PDA

View Full Version : Beckham Position Change


Goose
11-05-2009, 11:54 AM
On the tail of the Teahen trade, I though this should have its own thread.

I have been seeing on this board as well as various reports, that the Teahen trade could mean that mark moves to 3rd base and Bacon moves to second (with Getz now gone). My question is: If Beckham is to move positions, why are most people/pundits thinking the move is to 2nd instead of SS? This is GB's natural position, and, let's face it, TCM did not wow many people there last year. He played better at 2nd. With that, why not move GB to SS and TCM to second?

I am confused as to why so many are saying Gordon will be the one to move to 2nd should a move occur.

Lip Man 1
11-05-2009, 11:57 AM
Anything can happen but it would be hard for Beckham to switch to two different positions in less than two years time neither of which is the position he grew up playing.

I think the Sox are going to go after a second baseman (could they possible now get involved in Figgins?) or a shortstop which would mean moving Ramirez back to second where he played very well in 2008.

I don't want to see Nix or Lillibridge in the starting lineup next season.

In Lillibridge's case and to a certain extent Nix, I don't even want them on the team

Lip

oeo
11-05-2009, 12:08 PM
If the idea is to move Beckham from third base because his bat doesn't profile much at the position (not true, IMO), why would you play Teahen at third base who has an even worse bat for third base?

Beckham is going to be our third baseman for a long time, I think.

Also, Alexei 'wowed' Ozzie at SS, whether that's right or not, I don't know. Ozzie was a Gold Glove SS, though. If you think Beckham is going 'wow' anybody at SS, you're crazy.

BadBobbyJenks
11-05-2009, 12:27 PM
Id rather have someone consistently field at shortstop than wow me.

Carolina Kenny
11-05-2009, 12:27 PM
Anything can happen but it would be hard for Beckham to switch to two different positions in less than two years time neither of which is the position he grew up playing.

I think the Sox are going to go after a second baseman (could they possible now get involved in Figgins?) or a shortstop which would mean moving Ramirez back to second where he played very well in 2008.

I don't want to see Nix or Lillibridge in the starting lineup next season.

In Lillibridge's case and to a certain extent Nix, I don't even want them on the team

Lip

I have never agreed more with a Lip comment than this one. The Lillibridge (to no where) and Nix (he's the one) should not be on the team next year.
Upgrades, upgrades, everywhere.

sullythered
11-05-2009, 12:32 PM
If the idea is to move Beckham from third base because his bat doesn't profile much at the position (not true, IMO), why would you play Teahen at third base who has an even worse bat for third base?

Beckham is going to be our third baseman for a long time, I think.

Also, Alexei 'wowed' Ozzie at SS, whether that's right or not, I don't know. Ozzie was a Gold Glove SS, though. If you think Beckham is going 'wow' anybody at SS, you're crazy.

I don't understand where people get the insane idea that Becks' numbers aren't 3b worthy. Gordon Beckham was better at a younger age than Magglio Ordonez. Now if Magglio's bat didn't fit 3b, I don't know what people want.

Crestani
11-05-2009, 12:35 PM
I have never agreed more with a Lip comment than this one. The Lillibridge (to no where) and Nix (he's the one) should not be on the team next year.
Upgrades, upgrades, everywhere.


No one has mentioned this so I will, Teahen has also played 2nd base for the Royals. Maybe that is also an option if the Sox play Kotsay in right and Teahan at second against righties.

TDog
11-05-2009, 12:46 PM
Id rather have someone consistently field at shortstop than wow me.

When Beckham was in college, Baseball America didn't project him as a future major league shortstop. He was a Golden Spikes finalist, however, and projected to be a future major league infielder.

If the White Sox pick up a third baseman, I would expect Beckham to move to second. But I don't expect that to happen.

Zisk77
11-05-2009, 12:50 PM
I don't understand where people get the insane idea that Becks' numbers aren't 3b worthy. Gordon Beckham was better at a younger age than Magglio Ordonez. Now if Magglio's bat didn't fit 3b, I don't know what people want.

Its the Belief that 3b are slugging positions and should have a hitter like Mike Schmidt or Evan Longoria. But as I pointed out in past threads that their are currently more sluggers at 2b than 3b in today's game. I even listed them. Everyone seems to ignore those posts as they don't fit in to their paradigm.

