|
Post by Islandboagie on Sept 23, 2017 9:32:36 GMT -5
I'm not sure the reasoning behind discrediting what Boly and I see and then using what you see in highlights on YouTube as clear evidence.
And I've already explained to you which plays I think Crawford is better at making. I don't know why you ignore it and then ask the question again. But I will add another, line drives that Crawford leaps for are plays Simmons might not make.
But I'm not arguing that Crawford is better. They're both really good, Simmons' range might make him better. The argument I had was about Ahmed and Russell being considered better by ESPN.
But I'm done with this conversation because your objectivity is short sighted.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Sept 23, 2017 20:42:39 GMT -5
I'm not sure the reasoning behind discrediting what Boly and I see and then using what you see in highlights on YouTube as clear evidence.
Rog -- I'm not trying to discredit you or Boly, and I'm not using the comparative highlights as clear evidence, but I must say that after researching this for literally hours, Simmons keeps coming on stronger. Not that Brandon is bad. He's great IMO.
But the evidence keeps saying Simmons is better, starting with the highlights. Crawford's highlights are true highlights, but Simmons' seem even better to me. I have cited pretty much from memory several plays that I Simmons made but that I've never seen Crawford make. No one has contested that.
And I've asked which highlights from Crawford's highlights we feel Simmons WOULDN'T have made but Brandon did. No one has come up with any (although I could make an argument that he made a play or two that I haven't seen Simmons make).
So highlight-wise, based on our discussion, we've seen plays that Simmons made (tag plays, the throw from the grass in the 5 1/4 hole, the pivot across the body on the full run to complete the double play spring to mind) that we haven't seen Brandon make. But we haven't seen the opposite.
It has been said that Brandon is better on the routine plays, but the objective numbers show that isn't the case. The original argument is based on seeing a small percentage of Simmons' plays, while the numbers show how the two performed over ALL their plays. The latter view also shows that Simmons is better at all the other types of plays except the medium-hard plays, where they are tied.
Most of what I have been able to find on the internet favors Simmons. Simmons has far more highlights (and higher quality one without an objection here), which in itself might tell us something.
Crawford's fielding percentage was brought up as an advantage, but while Brandon's career fielding percentage is a marvelous 38th-best of all time, Simmons' ranks #4 and is well ahead of even Brandon's. Crawford's range factor was supposed to be better -- except that it isn't. Simmons enjoys a .20 per game range advantage.
While I give you credit for saying both are great and that either one could be better, Boagie, with Boly saying only that it doesn't matter, you guys have presented almost no evidence that is both accurate and based on a large sample. I simply don't see why you guys can't see that while it impossible to prove which shortstop is better defensively, the heavy preponderance of evidence points to Simmons.
When it comes to fielding percentage, range factor and routine plays -- most of the argument you guys have made -- we see that the evidence clearly favors Simmons, not Crawford as you guys have indicated.
I guess what drives me crazy is that this preponderance of evidence is viewed as mostly numbers, which seemingly don't matter to you guys (especially Boly). Boly thinks Brandon is better because he makes the routine play better based on the small sample he's viewed. You cited fielding percentage and range factor. Boly's observations are overridden by those who have viewed all the plays by each player. Your argument turned out to be wrong.
It's frustrating to argue with guys who seemingly don't listen or understand the facts.
Again, I'm not saying that Simmons is for sure better than Crawford. There is no way to prove that. What I'm saying though is that preponderance of the evidence points to Simmons. And that the arguments you guys made aren't valid.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Sept 23, 2017 20:44:46 GMT -5
By the way, you guys are both good guys. I've met Boly, and he's great. But I just don't understand ignoring facts and consensus.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Sept 23, 2017 20:49:54 GMT -5
And I've already explained to you which plays I think Crawford is better at making. I don't know why you ignore it and then ask the question again. Rog -- Because the question I asked was which plays Crawford made that Simmons WOULDN'T have made, not which ones Crawford was better at. I've seen time after time here where posters think they have answered a question, but misunderstood the question. I take some responsibility for that, since it indicates I'm not communicating effectively, but do you see Boagie that you didn't answer what I asked, even though you felt you did? There is a distincct difference between not making a play as easily and not making it all. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4070/shortstop-fielding?page=3#ixzz4tYZcIEiG
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Sept 23, 2017 20:52:24 GMT -5
As for Ahmed and Russell, Boagie, I haven't looked very closely, but I haven't found anything that clearly indicates that either player is a better fielder than Brandon. I really don't know much about Ahmed.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Sept 24, 2017 9:48:56 GMT -5
roger, we're not ignoring your evidence.
All I keep saying is that I've seen Simmons boot more routine plays than Crawford.
They're both outstanding. Why do we have to pick who's better.
But in another direction, Crawford is a MUCH smoother player than Simmons.
