|
|
Post by Rog on Nov 22, 2015 15:47:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Nov 22, 2015 15:49:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Nov 22, 2015 15:53:23 GMT -5
What I have a problem with is number guys always turning to numbers to make an argument while discounting the opinions of others. That's not being objective. Rog -- An opinion isn't a fact. Shouldn't it be discounted when compared with a fact? My opinions are opinions, not fact. I try to back those opinions up with as many facts and as much logic as I can, but they're still just my opinions. They may be fundamentally sounder than those of someone who doesn't use as many facts or as much logic, but they're just opinions. It is possible to use more facts and logic and still come to the wrong opinion. It is, however, less likely. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3130/stop-presses-kyle-coming?page=2#ixzz3sFuXq9hm |
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Nov 22, 2015 15:55:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Nov 22, 2015 16:04:26 GMT -5
Rog - Although a single stat doesn't see the entire picture, it does see things as they are. Dood - this cuts to one of my biggest problems with stats geeks as a whole. Even those who freely admit that stats don't show the entire picture have no shame in attacking those who rely less on sabermetrics to form arguments. You can't have it both ways. Rog -- Yeah, you can have it both ways, since they're not mutually exclusive. First of all, no single stat sees the entire picture, just as on one set of eyes can do so. If eyes could see the entire picture, all eyes would agree on what they saw -- and how often does that happen? When we put a lot of stats and eyes together, we get much closer. When we're forming opinions, don't we want to use as many facts in doing so as we can? As much logic as possible? Doesn't a fact trump an opinion? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3130/stop-presses-kyle-coming?page=2#ixzz3sFwGYz6m |
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Nov 22, 2015 16:36:24 GMT -5
EVERYONE knows what to do in the heat of battle...
Rog -- Actually, they don't. But more know what to do in the heat of battle than can actually pull it off in the heat of battle.
***boly says***'
Rog, did you totally misunderstand what I wrote?
People THINK they'd know what to do in the heat of battle BECAUSE they've watched movies.
My point is, they do NOT!
During the Viet Nam war, for instance, in a Fire fight, less than 50% actually returned fire, the others, according to on sight testimony, were cowering in fear.
And when told to 'displace and re locate,' they couldn't because their fear had frozen them, thus often causing the deaths of their compadres.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Nov 23, 2015 11:51:46 GMT -5
Rog -- An opinion isn't a fact. Shouldn't it be discounted when compared with a fact?
Boagie- When you're discussing the fielding bible, that isn't a fact, it's a collaboration of opinions. They present what you COULD consider as factual numbers, but those numbers are gathered from opinions, not mathematical facts. The fielding bible is no more credible than the opinions of managers and coaches. In fact, since the managers and coaches have more experience in baseball, logic would tell us that their opinion is more credible.
Nobody can argue OPS, OPS, ERA and WHIP, those are mathematical facts, not "facts" based on opinions. You can still argue who the best hitter or pitcher in baseball is, but it's a much more solid argument when you have the stats to back up your opinion.
On defense, the "facts" are not nearly as clear cut. So where do we turn to get the best analysis on defense...The opinions of people who haven't played the game? Or opinions of people who have? Logically you HAVE to rely on people who have.
The same can be said with other baseball unknown entities. Chemistry for example, something we've talked about a lot here. How is it best quantified? Can it be? Logic again would have to seek opinions from the people who are closest to it. Peavy, Hudson, Morse who have been in multiple clubhouses swear up and down that chemistry is a very big reason why the Giants have won three championships in 6 years. Then on the other side, you have people like Brian Kenny who agrees it exists, but says it has very little to do with winning. Who would be the expert? Logic would tell you the players who have actually been in the clubhouse to experience it would be the best judges.