Daver
11-05-2009, 12:53 PM
Its the Belief that 3b are slugging positions and should have a hitter like Mike Schmidt or Evan Longoria. But as I pointed out in past threads that their are currently more sluggers at 2b than 3b in today's game. I even listed them. Everyone seems to ignore those posts as they don't fit in to their paradigm.

The whole idea of your ability to hit affecting your defensive position is one of the dumbest concepts in recent memory, it might sense in fantasy baseball and that's about it.

GAsoxfan
11-05-2009, 01:08 PM
No one has mentioned this so I will, Teahen has also played 2nd base for the Royals. Maybe that is also an option if the Sox play Kotsay in right and Teahan at second against righties.

I don't know about ST, but Teahen has only played three regular season games at 2nd for the Royals.

oeo
11-05-2009, 01:12 PM
The whole idea of your ability to hit affecting your defensive position is one of the dumbest concepts in recent memory, it might sense in fantasy baseball and that's about it.

You need to have some basis on where to get certain offensive capabilities from. If you're replacing the lack of power elsewhere (like the Sox did with Pods in LF), that's fine.

voodoochile
11-05-2009, 01:14 PM
I don't know about ST, but Teahen has only played three regular season games at 2nd for the Royals.

According to the link to the article on the Sox site in the trade thread, he was scheduled to start the season as the Royals everyday 2B last year, but when their starting 3B (Gordon) got hurt he switched. Then Callaspo (sp?) did well at 2B so they moved Teahen to the outfield when Gordon got better.

balke
11-05-2009, 01:20 PM
I think Teahan will be able to rest Beckham at 3B or play RF and switch around with Kotsay. Sox must be looking at Polanco or Figgins for now.

balke
11-05-2009, 01:32 PM
According to the link to the article on the Sox site in the trade thread, he was scheduled to start the season as the Royals everyday 2B last year, but when their starting 3B (Gordon) got hurt he switched. Then Callaspo (sp?) did well at 2B so they moved Teahen to the outfield when Gordon got better.


This might be as well. I'd be surprised if the Sox got away from speed though. Getz had 20+ stolen bases last year. It would be a very anti-Ozzie move if they want Teahan at 2B I think - Though I think it would be an upgrade.

UofCSoxFan
11-05-2009, 02:02 PM
I've always like Teahen but not enough to give up Getz. I think this move is a precurser to moving Beckham to 2nd. Its not that I don't think his numbers can hold up at 3rd, its that his numbers will be sick at 2nd and allow another big bat at 3rd (or a guy like Figgins).

For the most part it is easier to find a guy that can hit at third than at 2B so moving Beckham allows for a lot more flexibility there. Its safe to say another move is pending. Teahen and Nix aren't everyday players and as of now one is playing 130 games in the IF.

ode to veeck
11-05-2009, 07:41 PM
The whole idea of your ability to hit affecting your defensive position is one of the dumbest concepts in recent memory, it might sense in fantasy baseball and that's about it.


as big a fantasy as continuation fouls in basketball, just no truth to the myth

Zisk77
11-05-2009, 07:55 PM
The whole idea of your ability to hit affecting your defensive position is one of the dumbest concepts in recent memory, it might sense in fantasy baseball and that's about it.

preaching to the choir...amen.

Pablo_Honey
11-05-2009, 08:18 PM
The whole idea of your ability to hit affecting your defensive position is one of the dumbest concepts in recent memory, it might sense in fantasy baseball and that's about it.

I guess this depends on what players are available at each position. If there are more better 3B on the market than there are at 2B, then obviously Kenny should acquire one of those 3B and move Beckham to 2B. Think supply and demand. However, I agree that it is ridiculous to switch a player's position just because his bat doesn't "traditionally" fit the current position. If a player's bat dictates where he plays, then by that logic Figgins is a very very bad 3B. I think the only exception would be 1B, where bat comes before glove 99% of the time. Back to the topic, I don't want to see Beckham switch positions unless we absolutely have to. He spent a full year learning the position and he has improved to an adequate level.