Simmons is NOT picturesque the way Brandon is on defense.
When Crawford FIRST CAME UP, I made the statement that he was the most ENJOYABLE SS to watch fielding the ball since Viquzel.
He's smooth, Simmons, to my eyes, LOOKS awkward. Funny throwing motion to start with, stiff when fielding the ball.
That's what I see.
boly
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Sept 24, 2017 15:45:17 GMT -5
You're not going to convince him, Boly. The stat geek publications have spoken...thats when Rog puts his blinders on.
Simmons is a damn good shortstop, no question about it. But when the stat geek publications say he's the best (which he very well COULD be) people like Rog shut down their objectiveness. They don't realize that Crawford is better fundamentally with his throws and his field awareness. They don't realize Crawford can stretch farther on dives and get up higher on leaps for line drive snags because of his height. They just preach to others about being as close minded and sheep to the mainstream as they are.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Sept 24, 2017 17:21:08 GMT -5
Enough is enough with this topic.
There are a lot more interesting things to discuss than this.
boly
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Sept 24, 2017 20:00:14 GMT -5
I get it. The consensus is Simmons. The stats show Simmons is in a class by himself. The stats contradict the three points you guys have made (routine plays, fielding percentage and range factor). And the highlights indicate it (at least no one has showed the highlight plays Brandon made that Simmons couldn't make, whereas Simmons made several we've never seen Brandon make. So it's time to move on to something else, like anyone comes up with good, new topics anyway.
But I would like to have an important question answered. What is it that you see regarding Crawford and Simmons that I don't? Boagie at least mentioned that Crawford is smoother. I think all three of us can agree on that. Boagie is right that aside from Omar Vizquel, Brandon is the smoothest shortstop I can remember. There might be one or more, but I don't remember them.
Anyway, Boagie, pretty much any serious Giants fan can see that. What is it you're seeing that I'm not? More importantly, Boly, what is it that you're seeing?
One more important question that comes to mind: I think I'm pretty good at judging fielding, but I can't come close to valuing my opinion based on seeing a small sample of plays over the opinion of experts who see ALL the plays. Clearly you guys can. Isn't that WAY egotistical?
Finally, almost everyone here disparages "stats geeks." But the stats geeks present a lot of facts, while very few important facts are mentioned on this board.
And another thing: It was just said that Simmons LOOKS awkward. Let's suppose that is true. If Simmons makes more plays, which most of the evidence points to, who cares how he looks? Should we disparage Stan Musial because of his corkscrew stance?
One last thing on fielding: Duane said that Mac Williamson's throw today was a good one. Really? If so, how did Granderson -- who is fast, but not of Buxton/Hamilton speed -- score on a ball to fairly short left field?
Mac could have timed his run into the throw a lot better (although at least he showed the awareness to try), his release was so slow that it almost looked like Granderson surprised him, and while the throw wasn't slow, it certainly wasn't fast.
Mike said the play was close. It wasn't. Only if Granderson slid OVER the plate -- which may players do -- would have the play been close. But since Granderson slid right to the plate with the proper leg, it wasn't truly close.
I've been quite disappointed with Mac this season. I've never been nearly as high on him as the Giants have, but I was hoping he would prove me wrong.
Finally, we speak of the intensity of the Giants/Dodgers rivalry. Maybe it's not as intense as when both teams essentially occupied the same city, but it's still one of the most intense in the majors. Well, Clayton Kershaw has the lowest ERA against the Giants of any starter -- ever. Ever. That's a long time.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Sept 25, 2017 7:36:07 GMT -5
line drives that Crawford leaps for are plays Simmons might not make. Rog -- Brandon is great at leaping for line drives. Impeccable timing. And you're right that he snags line drives that Simmons MIGHT not reach. But the key word is MIGHT. Simmons is more athletic and has longer arms, so it seems unlikely. But we're not dealing in facts here. The fact is that those who watch all the plays by all the players say that Simmons makes more plays than Crawford. Simmons is also the consensus top shortstop. You say I'm not objective, but objective is defined as "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased." You guys are basing your opinions on your personal feelings and interpretations." Now THAT'S not objective. I am trying -- and virtually always try here -- to use facts. You guys are basing your opinions on the small sample you "see," while I'm using the valuations of those who see ALL the plays. A very high percentage of opinions based on seeing ALL the plays favor Simmons -- some of them quite strongly. I happen to think Simmons makes plays that Crawford can't make, but if that weren't the case (and since playing shortstop isn't simply the highlights), I would defer to the experts who have seen a far bigger sample than I. You guys seem to be going by the small samples you see -- and not much else. For you to say I'm not objective simply shows you don't understand the meaning of the word. Did you notice the word "FACTS" is included in the definition. The only facts you guys have cited -- fielding percentage and range factor -- were not only merely a part of the picture, but you were wrong about them anyway. Non-objective, wrong, basing your opinions on a small sample. Not a great way to form an opinion. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4070/shortstop-fielding?page=3#ixzz4th18tsov
