Some great defense and some horrible luck

[Rog]

Certainly the three homers given up by Jeff Samardzija were an attention-getter yesterday, but the two things that stood out for me were a couple of fine defensive plays by the Cubs, and the horrible luck the Giants hit into, which in part might also have been attributed to fine defensive positioning.

Let's start with the luck.  In something like the first two innings alone the Giants hit five balls into out -- at speeds of 96 mph or higher.  Brandon Belt alone hit the ball hard every time at bat, and yet went one-for-four.

Of course, at least some of that was excellent positioning by the Cubs' defense.  Pre-scouting is helpful, but spray charts might be even better.  Positioning in baseball has never before been nearly as good as it is today -- by more and more teams.

And the Cubs took full advantage.

Another great shortstop play by the Cubs on the screeching stop by Baez on Panik's hard-hit ball in the hole.  (What, a hard-hit ball turning into an out?)  Similar to the fine play by Addison Russell earlier in the series.  And while Joe wasn't out by 10 feet as Christian Arroyo had been on the Russell play, he still was out by over half a step.  As we discussed in another thread, it's almost impossible to find a double play combo any time in history as the Giants' Crawford and Panik, but while they aren't as smooth, the Cubs' DP duo of Russell and Baez is outstanding in its own right.  If he stays within himself, Baez has the ability to be as good a defender as we've seen, and do it all around the infield.

A more subtle play by the Cubs came on the pick off of Denard Span.  Notice how Anthony Rizzo's glove was already moving into the tag BEFORE he caught the ball.  That is a play I have been wondering for some time why it isn't more commonly used.  Any time I have made a play, I wonder when I don't see major leaguers making it.  Maybe that type of tag is more common than I realize and the camera angle just doesn't show it off as well.

Meanwhile, the Giants themselves didn't play good defense at all while giving up the Cubs' fourth and fifth runs on a combination wild pitch/errant throw.  As have been mentioned here adfinitum, Buster's ball-blocking mechanics were atrocious on this particular play.  Then when he tried to pull off a well-advised and creative underhanded throw, he did so while turning, making an accurate throw more difficult.  A more accurate throw might have saved the first run, and certainly would have saved the second, which came in Buster's error.

Which also calls into play questionable defense.  Although I could see him on the screen, it appeared Joe Panik didn't anticipate a poor throw as well as he should have.  He made a nice recovery, and the play at the plate was close, but had he moved in slightly in ANTICIPATION of a bad throw back to the plate, it quite possibly would have made the difference between safe and out on a close play.  While it would have been more unorthodox, there was nothing preventing Brandon Belt from moving in and over to have been in position to make the play.

When we played ball, didn't we just WANT the ball to find us?  Didn't we anticipate every possibility of an errant throw as well as we could?  Didn't we ASSUME a bad throw would be made and hustle in position to field the ball just in case it a chance to contribute materialized?  In Belt's case in particular, what the heck ELSE did he have to do on the play?

And finally, why is it that we complain about the Giants' taking pitches down the middle and swinging at balls outside the strike zone instead of more subtle stuff like the above?  Sure it's easy to complain about that, but it is both obvious on the one hand and more difficult to understand the difficulty in hitting the fabulous major league pitching on the other.  Some here have played ball at a fairly high level, but none of us has faced anything like major league pitching.

None of us can truly tell a major leaguer how to hit major league pitching.  Heck, even the batting coaches have a hard time getting their points across, and they HAVE faced pitching at the highest level of the game.  Helpful suggestions, sure.  But as to how to truly hit such high-quality pitching?  None of us has ever faced anything like it.

But any player should be able to think ahead and get himself in position for the unexpected -- especially if he has no other responsibility on the play.  Today's outstanding positioning puts players in places to make more plays.  But once the ball becomes active, it is up to the player to anticipate the play and get into the best possible position.