Now, there's no question the stat geeks are smart. They create stats that take a lot of thought and research. We can credit them with OPS and WHIP among others, which opened our eyes to a deeper part of the game that never occurred to some of us. But now we have a situation where they've hit a wall where the knowledge of baseball has been fully excersized. They have nothing left to explore accurately. So to continue to sell more books they've turned to other avenues that are impossible to quantify accurately. They're now evaluating a realm they have zero knowledge about, all in the name of making more money on suckers who blindly buy into any information that's fed to them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Nov 23, 2015 14:50:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Nov 23, 2015 14:55:37 GMT -5
They present what you COULD consider as factual numbers, but those numbers are gathered from opinions, not mathematical facts. Rog -- One could consider them to be facts, but they don't present them as such. They make no bones that the numbers aren't fact. They do tell us that John Dewan's numbers (not those of the other 10 voters) are based on seeing every play by every player. And I'm pretty sure some if not most of that work is done by his staff. I would imagine there is cross-checking there, although I'm not positive of it. One thing I believe they would say -- if they haven't already -- is that their numbers (and opinions) were acquired objectively. But they don't present their numbers or judgment as facts. That's why I highly recommend you purchase John's Book, which I believe is not The Fielding Bible 4. Remember, I said I would buy the book for anyone here. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3130/stop-presses-kyle-coming?page=2#ixzz3sLWKfZsm |
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Nov 23, 2015 15:45:54 GMT -5
Boagie- When you're discussing the fielding bible, that isn't a fact, it's a collaboration of opinions.
Rog -- Absolutely.
Boagie- so then why would you accept the opinion of someone who hasn't played over someone who has?
That's like asking a jiffy lube technician what makes a good NASCAR driver and discrediting an ex NASCAR driver's opinion. The jiffy lube guy works on cars all day, he must know better..right?
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Nov 24, 2015 0:07:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Nov 24, 2015 0:09:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Nov 24, 2015 0:20:47 GMT -5
But now we have a situation where they've hit a wall where the knowledge of baseball has been fully excersized. They have nothing left to explore accurately. Rog -- Sorry, Boagie, but you are just unaware of some things here. Go to your library and read ESPN The Magazine. They come up with some INCREDIBLE stats, and that's hard to do in other sports. Baseball is the easiest sport to quantify, in part because 90% of the game happens at home plate. One of the things that is improving with baseball stats is the evaluation of defense. Ten years ago were you thinking about the velocity and angle of a ball off the bat, the distance the fielder covered to field the ball, and the time between when it was hit and when he fielded it? Were you able to calculate the percentage of trueness in his route? Were you aware that anyone was watching every defensive play made by every player? Hey, there's a lot of stuff I don't even know about that is being worked on. Regarding pitching, were we able to look pictorially at repetition of release point? At location of all a pitcher's pitches? Of hot and cold spots and averages based on a breakdown of those areas? Of the spin on each pitch? Of the horizontal and vertical movement of each pitch? Of a look at the movement on a pitch from the batter's point of view? Of a look at a pitch's plane from the side? Think of all the graphics we see now that we didn't used to see. Where do you think they came from? I can't remember exactly, but early in baseball they recorded something like only runs scored and outs made for a player -- not hits. I could be a little off on that, but believe me, even the basic statistics had to evolve from somewhere. Anyway, Boagie, while advances are of course incrementally harder to make, there is no permanent wall that has been hit. Only the one in Triples Alley. And that's rarely hit. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3130/stop-presses-kyle-coming?page=2#ixzz3sNn4xLAh |
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Nov 24, 2015 0:24:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Nov 24, 2015 0:32:49 GMT -5
Chemistry for example, something we've talked about a lot here. How is it best quantified? Can it be? Logic again would have to seek opinions from the people who are closest to it. Peavy, Hudson, Morse who have been in multiple clubhouses swear up and down that chemistry is a very big reason why the Giants have won three championships in 6 years. Rog -- Chemistry is indeed very hard to quantify. At least one effort has been made to do so, but when I posted it here, Randy pooh-poohed it. Personally I admired the work that was done. It was a START. I agree players will tell us that chemistry exists. I personally have been examining team chemistry for 40 years. One thing I haven't been able to find is how many games it has won. I also haven't been able to find out if chemistry breeds winning, or winning breeds chemistry. I suspect both are the case. But I don't know to what extent for either. No one has been able to show me the extra run that was scored or saved due to chemistry. No one has been able to point to the specific games that were won because of it. We know that a home run with the bases loaded drives in four runs except for very rare instances. But we don't know how many runs chemistry scores. Personally I hope the work to quantify team chemistry continues. Nothing is unquantifiable, of course, but it can be extremely hard to compile the data necessary to do so. We keep learning though, so some things I didn't think would be quantified in my lifetime have been. It's all a matter of accumulating the data. That is and will be happening more and more. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3130/stop-presses-kyle-coming?page=2#ixzz3sNqnG75t |