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Sept 25, 2017 7:45:58 GMT -5
They don't realize that Crawford is better fundamentally with his throws and his field awareness. They don't realize Crawford can stretch farther on dives and get up higher on leaps for line drive snags because of his height. Rog -- Gosh, Boagie. You're using an argument here that is flat-out wrong -- just like your fielding percentage and range factor arguments. Baseball-Reference lists BOTH Crawford and Simmons at six-foot-two. Simmons has longer arms. Simmons is more athletic. I guess that is why "they" don't realize Crawford can stretch farther on dives and get up higher on leaps. You're simply guessing here -- and quite possibly guessing wrong. As for Crawford's being "fundamentally better" with his throws, perhaps. He's not as athletic with them, and the consensus is that Simmons has the stronger arm. As for field awareness, I think Brandon has it in spades. He's almost always looking to make the right play. Yet we don't see him throwing behind runners to catch them off base as we see with Simmons. The bottom line though is that those who watch all the plays made by each generally believe that Simmons makes more plays than Crawford. Some measurements has him FAR ahead of Brandon. Let's cut to the quick here. It isn't just I who think Simmons is better. Simmons is the consensus choice. And yet you guys think that in a small sample you can make a better decision than the consensus. Egotistical and certainly NOT objective. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4070/shortstop-fielding?page=3#ixzz4th4DEtsY
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Sept 25, 2017 9:10:00 GMT -5
You're right, Rog. I thought Crawford was taller, I assumed and my assumption was incorrect.
But just so we're clear, I'm not saying Crawford is better. I'm saying they're both very good, with different styles. I have always felt that the planting and throwing style was more effective in getting the out. The off balance throwing makes the play look harder than it really is.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Sept 25, 2017 21:52:40 GMT -5
But just so we're clear, I'm not saying Crawford is better. I'm saying they're both very good, with different styles. I have always felt that the planting and throwing style was more effective in getting the out. The off balance throwing makes the play look harder than it really is. Rog -- There is no way to say for SURE which player is better, and certainly both are extremely good. Personally, I'd like to be able to say that BRANDON is the better of the two, but during this discussion, I've done additional hours of study, and I can't in good conscience say that he is. I came across another stat today. I have mentioned that fielding is extremely hard to evaluate and that the consensus is that looking at as many areas as possible and sort of putting together a composite is the best way to evaluate. I personally place a good deal of emphasis on the valuations in Bill James Annual. That rating is a composite of 12 different sources, both statistical and from individual evaluations, one of which is by a former player (Doug Glanville). So today I came across the 20 shortstops with the most chances this season and Their Defensive Runs saved. This season the positive Defensive Runs Saved by all shortstops total 81. Thirty-two of the 81 belong to Andrelton Simmons. Brandon is second with 11. No other shortstop has more than 8. One way to look at this is that Andrelton and Brandon have combined for an amazing 43 of the 81 Defensive Runs Saved (a little over half). Another is that Simmons alone has 32 of the 81, for an incredible 40% all on his own. Now, is Andrelton THAT much better? I don't see how anyone could be THAT much better, which is why it is recommended to combine ALL the metrics and other information. Andrelton does lead most of the metrics, and it is likely noteworthy that he has finished first in the Bill James ranking each of his four full seasons, including perfect 120 scored each of the last three seasons by finishing first by each of the 12 voters, only one of which is statistical. We find far more Simmons highlights online than highlights of other shortstops. I'll be that neither you nor Boly has watched all those highlights, Boagie. They're stunning. So, what would I do if I personally saw Simmons as being the best? Given all the information backing up Simmons as the best, I would be egotistical and foolish to place my small-sample opinion over the consensus of both stats and individuals. I don't really care WHO is the best defensive shortstop (although I have a natural affinity for Brandon). What concerns me is that almost no one here seems to give credit to the other sources and instead relies on their own small-sample observation. That approach seems pretty widespread around here. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4070/shortstop-fielding?page=3#ixzz4tkQ53Z9P
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Sept 25, 2017 22:21:14 GMT -5
But as you guys have said, enough with Crawford and Simmons.
What I want to hear from Boly (and you too if appropriate, Boagie, and from anyone else here) is what you guys see that I don't. I've asked this question for a long, long time without much if any response.
Here is what I believe: I think EACH of us sees a little that the others don't. We're each good baseball (and especially Giants) fans, and we each approach the game slightly differently. But what I can learn from isn't what (if anything) I see that you guys don't. What I can learn from is what you guys see that I'm missing.
And, sadly, I'm just not hearing any specifics in that regard. I would like to learn what I'm missing, and the importance of what I'm missing.