When I refereed, we were taught not to anticipate the call, but to anticipate the PLAY.  There is no way humanly possible to get into position to have the best angle to make every call.  There are too many variables in how the play will develop.  But we know how the play SHOULD be made and thus can play the odds in where to position ourselves.  In some ways, refereeing lesser players is tougher, since they make the right play less often, making it harder to anticipate and be in the best position.

It should be pretty easy to anticipate where an errant throw is likely to go and get in position to back it up.  In Belt's case for instance, it isn't likely that a bad throw from the catcher back to the plate will go down the first base line.  He and Panik should be fighting for position to back up a wild throw closer to the middle.  Ideally, Belt would take the short back up and Panik would take the deeper angle.  But one of the two of them should be closer to the plate in anticipation.  It's really just another version of backing up the throw back to the pitcher's mound with a runner on third base.

I wonder why players even have to be TAUGHT to make plays such as having the glove already moving into the tag or hustling into position to back up a throw.  Aren't such plays kind of obvious?  One of the toughest areas in defense is keeping up concentration, often just to make a few plays in a three-hour game.  Thinking ahead is a productive method of doing so.

Baseball is just a kids' game.  When it's played at 100 mph with thousands of rotations per minute on a thrown pitch, it's not so easy to master.  But anyone -- even kids -- can think ahead and anticipate.

[klaiggeb]

You want them to actually "think?" Rog?

What a concept!

I'm right there with you.

Players, and adults in general today, treat the word "think" as a four letter word.

boly

[Rog]

If they're thinking "thin," I'd like to join them!

[Rog]

The Giants and Cubs both have excellent defensive infields, especially when Eduardo Nunez is at third base. (Arroyo's pretty decent too.) In Belt, Panik and Crawford, the Giants have three of the very top guys at their positions, as do the Cubs with Rizzo, Baez and Russell. Kris Bryant is a very good defender at the hot corner, and Nunez is no slouch. If one considers Buster Posey part of the "infield," the Giants gain the clear advantage.

The Giants and Cubs might have the two best defensive infields in baseball. The difference seems to be that the Cubs have an offense, while the Giants' offensive is merely offensive. Then again, the Giants' five "infielders" hit pretty well. It's more the outfield that is the problem. Overall, the Giants have a .647 OPS and are averaging just 3.3 runs per game. They are yielding 4.8 runs per outing and have been outscored by 75 runs on the season.

[klaiggeb]

I would give the nod to the Giants over the Cubs, Rog, but you are correct; both are outstanding.

IF...IF we're only talking defense, I'll take Panik and Crawford over Russell and the inconsistent Baez.

Defensively, though Bryant is very good, he's not a natural 3Bman. Cubs have long said they'd rather him be in the outfield, where he does play a lot.

Thus, I think Nunez and Arroyo both are better with the glove.

boly

[Rog]

I agree on Panik and Crawford up the middle. I think Crawford is a bit better than Russell, and as you mention, Joe's consistent excellence trumps Baez's spectacular play until Baez settles down and doesn't try to make plays even he can't make. I would take Rizzo at first, and I'll have to go against you at third. While I think Bryant is having a down season defensively, I don't think either Nunez or Arroyo is particularly good.

Regarding Crawford, I don't think I've ever seen an infielder as good going back on pop flies as Brandon is. He really has no discernible weakness defensively. Not that I can see anyway.

A year ago I read a piece that chose the Orioles' infield as the best. Machado is a shortstop playing third base, but I didn't think the other three equaled the Giants. To be honest though, I really don't see anywhere nearly enough of the Orioles to judge.

[klaiggeb]

Roger-I don't think either Nunez or Arroyo is particularly good.

***boly says***

Arroyo's a rookie who has handled the glove really well down there.

But Nunez, since he's been with us, has been just this side of spectacular at 3B.

boly

[Rog]

You've been higher on Eduardo's defense than I have, Boly. We both agree he was very good last season, although I think you saw him as being a bit better than I did. This season I don't think he's been particularly special. Fielding percentage is a poor measure of a player's fielding performance, but Eduardo's .941 at third is particularly low. He has made three errors after not making a single one last season after his first few games with the Giants.