CWSpalehoseCWS
11-05-2009, 08:40 PM
I think if anything, this trade gives the Sox more flexibility. I doubt this means that Beckham or Ramirez will move positions, and depends entirely on whether or not the Sox can go out and get a good 2B, SS, or 3B. Beckham can play everywhere but 1B, and Ramirez fits in at 2B or SS. I don't see how if Beckham was moved could affect him mentally. It's not like he's going to a position that is harder than 3B, he's should be more comfortable at SS or 2B if you ask me.

Britt Burns
11-05-2009, 08:47 PM
No one has mentioned this so I will, Teahen has also played 2nd base for the Royals. Maybe that is also an option if the Sox play Kotsay in right and Teahan at second against righties.

He has 3 games in the majors at 2nd, all last season.

Lip Man 1
11-05-2009, 10:11 PM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/chi-06-morrissey-white-sox-nov06,0,4425725.column

Lip

Madvora
11-06-2009, 08:15 AM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/chi-06-morrissey-white-sox-nov06,0,4425725.column

Lip
Yeah, I would like to see Alexei back at 2B. He was pretty frustrating last year. I don't know what happened. He seemed like his head wasn't in the game for a number of plays. Maybe that was the position, maybe that was a mental thing that still would have happened if he was playing 2B. Who knows.

AZChiSoxFan
11-06-2009, 09:16 AM
The whole idea of your ability to hit affecting your defensive position is one of the dumbest concepts in recent memory, it might sense in fantasy baseball and that's about it.

This post really bothers me, because it's dead on and I agree with it.

A few years back on this site, I got tore up for daring to state that Mark Grace (the player who lead MLB in hits in the 90's) was a very good player and had been an asset to his team. The "argument" against me was that because he played first base, he should have hit many more homeruns.

voodoochile
11-06-2009, 09:24 AM
This post really bothers me, because it's dead on and I agree with it.

A few years back on this site, I got tore up for daring to state that Mark Grace (the player who lead MLB in hits in the 90's) was a very good player and had been an asset to his team. The "argument" against me was that because he played first base, he should have hit many more homeruns.

There may have been a few other issues at play there. The Chicago press used to love Marky and hammer Hurt with glee. Some even said he was the best 1B in Chicago when Frank was still playing 1B. So people round these parts are a bit emotional on the topic...

Madvora
11-06-2009, 09:27 AM
This post really bothers me, because it's dead on and I agree with it.

A few years back on this site, I got tore up for daring to state that Mark Grace (the player who lead MLB in hits in the 90's) was a very good player and had been an asset to his team. The "argument" against me was that because he played first base, he should have hit many more homeruns.
I've never agreed with that line of thought either, but I think I'm finally starting to understand where the concept is coming from. The idea is that 1B for example is a typical position where a lot of homerun hitters play. If you stick a non-homerun hitter in that position, then you're going to have to find a power hitter that plays another position on the field. It's not so much a matter of how you build your team, but how everyone else builds their teams. You may need more power on your team, but now all you have left open is CF and there's only three 5 HR hitters left out there while there are ten 40 HR hitters available for the 1B position. So I guess the idea is that you "wasted" that position by putting a light hitting guy there.

I don't agree with this, because situations never come out this clean, but I literally figured out this train of thought this morning.

voodoochile
11-06-2009, 09:39 AM
I've never agreed with that line of thought either, but I think I'm finally trying to understand where the concept is coming from. The idea is that 1B for example is a typical position where a lot of homerun hitters play. If you stick a non-homerun hitter in that position, then you're going to have to find a power hitter that plays another position on the field. It's not so much a matter of how you build your team, but how everyone else builds their teams. You may need more power on your team, but now all you have left open is CF and there's only three 5 HR hitters left out there while there are ten 40 HR hitters available for the 1B position. So I guess the idea is that you "wasted" that position by putting a light hitting guy there.

I don't agree with this, because situations never come out this clean, but I literally figured out this train of thought this morning.

Yeah that and the fact that 1B can be staffed by a guy with a big bat who doesn't have the defensive skills to play anywhere else also factors into it. If you don't have a guy like that it's one thing, but if you do then why wouldn't you play him there?

sox1970
11-06-2009, 11:52 AM
Kenny just confirmed Beckham to 2B next year.

