rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Mar 19, 2019 12:42:42 GMT -5
The old timey anti-analytic baseball writers in the San Francisco Chronicle are waging an embarrassing guerilla war against Zaidi. Virtually every time he references a smart idea or insightful data that has helped other baseball teams win more baseball games, the Chron’s cranky old writers start yelling from their front porch. Something about young people on their front lawn. Boagie- Not sure who he's referring to, but it would seem to me most if not all Bay Area writers use analytics in their writing. They too mentioned rebuilding as the more favorable approach. Many have written about trading Bumgarner. Rog -- I'm with you here, Boagie. I presume the writer is referring to John Shea and Henry Schulman, but I consider both those guys to be rather knowledgeable. Aside from this board, I haven't seen an unfair approach to Farhan. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5153?page=1#ixzz5idmZzZVA
|
|
|
I wish...
Mar 20, 2019 10:28:24 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Islandboagie on Mar 20, 2019 10:28:24 GMT -5
Of course the players outside of the first couple rounds wouldn't have made a name for themselves yet, but having the second pick is significant to rebuilding a farm system. They also have a favorable pick position this season. That's a good start. Those two facts totally contradict this "jornalist's" message. Just goes to show you, mainstream analytic nerds don't know Jack shit about how baseball works.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Mar 20, 2019 12:19:04 GMT -5
Stats geeks loving on stats geeks...what a shock Rog -- You didn't read the whole article, did you Randy? Yes, the writer mentioned WAR (which almost every serious fan is well aware of now and which as the author mention is used by every front office in the major leagues), but he spoke mostly about the CHANGES the Giants had made. Not even talking about the player changes, did you know that? J.P. Ricciardi has eight years of GM experience and 24 years of major league front office experience overall. Michael Holmes was scouting director for the A's for 10 years. Zach Minasian worked in scouting for 15 years before serving as a special assistant to the Brewers' GM. Matt Daniels was the pitching coordinator for Driveline Baseball, the most famous independent baseball training group in the world. You didn't know much about those guys, since once one gets below the surface of baseball, you don't seem to know much. Then you try to cover your ignorance with bias. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5153/?page=2#ixzz5ijUYFher
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Mar 20, 2019 12:33:59 GMT -5
Of course the players outside of the first couple rounds wouldn't have made a name for themselves yet, but having the second pick is significant to rebuilding a farm system. They also have a favorable pick position this season. That's a good start. Those two facts totally contradict this "jornalist's" message. Just goes to show you, mainstream analytic nerds don't know Jack shit about how baseball works. Rog -- The writer's point was that the Giants have made a lot of changes over the past four and a half months. I'm not sure how having had the second pick in 2018 and having the #10 pick in 2019 impacts that. By the way, one of the most disappointing factors for me is that Jacob Gonzalez was drafted in the second round in 2017 (two rounds earlier than his World Series hero father Luis) but struggled so badly in Low A ball in 2018 that he is now rated only the Giants' #20 prospect despite the organization having little prospect depth to compete with. Gonzalez's top tool is said to be his power, yet his slugging percentage is only .365 in his first two years of organized ball. Heliot Ramos was picked ahead of Gonzalez, and Heliot is blessed with far more athleticism and is a high ceiling, low floor prospect who is ranked #2, behind only Joey Bart. I recently moved Marco Luciano ahead of Ramos on my own prospect list, but Ramos does have a high potential. The Giants' major league talent is mostly old (and sometimes overpaid), and their farm system is rated one of the worst in baseball. How does their future look to you, Boagie? It looks better to me than it did at the end of the season -- because of the positive changes the Giants have made since. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5153?page=2#ixzz5ijYAEXfA
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Mar 20, 2019 12:42:51 GMT -5
By the way, the Giants 2nd round pick Sean Hjelle in 2018 had a chance to make a name for himself. At 6-foot-11, he's hard to miss, so it would have been easy for him to stand out. Especially when his name is pronounced "Jelly." Instead, he posted a 5.08 ERA and gave up more than a hit per inning.
I personally think Hjelle's pitches are easy as jam to pick up, although Boly didn't agree with me that he was telegraphing his pitches with different release points and arm action. Sean did strike out more than a batter per inning in short-season ball and kept his walks a tick below 2.00.