In the Crawford/Simmons instance, I see the smoothness by Crawford that both Boly and Boagie see. I see the fine play on balls in front of him that Boagie sees. I see an exceptional ability to react to extremely tough "you do or you don't" plays on balls scorched at him, although neither of you specifically mentioned. I don't think I've ever seen a shortstop better at going out on balls, which Boagie mentioned.
But what I don't see is Brandon making many plays in his highlights (or that I've seen while watching the games) that I can't see Simmons making, whereas I see quite a few plays in Simmons' highlights that I've never seen Brandon make.
Boly says that he sees Simmons as awkward. I don't agree with that, although certainly Brandon is the smoother of the two. Aside from Omar Vizquel, whom have we seen that is as smooth as Brandon?
But what matters to me isn't HOW the player gets it done, but DOES he get it done. Simmons' highlights show him getting more done. Inside Edge Fielding, based on watching every play by every player, says Simmons makes the routine play more often than Brandon, even though Boly says he himself has been Simmons boot more routine plays. Inside Edge Fielding shows that Simmons performs better in four of the five categories of difficulty it measures. Brandon just went past Simmons on the 60% to 90% plays.
Here is another thing aside from the small sample size that bothers me. Very recently Boagie stated that he couldn't remember Crawford making a throwing error. I have to worry about his evaluating things from memory when Brandon has made 43 of them, 5 in this season alone. I realize Boagie didn't say Brandon HADN'T made a throwing error -- only that he couldn't remember any. But if our memory is that far off, how can we use it to form a good evaluation?
Last fall Boly said he couldn't remember when Brandon made three throwing errors in one game, as he did against the Cubs in the playoffs.
Last fall Boly said he couldn't ever remember Brandon making three throwing errors in a game, when in fact Brandon had done so less than three months before. Brandon's making three throwing errors in a single game IS a rarity. Aside from those two games in less than three months, I don't he has ever done so.
But shouldn't not being able to remember such a rare occurrence for even three months make one wonder about all the evaluations he makes from memory?
I value my own evaluations highly. But when it comes to me making an evaluation based on a small sample, in all honesty I have to yield to the professionals who make those judgments based on every play each player makes. I think everyone here will agree that my ego is plenty big enough, but it's not big enough to value my small-sample opinion over professional opinions of those who watch all the plays. Especially when most of the stats and the consensus agree with them, not necessarily me.
I get frustrated when my questions don't get answered. Another I have asked is what plays on Brandon's highlight film did he make that Simmons wouldn't have made. Meanwhile, no one has disputed any of the plays in Simmons' highlights that I have indicated he made that Crawford likely wouldn't have.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Sept 26, 2017 9:31:48 GMT -5
Roger, I've answered your question multiple times.
This will be my final add to this thread:
I've watched him boot routine ground balls too often. IMHO, like many infielders, he gets 'casual' when the play is routine.
I've played SS, and I know first hand that the ball hit right at the SS is often the most difficult BECAUSE it's so routine.
I've also said that there is nothing fluid and graceful about Simmons' game.
I've seen Crawford range father left and right, make the play look easy, and gun the runner down.
Simmons has great range, too.
And now, I'll ask my question the final time:
Who cares who's better?
I've said over and over it's the EYE test which you don't care for.
They are both good SS's.
Who's better is moot.
Roger, please, let it drop.
boly
Crawford's game IS graceful.
|
|
|
Post by donk33 on Sept 26, 2017 11:32:48 GMT -5
But just so we're clear, I'm not saying Crawford is better. I'm saying they're both very good, with different styles. I have always felt that the planting and throwing style was more effective in getting the out. The off balance throwing makes the play look harder than it really is. Rog -- There is no way to say for SURE which player is better, and certainly both are extremely good. Personally, I'd like to be able to say that BRANDON is the better of the two, but during this discussion, I've done additional hours of study, and I can't in good conscience say that he is. I came across another stat today. I have mentioned that fielding is extremely hard to evaluate and that the consensus is that looking at as many areas as possible and sort of putting together a composite is the best way to evaluate. I personally place a good deal of emphasis on the valuations in Bill James Annual. That rating is a composite of 12 different sources, both statistical and from individual evaluations, one of which is by a former player (Doug Glanville). So today I came across the 20 shortstops with the most chances this season and Their Defensive Runs saved. This season the positive Defensive Runs Saved by all shortstops total 81. Thirty-two of the 81 belong to Andrelton Simmons. Brandon is second with 11. No other shortstop has more than 8. One way to look at this is that Andrelton and Brandon have combined for an amazing 43 of the 81 Defensive Runs Saved (a little over half). Another is that Simmons alone has 32 of the 81, for an incredible 40% all on his own. Now, is Andrelton THAT much better? I don't see how anyone could be THAT much better, which is why it is recommended to combine ALL the metrics and other information. Andrelton does lead most of the metrics, and it is likely noteworthy that he