Eduardo is a bit unorthodox at third, which I feel makes some of his plays look tougher than they truly are. I think Inside Edge Fielding may be a little harsh in their evaluations of Eduardo at third, but they don't believe he has EVER fielding a ball successfully at the position on which the chances of fielding it were 10% or lower. They do believe he has successfully fielded two-third of the 50/50 balls hit to him, which is quite good. I guess they see his forte as coming on "you do or you don't" balls. And I will say I think he's pretty darn good on that type of play.

[klaiggeb]

Roger, you and those damned numbers.

Watch the guy play!

Great range, accurate arm.

Makes all of the routine plays.

What he did prior to coming here is moot.

boly

[Rog]

Here's the thing about the people who watch and rate plays, Boly. Their view too is somewhat subjective. Like us, they're people. But they're also trained at evaluating defense, and they're mostly objective.

I don't know precisely how someone determines whether a play goes into "impossible" (0% chance, and thus far none have been made) or "remote" (1% to 10%) or "unlikely" (10% to 40%) to "even" (40% to 60%) to "likely" (60% to 90%) to "routine" (90% to 100%). But let me describe how I suspect it is done.

First, the head guy made an initial judgment as to the types of plays which fit into each category. He then viewed thousands of plays for each position to see the percentage of each type of play that were actually made. He then reviewed the results, making adjustments according to the results. He then viewed thousands of plays for each position to see how his adjusted requirements worked. When he finally got the results to fit the definition (for instance, when 50% of the "even" chances were actually made), he then taught his team -- position by position -- how to define the plays, using hundreds of examples of each type of play.

The researchers were then turned loose to do the evaluations, with two people for each position. When the two reviewers agreed on the play's type, the judgment was recorded. When the two disagreed, a third party viewed the plays to break the tie. Each reviewer's results were reviewed by category to ensure that each reviewer had for instance, 50% of "even" plays as being actually made.

Keep in mind that this information was initially sold to teams. It HAD to be accurate in order to be accepted. Eventually the information became available to public sources.

So when we're looking at these "numbers," we're looking at evaluations that the teams themselves thought were accurate enough to be useful. The "numbers" were likely used in arbitrations where appropriate, meaning they affect actual dollars and cents. If something affects dollars and cents, it should at least make sense.

So are these numbers perfect? Of course not. We're dealing with humans, no matter how well they've been trained. Are they more accurate than our own judgments, based on only a very small percentage of plays made and subject to our own biases? Almost certainly.

As individuals, we look at something, see it, evaluate it and then feel this is the way it was. We see it, then feel it, then believe that is the way it is.

These evaluators are trained and likely evaluated for accuracy and objectivity. The results -- subject to review for accuracy and objectivity -- they come up with are as unbiased and accurate as such evaluations can be.

If we say our judgments are more accurate, we're saying that despite our seeing only a small percentage of plays and evaluating them through untrained eyes and non-objective eyes (not to say those eyes have no knowledge). We're saying we can be more accurate in a small, uneven sample than trained observers who view virtually every play. We're saying teams should be paying US for our judgments, just as they pay the company Inside Edge, a company who sold their judgments to major league teams because the teams were convinced the results were accurate.

When we disregard the facts (numbers), we run the risk that our views are subject to small sample sizes and a certain lack of objectivity.

Here is a difference between us. Neither of us agrees with the numbers all the time. When you disagree with them, you say, see, these numbers aren't really all that valuable. I know what I see with my eyes. I look to see WHY I disagree with the numbers. If I can convince myself that my views are more accurate and can understand specifically WHY they are more accurate, I'll go against the numbers. Maybe there are flaws in how the data are collected. Maybe the data doesn't mean quite what one would usually think it means.

I can be right and the numbers "wrong." But my ego is such that before I believe that, I've examined the reasons why I disagree with the data to a level where I am highly convinced that somehow I have found out something that goes beyond the data. And I have a pretty good idea what the "somehow" is.