Hjelle was modestly effective at the University of Kentucky, posting ERA's of 3.74, 3.89 and 3.44. I'm sure that with his size, the Giants are hoping for a lot of projection. Hopefully he won't fall from a top 10 ranking in the system to #20 as Gonzalez did last season. He probably won't, and it would certainly be nice to see him begin to "project."
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Mar 20, 2019 16:24:35 GMT -5
I read the whole article...although to be honest most of it read like the adults in a Charlie Brown film..."wah wah wah wah wah." The basic theme was "Stats geeks know everything and those who aren't all in on analytics are morons." I'm done with that crap.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Mar 20, 2019 18:50:28 GMT -5
The basic theme was "Stats geeks know everything and those who aren't all in on analytics are morons." Rog -- When I read the article, I thought the them was that the Giants had made a lot of changes this winter. The title of the article was "For the SF Giants 'Rebuild' Doesn’t Begin to Describe What’s Happening." The title seems to support a theme of a lot of changes far more than the theme you picked up. It is my believe that when you read something, you're going to see what you want -- not necessarily what the author intended. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5153/?page=2#ixzz5il7ahdA6Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5153/?page=2#ixzz5il79iXFy
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Mar 20, 2019 18:52:34 GMT -5
I just read the article again. It was almost all about changes and the need for them. Analytics were mentioned almost in passing.
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Mar 20, 2019 19:16:59 GMT -5
The Giants "made a lot of changes"...wow such insight...so impressive.
Of course us "old timey anti-analytics" people also have a right to be highly offended by this pompous stats geek prick.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Mar 20, 2019 19:39:25 GMT -5
Let's put it this way, Randy. You likely couldn't have named half those changes.
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Mar 20, 2019 19:44:13 GMT -5
Just because I wasn't posting about them all doesn't mean I haven't been paying attention. I was too busy rolling my eyes. You assume too much
|
|
|
I wish...
Mar 20, 2019 21:11:06 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Islandboagie on Mar 20, 2019 21:11:06 GMT -5
Rog- The Giants' major league talent is mostly old (and sometimes overpaid), and their farm system is rated one of the worst in baseball. How does their future look to you, Boagie?
It looks better to me than it did at the end of the season -- because of the positive changes the Giants have made since.
Boagie- I think it will be pretty solid in a year or two considering they had the 2nd pick last season and the 10th (or is it the 11th?) pick this season. And if you're wondering, I do expect the Giants to compete THIS season.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Mar 20, 2019 21:32:59 GMT -5
I'm a cup-half-full type of guy, Boagie, but you're more optimistic here than I. Bart is unlikely to contribute before next season, and as a rookie, he isn't likely to be at his peak by then. Whoever the Giants draft this season likely won't contribute until at least 2021, and if he's a high school player, it might not be until 2023 or 2024.
The only reason I'm as optimistic as I am is because I think Farhan knows what he's doing. But the Giants are VERY thin at the top of their minor league system. If they had a good outfield prospect ready to play in the big leagues, that prospect would be being given every chance to start for them. Steve Duggar's glove gives him a possible first division center field ceiling, but his most likely level seems like a platoon center fielder or fourth outfielder.
Other than Steve and the older Mac Williamson, I believe the Giants' next decent outfield prospect played at AA and then fared very poorly in the Arizona Fall League.
|
|
|
I wish...
Mar 20, 2019 22:28:58 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Islandboagie on Mar 20, 2019 22:28:58 GMT -5
When I say it's going to be pretty solid, I'm referring to our farm system, not the major league team, although that might be as well. I believe two favorable draft positions in a row will do a lot in achieving that goal.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Mar 21, 2019 10:43:28 GMT -5
What truly builds a farm system is stars, so you could be right about the farm system. Certainly it should be improved with the addition of the #10 overall pick to Joey Bart, Heliot Ramos and Marco Luciano. I think Mordy made a good point when he pointed to the Giants' recent international signings, headed by Luciano.
Remember though, the Giants' championship run was fueled by having top 10 draft picks in FOUR straight seasons, including that 2007 season with six picks in the top 51 overall draft choices. Here are the players from those drafts who made significant contributions:
2006 -- Tim Lincecum 20 WAR
2007 -- Madison Bumgarner 34 WAR
2008 -- Buster Posey 41 WAR Brandon Crawford 23 WAR
2009 -- Brandon Belt 23 WAR
The only other players from those drafts who have done anything even noticeable are 2007's Danny Otero, who has 5 WAR, and 2009's Zack Wheeler, with 6 WAR. Otero's and Wheeler's contributions have come with other teams after being traded or released.