has finished first in the Bill James ranking each of his four full seasons, including perfect 120 scored each of the last three seasons by finishing first by each of the 12 voters, only one of which is statistical. We find far more Simmons highlights online than highlights of other shortstops. I'll be that neither you nor Boly has watched all those highlights, Boagie. They're stunning. So, what would I do if I personally saw Simmons as being the best? Given all the information backing up Simmons as the best, I would be egotistical and foolish to place my small-sample opinion over the consensus of both stats and individuals. I don't really care WHO is the best defensive shortstop (although I have a natural affinity for Brandon). What concerns me is that almost no one here seems to give credit to the other sources and instead relies on their own small-sample observation. That approach seems pretty widespread around here. dk...again, you are using stats that are dreamed up by guys looking to create something out of thin air...runs saved...depends on many things....having runners on base...judgement factors on the play itself,etc,etc,...if you want another new fangled stat...look at Baseball-reference and you will see that Crawford has a higher RF than Simmons...close, but Craw leads....as it is, both players are on teams going down hill...and fast.....oh, if you are looking at runs scored...Simmons has played in 19 more games...and which team has the better pitchers who can get a ground ball in clutch situations.... Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4070/shortstop-fielding?page=3#ixzz4tkQ53Z9P
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Sept 26, 2017 14:49:19 GMT -5
again, you are using stats that are dreamed up by guys looking to create something out of thin air...runs saved...depends on many things....having runners on base...judgement factors on the play itself,etc,etc,. Rog -- Don, you're a knowledgeable guy. And you know enough to know that sabermetrics actually go back as far as Branch Rickey. In other words, you're ahead of most here. And I realize fielding is extremely hard to measure. But here is the simplified version of Defensive Runs Saved: In the Plus/Minus system, the computer totals all groundballs hit by right handed batters to Vector 206 (Vector 206 is a line extending from home plate towards the hole between the normal shortstop and third base positions, 19 degrees off the third base foul line) with an average velocity between 65 and 75 miles per hour and determines that these types of batted balls are converted into outs by the shortstop only 23 percent of the time. Therefore, if the shortstop converts a slowly hit ball on Vector 206 into an out, that’s a heck of a play, and it scores at +.77. The credit for the play made, 1.00, minus the expectation that it should be made, which is 0.23. If the play isn’t made, it’s -.23. Adjustments are made for factors such as overshifts and hit-and-run plays. But the point is that if a player makes a play that is made only 23% of the time, he has given his team 77% of the value of that play. (And plays can be valued by comparing run probability in one situation vs. the other. For instance, if the play is made or not made with no one on and no one out, the difference in making the play and not making it is a runner on first (or perhaps second if it is a throwing error) and no outs, and the situation of one out and no one on. Are these measurements dead accurate? There are too many variables; they can't be. Are they more accurate than you or I watching a small percentage of a player's plays? Most think so. And most think that looking at ALL the available information gives one the best interpretation. The eye factor counts too, but shouldn't we weight our own eye factors against those of experts? So we should compile as much information as possible, and then make our judgments. The thing about Defensive Runs Saved this season is that Andrelton Simmons has three times as many as any other shortstop (32 compared to Brandon Crawford's 11). Simmons has two-thirds as many DRS as ALL the other positive shortstops combined (32 compared to 49). That shows an advantage that is so large that it overcomes just about any factors that might invalidate it. If we combine all the information, Simmons likely will still come out the best -- just not by nearly that much. People who don't understand something tend to look for any little discrepancy to discredit it. No method of judging fielding is perfect -- least of all my personal judgment based on a small sample, as good a judge as I think I am. But when we put them all together, it is likely that a reasonably accurate picture evolves. Incidentally, here is why our own judgments aren't very reliable. Imagine a judge deciding an important case based on only a small percentage of the evidence. How likely is his judgment likely to be fair, let alone accurate? I encourage everyone here to learn more so that at least we know what we're criticizing. And I encourage us to open our eyes to possibilities BEYOND what we "see" with our own eyes. As an example, Boly believes that Simmons is awkward and Brandon is smooth. I certainly agree with the latter, although I think the former is more than overstated (Look, for instance, at how quickly Simmons gets to his feet; look at the athleticism of his tags). But isn't the bottom line not how a player looks, but his results? Was Stan Musial less than a great hitter because he used his corkscrew stance? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4070/shortstop-fielding?page=3#ixzz4toZeYHF5
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Sept 26, 2017 14:53:16 GMT -5
OK, Boly -- and to a lesser extent Boagie -- what is it you guys are seeing that I'm not seeing? And which plays on Brandon Crawford's highlight reel has he made that Andrelton Simmons hasn't made (or couldn't make)?