When I come across a fact, often expressed in numbers, I feel the need to find the specific reason my judgment flies in the face of that fact. I can't simply believe the fact is wrong because I've seen it with my own eyes. Our eyes play tricks, especially if they're located in a less-than-objective body.

[Rog]

Watch the guy play!

Rog -- I HAVE watched Nunez play. He's a lot better than I expected. I simply feel that his unorthodox way of playing the ball sometimes makes plays look harder than they truly are.

[Rog]

Makes all of the routine plays.


Rog -- If a player made all the routine plays, he would never make an error, would he? (That's actually not quite true, but hopefully we get the concept.) You and I have both seen Eduardo botch routine plays. Certainly not a lot of them, but we've each seen him botch a few.

I was the guy who noticed (or at least stated) that after making a couple of errors in his first week with the Giants, Eduardo didn't make an error the rest of the season. I saw him pretty clearly last season and felt he was darn good. I didn't see him as being quite as good as Matt Duffy, while you thought he was better. We differed only to the DEGREE of his excellence.

This season I don't feel he's been quite as good. I don't see him as having been bad at third base. I simply don't feel he's been as good as last season.

Here is what is ironic. I really LIKE Eduardo as a player. Unless I remember incorrectly, you recently suggested the Giants trade him. Although I suggested over the winter that the Giants might wind up trading Eduardo for a left fielder, I think he's a better player than you do. I don't think he's as good as I felt he was after last season, but I still think he's good (and has shown at least some versatility).

But I don't think he's been as good a fielder this season as he was last season when he truly surprised me. But at his best, I didn't think he was better than Matt Duffy. You and I view his defense similarly; I simply don't think he's quite as good as you do. Probably the more objective evaluations of him are more accurate than either you or I. Let's see at the end of the season how he's rated.

If we look at Inside Edge, we see a pretty clear picture that their evaluation of his play this season is considerably lower this year than last. Keeping in mind that his numbers from last season included his third base play with the Twins, Inside Edge doesn't credit him with fielding a single impossible (not a surprise) play or remote play. They credit him with fielding 30% (a good number) of unlikely plays last season but none this year. They credit him with 69.2% success on even plays last season (an excellent number), but only 33.3% this season. They show him to be almost identical on likely plays in both 2016 (68.8%) and 2017 (66.7%). They show a big dip in routine plays, from a very good 97.9% last season to just 92.7% this year.

The Inside Edge numbers, which I hadn't really looked at very closely until today, seem to support both of my suppositions.

By the way, I think it is quite possible that Eduardo's Inside Edge numbers last season were as good as or better than Matt Duffy's. Matt was injured. But I imagine they were fairly close. Let's take a look and see how the numbers turn out. I haven't looked at Matt's numbers until now, or at least I don't remember looking at them.

Both players were of course 0% on impossible plays. Both players were 0% on remote plays. Eduardo was at 30.0% on unlikely plays. Matt stood at 36.4%. Pretty close. On even plays, Eduardo was at an excellent 69.2%. Matt was at 66.7%. Again, pretty even. On likely plays, Eduardo fielded 68.2%, while Matt was successful a very fine 81.3% of the time. On routine plays, it was Eduardo at 97.9% to Matt's 98.1%. Again, just about even.

So I was wrong in that Inside Edge rated Matt ahead of Eduardo last season. I would have guessed Eduardo would have been better because of Matt's injuries. One thing to remember though is that Eduardo's numbers included his Minnesota figures, and I know they weren't as good as when he played with the Giants. And Matt's numbers included his time with the Rays, and I have little idea how he fared there. So let's say while playing for the Giants last season, the two were about equal.

How about my guess that Matt was better in 2015 than he was last season? No impossible's in either season, of course, but he was credited with 5.3% on remote plays in 2015 but none last season. He was rated at 20.0% on unlikely plays in 2015, but 36.4% in 2016. On even plays, Matt was credited with a poor 28.6% in 2015 compared to an excellent 66.7% last year. On likely plays he was 72.0% in 2015 and 81.3% in 2016. On routine plays, it was 96.6% in 2015 and 98.1% last season.