Let's take a look at those Astros drafts that built them up, starting with 2009, when they drafted Dallas Keuchel in the 7th round. The WAR's are career WAR's, not necessarily all with the Astros:
2009 -- Dallas Keuchel 18 WAR J.D. Martinez 20 WAR Kiki Hernandez 7 WAR
2010 -- Delino DeShields 4 WAR Mike Foltynewicz 4 WAR Vince Velasquez 5 WAR
2011 -- George Springer 18 WAR
2012 -- Carlos Correa 18 WAR Lance McCullers 6 WAR
2013 -- #1 overall draft pick Mark Appel retired without making the majors.
2014 -- #1 overall draft pick Brady Aiken didn't sign with the Astros and retired without making the majors.
2015 -- Alex Bregman 12 WAR Bregman was the #2 overall pick, awarded to the Astros when they were unable to sign Aiken
2016 -- Forrest Whitley was the #17 overall pick, and he is at present the #1 pitching prospect in the minors. I would trade Joey Bart AND Heliot Ramos for Whitley
As we can see with Appel and Aiken, even having the #1 overall pick is no guarantee of drafting even a player who will make the major leagues. And as we can see from both the Giants and Astros, it's tough to get more than one good player out of a draft. Remember, the Giants had six picks out of the top 51 in 2007, and all they got out of it was Madison. He has had a great career, but that draft was disappointing nonetheless. The Giants should still be getting good value from that draft.
I think if the Giants rebound for the future, they will do so from the top picks you mentioned, from their international signings, from incremental value added by these small Farhan moves, from improving their existing and future assets through player development and analytics, and perhaps with that one big free agent to put icing on the cake. Probably two or three significant trades.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Mar 21, 2019 14:48:43 GMT -5
Roger, would you please explain WAR to me, and why it is such a "prized" stat by stat guys?
Make it simple, please, as I'm not the fastest rower in the boat.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Mar 21, 2019 16:45:47 GMT -5
Thanks for asking the question, Boly. Wins Above Replacement (WAR) is a calculation of how many wins a player contributes to his team above what a replacement player would contribute. The contribution is based on hitting, base running, fielding and -- in the case of pitchers, naturally, pitching. It's one number to estimate a player's all-around contribution.
The all-time leaders are Babe Ruth, Barry Bonds and Willie Mays. 163 WAR, 162 WAR and 156 WAR. The thinking, in other words, is that had the Giants been without Willie Mays and had to replace him over his career with a replacement-level player (more or less a AAAA player), the Giants (and Mets) would have won 156 fewer games. What that more or less meant is that Willie in an average season took a .500 team and made them competitive, or took a competitive team and made them competitors for Division championship. It means that had the Giants had Willie last season, they might have been a .500 team instead of a 73 win team.
GM's use it for a thumbnail value of a player, sort of like they use .300 to designate a good hitter or 30 homers to designate a power hitter. If a player is worth two wins a season, he's an OK starting-level player. If he's up around four to six wins, he's an All-Star caliber player. Above that, he begins to fall into the realm of a MVP or Cy Young candidate.
A replacement-level team is estimated to win about 48 games. If we look at the eight starting position players, five starters and say a closer and set up man, if those guys average two wins each, the team should win around 78 games (48 + 15 key players winning two games each). If the bench and bullpen are decent, we're talking about more or less a .500 team (81 wins). If that team has three superstars, it should be getting into the 90's in wins.
Teams rarely have three superstars, of course, and even if they do, not all three usually play at a superstar level each season. So if a team has say 10 players who are good starters (two wins each), four All-Star level players at say 5 wins each, and a superstar player at say eight wins, they should win 48 + 20 + 20 + 8 games, or a total of around 96 games. Probably close to 100 if they have a good bench.
So a team doesn't have to be made up entirely of All-Stars if it has a base of sound starting players. Throw in a few All-Stars and a superstar, and the team should be very good.