Forget all the other stuff here, and which one is better. I'm looking at the PROCESS, not the resulting judgments of that process. Please answer those two questions, which you seem to have been so carefully avoiding.
Can't a guy get a straight answer here?
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Sept 26, 2017 14:56:19 GMT -5
Roger, go up this thread and you'll find my answer about 6 posts up.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Sept 26, 2017 16:41:59 GMT -5
Yet another Simmons highlight came out yesterday. Here it is: www.si.com/mlb/2017/09/25/angels-andrelton-simmons-defense-astrosThe Sports Illustrated article ends by saying "Forget your performative demonstrations of hard-nosed play and red-assery. Andrelton Simmons shows how you play the game the right way." If you listen to the color announcer on the national broadcast, you hear something like "This is what you want to show your 8-year-old or 10-year-old and tell him 'This is the way you play the game.'" You guys should get out more.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Sept 26, 2017 17:22:07 GMT -5
Roger, go up this thread and you'll find my answer about 6 posts up. Rog -- Here is what I found, and my comments: Boly -- I've watched him boot routine ground balls too often. IMHO, like many infielders, he gets 'casual' when the play is routine. I've played SS, and I know first hand that the ball hit right at the SS is often the most difficult BECAUSE it's so routine. Rog -- This is nicely stated, but a review of ALL routine plays made by both Simmons and Crawford shows that Crawford boots few "routine" plays (defined at those with a 90% to 100% probability of being fielding properly), but Simmons boots even far fewer. Crawford has booted only an impressive 2.2% of such plays, but Simmons has booted only 1.3%. Crawford's rate is excellent. Simmons is outstanding. I would say you were wrong here, but you said merely that you had WATCHED him boot too many. Since you saw only a small sample, you missed most of the hundreds he DID field successfully. And that is why your opinion here is invalid. It's not that you're wrong -- merely that your sample is too small. Boly -- I've also said that there is nothing fluid and graceful about Simmons' game. Rog -- That's your opinion. I would agree merely that Brandon is more graceful. I have seen Simmons described in terms that were nearly the opposite of yours. Here is what Brian McCann said about Simmons' fielding. It has nothing to do with fluidity or gracefulness, but deals with what is more important -- results. “He was in high-A, and you heard about him,” McCann said. “‘Wait until you see this guy — he’d be the best shortstop in the game, and he’s in high-A.’ That’s what people were saying, and we were like, ‘What?’ Then we get to spring training the next year, and he’s in big league camp taking ground balls and we’re all literally in awe of what he was doing." Boly -- I've seen Crawford range father left and right, make the play look easy, and gun the runner down. Rog -- You haven't seen Brandon range farther to his right. If you've seen Simmons' highlights, you should have seen this one about four times before. It's the fourth highlight as you go down the page. And it isn't the only one of these highlights that I think if you're honest, you'll agree you've never seen Brandon make. On the relay throw highlight, Simmons made the 3rd-fastest recorded relay throw ever -- and it came from a long way out and was well-nigh perfect. www.theringer.com/2017/4/26/16040848/mlb-shortstops-los-angeles-angels-andrelton-simmons-119c55e84657 You say you see things on the field that I don't see. But you haven't yet told me what they are. I'm looking for a broader scope, but here you say or imply: . Simmons boots more routine plays than Crawford -- except that he doesn't. . There is nothing fluid or graceful about Crawford's game -- except that many disagree with you. I agree with you that Crawford is more graceful. But I think I speak to a higher point when I say, doesn't it matter who makes the greater number of plays, not how he looks doing it? . Crawford goes farther to his left and to his right -- except that I've never seen Crawford, or any other shortstop, go as deep into the hole as Simmons did on the highlight you should be getting tired of watching by now (except that it's hard to GET tired of watching what might be one of the top shortstop highlights ever). Simmons is more athletic, and like Crawford, his anticipation is considered to be outstanding. I doubt there are plays to his left that Crawford has made that Simmons wouldn't have made himself. I've asked you for specific plays in Crawford's highlight tapes that you felt he made that Simmons wouldn't have made, and you have yet to show me one. Your reply seems to range from being incorrect to being questionable, and it just doesn't have any specifics for us to judge by. I have shown several plays such as the hole play above and a handful of acrobatic tags that I don't think Crawford would have made (or at least which we haven't SEEN him make), but did I miss where you showed even a single play Simmons wouldn't have been able to make? So what is it, again, that you see that I don't? (And I agree, by the way, that there are mechanical things you see that I don't have as much knowledge of. But you talk as if I can't see the field of play for the numbers. I just haven't seen you mention or, better yet, show the specific plays or situations where this was true.) Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4070/shortstop-fielding?page=3#ixzz4tp8HRuRg