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Nov 24, 2015 0:35:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Nov 24, 2015 0:37:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Nov 24, 2015 1:19:49 GMT -5
So I offer my opinion supporting the players, coaches and managers being the experts, and you resort to name calling? Thank you for proving my point about the stubborn attitude that makes people dislike stat geeks and their unwillingness to be objective on any topic when stats are involved. I think we can now close the book on this topic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Nov 24, 2015 2:23:25 GMT -5
So I offer my opinion supporting the players, coaches and managers being the experts, and you resort to name calling? Rog -- I didn't think so. I guess you're saying "name calling" was calling you prejudiced in saying that "stats geeks" haven't played the game? Do you truly know how many "stats geeks" have played the game and how many haven't? If not, aren't you showing prejudice here? Are you saying that I was "name calling" when I called you cynical? You certainly seem cynical when it comes to "stats geeks." I'm not with you on this alleged "name calling." Incidentally, I think players, coaches and managers are for the most part capable of being experts on which fielders are the best, but I don't think they see a big enough cross section of the work by the various fielders to know. I have now learned that John Dewan's people not only look at every play, they actually look at every pitch. Now, most pitches don't have much to do with defense, but it certainly shows the diligence being used in measuring defense and other factors. Do the players, coaches and managers look at every pitch? Do they look at every play with the intent of judging defense? When players, coaches and managers are involved in games, they have a lot on their mind besides judging whether one fielder (whom they might see in half a dozen games) is better than another (whom they might see in 11 games). The people at Baseball Information Systems who are tasked with judging each play have little ELSE on their minds aside from judging the defense played on every play. The plus/minus system works like this: If a play is made 24% of the time, a player who makes it gets a plus of .76 (76%). He made a play that wasn't made in 76% of opportunities. If he makes four of these plays, he's basically made plus three plays -- 4 x .76 = 3.04 -- that on average other fielders don't make. The player who doesn't make the play receives a score of minus .24, since he didn't make a play that is made 24% of the time by other fielders. If he fails to make the play on four different occasions, he's made minus one play -- 4 x .24 = 0.96. Now, is that system perfect? Of course not. Is it more accurate than say a player whose main purpose in a game is to play that game and who says, "That guy makes a lot of great plays."? Very likely. Let's suppose your job is to track the average speed of cars on a particular stretch of highway. You track that one hour per day. Now you're asked which make of car travels that road the most over the course of the day. You have a couple of disadvantages. Most importantly, your job wasn't to count the number of cars by make. It was to track the speeds of the cars. Secondly, you were there only one hour per day. The mix of cars over the other 23 hours of the day might be different than what you yourself observed -- even if you DID somehow know how many cars of a given make went by. Are you going to be more accurate than say three people whose job is to count the cars by make and who man their stations 24 hours a day? Probably not. Let's suppose you're a very good driver, and they don't drive at all but simply can identify the makes of cars. Would your driving skills allow you to be more accurate than they? Yeah, I do think you're prejudiced here, Boagie. Not as prejudiced as Randy -- who may not have ever seen a "stats geek" he likes -- but prejudiced nonetheless. You don't know how many "stats geeks" have played the game. But you act as if none -- or at least few -- have done so. Let's suppose there are 20 million "stats geeks." How big is your sample size? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3130/stop-presses-kyle-coming?page=2#ixzz3sOAWu000 |
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Nov 24, 2015 2:24:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Nov 24, 2015 8:51:53 GMT -5
Let's use pitch framing as an example of something that can be measured even though at first it would seem that we couldn't measure it. Here are three comments that were made on pitch framing that I remember. We were talking about the pitch framing of Buster Posey in particular.
