Dodgers, Giants and Nationals about equal?

[Islandboagie]

I didn't say I knew more than anyone else, I thought I made that clear. Honestly I thought this was a healthy discussion about what makes a championship team.

I'm not looking to compare penis lengths. As I've said before, I'm the youngest here and because of that I have a limited amount of baseball knowledge compared to everyone else.
But I have been a fan for almost 30 years now, and I have developed some opinions that are not easily swayed.

[Rog]

So I'm being penalized and criticized here for knowing about metrics? That's just foolish.

You say you have less baseball knowledge than the rest of us because you've been a fan for less than 30 years. That isn't necessarily true, but I will say that I know a lot more about baseball now than when I had been a fan for 30 years. I've learned more about the game on the field (some of it here) -- and far more about metrics, about which I didn't know much of anything at that point.

When I had been a fan for about as long as you have, I attended the 1987 All-Star game in Chris Speier's place. Gee, I've actually been around the game (on the periphery only) a little bit. Attended that game with Justin Speier, who just went on to become a major leaguer.

I hadn't thought about it until this morning, but if I had important enough information to pass on, I'm just two phone calls away from Willie Mays and Willie McCovey. From Michael Jordan and Larry Bird. That's through three different sources, including my cousin.

Who cares about that? It's highly unlikely a little guy like me will ever have anything important to pass on to any of those Hall of Famers, so what difference does it make. But to be criticized for a lack of knowledge of how the game is played is just foolish.

Yeah, you say, but you allow your knowledge of the game to be overcome by your lack of stats. I can see how people here might think that, but isn't it really more a case of others not understanding the value of metrics as well as I do? Sports teams used to have the same problem, but they now use metrics that are beyond many things I am aware of.

Let's make the assumption, which is reasonable whether some here want to admit it or not, that I know the on-field game about as well as others here. If I then use metrics to broaden my perspective on the game, is that a bad thing? Yeah, but you use them too much and they overcome whatever it is that you know about the game you say. That tends to overlook the fact that it could be the other way around, that others here don't use them ENOUGH. Or maybe sometimes one is true and other times the other is.

I have pointed out that I use stats a lot because they are facts, and I like to form my judgments on facts, not simply my own biases or opinions. I'm also not beholden to my own opinions, which I have changed here likely as much as anyone has.

Let's look at Brandon Crawford's defense as an example. I like Brandon's defense as well as anyone here and was among those who defended him when he was criticized for his fielding when he was caught in an error streak early in the 2012 season. But I also read the opinions of experts, people who examine defense for a living. I knew how highly Andrelton Simmons' defense was valued -- even more than Brandon's.

When it was said here that Brandon IS the best defensive shortstop, I thought I would try to see with my own eyes. I've seen highlights of him and watched him a little when he has played the Giants, but I've seen only a small percentage of his plays. So I watched his 2013 and 2014 highlights films. He's spectacular and makes even tough plays look easy.

Is Simmons better than Crawford? Probably. Those who study defense for a living think so. But I'm not CERTAIN he is. One thing I'm pretty sure of though is that saying unequivocally that Brandon is the best shows a lack of study. It's basically saying that we've looked at most of Brandon's plays, and he's so good no one could be that good. It's not based on watching all the plays made by both players.

I think it would be very difficult to watch all the plays made by both players and conclude that Crawford is definitely the better of the two. It may also be very difficult to watch all the plays and conclude that Simmons is definitely the better of the two. They're both excellent.

The consensus is that Simmons is better. I agree with the consensus, even though I LOVE Crawford's fielding, which likely is the best on the Giants (and I only say likely because of Buster Posey's excellent pitch framing and perhaps pitch calling as well). I can see why some would choose Crawford.

What I CAN'T see is how one can be highly informed about both players and feel that Crawford is the better of the two without question. I think those who believe that way are likely not looking at the whole picture. At the very least, it's close enough that it comes down to personal opinion.

And, by the way, I like Crawford as the better OVERALL player. At this point in his career he's clearly better at the plate than Simmons. And, frankly, better than I thought he would be.