Right now the Giants have decent starting players pretty much everywhere except the outfield. If all those starting players have good seasons, and say Buster and Belt have All-Star seasons, the Giants could be around .500. If say Crawford, Longoria and Bumgarner had All-Star type years, the Giants could be close to contending ground. If the outfield somehow came through, they could be a true contending team.
The National League has a lot of good teams in it now, and the NL West is reasonably strong. Contending would be very tough -- but not impossible. The team would have to be lucky in health and in other ways (such as good years and good bounces).
The biggest problem may be that the team is likely to get worse year-by-year until they are able to get significant contributions from the minor leagues, and there seem to be few aside from Joey Bart who would contribute significantly by 2020. The Giants need their aging players to hang in there; they need to make a few good trades; they need their minor leaguers to develop quickly; and they could use a little luck on the free agent front.
But getting back to WAR, teams usually estimate that the cost of a win through free agency is about $8 million or so. If a team has say $40 million to spend on an upcoming season, they hope to improve by 5 or more wins. Bryce Harper signed for 13/$330. In order to "earn" his contact, he needs to contribute over 40 wins during those 13 years. That's an average of three wins per season. So far he's been worth four wins per season over his career. Whether he earns that contract will depend on whether he can pull of a consistent breakout and/or if he can avoid a significant aging curve. I LOVE Mike Trout at 12/$426 in that equation. He needs to be worth about 53 wins over the next dozen seasons, and thus far in his career he has been worth about 64 wins in just eight years.
A 26-year-old Willie Mays would be worth over 12/$800 million today based on how he performed between ages 26 and 37. Trout at essentially half that much was a steal. Harper at about 40% that amount was probably priced about right. Playing in Philadelphia, Bryce should earn his contract. Given what it would have taken to sign him in San Francisco and the difficulty of the ballpark, I'm not sure he would have.
I myself would have been willing to gamble $350 million or so to find out, but I think it might have taken as much as $400 million for Bryce to sign here. If you were trying to build your legacy as a left-handed power hitter, wouldn't you have been willing to take clearly less to play in Philly than in the Bermuda Triangle? In Philly, Bryce should be a pretty much a cheese steak. In SF he might have turned out to be sour dough.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Mar 21, 2019 16:47:08 GMT -5
Speaking of rowing the boat, my son did crew for a year at Cal. MAN, he was in good shape. I was in pretty good shape until 45, but I don't think I was ever in the same kind of shape he was in when he did crew.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Mar 21, 2019 21:15:08 GMT -5
Thanks, Rog. What you gave me is a start, but only helped a little.
Hitting, base running and fielding.
Okay.
I get that... sort of...but not really.
Let's start with hitting, what I consider the easiest to evaluate.
Home runs, RBIs, average and so forth.
But as to running... after flat out speed, that would be hard to evaluate, much less assign it a numerical value.
For example:
Some really fast players were not good base runners, or were average at best.
Angel Pagan comes to mind. Fast, yes, but a good base runner?
No, not really. I'd score him Average IMHO.
Other really fast guys can't steal bases, while some slower guys instinctively are really good base runners.
Buster Posey and Dick Groat are the 1st 2 that come to mind.
So how do they figure that one?
Defense is complicated, too.
How many balls a defender gets to... that's a start, but what about fielding errors as opposed to throwing errors?
Routes to the ball?
Jumps?
Those are some things I'd like you to go into deeper, Rog, and please, leave out the peripheral stuff like most of what you wrote above AFTER "90 wins..."
Thanks.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Mar 21, 2019 21:31:37 GMT -5
But as to running... after flat out speed, that would be hard to evaluate, much less assign it a numerical value. Rog -- Base running isn't overly hard to evaluate -- although like everything else, it has its tricks. To evaluate a base runner, we simply look at how often he takes the extra base and how often he advances on an out. Some of that has to do with how the ball was hit, which is where the tricks come in. What we CAN evaluate is how often the runner was able to advance by taking the extra base on hits, by advancing on outs, and with stolen bases. We can also identify how often the runner was thrown out trying to advance or steal. Using those factors, we can evaluate a player's base running. If he's slow but cagey, he may still score pretty well because he'll still take a fair number of extra bases, and he likely won't get thrown out often doing it. I think the biggest thing that most fans overlook in base running is how often the runner gets thrown out. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5153/?page=2#ixzz5irbwmgIp
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Mar 21, 2019 21:48:37 GMT -5
Fielding is indeed tough to evaluate.