Don made the comment that after the All-Star game, he saw Buster frame only two pitches. This comment shows why we should at least question our own judgment. Is it reasonable that Buster framed only two pitches in something like 55 games behind the plate?
You made the comment, Boagie, that Buster may get pitches called strikes that other catchers don't because he develops a calm, positive relationship with the umpires. Makes sense. Doesn't tell us HOW many extra strikes Buster gets, but it certainly makes sense as a reason. Maybe we could call it the "chemistry" between Buster and the umpires.
Boly said he didn't know how pitch framing could be measured, and of course, it does seem difficult. What is truly a strike? Does Buster get more "true strikes" called strikes than other catchers? You, Boagie, have presented a reasonable explanation of WHY he might get them, but how often does it actually happen?
Well, here is how pitch framing is measured.
First, we break the plate and its surrounding area into small pieces. Kind of like Ted Williams' hitting zones, but much smaller pieces. For those unfamiliar with Ted's hitting zones, we see them on TV from time to time. It shows that the batter at the plate hits .aaa on low, outside pitches, .bbb on high, inside pitches, .ccc on pitches down the middle, .ddd on pitches just off the low, inside corner, etc.
Pitch framing is measured by taking the percentage a pitch in a certain area is called a strike during a particular season. We know that umpires are imperfect. Little disagreement here. So how often do they miss that pitch that just catches the high, outside corner as is called by the umpires overall?
Let's suppose that pitch is called a strike 95% of the time. We look at all the pitches Buster caught during the season, and he was able to get pitches in that zone called a strike 97% of the time. Clearly he's "framing" that pitch better than the average catcher. Let's suppose Hector Sanchez gets that same pitch called a strike only 93% of the time. Hector is "framing" that pitch worse than average.
Now, if we take all the pitches Buster caught on the season multiplied by the percentage of times it is called a strike for him and subtract the percentage of times that pitch is called a strike for all catchers, we can see if he's better or worse at "framing" pitches -- and by how much.
So is this methodology objective? It is. It isn't someone simply watching how pitches are called when Buster is behind the plate and guessing if those pitches are being called better or worse for Buster. We're talking about small differences here, and if you or I are making that judgment, we might rank Buster higher than he actually is -- because we like him. If we're Don, we may say that he framed only two pitches after the All-Star game, because perhaps Don doesn't like him for whatever reason, even if that reason is subconscious.
Is it reasonable? I would say so. If Buster catches 10,000 pitches and those pitches are called strikes on average 62% of the time by the average umpire, yet 64% of them are called strikes for Buster, we can see that Buster "framed" 200 pitches into being called strikes. If another catcher had only 60% of those pitches called strikes, we can see that he cost his pitchers 200 pitches.
Buster turned 400 more pitches into strikes than the other catcher. Obviously there is a value to that, and it can be calculated by how much better batters overall hit on say the 2-1 count than the 1-2 count.
So now we've reasonably and objectively measured something Boly didn't think could be measured. Obviously this methodology is almost certain to be more accurate than whatever method Don is using. And perhaps it does favor Buster in great part because of the relationships he cultivates with umpires.
It is an advantage, and that advantage can be measured pretty accurately, even though at first it wouldn't seem so.
I explained earlier John Dewan's plus/minus system for evaluating defense. It isn't as precise as pitch framing, but since it breaks balls down by their distance away from a player and the time he has to field them (based on velocity and angle off the bat), we can quantify how many more or fewer balls he successfully fields than the average player at his position. Is the methodology objective and reasonable? Can't see why not.
Is it perfect? No. Is it likely better than you or I saying based on the small number of plays we see made by various players at a position that one player is a better fielder than the other? It probably is.
Our method doesn't tell us how MUCH better one fielder is than another. Our method isn't objective, since it is only we who are doing the judging. You might look at two players and reach the opposite conclusion. Beauty is somewhat in the eye of the beholder.
But if we measure how many plays one fielder makes compared to how many of those same types of plays another makes, we can objectively see how much better or worse one is than the other. Is it perfect? No. But it has two advantages over you and I.