[Islandboagie]

You're taking this conversation too personal. I never said you weren't knowledgeable. I just disagree with anyone who thinks all championships are born from luck and getting hot at the right time, I believe there's far more significant factors. I thought this conversation was informative for me, even if we weren't in agreement. But now that you're taking it as a personal attack, I'm done, let's just leave it at that.

[klaiggeb]

I'm not arguing with the experts, Rog, I'm just disagreeing with them... vehemently.

And it's not because Crawford is a Giant.

Boagie pointed out one thing the numbers can't/don't see; footwork.

It's like the golf swing. Some players, Arnold Palmer, for instance, were very good INSPITE of bad swing mechanics.

Crawford's footwork is one of the many things which I say, as Boagie does, that sets up, IMHO, above Simmons.

I also don't care for his short armed release.

It's my contention that as he gets older, and that arm gets years on it, that that arm slot will become harder and harder to repeat, and THUS, again, IMHO, is likely to cause more throwing errors.

I always preach the same thing; simple swing mechanics; minimize excess and unnecessary movement; Fluid, and simple arm action when pitching and/or throwing.

Simmons' motion is short armed, not fluid, and will become harder to repeat.

boly

[Rog]

Boagie pointed out one thing the numbers can't/don't see; footwork.


Rog -- I believe you're being far too narrow in your "numbers." The numbers I use DO see footwork, or at least the result of it. I fully agree with you that putouts, assists and errors don't take footwork into account, and aren't representative of a player's fielding performance either.

But the numbers I favor are evaluations such as the ones posted earlier in this thread. Those are the numbers that show that Simmons makes a higher percentage of plays in categories from difficult to routine. They show Crawford to be better on one type of play -- essentially 50/50 balls (actually 40% probability to 60% probability). There it is Crawford who enjoys the edge.

Now, it is possible we're better judges of fielding ability than those who compile the numbers I cite? It is. But it's highly unlikely, which is why I try to reevaluate when their judgment disagrees with mine. If I still very strongly, I won't change my opinion. But that doesn't happen much.

Why not? Because these guys are professionals at evaluating fielding while I am an amateur. Even more importantly, they see all the plays made by every fielder. I don't have that luxury.

I think it is reasonable to have one's opinion, although as I say, I believe it should be checked out very carefully. What I don't think is reasonable is to say out of hand that Crawford IS the best fielding shortstop.

That would be sort of like my saying that Barbara is the best girl in the world for me. I'm delighted to have her, and she's way ahead of anyone else I have gotten to know. But of all the many girls I have seen, how can I possibly know if she would the absolute best? I simply don't have enough information to make that judgment.

I have seen no rating system -- including one by the fans that you and I are both eligible to participate in -- that ranks Brandon ahead of Andrelton. I participated in that evaluations once, and if I were doing so again, my numbers wouldn't be likely to hurt Brandon, who I think had a special season in 2015 and who was likely the best two-way shortstop in the game.

I don't put as much confidence in that one, since it comes from laymen such as me. More importantly, it isn't a very large sample. But when I see the rating systems done by professionals -- rating systems used by the teams themselves -- I take them very seriously.

I'll look again at the Simmons highlight reels and the little I can find on Crawford and see if my evaluation changes. But overall I see Simmons making some plays I don't think Crawford would have, particularly in the deep hole and plays such as line drives that involve reactions, leaping or diving, and stretching. Simmons looks to me to be clearly the more athletic of the two.

I did think Crawford made a better play on a popup over his head than any I saw Simmons make. But Simmons blew me away with one relay in particular in which he showed a lightning-quick release, a very strong arm (many consider it even stronger and more accurate than Brandon's), and a throw that bounced about six inches in front of the catcher and was so on-target that it actually led the backstop into the runner. That one caught me by surprise.

Now, we have an advantage over Braves fans in evaluating the two players. We see Crawford pretty close to every day and have over half an hour of Simmnons highlights that come up easily in one's browser. There aren't too many of Crawford's highlights available. That in itself might show something.

