and the Giants might have $40 million or so to spend. They should be well covered everywhere except the rotation. I expect them to add two of the top 10 starting pitchers available. On another topic we have covered here, Bleacher Report just rated Brandon Belt as the #6 first baseman in the game. I think that is a bit too high, but I don't think his being in the top 10 is unrealistic. The Fielding Bible rated him as an average defensive first baseman, and I believe he has performed better than that in the field this season. On another fielding matter, Joe Panik's 78.7% double play pivot rate last season was the best in baseball. Not surprisingly, The Fielding Bible thought he was very good despite his 8 errors. They ranked Buster Posey as one of the best defensive catchers, with his ball-blocking, wild pitch and passed ball-avoiding, pitch-calling and pitch-framing skills ranking as his best. Brandon Crawford was highly rated, and Pablo Sandoval was considered very good when he was in shape and below-average when he wasn't. Gregor Blanco was highly rated, although his 2014 ratings were lower. The Fielding Bible felt he was a very good fourth outfielder and sometimes played above that level. Angel Pagan was poorly rated as a center fielder, and Hunter Pence was rated below-average in right. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3033/apologies-beach-boys?page=2#ixzz3mc88IoPA |
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Sept 23, 2015 21:32:02 GMT -5
I don't believe those Stats Geek publications you cited take mental errors into account. I could be wrong but I don't think so
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Sept 24, 2015 16:44:19 GMT -5
I don't believe those Stats Geek publications you cited take mental errors into account. I could be wrong but I don't think so Rog -- Actually, The Fielding Bible does. It looks at every play in every game, and rates how the players performed on each play. So mental errors would obviously come into play. The Fielding Bible is generally considered the top evaluator of a difficult area to evaluate -- defense. Hitting, pitching and even base running are far easier. Here is my challenge to you, Randy. Rather than blindly criticize "Stats Geek" publications and thinking, explore it -- as the 30 major league teams have. Perhaps you, as they, will develop considerably more respect for the information and, as they, will incorporate it much more into your thinking. You might even get rid of your ridiculous commentary under your picture, although that might be too much to ask. Seriously though, even those others here who criticize the shall we say mental approach to the game use it far more than they used to. As an example, we now have a poster here who trusted his eyes more than the electronic strike zone who now uses said zone to "prove" a pitch was a strike or a ball. He's right, by the way. An electronic strike zone is more accurate than any human. If you doubt the increased use of (somewhat) advanced metrics, just listen to Jon Miller on a Giants broadcast. Listen, even, to many general managers and managers. Watch the increased use of over shifts. Listen to factors such as "keeping the line moving." Watch the electronic depiction of the movement of a pitch. If you really want to get an idea of how detailed and important metrics are becoming, simply read ESPN The Magazine. Each month they present metrics I never would have dreamed of, including some I wouldn't have suspected could be measured yet. You know what they say about a little knowledge? My challenge to you is to expand your knowledge base by checking a few things out, keep an open mind, and see if like major league teams, you don't come to a different conclusion than you do now. Don't simply continue to be blissful without basis. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3033/apologies-beach-boys?page=2#ixzz3mh68QNP9 |
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Sept 24, 2015 23:35:37 GMT -5
Sorry, Rog, but I'm not with you on the Fielding Bible.
If I'm going to evaluate a player's defense, I'm going to use my eyes, not numbers which DON'T show me an adequate representation of range.
Unless the Fielding Bible shows where players were positioned prior to the pitch; unless it shows a particular batter's hitting tendencies, any defensive rating the book gives to me, is moot.
boly
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Sept 24, 2015 23:51:32 GMT -5
If the Fielding Bible was a dating manual written by Dan Fielding from Night Court, it might be interesting reading
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Sept 25, 2015 8:30:27 GMT -5
If I'm going to evaluate a player's defense, I'm going to use my eyes, not numbers which DON'T show me an adequate representation of range. Rog -- Here's a big problem with our eyes, Boly. How many of a player's plays do we get to see each year? If we're talking a Giants player, plenty. But with regard to other players, not much compared to The Fielding Bible, which watches every play by every player. If we think we can better judge a player's fielding based on a small percentage of his plays -- when we're concentrating more on the Giants than on the fielder -- we've got a big ego problem, don't we? Seriously, do we think we can watch something like 10% of a player's plays while only partially focused specifically on that fielding, and come up with a better judgment than someone who is played to evaluate fielding and watches every play? Seriously? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3033/apologies-beach-boys?page=2#ixzz3mkyKZKTO |
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Sept 25, 2015 8:50:49 GMT -5
Unless the Fielding Bible shows where players were positioned prior to the pitch; unless it shows a particular batter's hitting tendencies, any defensive rating the book gives to me, is moot. Rog -- Let me ask you this. Can we tell someone the positioning of every player prior to his fielding plays? Do we compare that player's positioning to the hitter's spray chart? My guess is that someone who is paid to watch every play by every player likely pays more attention to where a player is positioned than we do. Regarding positioning, how do we know how well a player is positioned? Even if he is following a scouting report, a foot either way can make the difference. Even with positioning meetings, a player's instincts -- as well as how much attention he pays to the scouting reports and how accurate they themselves are -- can make the difference. Now, as for whether The Fielding Bible pays attention to positioning, it has an entire chapter. Here are some of the chapter titles. See how deep our knowledge is on them. Range and Positioning Change: Shallow vs. Deep Catcher Blocks of Pitches in the Dirt The Art of Pitch Framing Infield Good Throw Rate Outfield Throwing Arms Ground Ball Double Plays and Pivots Fielding Bunts Scouts Defensive Rating Do we have the knowledge on these topics that The Fielding Bible does? Do we know, for instance, how often a player fields the ball on his forehand compared to his backhand, and how often he successfully makes each category of plays -- compared to the average player at his position? Do we know, for instance, how often a player makes a tough play that is converted 88% of the time but not converted 12% of the time? The bottom line is that The Fielding Bible knows a whole lot more about player's fielding than we do, particularly when it comes to the players of other teams, but in reality, even of the Giants' players. For us to think otherwise is very egotistical on our parts. It's possible The Fielding Bible is even more objective than we are, not that we're rooting for any particular team. If we think we know more about fielding than The Fielding Bible, generally considered the best evaluation of fielding available to the public, we should take ourselves less seriously. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3033/apologies-beach-boys?page=2#ixzz3mkzWx2Ar |
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Sept 25, 2015 8:54:17 GMT -5
Unless the Fielding Bible shows where players were positioned prior to the pitch; unless it shows a particular batter's hitting tendencies, any defensive rating the book gives to me, is moot. Rog -- Do we honestly think we know these things better than a book that watches every play by every player and whose JOB it is to evaluate each one of those plays? To extend the logic here, unless we can show where players were positioned prior to the pitch; unless we show a particular batter's hitting tendencies, any defensive rating we give anyone, is moot. If we are holding a book to a higher standard than we're holding ourselves, we're kind of implying it is or at least should be better than we. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3033/apologies-beach-boys?page=2#ixzz3ml4ckdEu |
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Sept 25, 2015 8:55:15 GMT -5
Before we criticize a book, might it not be prudent to read and understand it?