First, it is objective. The same rules are applied to every fielder. Second, it can tell us how MUCH better one fielder was than the other. That measurement isn't perfect, but it's likely reasonably close. It isn't based on how a player LOOKS when fielding a ball. It isn't based on the player's mechanical soundness in making the play. It isn't based on whether a play is called a hit or an error. (Remember how Boly questioned the Atlanta official scorer in justifying -- rightly or wrongly -- why Brandon Crawford may be a better fielder than Andrelton Simmons?) It is based on how often he actually makes the play successfully.
So is Brandon Crawford a better fielder than Andrelton Simmons? Not you, not Boly, nor I knows for sure. So what evidence do we have to help us?
First, the eye test tells us Crawford is better in your eyes and Boly's. It tells me the opposite in my eyes, although I feel the difference isn't very big one way or the other. How meaningful is this? Not very. We're not objective, and we don't see all the plays.
Second, Brandon won the Gold Glove. Is that meaningful? To a degree. We strongly believe that hitting plays a part in this award, even though it shouldn't. We know that a metric was used for 25% of the evaluation. We don't know exactly how it was used, but we know it was used. How reliable is the Gold Glove considered to be? Good, but not particularly good.
Third, we have seen Giants players who have played with both players say that Brandon is better. Might they feel the other way if they had played for the Giants and now played for the Braves? Human nature says it is possible. The fact that Brandon's impact has been felt more recently by them says it is possible.
Fourth, Andrelton won The Fielding Bible Award -- unanimously. Twelve voters of various persuasions -- including fans as one source -- concluded unanimously that Simmons was better. That seems reasonably persuasive. At the very least, it's objective. I haven't seen a lot of criticisms of it.
Fifth, Andrelton won the majority of the metrics (not all). Fielders are perhaps best judged by looking at all the various metrics to get a broader view. I mentioned previously the methodology used by John Dewan. I think it's pretty good. That methodology favored Simmons. Perhaps at least as useful is that the majority of metrics did.
So which player was the better fielder? I don't really know. I didn't see enough of Simmons to be sure. I may not be totally objective when it comes to Crawford, whom I really like as a player and who is a Giant. I may or may not be as qualified to make that judgment as others.
It appears to me the overall evidence favors Simmons, but I realize others don't feel the same way. Perhaps I or they aren't being objective in making that judgment. Perhaps beauty is simply in the eye of the beholder.
What is important here is that more and more things are being measured, and overall they're being measured objectively. That's a step. They're being measured more and more accurately. That's another step.
No single stat or evaluation is perfect, nor does it show the entire picture. That's too bad. But stats when looked at overall can help us see the picture more clearly than we would otherwise. That too is a step.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Nov 24, 2015 9:17:53 GMT -5
One important thing I forgot to mention in the comparison of Crawford and Simmons is that Simmons won the Defensive Player of the Year Award for the best defensive player regardless of position. The Wilson Award is sabermetrically based.
Something I'll bet no one here realized until two minutes ago: While Simmons has won the award as the best-fielding National League shortstop in each of his three full seasons, it was Crawford who won the award in 2012.
No Giant has won the Defensive Player of the Year Award, but players who have won the award in for their positions in one or more of the four seasons the award has been in place are: Crawford (2012), Gregor Blanco (2013) and Buster Posey (2015). The Giants have been well represented. Special congratulations to Blanco, who won the award despite being only a part-time player.
In 2012 and 2013, one player per position was selected in the National League and one in the American. The past two years the positional award has gone to the best player at each position in the major leagues overall.