I think the best evaluation (for what it's worth, Erik Byrnes agrees) for outfielders is in Statcast's Outs Above Average. That's what we were talking about with Bryce Harper.
Statcast bases its results on how far the outfielder had to go to get the ball, and how long it was in the air. If, for instance, a ball in the air for x amount of time that is y distance away from the fielder results in an out half the time, the fielder gets half an out credited to him if he catches it, and half an out deducted if he doesn't. That's better than you and I can do with our eye test.
As for fielding errors vs. throwing errors, they are recorded. When I was pointing out how Andrelton Simmons is clearly better than Brandon Crawford, for instance, I pointed out that his error rate on throws -- despite his jump throws -- is virtually identical to Brandon's, and his rate of fielding errors is much lower than Brandon's.
While this is more subjective, since I'm basing it solely on highlights, I've mentioned that despite his jump throws, Andrelton's arm strength and accuracy has allowed him to have a clearly lower percentage of throws in the dirt on his highlight plays. Like you, with all his jump throws, I would expect a lot more errant throws, especially throws in the dirt that just aren't quite strong enough to get there on the fly. But based on their respective highlight films, year by year, I found the opposite of what I would expect.
Incidentally, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that among all baseball fans, there aren't too many who know more about the comparative fielding of Brandon and Simmons than I do. I've spent scores of hours studying the two, and I can make arguments based on statistics, the various fielding evaluations, highlights, routine plays, and the opinions of others.
I would give odds of at least 10 to one that if God could come down from Heaven and tell us which player was the better defender, he would say Simmons. That's the consensus among humans, and I'm almost certain that would be God's opinion as well.
I'm not saying I'm positive. I've seen most of Brandon's plays, but I've still seen a fairly small percentage of Andrelton's. But as I say, I've studied both of them for hours on end. I'd be willing to bet a house to a car. Even in California!
Sorry, I guess I kind of got away from just answering your question. But you baited me with throwing errors compared to fielding errors, which I've studied carefully among the two.
You know how football running backs sometimes buy their linemen dinner? Brandon Crawford should be buying a few dinners for his fellow Brandon.
|
|
|
I wish...
Mar 21, 2019 22:31:19 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Islandboagie on Mar 21, 2019 22:31:19 GMT -5
The best way to evaluate a defensive player is by watching them, period.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Mar 22, 2019 9:19:13 GMT -5
Except for the Simmons/Crawford tangent, Rog, I appreciate your trying to explain WAR.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Mar 22, 2019 9:52:22 GMT -5
The best way to evaluate a defensive player is by watching them, period. Rog -- If that is true, we've got to admit that we can do a decent job of evaluating the defense of the Giants, but that we aren't able to evaluate the defense of other players because we just don't see them play enough. In addition, we might have a little upward bias in our evaluations, since defense has improved over time. Huge improvements in defense have happened because of the vast improvement in the quality of baseball gloves, although that hasn't been as much of a factor for younger fans than us old-timers. I remember buying my dad a nice six-finger glove for Fathers Day in 1961 or 1962. They use similar gloves today, and it replaced his old pancake glove, which made fielding a true adventure. But defense has continued to improve as players have become bigger (more reach) and faster while retaining and often improving agility. Analytics now allow players to be positioned far better. I have a question: Have our eyes allowed us to see how both Joe Panik and Brandon Crawford have fallen off defensively? I'm hoping that both situations were injury-related and that both will bounce back some this season. One thing to remember about defense though is that while initially players can improve it through hard work, eventually they become more and more limited physically (range, agility and throwing strength), and their defense declines. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5153/?page=2#ixzz5iub3m5lb
|
|
|
I wish...
Mar 22, 2019 10:12:52 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Islandboagie on Mar 22, 2019 10:12:52 GMT -5
I'm not seeing a significant dropoff defensively from Crawford. Last season his fielding percentage was only .004 lower than his first gold glove season. Last season he also had more chances and assists than he ever had before. Explain to us why we should be worried, Rog.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Mar 22, 2019 10:34:32 GMT -5
Let's take another look at base running, using Angel Pagan as an example. Boly sees Angel as an average base runner despite his speed. Fan Graphs looks at him as a good base runner, scoring him at 39 base running runs above average over his career. In fairness to Boly's evaluation, Fan Graphs saw Angel as being very good in 2010 through 2012, and then just a little above average the rest of his career.