JohnnyInnsbrook
11-06-2009, 12:03 PM
Kenny just confirmed Beckham to 2B next year.


http://twitter.com/cst_sox/status/5484388644 (http://twitter.com/cst_sox/status/5484388644)

TDog
11-06-2009, 12:24 PM
Yeah, I would like to see Alexei back at 2B. He was pretty frustrating last year. I don't know what happened. He seemed like his head wasn't in the game for a number of plays. Maybe that was the position, maybe that was a mental thing that still would have happened if he was playing 2B. Who knows.

The announcers for the A's games said baseball people were saying it wasn't the position change that affected Ramirez, but having a rookie second baseman who didn't speak Spanish as his keystone partner. As a rookie, Ramirez was playing next to Cabrera.

soltrain21
11-06-2009, 12:32 PM
The announcers for the A's games said baseball people were saying it wasn't the position change that affected Ramirez, but having a rookie second baseman who didn't speak Spanish as his keystone partner. As a rookie, Ramirez was playing next to Cabrera.

So having a second baseman that didn't speak Spanish caused him to throw almost every ball in the dirt to Paulie on routine ground balls?

That doesn't make much sense.

AZChiSoxFan
11-06-2009, 02:26 PM
There may have been a few other issues at play there. The Chicago press used to love Marky and hammer Hurt with glee. Some even said he was the best 1B in Chicago when Frank was still playing 1B. So people round these parts are a bit emotional on the topic...

Thanks for the info Voodoo. Obviously Frank was a much better player than Grace.

pudge
11-06-2009, 05:32 PM
Can we change the title of this thread to "Confirmed"?

This is pretty interesting. I guess I don't mind it, but Teahan better be ready to have a pretty sweet glove at third...

Rdy2PlayBall
11-06-2009, 05:34 PM
So having a second baseman that didn't speak Spanish caused him to throw almost every ball in the dirt to Paulie on routine ground balls?

That doesn't make much sense.That's not what all of defense is. Positioning was one of Alexei's MAJOR problems.

pudge
11-06-2009, 05:38 PM
BTW - does it bother anyone that Teahan whiffs like 130 times a year, while only hitting about 12 homers? I realize almost everyone in MLB these days strikeouts a lot, but I'm so tired of a free-swinging, low OBP club, and this guy doesn't even add power...

russ99
11-06-2009, 06:25 PM
BTW - does it bother anyone that Teahan whiffs like 130 times a year, while only hitting about 12 homers? I realize almost everyone in MLB these days strikeouts a lot, but I'm so tired of a free-swinging, low OBP club, and this guy doesn't even add power...

He's a doubles hitter. We don't need everyone in the lineup to be a slugger, which is the mentality Kenny seems to be moving away from.

pudge
11-06-2009, 08:07 PM
He's a doubles hitter. We don't need everyone in the lineup to be a slugger, which is the mentality Kenny seems to be moving away from.

How about not having one of the worst doubles hitters? Or make that two, if you include Alexis Rios.

What drives me nuts more than anything is these guys never walk.

More doubles last year: Nick Swisher, Orlando Cabrera.

Take a quick scan at the MLB players in '09 who had more than 30 doubles and over 100 strikeouts. Teahan is about the worst of them all, because he only had 12 homers and 37 walks. Most everyone else had at least 50+ walks, if not 70+, and far more homers. Even the pathetic Fukudome, who only hit 10 homers, walked 93 times. The most similar stats to Teahan? Alex Rios (37 walks, 17 homers) and Aaron Rowand (30 walks, 15 homers).

Our big aversion to "sluggers" is that ours did nothing but hit homers. Replacing that with guys who do nothing but hit the occassional double? Hmm.

Domeshot17
11-06-2009, 09:21 PM
Be interesting to see if we add a middle of the order hitter. Beckham Quentin Konerko 3-4-5 probably isn't enough to do much offensively. A lot of offseason left but the general feeling we are banking everything on Quentin and Rios coming back is tough.

Also, we have about as bad of a doubles ballpark as you can get. Do they play on pushing the fences back?

Frater Perdurabo
11-06-2009, 09:34 PM
Also, we have about as bad of a doubles ballpark as you can get. Do they play on pushing the fences back?