|
|
|
|
Post by donk33 on Nov 25, 2015 2:57:52 GMT -5
Let's use pitch framing as an example of something that can be measured even though at first it would seem that we couldn't measure it. Here are three comments that were made on pitch framing that I remember. We were talking about the pitch framing of Buster Posey in particular. Don made the comment that after the All-Star game, he saw Buster frame only two pitches. This comment shows why we should at least question our own judgment. Is it reasonable that Buster framed only two pitches in something like 55 games behind the plate? You made the comment, Boagie, that Buster may get pitches called strikes that other catchers don't because he develops a calm, positive relationship with the umpires. Makes sense. Doesn't tell us HOW many extra strikes Buster gets, but it certainly makes sense as a reason. Maybe we could call it the "chemistry" between Buster and the umpires. Boly said he didn't know how pitch framing could be measured, and of course, it does seem difficult. What is truly a strike? Does Buster get more "true strikes" called strikes than other catchers? You, Boagie, have presented a reasonable explanation of WHY he might get them, but how often does it actually happen? Well, here is how pitch framing is measured. First, we break the plate and its surrounding area into small pieces. Kind of like Ted Williams' hitting zones, but much smaller pieces. For those unfamiliar with Ted's hitting zones, we see them on TV from time to time. It shows that the batter at the plate hits .aaa on low, outside pitches, .bbb on high, inside pitches, .ccc on pitches down the middle, .ddd on pitches just off the low, inside corner, etc. Pitch framing is measured by taking the percentage a pitch in a certain area is called a strike during a particular season. We know that umpires are imperfect. Little disagreement here. So how often do they miss that pitch that just catches the high, outside corner as is called by the umpires overall? Let's suppose that pitch is called a strike 95% of the time. We look at all the pitches Buster caught during the season, and he was able to get pitches in that zone called a strike 97% of the time. Clearly he's "framing" that pitch better than the average catcher. Let's suppose Hector Sanchez gets that same pitch called a strike only 93% of the time. Hector is "framing" that pitch worse than average. Now, if we take all the pitches Buster caught on the season multiplied by the percentage of times it is called a strike for him and subtract the percentage of times that pitch is called a strike for all catchers, we can see if he's better or worse at "framing" pitches -- and by how much. So is this methodology objective? It is. It isn't someone simply watching how pitches are called when Buster is behind the plate and guessing if those pitches are being called better or worse for Buster. We're talking about small differences here, and if you or I are making that judgment, we might rank Buster higher than he actually is -- because we like him. If we're Don, we may say that he framed only two pitches after the All-Star game, because perhaps Don doesn't like him for whatever reason, even if that reason is subconscious. Is it reasonable? I would say so. If Buster catches 10,000 pitches and those pitches are called strikes on average 62% of the time by the average umpire, yet 64% of them are called strikes for Buster, we can see that Buster "framed" 200 pitches into being called strikes. If another catcher had only 60% of those pitches called strikes, we can see that he cost his pitchers 200 pitches. Buster turned 400 more pitches into strikes than the other catcher. Obviously there is a value to that, and it can be calculated by how much better batters overall hit on say the 2-1 count than the 1-2 count. So now we've reasonably and objectively measured something Boly didn't think could be measured. Obviously this methodology is almost certain to be more accurate than whatever method Don is using. And perhaps it does favor Buster in great part because of the relationships he cultivates with umpires. It is an advantage, and that advantage can be measured pretty accurately, even though at first it wouldn't seem so. I explained earlier John Dewan's plus/minus system for evaluating defense. It isn't as precise as pitch framing, but since it breaks balls down by their distance away from a player and the time he has to field them (based on velocity and angle off the bat), we can quantify how many more or fewer balls he successfully fields than the average player at his position. Is the methodology objective and reasonable? Can't see why not. Is it perfect? No. Is it likely better than you or I saying based on the small number of plays we see made by various players at a position that one player is a better fielder than the other? It probably is. Our method doesn't tell us how MUCH better one fielder is than another. Our method isn't objective, since it is only we who are doing the judging. You might look at two players and reach the opposite conclusion. Beauty is somewhat in the eye of the beholder. But if we measure how many plays one fielder makes compared to how many of those same types of plays another makes, we can objectively see how much better or worse one is than the other. Is it perfect? No. But it has two advantages over you and I. First, it is objective. The same rules are applied to every fielder. Second, it can tell us how MUCH better one fielder was than the other. That measurement isn't perfect, but it's likely reasonably close. It isn't based on how a player LOOKS