Let's take a look at 2012, Pagan's first season with the Giants, hoping to see what Fan Graphs saw:
Angel went from first to third on a single 7 out of 25 times. That was right on the average.
He scored from second on a single 12 out of 16 times. That's 75%, and a very good base runner is successful about 70% of the time.
He scored from first on a double 5 time in 11 opportunities. That was just a little above average.
So far, Angel looks to be above average, but not stellar.
He took 16 bases, which was well above average.
He was thrown out four times on the bases, about average.
He grounded into only 4 double plays in 93 chances, which is far above average.
He stole 29 bases in 36 attempts, which is also well above average.
In summary, Angel was good at advancing on hits, very good at advancing on the bases, not too bad in making outs on the bases, very good at avoiding double plays, and a fine base stealer.
Now let's take a look 2016, his final season with the Giants, and one in which he was rated an above-average base runner, but not an overly good one.
Angel advanced from first to third 9 times in 23 chances. Very good.
He scored from second 15 times in 24 opportunities. Above average.
He scored from first 5 out of seven times. Very good.
He advanced 26 times. Very, very good.
He was thrown out three times. Pretty good.
He grounded into 11 double plays in 91 opportunities. This one hurt him.
He stole 15 bases in 19 attempts. That's very good.
In 2016, Angel was still a very good base runner -- except that he grounded into too many double plays.
Let's look at Angel's career, which was rated as very good. Bill James rated Angel with a net gain of 169 bases, which at the end of 2016 ranked 17th out of the 100 active players who had played at least 1000 games. To put Angel in perspective, the best was Ichiro Suzuki with 419 bases gained, and the worst was David Ortiz with 213 bases lost.
Angel went from first to third 88 times in 228 chances. Very good.
He scored from second 109 out of 170 times. Good.
He scored from first 33 times out of 60. Good.
He advanced 164 bases. Above average.
He was thrown out 33 times. Good.
He grounded into 54 double plays in 717 chances. Very good.
He stole 176 out of 227 bases. Very good.
Looking at Angel objectively, it appears he was a very good base runner. Not great, but definitely very good. His best strengths were stealing bases and avoiding double plays, but he appears to have been above-average at just about everything in base running.
Both Fan Graphs and Bill James gave Angel very good grades. Based on every single time Angel had a chance to run the bases.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Mar 22, 2019 10:47:10 GMT -5
Regarding fielding, please bear with me as I compare Brandon Crawford and Andrelton Simmons with what I think might be the best method for infielders. Please don't get taken up with whether Brandon is better or Andrelton is better, but rather focus on what Inside Fielding sees.
Inside Fielding categorizes plays by their degree of difficulty.
Routine -- 90% to 100% probability. Simmons 98.7%. Crawford 97.8%.
Likely -- 60% to 90% probability. Simmons 80.1%. Crawford 80.3%.
Even -- 40% to 60% probability. Simmons 67.7%. Crawford 51.9%.
Unlikely -- 10% to 40% probability. Simmons 45.3%. Crawford 39.8%.
Difficult -- 1% to 10% probability. Simmons 10.9%. Crawford 6.3%.