Don't need to push them back, just make them higher with clear Plexiglas. Actually, you could move the walls in closer and make the transparent wall as high as the Green Monster, but go all the way from pole to pole. Call it the "Clear Monster." Every time a Sox player doubles off the "Clear Monster," D.J. could use it to plug U.S. Cellular:

"Beckham's fifth double off the Clear Monster tonight is brought to you by U.S. Cellular, who bring you the clearest reception of any wireless provider."

That would also allow the Sox to move in the outfield seats. No one would ever catch a home run ball, but they'd have a great closeup view being just 120 feet behind the shortstop!

:tongue:

CWSpalehoseCWS
11-07-2009, 01:40 AM
He's a doubles hitter. We don't need everyone in the lineup to be a slugger, which is the mentality Kenny seems to be moving away from.

That's was makes this trade good, IMO. I'm sick of all the HR's. 1-2 guys that can hit it out are good, then get some other 2B's hitters the keep the line moving.

Craig Grebeck
11-07-2009, 01:46 AM
That's was makes this trade good, IMO. I'm sick of all the HR's. 1-2 guys that can hit it out are good, then get some other 2B's hitters the keep the line moving.
But Teahen is not a contact hitter. What's good about a doubles hitter that makes contact the same rate better than a home run hitter?

doublem23
11-07-2009, 02:11 AM
That's was makes this trade good, IMO. I'm sick of all the HR's. 1-2 guys that can hit it out are good, then get some other 2B's hitters the keep the line moving.

We play in a HR hitter's park. We don't play in a doubles hitter's park.

Dibbs
11-07-2009, 10:41 AM
Now we want doubles instead of homers? Now I have heard it all. Next we will want singles over doubles. Teahan doesn't makes this team better or worse. We still need a lot of help offensively.

guillen4life13
11-07-2009, 10:49 AM
How about not having one of the worst doubles hitters? Or make that two, if you include Alexis Rios.

What drives me nuts more than anything is these guys never walk.

More doubles last year: Nick Swisher, Orlando Cabrera.

Take a quick scan at the MLB players in '09 who had more than 30 doubles and over 100 strikeouts. Teahan is about the worst of them all, because he only had 12 homers and 37 walks. Most everyone else had at least 50+ walks, if not 70+, and far more homers. Even the pathetic Fukudome, who only hit 10 homers, walked 93 times. The most similar stats to Teahan? Alex Rios (37 walks, 17 homers) and Aaron Rowand (30 walks, 15 homers).

Our big aversion to "sluggers" is that ours did nothing but hit homers. Replacing that with guys who do nothing but hit the occassional double? Hmm.

Now I understand! Hey guys, we just got the closest thing to Aaron Rowand that isn't Aaron Rowand... again!

Ranger
11-07-2009, 02:17 PM
If the idea is to move Beckham from third base because his bat doesn't profile much at the position (not true, IMO), why would you play Teahen at third base who has an even worse bat for third base?

Beckham is going to be our third baseman for a long time, I think.

Also, Alexei 'wowed' Ozzie at SS, whether that's right or not, I don't know. Ozzie was a Gold Glove SS, though. If you think Beckham is going 'wow' anybody at SS, you're crazy.

Defensively, Teahen-Ramirez-Beckham-PK is the best realistic alignment they have with the current roster. I say "realistic" because Nix may be just as good at 2b as Beckham will be, but there is no way he's going to start for this team because of his bat.

But your last paragraph is important. I think people are dramatically overestimating Beckham's ability at SS. He's solid, but Ramirez is better. Some people may point to Alexei's errors and disagree with me, but Beckham had 10 E's in 45 games in the minors.

Daver
11-07-2009, 04:04 PM
Defensively, Teahen-Ramirez-Beckham-PK is the best realistic alignment they have with the current roster. I say "realistic" because Nix may be just as good at 2b as Beckham will be, but there is no way he's going to start for this team because of his bat.

But your last paragraph is important. I think people are dramatically overestimating Beckham's ability at SS. He's solid, but Ramirez is better. Some people may point to Alexei's errors and disagree with me, but Beckham had 10 E's in 45 games in the minors.

Errors are a terrible way to judge defense.

Ranger
11-07-2009, 05:34 PM
Errors are a terrible way to judge defense.


It's terrible if that's all you use to judge defense, but it is still important.

Daver
11-07-2009, 05:39 PM
It's terrible if that's all you use to judge defense, but it is still important.