when fielding a ball. It isn't based on the player's mechanical soundness in making the play. It isn't based on whether a play is called a hit or an error. (Remember how Boly questioned the Atlanta official scorer in justifying -- rightly or wrongly -- why Brandon Crawford may be a better fielder than Andrelton Simmons?) It is based on how often he actually makes the play successfully. So is Brandon Crawford a better fielder than Andrelton Simmons? Not you, not Boly, nor I knows for sure. So what evidence do we have to help us? First, the eye test tells us Crawford is better in your eyes and Boly's. It tells me the opposite in my eyes, although I feel the difference isn't very big one way or the other. How meaningful is this? Not very. We're not objective, and we don't see all the plays. Second, Brandon won the Gold Glove. Is that meaningful? To a degree. We strongly believe that hitting plays a part in this award, even though it shouldn't. We know that a metric was used for 25% of the evaluation. We don't know exactly how it was used, but we know it was used. How reliable is the Gold Glove considered to be? Good, but not particularly good. Third, we have seen Giants players who have played with both players say that Brandon is better. Might they feel the other way if they had played for the Giants and now played for the Braves? Human nature says it is possible. The fact that Brandon's impact has been felt more recently by them says it is possible. Fourth, Andrelton won The Fielding Bible Award -- unanimously. Twelve voters of various persuasions -- including fans as one source -- concluded unanimously that Simmons was better. That seems reasonably persuasive. At the very least, it's objective. I haven't seen a lot of criticisms of it. Fifth, Andrelton won the majority of the metrics (not all). Fielders are perhaps best judged by looking at all the various metrics to get a broader view. I mentioned previously the methodology used by John Dewan. I think it's pretty good. That methodology favored Simmons. Perhaps at least as useful is that the majority of metrics did. So which player was the better fielder? I don't really know. I didn't see enough of Simmons to be sure. I may not be totally objective when it comes to Crawford, whom I really like as a player and who is a Giant. I may or may not be as qualified to make that judgment as others. It appears to me the overall evidence favors Simmons, but I realize others don't feel the same way. Perhaps I or they aren't being objective in making that judgment. Perhaps beauty is simply in the eye of the beholder. What is important here is that more and more things are being measured, and overall they're being measured objectively. That's a step. They're being measured more and more accurately. That's another step. No single stat or evaluation is perfect, nor does it show the entire picture. That's too bad. But stats when looked at overall can help us see the picture more clearly than we would otherwise. That too is a step. dk..your description of "framing" is a lot different than mine.....very few pitches are framed...most are hit, missed or simply caught by the catcher and returned to the pitcher...my idea of framing is when a pitch is close to the black and border line height and the catcher holds the ball where he caught it or pulls it slightly into the strike zone...and if you go back into your tapes and watch Posey, you will see that he almost never gets the call on a ball that he catches as I described....this is the reason I have been saying for several years that he puts his target too far off the strike zone and rarely gets a call when he frames the pitch...How come you are such an expert on SS fielding but actually know so little about catchers??? Where did you get the info the Fielders Almanac has never rated Posey as the top fielding catcher, unless there is something new this year.In fact they have given him a negative rating when they talk about runs saved.....also, when you quote the catchers caught stealing stats, try using the real ones...the ones that eliminate the runners picked off the base by the pitcher and the catcher gets credit for a caught stealing because they have no other place to account for the out....in the last 4 years, Posey was credited for 30,30,30 and 36 percents ...however, if you remove the PO's by the pitcher, Posey only had 26, 21,22, and 30%...good improvement last year, but still in the middle of the pack....Molina had 48, 43, 48 and 41% with PO's counting and 46,42, 46 and 34% when it was his effort alone....and I wonder if Bochy has ever said that Posey and the pitchers are on the same page...... |
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Nov 25, 2015 13:57:21 GMT -5
Actually a fair amount of pitches are not swung at by hitters, and a fair amount of those are near the strike zone. Enough so that a good pitch framer is significant.
Comparing Posey to Molina's caught stealing percentage only proves one thing, Posey isn't as good at throwing out runners as Molina has been. So you've proven what anyone with a three digit IQ already knows, Molina has been the best defensive catcher for a number of years. But Posey is still above the league average in every significant defensive category, add that to the fact that he's also the best offensive catcher, and what you're left with is a damn good catcher, a fact that has continued to contradict your opinion for many years now. An MVP, a rookie of the year award, multiple silver slugger awards, and three world series rings while catching, reality is starting to pile up on you, Don, it's time to let it in.