Looks like I overrated Matt in 2015. Actually, I think I rated him a little lower than many, so perhaps not by too much. I might have rated him higher too based on his play later in the season. (See, I can fall into the same traps as others.) But given Matt's injuries last season, I'm surprised he rated higher last year than in 2015. Either my memory isn't too good, or perhaps my evaluation wasn't as good as I thought. Hey, maybe those numbers were off. But probably not.

One area I'm pretty sure I was right about is that Eduardo was better last season than this. Given how he has been moved around this season, that's not really too surprising.

But the bottom line on this may be that the comment "Watch the guy play!" was a defensive statement (no pun intended) made with little to back it up. It was a comment that seems to say, "I can evaluate Eduardo's defense better than you can and better than any numbers can." I'm not sure that is correct.

[klaiggeb]

Let's see if I get this straight.

Pansy is awkward as hell... yet you constantly praise his defense.

Nunez is a LOT smoother than Pansy, but that doesn't count?

Explain, please.

And as to Matt Duffy... I'll take Nunez' glove in a heart beat!

More range, better arm, surer hands.

And I LOVED Matt Duffy!

Right now, I'd take him back for Moore in a heartbeat!

boly

[Rog]

Pansy is awkward as hell... yet you constantly praise his defense.


Rog -- When you say "Pansy," are you talking about Joe Panik? That's the closest name I can find.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3883/great-defense-horrible-luck#ixzz4iWI4TFuk

[Islandboagie]

Boly- And as to Matt Duffy... I'll take Nunez' glove in a heart beat!

More range, better arm, surer hands.

Boagie- I thought you were serious until you said this. Duffy was a much better 3rd baseman.

[Rog]

Despite his struggles, I believe Matt Moore is the better player to have of him and Duffy. For one thing, Duffy has been injured and has yet to play a major league game this season. He is expected to resume his minor league rehab assignment this week. Matt has played in only 21 major league games since the Giants traded him.

Not only are Moore's ERA and WHIP very high this season, his peripherals are lousy too. In other words, he has simply been BAD. But he does have talent.

The Giants could get a fair amount more by trading Moore than the Rays could get for Duffy. Of course, the Giants gave up more than Duffy to acquire Moore.

I hope Duffy comes back strong and makes me regret saying this.

[Rog]

Intriguing, isn't it, how differently Boly and Boagie evaluate the respective defense of Matt Duffy and Eduardo Nunez?

Boly says, "And as to Matt Duffy... I'll take Nunez' glove in a heart beat!" Clearly he thinks Eduardo is easily the better. Boagie says "I thought you were serious until you said this. Duffy was a much better 3rd baseman."

Here we've got two good baseball men who are very firm in their polar opposite opinions. I would again suggest paying attention to the stats, which say Duffy is better. If we don't do that, we are saying simply that my opinion is better than yours. I don't care what you say, and I don't care what the stats say. I know what I see with my own eyes.

Then why is it that Boly and Boagie see virtually the game thing so differently? Defense is darn hard to evaluate -- whether with the eyes of a scout or through stats. The stats sometimes give differing results. But if we look at ALL the stats and judge accordingly, we're probably more likely to come out with the right answer than simply by using our own eyes.

It is my opinion that Boly overrates Eduardo. The stats of which I am aware back that up. I'm certainly not CERTAIN my viewpoint is correct, but I feel better about it after seeing that the stats back it up.

What I find ironic is that both Boly and Boagie seem to be more certain of their opinions -- based almost entirely on their own eyes -- than I am even after I balance my opinion with the stats. I get very frustrated when I read "I don't care what the numbers say. I know what my eyes see." Why then do two good baseball men -- Boly and Boagie -- see the comparative defense of Nunez and Duffy so differently?

I'm afraid, Boly, that you seem to be saying, "I don't care what the numbers say, I don't care what you think Boagie, and I don't care what you think Roger." Don't you think you should care?