Not really, we are talking about something that is strictly a human decision, a scorer with a stick up his ass can affect the number of errors committed by a large margin, too large to make it rather insignificant.

sox1970
11-07-2009, 05:42 PM
Not really, we are talking about something that is strictly a human decision, a scorer with a stick up his ass can affect the number of errors committed by a large margin, too large to make it rather insignificant.

Did you call Ranger around 4:50?

Daver
11-07-2009, 05:46 PM
Did you call Ranger around 4:50?

Call him what?

oeo
11-07-2009, 05:46 PM
Not really, we are talking about something that is strictly a human decision, a scorer with a stick up his ass can affect the number of errors committed by a large margin, too large to make it rather insignificant.

What are you judging Teahen's defense ability off of then? You've seen a lot of Mark Teahen at third base?

Daver
11-07-2009, 06:59 PM
What are you judging Teahen's defense ability off of then? You've seen a lot of Mark Teahen at third base?

Three years worth of tape.

TDog
11-07-2009, 07:01 PM
...

I think people are dramatically overestimating Beckham's ability at SS. He's solid, but Ramirez is better. Some people may point to Alexei's errors and disagree with me, but Beckham had 10 E's in 45 games in the minors.

Judging from what I've read about Beckham from scouts, at shortstop he would commit as many errors (however subjective they might be) as Ramirez while getting to fewer balls with a weaker arm. Beckham wasn't projected as a major league shortstop out of college. However you may dislike Ramirez, he appears to be better than Beckham at short.

Ranger
11-07-2009, 08:00 PM
Not really, we are talking about something that is strictly a human decision, a scorer with a stick up his ass can affect the number of errors committed by a large margin, too large to make it rather insignificant.

Not really. Most errors committed are obvious errors.

Ranger
11-07-2009, 08:07 PM
Did you call Ranger around 4:50?

You mean the kid that had "statistics" to support his argument that Jayson Nix is a better ballplayer than Alex Rios? That's what happens when college kids spend too much time fantasizing and not enough time studying. Or drinking.

I understand Rios had a bad year, but come on. Let's not get carried away here.

Daver
11-07-2009, 08:11 PM
Not really. Most errors committed are obvious errors.

Royce Clayton holds a Sox record because of a sympathetic scorer, do you really want to continue this debate?

Ranger
11-07-2009, 08:26 PM
Royce Clayton holds a Sox record because of a sympathetic scorer, do you really want to continue this debate?

If we have to. You really can't be serious in saying that the error statistic is meaningless. It doesn't tell the full story, but it does mean something. And you really think every error recorded is debatable? Come on, man.

Daver
11-07-2009, 08:30 PM
If we have to. You really can't be serious in saying that the error statistic is meaningless. It doesn't tell the full story, but it does mean something. And you really think every error recorded is debatable? Come on, man.

What about the errors that aren't recorded?

How do you want to quantify human error?

Brian26
11-07-2009, 08:31 PM
If we have to. You really can't be serious in saying that the error statistic is meaningless. It doesn't tell the full story, but it does mean something. And you really think every error recorded is debatable? Come on, man.

:hitless
"Just remember, you can't make an error if you don't get to the ball. I never met a ball in the hole I couldn't stick in my pocket."

Ranger
11-07-2009, 09:10 PM
What about the errors that aren't recorded?

How do you want to quantify human error?

So then you believe the error statistic has zero value whatsoever and that every one recorded (or not recorded) is only the result of whatever the scorekeeper feels like that day. I'm not sure how you can think that, but OK. I will take it that you believe Ramirez had a pretty good year at SS since errors are unreliable.

I completely agree that some errors are debatable, but usually an error is an error. For every one that is wrongly ruled a hit, there is one that is incorrectly charged as an error. It evens out over the course of the year.

Daver
11-07-2009, 09:21 PM
So then you believe the error statistic has zero value whatsoever and that every one recorded (or not recorded) is only the result of whatever the scorekeeper feels like that day. I'm not sure how you can think that, but OK. I will take it that you believe Ramirez had a pretty good year at SS since errors are unreliable.

I completely agree that some errors are debatable, but usually an error is an error. For every one that is wrongly ruled a hit, there is one that is incorrectly charged as an error. It evens out over the course of the year.