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Sept 25, 2015 9:55:37 GMT -5
Yes and no, Rog, and it depends upon the book.
I just do not see how a player's fielding can be rated without taking the factors I mentioned into consideration.
Take last night's game, for instance.
Bryd killed a rally with a DP ground ball UP THE MIDDLE, that, had the 2nd baseman played where they normally would have played, would have gone through for a hit.
That's not range, or defense, that's pre pitch positioning.
Same thing occurs each and every game, and any book that tries to define fielding without considering all the funky shifts and what not can only be taken with a grain of salt.
That numbers guys put so much faith in such thing concerns me, baffles me, and confuses me.
I've said this eleventeen hundred times; we cannot break every aspect of the game down to numbers... and that's what books like this; stats like those are trying to do.
Can't be done, shouldn't be done.
But it sells books, and makes money for the publisher.
Like I said, when it comes to defense, I'll use my eyes.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Sept 25, 2015 13:53:51 GMT -5
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Sept 25, 2015 14:05:58 GMT -5
I'm a little disappointed nobody commented on my Night Court reference. Great 80s sitcom with one of the best ever theme songs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Sept 25, 2015 16:08:14 GMT -5
That's not range, or defense, that's pre pitch positioning. Rog -- Which, by the way, is a part of defense, although because of metrics, is less (and better) controlled by the player himself. Years ago I asked a scout how Chris Speier could be a very good defender when guys like Dave Concepcion and Larry Bowa had more speed and could get to balls more quickly. He said that Chris made up for it with his excellent positioning. Today the individual's knowledge of positioning isn't as important as it was then, since metrics show more clearly where a player should play. Except that the defender is still involved, in that he has to remember the spray charts. A coach will move him if he's way out of position, but if he's a foot off, that might affect turn an out into a hit or vice versa, and the coach isn't likely to move him that little. Yes, The Fielding Bible does make adjustments for shifts. But let's not forget that positioning is also a part of defense. We're not forgetting that, are we? Positioning can improve, or diminish, a player's effective range. Did we know that the speed of a ball off the bat can be measured, as can its angle and depth on the field? Did we know that a player's reaction time can be measured, and his route to the ball can be shown? We're talking precise measurements here, not just "he went a really long way to get that ball," or "man, that was a quick reaction." One day we'll be able to do a really fine job of evaluating defense. We've already made strides beyond what I expected. The Fielding Bible is one of the tools that is available today. It does have one big advantage over us. The people who put it together have the advantage of watching each and every play, something we aren't able to come close to approaching. Other than not seeing the whole universe of plays for comparison, what else is a problem with our eyes? Well, our eyes are subjective. We have seen here how many of us see a play a little differently than others do. Are we arrogant enough to believe we ourselves are right, that everyone else sees it wrong? The Fielding Bible has these advantages: . See every play. . Have measurements such as angles and velocity that we don't enjoy. . Is objective. They don't have a bias for or against Giants players, or those of any other team. . An accurate memory. We remember plays; they measure they -- and are able to go back and look at them again and again if necessary. Here is a challenge for us. Why don't we all write an analysis of Brandon Crawford's fielding? Then let's see how our individual analysis compare with those of The Fielding Bible. One advantage we will have. Our analysis will include this past season, which has easily been his best. The Fielding Bible goes only through the 2014 season. So let's give it a shot. If our premise that our own eyes are better, we should be able to write a better analysis, right? Boly and Randy seem to be the biggest questioners here. Maybe you two guys could lead this off. Naturally, I'll be happy to participate, and I would think others will too. Should actually be a lot of fun, and I'll bet we'll each learn things from it. From The Fielding Bible, from each other, and even from ourselves as we did deeper into the topic. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3033/apologies-beach-boys?page=2#ixzz3mmd1eSvg |
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Sept 25, 2015 17:54:42 GMT -5
Crap! Randy! I totally missed it!
I LOVED Dan Fielding!
What a great, great show!!!!!!
boly
|
|