I value these because they are based on every play made by each player over his career.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Mar 22, 2019 11:19:35 GMT -5
I'm not seeing a significant dropoff defensively from Crawford. Last season his fielding percentage was only .004 lower than his first gold glove season. Last season he also had more chances and assists than he ever had before. Explain to us why we should be worried, Rog. Rog -- I thought Brandon slipped defensively beginning with the second half of the 2016 season, Boagie. I don't have access to much in the way of metrics to separate the first and second half of 2016, and the metrics didn't really show much until last season. I was going mostly with what I saw. These are specific plays, so they certainly aren't definitive, but here are some particular plays I remember: . Right after the 2016 All-Star game, Brandon made three throwing errors in one game for what must have been the only time in his career. . In Game 5 of the 2015 NLDS, Brandon made two throwing errors, the second of which resulted in the game-winning run for the Cubs. . I believe it was in early 2017 that we discussed a play here where Brandon charged a ball on a very tough play, and allowed the ball to get by him to score the walk-off run. We discussed it because at first it wasn't scored an error, and I said that it should have been. Later that week, it was changed to an error. . Last season Brandon threw something like 8 out of 19 balls in the dirt on his highlight plays. They were highlight plays, so clearly they weren't errors, and they weren't costly. But they may have indicated some slippage. I don't think Brandon was fully healthy last season, so it wouldn't be surprising if his fielding declined. Let's take a look at how Inside Edge Fielding saw Brandon's 2018 fielding compared to his career. I haven't looked at this before, so it may support my own eye test or it may not. Let's see: Routine -- Career 97.8% 2018 97.5% Likely -- Career 80.3% 2018 70.6% Even -- Career 51.9% 2018 57.1% Unlikely-- Career 39.8% 2018 29.4% Remote -- Career 6.3% 2018 8.1% This isn't definitive, but it tends to back up my assertion that Brandon's decline began right after the 2016 All-Star game. In his 88 games prior to the 2016 All-Star break, Brandon made only 4 errors. In his 73 games after the break, including the postseason, he made 9 errors. This is ironic in a sense, but the only article I have seen that called Brandon the best-fielding shortstop was written on July 21, 2016, right around the time I believe Brandon's defense began to decline noticeably. (By the way, I just came across an article that quoted Cory Gearrin as saying Brandon is the best defensive shortstop in the game, so now I've seen it written twice.) When Boly says that defense is tough to evaluate, he's said a mouthful. It is indeed REALLY tough. That's why I'm glad we're starting to get Statcast information. If we can see how far a fielder had to go to make the play and how long he had to make it, we can begin to get very objective data with which to compare fielders. Meanwhile, I try to my own defensive analysis by getting as much information as I can -- all the way from watching video to getting as much analytical data as possible to seeing how others evaluate defense. I place a good deal of faith in The Fielding Bible evaluations, and they rank Brandon Belt very highly (as well as rating Brandon Crawford as one of the best). Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5153?page=2#ixzz5iurd24Yj
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Mar 22, 2019 20:59:29 GMT -5
What I think you're missing about Pagan, Roger, is some mental mistakes I frequently saw him make, the biggest of which was in a game a couple years back.
He was on 3B, doinking around.
Pitcher un corked a wild pitch and Pagan could have scored easily.
Heck, I could have scored!
But he wasn't paying attention and didn't.
There were other times I recall where he could have/should have taken an extra base, but didn't.
I said he was average, not bad, not good.
Span was terrible.
I watched him make bone headed running mistakes in ST 2 years back.
That's when I knew we were in trouble.
The whole team was acting stupid on the bases.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Mar 23, 2019 21:25:40 GMT -5
I don't think a player gets dinged statistically in his base running when he doesn't take a base that he should have. But if he's taking a lot of bases overall and not getting thrown out often, he's probably still doing a pretty good job of base running. No base runner is perfect on every play, but if a runner misses out on a base, it's not nearly as bad as getting thrown out.
I thought Angel was a pretty good base runner, but I didn't really have a lot of conviction about it until I looked up the two different measuring systems for base running. I think there's one more I know about at Baseball Prospectus, but my guess would be that it has Angel as at least above average.
As for Angel, do you think he truly wasn't paying attention, or did he simply misjudge how far away the ball would get? I can't imagine a player not watching for a chance to score. But you know from playing that it can be hard to judge how far away a ball will get, and often if a player is going to make it, he's got to make his decision virtually immediately.
In another post you mentioned that Hansen was blazing fast, and while he is certainly fast, none of the Giants are true blazers. He was the fourth-fastest Giant last season, and was only the 111th-fastest of 549 measured runners. Alen is fast to very fast, but he's certainly not a blazer.
I think one of the advantages of metrics is that they are far more precises. Anyone watching Hanson run can tell he's fast, but I certainly would have thought by watching him that he would have been higher than 80th percentile. But last season he wasn't. Some guys LOOK faster than they really are, and others such as Mac Williamson are faster than they look.
I wouldn't have guessed it, but last season Alen's average fastest speed was only a little over a tenth of a mile per hour faster than Mac's.
Boagie is right that many things can be evaluated simply by watching them. But there are other things that are more difficult to judge without measuring them. That's why, for instance, football players have long been timed in the 40-yard dash.
|
|