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Sept 26, 2017 17:46:12 GMT -5
I wouldn't call a simple deke necessarily highlight material, more like bad baserunning. Crawford and Panik do this a lot. Renteria was great at it. Renteria was good at acting like a throw wasn't coming so the runner wouldn't slide.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Sept 26, 2017 17:56:32 GMT -5
I have always felt that the planting and throwing style was more effective in getting the out. The off balance throwing makes the play look harder than it really is. Rog -- I may have addressed this already, Boagie, but I think which method works better depends on the play. I did mention it, because I said that the longer the throw, the more likely setting is to be the better move. I should add though that how long it will take the fielder to set is also of high importance. And how well the fielder can throw once he's set compared to how well he throws off balance. Also, while Brandon is exceptional in appearing to remain ON balance, it is his off-balance throws that are among his best. As for the off-balance throw making the play look harder than it really is, I look at, for instance, the 5 1/4 hole play Simmons makes and try to visualize how Crawford would have played it -- and what the result would be. My best guess on that play is that Brandon would have had to slide to field the ball, making any kind of throw meaningless. But let's suppose Brandon DOES get to the ball and fields it as the faster and more athletic Simmons did. The ball was about a foot off the ground, and Simmons was stretched out about as far as he could reach (and his reach is longer than Brandon's), and he fielding it on the left foot. No fielder could have immediately stopped on his right foot and made the throw. So at best Brandon would have had to take an extra step beyond Simmons before throwing. The batter/runner is taking an extra step at the same time. Brandon would then have had to take longer to get rid of his throw. It is possible he would even have had to take a crow hop, although I don't think so. At the very least though, he would have had to brace his body. What I think is that it would have taken Brandon about a second longer to release the throw, and that it would have been somewhat faster than Simmons' jump throw. But it we watch, Simmons' L-O-N-G throw takes only about two seconds as it is. I've never seen Brandon make a throw from that deep in the hole, and I just don't see any way he could have gotten the throw to first base more quickly than Simmons did. Starting the play from the same spot, I don't think Brandon would have been able to field the ball without a slide. And even if he had, I think it would have taken him too much more time to get rid of the throw than he would have saved by making it stronger. One thing Simmons shows on this play is that for a guy jumping and throwing off the wrong foot, he can throw HARD. He would make Aaron Rodgers proud. At Oklahoma Western State College, Simmons pitched ten innings of relief. Throwing a reported 95 mph, he struck out 17. That is probably an indication of why he is usually rated as the hardest-throwing shortstop in the game. By the way, Simmons gave up only four hits in the 10 innings (although he walked six). (Parenthetically, Rodgers is reported to have thrown 94 mph in high school and if he hadn't played football would have liked to become a pitcher or an attorney). We have seen signs that Simmons' arm is stronger than Brandon's, which helps him on the jump throw. Brandon likely doesn't have the combination of athleticism and arm strength to make the jump throw as well as Simmons. Whereas Simmons has given indications he is as good at set throws as Brandon is. I have seen Simmons' arm described as a whip. So where are the plays Brandon made that Simmons wouldn't have? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4070/shortstop-fielding?page=3#ixzz4tpIAOZ2D
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Sept 26, 2017 18:28:48 GMT -5
You keep mentioning that one play, which was a very nice play based on the difficulty of the play. But it was just one play.
How about we compare that play to some of the plays Crawford has made in the post-season when the pressure is greater? How about the short hop cutoff he snared in the 9th inning of the 7th game of the World Series against the Royals? If Crawford doesn't come up with that cleanly the Royals tie the game. Do we know Simmons could have made that play?