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3883/great-defense-horrible-luck?page=1#ixzz4iXo1ltd0

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3883/great-defense-horrible-luck?page=1#ixzz4iXnj5CNJ

[Rog]

I hope Duffy comes back strong and makes me regret saying this.


Rog -- Even more, I hope that both Matt's bounce back so strongly that the point becomes moot.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3883/great-defense-horrible-luck?page=1#ixzz4iXqYypms

[klaiggeb]

Roger; that's Buster Pansy. I explained why I have taken to calling him that in another post.

11 RBIs... 7 of which are himself.

Other than one short hot streak... weak fly balls, weak ground balls.

So much for the best hitter on our team; the guy other teams are making sure don't beat them.

boly

[klaiggeb]

I loved Matt Duffy, boagie, but I do NOT know what you and Rog see in him that makes him better at 3B than Nunez.

Remember, I did NOT want Nunez when the trade was made.

Ever since he took over, he's been nothing but steady, often making spectacular plays.

boly

[Islandboagie]

Duffy ranged further in the hole, his throws were more accurate, he had a quicker release, his hands were better and overall he was smoother.

[Islandboagie]

youtu.be/pR_ZizaTw-0

[Rog]

Highlights almost never make a player look BAD, but I have to say those highlights were impressive. Matt was nominated for a Gold Glove. That it came in his first full season and when he was a good but not especially good offensive player was impressive to me.

I do think Matt is the better third baseman. And I still maintain that Eduardo's unorthodox method of fielding balls makes plays look harder than they truly are. I wouldn't say Eduardo is awkward. I would say though that he is unorthodox.

A comment from yesterday's game. I don't think Trea Turner is the fielder that Brandon Crawford is (although I don't really know aside from the fact that I consider Brandon on the best defensive shortstops of all time). But on that hard-hit ball up the middle, he made a really tough play look half-way easy, much as Brandon often does. I felt though that from the same starting position, Brandon wouldn't have been able to field that ball. It would likely have gone off the tip of his glove or even more likely just shot into center field IMO. Turner himself barely got it with a full-out dive.

Turner is extremely fast and quick. I suspect his range is elite. It is to his credit that last season as a rookie mid-seasoan call up he seamlessly moved to second base and center field because that is where the Nationals needed him.

Anyway, I still like Crawford over Turner -- probably by a fair amount. But Turner also looks good, and there are balls he will get to that Crawford might not be able to reach. That's part of the reason it's so hard to judge fielding.

The good thing is that they are now measuring reaction time, how far the fielder went to get the ball, how efficient his route was, and the time of the play. They also measure how hard the throw was if there was a throw. And I suspect release time as well.

With the naked eye, I think we can tell a fast release from a slow one, but I don't think we can tell which fast release is necessarily faster. We're talking hundredths of a second. Maybe even thousandths.

I think in my lifetime fielding will be able to be measured reasonably accurately. And that would be quite an accomplishment. And help reduce if not end arguments about whether Nunez or Duffy is the better fielder.

[Rog]

One thing often leads to another, and I have been fascinated by which player has the best shortstop defense. Not that it is fully definitive, but I decided to look at the Inside Edge career fielding marks of Andrelton Simmons, Brandon Crawford, Francisco Lindor and Addison Russell. Based on these numbers, at least, it quickly became clear that Russell isn't in the same class with the other three.

So how about the other three?

On the remote balls (1% to 10% likelihood), Lindor stands out at 16.0%. Simmons wasn't too far behind at 12.2%, and Crawford was significantly behind at 6.7%. Based solely on these numbers, Simmons and Lindor stand out on the toughest of plays, with Lindor holding the edge.

Lindor leads again on the unlikely plays (10% to 40%). He has fielded 53.8% of these balls, which is once again a wonderful mark. Crawford and Simmons aren't too far behind at 43.8% and 43.3%. Lindor does stand above though.

On even balls (40% to 60%), Simmons leads the way with 76.1%. Lindor is close behind with 70.8%, and Crawford has an OK 48.6%.