I think Crawford might even win the Gold Glove Award. While it shouldn't, hitting helps make one more visible for such awards. But he didn't win the Fielding Bible Award, which comes from many different sources including one former player and also people like you and me. In fact, Simmons was a unanimous winner, meaning that as good as Brandon is, he doesn't have a lot of widespread support.

Maybe that's because most of the voters even in the Fielding Bible Awards don't see all the plays by all the players -- not even close. But thos who do voted for Simmons as well. Again, we're talking about professional fielding evaluators who have no reason to be biased.

I'm not certain Brandon isn't the best shortstop defensively. But I'm sure to a very high probability that those who say that Crawford is CLEARLY better aren't taking all the plays into account. At the VERY LEAST, Simmons is close enough to the high level of Crawford's play that one shouldn't say Crawford IS the best in capitals.

Maybe it's because the numbers and broad evaluations mean more to me than others here, but I do feel I am more objective than many. This isn't about me. But it IS about how objectively we look at things and how broad our perspectives are.

And I did want to address the silly notion that I don't watch or understand the games. So I guess to that extent it is about me -- just as it would be about any one of you if the tables were turned.

I thought Boly made a good point when he said that he didn't feel Simmons would be able to control his throws as he ages, due to his short-arming his throws. (Again, I'll need to re-examine those highlights.) He likes simple and his example of Aaron vs. Mays in aging backs up his point quite nicely. I tend to give what he says in the area of mechanics extra credence.

In the case of Simmons, I will say that if Boly's analysis of the future does indeed come to pass, that should affect our evaluation of Simmons in the future -- but not now.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3104/dodgers-giants-nationals-equal?page=2#ixzz3qeNL1ze7

[Islandboagie]

I looked into a job for video analysis for major league baseball and the prerequisite was having two eyes and a pulse, so I tend to question whether "expert" or "professional" is the correct term even if they are getting paid.

That said, I'm not sure who the better shortstop is, but I do know that Crawford's arm and footwork get outs that most shortstops wouldn't get. In some instances (not all) Simmons would probably be in the "most shortstops" category. When I watched the highlights of both I saw a lot of off balance throws that just barely got the runner, but how about when those off balance throws allowed the runner to beat out the throw?

[Rog]

I looked into a job for video analysis for major league baseball and the prerequisite was having two eyes and a pulse


Rog -- I couldn't find that. Perhaps you could share the link with us.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3104/dodgers-giants-nationals-equal?page=2#ixzz3qjhpAwlu

[Rog]

When I watched the highlights of both I saw a lot of off balance throws that just barely got the runner, but how about when those off balance throws allowed the runner to beat out the throw?


Rog -- I saw those too. Same with Crawford's much shorter video. We don't know exactly how many plays were beat out, but we do know that over their careers through 2014 Simmons had a higher percentage of plays made in five of the six categories. Crawford won the "remote" category (10%-40%). Those figures go through 2014 only. The 2015 results haven't yet been made public.

Looking at 2015 only (which makes sense, since we're talking about the best defensive shortstop RIGHT NOW), Simmons was a unanimous pick for the Fielding Bible Award. He was ranked higher in zone runs above average and in defensive runs saved. The fans' ratings aren't public yet, but Simmons easily won them over Crawford in 2013, 2014 and 2015.

Fan Graphs has just released a comparison of the Gold Glove candidates by position. Simmons was first, Brandon second and Nick Ahmed third. In the four measuring systems used, Simmons came out clearly ahead in three of them, while Brandon nipped him in one.

It appears to have been pretty close in 2015. ESPN rates Simmons' defense as 3.5 Wins Above Replacement, with Brandon at 2.9 wins and Ahmed at 2.8. Those three are in a category among themselves. The next closest is Adeiny Hecchavaria at 1.6 WAR.

In all evaluations comparing the two in 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 -- the four seasons both players have been in the majors -- I have found only the one evaluation that favored Brandon. He may indeed be the best defensive shortstop in baseball, but the feeling is very strong that Simmons is.