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Sept 26, 2017 19:31:23 GMT -5
Simmons attended Western Oklahoma JC, not Western Oklahoma State.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Sept 26, 2017 20:39:18 GMT -5
You keep mentioning that one play, which was a very nice play based on the difficulty of the play. But it was just one play. How about we compare that play to some of the plays Crawford has made in the post-season when the pressure is greater? How about the short hop cutoff he snared in the 9th inning of the 7th game of the World Series against the Royals? If Crawford doesn't come up with that cleanly the Royals tie the game. Do we know Simmons could have made that play? Rog -- I have mentioned several plays. (The tags in particular are brilliant.) If we watch the many highlight reels of Simmons, we see many plays we haven't seen Brandon make, even though we've seen a very high percentage of Brandon's plays. That one play is highly indicative of Simmons' range and arm strength, but as you say, it's only one play. As for Crawford's short-hop throw, it's been a while, but I recall it as being exceptional. I would need to see it again to truly evaluate it. (Perhaps you can refer me to Brandon's highlight reel where I can find it.) But as for the play, how difficult would we consider it to be? 1% to 10% chance of the average shortstop making it? 10% to 40%? If it was in the 1% to 10% range, neither Simmons nor Brandon would be likely to make it if the chance came up again. Brandon has fielded 5.9% of very difficult plays in the 1% to 10% range. Simmons has been twice as good at 13.2%. But if the play is that tough (and IIRC it may well have been so), neither of them is likely to make it anywhere near half the time. If the play falls into the 10% to 40% range, Brandon would be nearly as likely to repeat it (41.6%) as not. Andrelton would have been slightly more likely at 43.5%. This play was certainly harder than 40% to 60%, but on such more or less 50/50 plays, Brandon has made a fine 50.5%, but Simmons is at an amazing 72.2%. Of course, those percentages are on ALL plays, and this is a specific kind of play. I see no reason though why Simmons WOULDN'T make it, and I suspect that if we could see all the plays he has made in his career, we would find at least one similar instance. But we've never seen Brandon make a play from THAT far in the hole. We've never seen him make the acrobatic tags Simmons has made. There are other highlight plays by Simmons that I wonder if Brandon has done. Brandon is an extremely aware player, but Simmons seems even more adept at throwing behind runners, including the play he just made in the last few days. But here is what gets me. If we put "best defensive shortstops" into our browser, we find many instances where Simmons comes up -- and very few where Brandon is mentioned as the best. Statistically, Simmons is even better than Brandon. Simmons has been a UNANIMOUS pick as the #1 shortstop in the last three Bill James' Annuals, which rely on inputs from several areas. It is easy to find Simmons highlight tapes. They're numerous, and many of them are rather long, since he has so many highlight plays. What we see is that Simmons makes more of the routine plays, more of the hard plays, and most of the plays in between. Don't take my word for it. Read a little. But regardless of which player we choose, if we go primarily on our small sample of plays, we're using the wrong methodology. I don't care which player we choose. In fact, I would feel better making the wrong choice with the proper methodology than I would make the right choice with the wrong methods. In the first case, we're doing it the right way. That doesn't always produce results, but it will do so more often than using the wrong methods -- even if in a specific instance the wrong methods yield the right choice. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4070/shortstop-fielding?page=3#ixzz4tpvNqufz
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Sept 27, 2017 12:52:19 GMT -5
You guys will be happy to know that I came across highlights of both players for 2017, and I didn't see many if any plays Simmons made that I hadn't seen Crawford make before or that I didn't feel he would make. I do believe that Simmons' best fielding came early in his career.
The aging curve is mostly a declining one physically from when a player first enters the league. I think Crawford has improved his fielding, which must be a practice/mental thing for which he is to be applauded. I do feel his fielding has dropped this season after improving before that, and that may have to do with the family issues he has gone through. It will be intriguing to see if he bounces back next season.
Certainly he's still at a high level despite the drop. I expect him to win the Gold Glove again this season. To some extent, it could be a test of how much offense comes into play in the voting. While I don't think he's caught Brandon by any means, Corey Seager appears to have improved his fielding in his sophomore season. But Brandon has the voting momentum, and IMO deserves the award again anyway.
Addison Russell's fielding may have dropped a bit too, and Trevor Story appears to be narrowing the gap. Nick Ahmed hasn't played enough to enter the discussion, and he appears to have fallen off anyway.
Gold Glove finalists? My guess is Brandon and two out of the trio of Russell, Seager and Story -- with Brandon deservedly winning again
|
|
|
Post by Lukenub on Jun 9, 2019 15:55:41 GMT -5
Luke Bryan is my favourite US singer. His voice takes me away from all issues of this world and I start enjoy my life and listen songs created by his. Now the singer is going on a tour in 2020. The concerts scheduled for the whole 2019, up to the mid-October. Tickets are available for all men and women with different income. If you love contry music, then you must visit at least one Luke's concert. All tour dates are available at the <a href=https://lukebryantourdates.com>Luke Bryan tickets</a>. Visit the website and make yourself familiar with all powerful Luke Bryan concerts in 2020!
|
|
|
Post by FlorAcelm on Jun 12, 2019 8:50:28 GMT -5
Florida Georgia Line is my favourite contry band. Headliners Tyler Hubbard and Brian Kelley are those people that could make anyone sing along. It's the reason I like to visit their shows. And - that's surprisingly beatiful - in 2019 they have CAN'T SAY IT AIN'T COUNTRY TOUR which covers all the USA cities and towns. For tickets info visit <a href=https://fgltour.com>Florida Georgia Line Tour Dates</a>.
|
|
|
Post by BreakAcelm on Jun 14, 2019 4:15:55 GMT -5
Breaking Benjamin is my favourite rock-band of 90s. They had so many hit songs! The ones I remember are 'The Diary of Jane', 'Tourniquet' and, of course their hit 'So Cold'. These are real masterpieces, not fake like today! And it is sooo good that Breaking Benjamin have a tour in 2019! So I'm going to visit their concert this year. The full list is here: <a href=https://breakingbenjaminconcerts.com>https://breakingbenjaminconcerts.com</a>. Open the page and maybe we can even visit one of the concerts together!
|
|