On likely balls (60% to 90%), Lindor once again enjoys a slight edge. He's at 84.0%, with Crawford at 82.5% and Simmons as 81.4%. Pretty close here.

Simmons enjoys a surprising edge on routine plays (90% to 100%), fielding 98.7% of them. Crawford and Lindor are also very good at 97.8% and 97.6%

The Inside Edge evaluations make it appear Lindor is the best defensive shortstop in the game, with Simmons and Crawford not too far behind. Given that I think Crawford might be in the top 10 ever and that he's only third of the three here, this is one heck of a crop of defensive shortstops. And, amazingly, Francisco is only 23 years old.

Lindor is on pace to hit 30 homers this season. (He hit 12 in 2015 and 15 last season.) His average has dropped from over .300 to .277. But one can see he has become an elite shortstop.

Defensively, both Crawford and Simmons are elite. Overall, while Simmons is better than decent and Crawford is good at bat, they're clearly not elite. But Lindor, Corey Seager and Carlos Correa are pretty close to that level. And Xander Bogaerts has hit .320 and .294 the past two seasons and is hitting .326 in 2017. None of this quartet is over 24, and Correa isn't yet even 23.

[donk33]

May 30, 2017 2:28:34 GMT -5 Rog said:

Intriguing, isn't it, how differently Boly and Boagie evaluate the respective defense of Matt Duffy and Eduardo Nunez?

Boly says, "And as to Matt Duffy... I'll take Nunez' glove in a heart beat!" Clearly he thinks Eduardo is easily the better. Boagie says "I thought you were serious until you said this. Duffy was a much better 3rd baseman."

Here we've got two good baseball men who are very firm in their polar opposite opinions. I would again suggest paying attention to the stats, which say Duffy is better. If we don't do that, we are saying simply that my opinion is better than yours. I don't care what you say, and I don't care what the stats say. I know what I see with my own eyes.

Then why is it that Boly and Boagie see virtually the game thing so differently? Defense is darn hard to evaluate -- whether with the eyes of a scout or through stats. The stats sometimes give differing results. But if we look at ALL the stats and judge accordingly, we're probably more likely to come out with the right answer than simply by using our own eyes.

It is my opinion that Boly overrates Eduardo. The stats of which I am aware back that up. I'm certainly not CERTAIN my viewpoint is correct, but I feel better about it after seeing that the stats back it up.

What I find ironic is that both Boly and Boagie seem to be more certain of their opinions -- based almost entirely on their own eyes -- than I am even after I balance my opinion with the stats. I get very frustrated when I read "I don't care what the numbers say. I know what my eyes see." Why then do two good baseball men -- Boly and Boagie -- see the comparative defense of Nunez and Duffy so differently?

I'm afraid, Boly, that you seem to be saying, "I don't care what the numbers say, I don't care what you think Boagie, and I don't care what you think Roger." Don't you think you should care?

dk...and Duffy was back  to playing shortstop and Nunez has played mostly in left field....how do you compare that??

 

[Rog]

Duffy was back to playing shortstop and Nunez has played mostly in left field....how do you compare that??


Rog -- One compares how they performed when they played third base. One think I'm pretty confident of is that Matt is the better shortstop. And if he played there, he would likely become the better left fielder. It would seem that both Nunez and Tomlinson have the tools to become good outfielders. But neither has been able to do so thus far.

Among the Giants' position players, only Buster and the two Brandon's have been good this season. Where Bobby Evans says he misjudged the situation is that he felt the Giants had enough hitting depth throughout the lineup that if left field didn't hit, they could still be OK. As Bobby would freely admit, that hasn't been the case.

Here is a question I would ask: Assuming both stay healthy (which hasn't been the case so far with Matt), will Duffy have the better career or will Christian Arroyo? Where does Joe Panik fit within the equation? Will any of them become as good as Brandon Crawford has been?

