and now your "Fielders Bible" is more in agreement with me than the rest of you about Posey's fielding..
Rog -- Not really, Don. I stated during the season that Posey's fielding was down -- and The Fielding Bible agreed. I stated that Brandon Crawford's fielding was down, but while the metrics in general supported my thinking, The Fielding Bible didn't support it by much. They did move him down from 2nd to 3rd, but given how excellent the top four shortstops are, that's not much of a markdown.
I felt Joe Panik's defense was down, and both the metrics and The Fielding Bible supported that.
Regarding the threesome, the metrics supported my position on all three, and The Fielding Bible did on two, including Posey.
Coming back to the top four shortstops, I think for most, Andrelton Simmons stands alone at the top. Most still consider him to be the best, but because of how good the other three are, I think his margin is a little less. As for Crawford, Lindor and Russell, I think one could probably throw a blanket over them. If you asked me to judge, I would go Lindor #2, Crawford #3 and Russell #4, but I don't really know enough to judge.
I do know that after watching tons of Simmons highlight clips and seeing Brandon's on TV, I see plays by Simmons that I don't think even Brandon would have made. The guy I feel comes closest is Lindor, who himself is both highly competent and highly athletic. I've seen by far the least of Russell, which may be why I rank him #4.
When I place Simmons #1, it has something to do with my own eye test. It probably has more to do with how Simmons is perceived overall, with the metrics on things like Defensive Runs Saved and Ultimate Zone Rating, and also the Inside Fielding judging of how often the various players have succeeded on routine plays. The highlight films don't show that.
Seeing as little of other players as we do, we aren't in a good position to judge. Boly judges that Brandon handles routine plays better than Simmons. But he's basing that in seeing a small percentage of the routine plays Andrelton has faced. Inside Felding bases its ratings on having watch around 2000 routine plays fielded by each player. I have to base my own eye test on very few plays, especially on routine plays.
I mentioned that if one happened to see Brandon Crawford play one particular game in July of 2016 and then tuned in on one of the playoff games against the Cubs, he would have seen Brandon commit SIX throwing errors in just those two games. He would have thought Brandon was the worst thrower of any infielder he had seen.
While I certainly respect Boly and might place his eye test over the eye tests of any of us, I see a few weaknesses in his personal judgment regarding Crawford vs. Simmons.
. He just hasn't seen enough of Simmons to make a good comparison, a weakness each of us faces.
. He can't accurately remember all the plays he HAS seen. We saw that when he said after the Cubs playoff game that he didn't think he had ever seen Crawford make three throwing errors in any game before. Yet Brandon had done so less than three months previously. And I'm pretty sure its unlikelihood had been mentioned on the board back then. None of us can remember every play. In fact, we likely remember only a small percentage of them.
. When we're watching the game, we're watching the game. Certainly we are award of how a player did in those games, particularly if he makes a spectacular play or if he boots a routine one. But we're watching the overall game, not specifically judging the fielding of its players.
The only time I personally have actively judged the defensive play of Crawford and Simmons is when I have watched their highlight tapes multiple times, looking only at how they handled them. And you know what? Neither player made an error. They are, after all, highlight tapes -- not lowlight tapes.
When I watched these clips, I saw several plays Simmons made that I had never seen Crawford make and suspected there was a low probability that Brandon would have made them if he had the opportunity. I'm not sure I saw a single play Brandon made on his highlight reel that I either hadn't seen Simmons make or didn't think he would have. And Brandon looks GREAT on his highlight tapes.
But I saw Simmons make a few athletic tags I don't think Brandon would have made. I saw Simmons go well deeper into the hole than I've seen Brandon go -- and as we know, Brandon can go a LONG way into the hole. I've seen Simmons throw out runners from his backside after slipping. I don't recall Brandon's having done so -- although I'm not sure I haven't, either. And one can make a good argument that Brandon wouldn't have slipped. Here I don't give Simmons credit for making a play Brandon wouldn't have. But I do think the plays show amazing arm strength by Simmons.
Boly likes that Brandon sets himself on most plays in the hole, while Simmons sometimes makes jump throws. Two things I see about those:
First, Simmons often does so on balls he's bent over to field, plays where it would take a LONG time to get set.
Second, Simmons has demonstrated amazing arm strength and sometimes uncanny accuracy on those throws. Most players don't have the strength or accuracy of their jump throws that Simmons does.
I've long thought two of Brandon's greatest strengths have been going back on pop ups, and making relay throws.
Simmons is darn good going back too, and he makes one such catch, then spins and doubles a runner off first base -- even though he was running away from the play with his back to the infield.
And Simmons' relay throws can be things of beauty too. On one of them on one of his highlight tapes, he is said to have made the third fastest relay throw ever recorded.
Brandon is extremely alert. There are a lot of things I like about the way he plays the game that I greatly admire. In that manner he reminds me of myself, although at a MUCH lower level obviously. But Simmons makes quite a few plays where he able to throw behind a runner to either double him off or catch him rounding the bag too far.
Simmons makes one "hidden ball play" in which his alertness is quite focused, and his tag gets the runner when the player is off the bag for perhaps only thousands of a second. A fabulous combination of alertness, anticipation and timing. (The player was originally called safe, by the way, but the call was reversed to an out on appeal with the help of stop action.)
So what about the routine play? Especially after Boly's comment, I wouldn't have been at all surprised if Crawford were indeed more consistent on those plays. Certainly watching, he seems extremely consistent. And he IS. It's just that while judging close to 2000 such plays, Inside Fielding saw Simmons make those plays even more often.
Inside Fielding shows that the greatest difference between Simmons and Brandon comes on the spectacular plays and the routine ones. Simmons seems to enjoy an edge on the plays in between, but it is hardly significant.
This topic isn't all that important, but it is to me for several reasons:
. Boly says he sees things I don't see. I'm sure he's right. There may be other things I see that he doesn't. In the comparison of Simmons and Brandon, I see things that both the consensus and metrics back up.
. When I disagree with someone, as you all know isn't at all uncommon here, I find everything I can to determine if my judgment was likely right, or if for whatever reason it was wrong. Sometimes it appears to be wrong. Either way, I learn something from the experience. I've believe I've done more study on the Simmons/Crawford comparison than everyone else here combined. From looking at highlights, to searching for other opinions to seeing what the metrics indicate.
It would be nice if someone said he changed his mind based on the added facts, analysis and logic. Boly does so on occasion, although sometimes I think it is just because he's a nice guy.
. I like to see us all gather information and then use fact, analysis and logic to back up our positions. I am quite frustrated when I see a comment such as "I know what I see." Sometimes something one of us "sees" flies in the face of the opinions of others who may be even more knowledgeable than we, have more objectivity than we, and at the very least are drawing their opinions from a much larger sample. Sometimes it flies in the face of the metrics, which at least casts doubt on the judgment. Sometimes it does ALL these things.
Anyway, Boly, it was nice to see a picture of what our various roles are seen to be.
Read more:
sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4207/board#ixzz51XFFAMwJ