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Nov 25, 2015 20:50:32 GMT -5
Posey's defensive abilities have improved 100 fold since he first came into the league.
Heck, for his first couple of years, I was on him CONSTANTLY for NOT using proper mechanics behind the plate.
But he worked HARD to improve, and I can SEE that improvement in his defensive game.
Now, he's an above average, to good ball blocker.
He's always been good at the throwing part, but as Krukow ALWAYS SAYS, the catcher gets blamed when pitchers are slow to the plate, or don't hold runners on well.
And we've had a LOT of pitchers who are NOT quick to the plate and DON'T hold runners well.
Sorry, Don, but as far as runners thrown out is concerned, Posey gets a pass from me, and in fact, gets a pat on the back for the number he DOES catch.
In addition, when pitchers compliment a catcher's calling the game, as much as Giants compliment Posey.. THAT's saying something.
Most pitchers would say nothing at all rather than degrade their catcher, and Giant pitchers ALWAYS talk about Buster's ability to call a great game.
That's a skill. A subtle skill, but a big skill at that.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by donk33 on Nov 25, 2015 22:16:28 GMT -5
I have only repeated what Bochy kept saying about getting Posey and the pitchers on the same page....also, from what I observed, the pitchers shake Posey off many times in the course of a game.....and it is great that the Giants have won 3 World Series in 6 years, but even in 2 of those years they were the 4th and 5th team in the league during the regular season....
|
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Nov 25, 2015 23:24:30 GMT -5
#1 You're taking what Bochy says out of context and exaggerating it.
#2 You might want to check your math. The Giants won the division 2 of the 3 years, they finished with the 2nd best record in 2010 and 3rd best record in 2012. The year they didn't win the division was in 2014, when they tied the Pirates for the 4th best record in the NL. Because the Pirates had a better record head to head with the Giants they hosted the wild card game.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Nov 26, 2015 11:09:32 GMT -5
dk..your description of "framing" is a lot different than mine.....very few pitches are framed. Rog -- Most catchers try to frame the close ones. When I umpired, I figured if the catcher moved the ball slightly after he caught it, HE didn't think the pitch was a strike. I tried not to have that affect my own judgment, but it certainly didn't HELP him get the call. The pitch framing I'm talking about in this thread might be defined as catching the ball in such a way as to maximize the number of called strikes. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3130/stop-presses-kyle-coming?page=2#ixzz3sc9VEij9 |
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Nov 26, 2015 11:10:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Nov 26, 2015 11:24:46 GMT -5
Buster isn't perfect, Don. Your points about him aren't all bad. But you are attempting to take the best catcher in baseball and see him as an actual liability in far too many areas. Let's compare something. You actually called me anti-Semitic for saying that Sandy was only a great pitcher on the road, that he was super human only in Dodger Stadium. The numbers back those up as very strong opinions. Yet you are far more critical of Buster than anything I said about Sandy (It's a put down to call him great?). Do I think Buster may be a little overrated? Perhaps. He is beloved, and that can lead to an exaggerated opinion. But as Boly and others have pointed out, he also does the more subtle things that the Giants love so well. He may be overrated for some of the more obvious things he does, but underrated for the less obvious. I don't think he's at all underrated overall, but I think he would be severely underrated if we went by your comments. If my saying Sandy Koufax is merely great is anti-Semitic, what do your comments about Buster say? That you hate guys with nicknames?  ??!!!!! Barring a significant breakdown, Buster is going to the Hall of Fame. Yadier Molina has been a better defensive player and might join him there. But the only question about Buster is how long he can continue to do it. He is performing at a Hall of Fame level year after year, and defensively he seems to improve every season. Winning The Fielding Bible Award this year is a significant accomplishment for him. It is said that he did won it primarily for pitch framing and ball blocking, the latter of which he has been criticized for here. It is possible The Fielding Bible Award voters also liked his pitch calling and leadership. As good as he is, Buster isn't the best hitter in the game, by the way. Not even close. But he's clearly the best-hitting CATCHER and will likely go down as one of the top five catchers to have played in the major leagues. Top 10 almost for sure. |
|
??!!!!!