One last comment: When Duffy was still with the Giants, I felt they had near-Gold Glove defense at each of the four infield positions. After Nunez played a little for the Giants, I certainly didn't have any issues with his defense. But I no longer had the feeling the Giants were at or close to Gold Glove level at each of the infield spots.

Still, isn't it intriguing that Boly and Boagie are so disparate in their respective opinions of the relative defense of Duffy and Nunez at third base, and I'm somewhat in the middle (although closer to Boagie)? That's another reason why stats are important. Three pretty good baseball observers, and three different opinions.


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3883/great-defense-horrible-luck#ixzz4iaoyiJcl

[Rog]

By the way, Don, how do you weigh in here on Duffy's defense vs. Nunez's?

A comment regarding Buster behind the plate and whether he's awkward. I haven't seen Buster awkward regardless of where he's played. I have seen him not be very fundamentally sound in blocking balls. Despite that, his results have been good throughout his career at preventing pitches from getting by. Part of that I think is that he seems to have soft hands.

Where Buster has shown in recent years is in:

. Pitch framing, where he is rated one of the best.

. Throwing, where his throws have become increasingly on the money.

. Making plays on balls hit around the plate. IIRC he recorded an out on 32 of 33 such plays last season.

Buster is considered by most to be the best defensive catcher in the game, which is impressive given that Yadier Molina -- one of the best ever -- is still playing, albeit at a reduced level of defensive effectiveness.

One last question: It's pretty generally assumed Buster will make the Hall of Fame. Will Yadier join him?

[klaiggeb]

Sorry, boagie. I watched the video, and I saw all or most of the plays live.

I don't agree with you.

boly

[donk33]

May 30, 2017 15:04:02 GMT -5 Rog said:

By the way, Don, how do you weigh in here on Duffy's defense vs. Nunez's?

A comment regarding Buster behind the plate and whether he's awkward. I haven't seen Buster awkward regardless of where he's played. I have seen him not be very fundamentally sound in blocking balls. Despite that, his results have been good throughout his career at preventing pitches from getting by. Part of that I think is that he seems to have soft hands.

Where Buster has shown in recent years is in:

. Pitch framing, where he is rated one of the best.

. Throwing, where his throws have become increasingly on the money.

. Making plays on balls hit around the plate. IIRC he recorded an out on 32 of 33 such plays last season.

Buster is considered by most to be the best defensive catcher in the game, which is impressive given that Yadier Molina -- one of the best ever -- is still playing, albeit at a reduced level of defensive effectiveness.

One last question: It's pretty generally assumed Buster will make the Hall of Fame. Will Yadier join him

dk...without a doubt Yadier is the better catcher and should be a first vote HOF....Posey will be finished catching if and when the Giants come up with a reasonable replacement....the one thing Posey has going for him is that he has been adopted as the face of "white, US product of modern baseball"...I have been loath to say it outright, but I think Posey doesn't have the courage to be in the HOF....he does everything in his power to avoid getting hit with a pitch...that is why, IMO, he jumps up on balls in the dirt, he calls for high pitches more than balls in the dirt...he has some what got over going in the fetal position on inside pitches to LH batters. but he still ducks every now and then on the high fasr ball...as I have said in the last 5 years or more, his targeting is too far off the strike zone and he almost never gets a strike called on a close pitch...lately, he has developed a new habit of constantly moving behind the plate, never giving a set target.....there is good reason not to tip the hitter off, but there should be a short interval when he settles down and gives the pitcher a set target...and his leadership is stealth to me...he doesn't  help his pitcher as much as he should.....the Harper thing was the final straw for me...maybe Strickland deserved a fight, but Posey should have jumped between them as soon as it happened...the ump beat him out to the mound...and Posey's team mates all beat him to the mound before he moved...and he had all that protective cover  on.......I agree with one comment...his fielding is good on taps in front of the plate...his throwing is still streaky...just like his hitting...

[klaiggeb]

Don, Krukow wouldn't reveal his source, but he said that Posey was TOLD, never to go out and brawl for any reason.

To call him a coward for following orders is not correct, nor is it criquette.

boly