And it doesn't seem to be a case of East Coast bias. Most consider Brandon to have been the best OVERALL shortstop in the game in 2015. And, really, isn't that what is more important.

If we say Brandon is the best shortstop in the game, we'll get a lot of support. If we say he's the best DEFENSIVE shortstop in the game, we'll get very little.

Perhaps that tells us something.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3104/dodgers-giants-nationals-equal?page=2#ixzz3qjtDggIm

[Rog]

Brandon will likely win a Silver Slugger but not a Gold Glove. And based on consensus, that's probably fair.

[Rog]

Based on what I have read, Brandon seems to have made a big step forward defensively this season and now ranks second only to Simmons. Perhaps next season Brandon will continue forward and/or Simmons will take a step backward, and Brandon will pass him.

To some extent, fielding beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Simmons has the advantage of being more beautiful in the eyes of more beholders -- including the most professional and objective ones.

This is yet another instance of my frustration here. Almost everything I can find backs up Simmons (as much as I wish it weren't so). Based on that and to some extent my own evaluation based on the little I have seen of him, I concur that he is the best defensively, just as I think Brandon is now the best overall.

But those who favor Brandon's defense here are very unlikely to be swayed by anything I, the experts or the consensus of fans say. I'm just not seeing the objectivity here that should be present. If our opinions as baseball fans are to be highly valued, we need to be more objective.

We can differ from the herd. But we need to have very valid reasons for doing so. "I know what I've seen" isn't a valid reason. Does that mean that the guy who sees differently doesn't know what he's seen? Isn't that kind of a vain position to take?

[Islandboagie]

I looked into a job for video analysis for major league baseball and the prerequisite was having two eyes and a pulse


Rog -- I couldn't find that. Perhaps you could share the link with us.

Boagie- I can't find it now either, I'm sure it's long gone. Of course I'm exaggerating the "two eyes and a pulse" prerequisite. But it wasn't too far from that. I do know it required no experience and no formal education. Just a general knowledge in the basics of baseball rules.

[Rog]

I looked into a job for video analysis for major league baseball and the prerequisite was having two eyes and a pulse


Rog -- I couldn't find that. Perhaps you could share the link with us.

Boagie- I can't find it now either, I'm sure it's long gone. Of course I'm exaggerating the "two eyes and a pulse" prerequisite. But it wasn't too far from that. I do know it required no experience and no formal education. Just a general knowledge in the basics of baseball rules.


Rog -- I would think it would depend on the type of video analysis we're talking about.

If we're talking about analysis of where a batter hits the ball, almost anyone can compile that. If we're talking about analyzing a hitter's or pitcher's mechanics, we're talking about a far different animal. Same thing if we're talking about someone's evaluating thousands of defensive plays.

For five years I was what might loosely be called a video analyst for the Pac-10 (at the time) basketball referees. Frankly, almost anyone could have performed most of my job. I did get to discuss plays with the refs a little after the game -- just a little -- and that required knowledge and experience as a referee.

I'll tell you what was one of the most rewarding experiences of that job -- one that I had virtually no impact on, either directly or indirectly. But still something I will remember for a long time.

After all our analysis was over in the referee locker room at Cal, one of the three referees happened to be sitting next to me with only the two of us still left in the room. He told me he was tired and really needed to step it up. With the travel and mental preparation and stress, being a college referee can be grueling -- particularly when it is combined with a regular job.

I was caught by the honesty of the official. He probably felt more comfortable talking to just me because I was essentially a nobody. He was able to pick up what was also clear to me as an outsider, but is hard to be honest enough to pick up about one's self. I don't know exactly how he did it, but a couple of weeks later I saw him reffing on TV at UCLA, and he was like a different man. Looked focused and sharp.

His goal was to become an NBA ref. He was getting right at the age where a ref is too old to be considered. The next year he was able to land a job in the NBA, where he reffed for about 10 years.

And get this. Now he's back in the Pac-12.

I guess being a video analyst -- even in baseball -- could be a lot of things. Much like being a manager is. Anywhere from almost a courtesy title to one that comes with a great deal of responsibility and with a lot of knowledge necessary.

Being a video analyst for a company whose reputation is built solely on how accurately it evaluates the defense of players -- which is tough to evaluate, as is illustrated by the big variations in our opinions -- is no doubt a highly competitive job and one that requires both ability and a lot of diligence once one is on the job.

Imagine looking at defensive plays eight or more hours a day. At first it would be really cool, but eventually it would become tiring (hopefully not tiresome). The boss (John Dewan) would likely be very active in quality control (since it is his excellent reputation that is on the line), so one would need to remain very sharp. I don't know this for fact, but I'll bet most plays are viewed by more than one person and that significant variations might be examined by yet a third, fourth or fifth.

I realize some here would consider me very self-righteous. But because of the thoroughness and objectivity involved in the evaluations of these trained people, I'm likely more willing to modify my own opinion than almost anyone here.

Yeah, I know what I saw too, and my baseball eyes have been pretty good for a long, long time. Far longer than I'd like to admit. But I'm also wise enough to realize that there will be differences of opinion in an area which is very difficult to measure and that compared to the professionals who evaluate fielding, I have only a small percentage of the available information.

Boagie and Boly, you may be right that Crawford is the best-fielding shortstop in baseball. But you are bucking a very strong and wide tide. On your behalf though, I'd like to confide that you don't hide from the wide tide even as it divides.

Maybe Simmons' defense will slide. The better for you to deride. Meanwhile I will continue to chide without pride. Unlike the Giants, I haven't lied. Unlike extra inning games, my hands aren't tied.





Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3104/dodgers-giants-nationals-equal?page=2#ixzz3qpXIHDdX

[Islandboagie]

og -- I would think it would depend on the type of video analysis we're talking about.

If we're talking about analysis of where a batter hits the ball, almost anyone can compile that. If we're talking about analyzing a hitter's or pitcher's mechanics, we're talking about a far different animal. Same thing if we're talking about someone's evaluating thousands of defensive plays.

Boagie- You might be right, Rog. However, when we use logic, it's somewhat hard to believe that anyone with real knowledge of mechanics and judging baseball talent isn't employed by a professional or college baseball team already. And if they aren't, it's not likely they're parked in front of a monitor watching and jotting down notes on every pitch of a professional baseball game. Making general observations isn't a high skill job, and thus wouldn't be paid as such.

[Rog]

You might be right, Rog. However, when we use logic, it's somewhat hard to believe that anyone with real knowledge of mechanics and judging baseball talent isn't employed by a professional or college baseball team already.


We were talking baseball (presumedly MLB, not college), but I think there are many with real knowledge of mechanics and judging baseball talent who are below even the college level. I think former A's reliever Dave Hamilton had a little of that type of knowledge, and he coached the California High baseball team years ago.

Vida Blue and Bill Laskey are two very visible guys who aren't. I doubt Barry Zito will be, but I could certainly be wrong about that. To the best of my knowledge Juan Marichal never did so, nor Gaylord Perry.

I'm just going off the top of my head, but I'll bet there are more who aren't involved at the big league or college level than there are who are involved.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3104/dodgers-giants-nationals-equal?page=2#ixzz3qrNfr6ql

[Rog]

I'm guessing that neither you nor I could get a job working for John Dewan. There is, however, an intern position available for 2016.

Here is a quote that is tangential to the position: "Former Video Scouts have risen rapidly through Major League front offices after getting their start watching two to three games per day at BIS. In the words of one former Video Scout and current Vice President of Baseball Operations, “My summer at BIS was the best baseball experience of my life.” Major League teams frequently come to us for recommendations when they need to fill a position within their organization, and our top video scouts each year routinely land team internships and/or full-time jobs."

If only we were younger!

[Rog]

I've overstepped my bounds here. Sorry, guys.