You fail to grasp the point, errors are not a trackable stat, because there is no way to prove or disprove human judgment, and to write it off as evening itself out is ludicrous, because a sympathetic scorer can skew the percentages by large margins, and it has been proven that it happens.

Trying to perceive what I believe based on this is a bit amusing though.

doublem23
11-07-2009, 09:34 PM
:hitless
"Just remember, you can't make an error if you don't get to the ball. I never met a ball in the hole I couldn't stick in my pocket."

Bingo, I don't think Ranger was around for the wonderful Royce Clayton years. If he was, he'd know how easy it is for a guy to be a terrible defender, but not rack up any errors.

CWSpalehoseCWS
11-07-2009, 09:52 PM
Bingo, I don't think Ranger was around for the wonderful Royce Clayton years. If he was, he'd know how easy it is for a guy to be a terrible defender, but not rack up any errors.

Couldn't you also throw Carlos Lee into that category? I can't quite remember, but didn't he have not 1 error in LF in '04?

Ranger
11-07-2009, 10:02 PM
You fail to grasp the point, errors are not a trackable stat, because there is no way to prove or disprove human judgment, and to write it off as evening itself out is ludicrous, because a sympathetic scorer can skew the percentages by large margins, and it has been proven that it happens.

Trying to perceive what I believe based on this is a bit amusing though.

It's really not ludicrous and I don't think I am missing the point. You believe "errors" is a useless stat. Alright then, I don't. The Sox were one of the worst teams in baseball in terms of errors this season and it ultimately reflected in the standings. Most of those errors were not because of scorekeeper bias. They were just a bad defensive team (the infield, in particular) and the errors were an indication of that. That statistic proved meaningful.

Bingo, I don't think Ranger was around for the wonderful Royce Clayton years. If he was, he'd know how easy it is for a guy to be a terrible defender, but not rack up any errors.

I'm fully aware of Royce Clayton's abilities. He, at least, looked a ballplayer.

I'm certainly not arguing that errors mean everything, but I am arguing that errors mean something. Errors will rarely tell you the full story of a player's defensive ability but it definitely means something if a guy has racked up a ton of them. I just don't see how anyone could think they're completely useless.

doublem23
11-07-2009, 10:04 PM
Couldn't you also throw Carlos Lee into that category? I can't quite remember, but didn't he have not 1 error in LF in '04?

JMO, but I think people give Lee a lot of grief because he was such a butcher in the field when he first arrived in Chicago, but truth be told by the time he was dealt he was at least a decent to good LF... Not saying that takes any sort of defensive wizardry, but he could at least play his own position pretty well.

Brian26
11-07-2009, 10:07 PM
Couldn't you also throw Carlos Lee into that category? I can't quite remember, but didn't he have not 1 error in LF in '04?

Comparing SS and LF is apples and oranges.

doublem23
11-07-2009, 10:08 PM
I'm fully aware of Royce Clayton's abilities. He, at least, looked a ballplayer.

I'm certainly not arguing that errors mean everything, but I am arguing that errors mean something. Errors will rarely tell you the full story of a player's defensive ability but it definitely means something if a guy has racked up a ton of them. I just don't see how anyone could think they're completely useless.

I don't know, I see what you're saying but errors truly are a terrible stat... Not that any of the sabermetric stats like ZR are any better, though. Individual defense is just impossible to quantify, IMO, the only way you can really evaluate it is just to watch a guy play.

Brian26
11-07-2009, 10:08 PM
Not saying that takes any sort of defensive wizardry, but he could at least play his own position pretty well.

He played it ok....but cheated a lot by standing on the warning track. If it was over his head, it was gone.

Daver
11-07-2009, 10:11 PM
It's really not ludicrous and I don't think I am missing the point. You believe "errors" is a useless stat. Alright then, I don't. The Sox were one of the worst teams in baseball in terms of errors this season and it ultimately reflected in the standings. Most of those errors were not because of scorekeeper bias. They were just a bad defensive team (the infield, in particular) and the errors were an indication of that. That statistic proved meaningful.



I'm fully aware of Royce Clayton's abilities. He, at least, looked a ballplayer.

I'm certainly not arguing that errors mean everything, but I am arguing that errors mean something. Errors will rarely tell you the full story of a player's defensive ability but it definitely means something if a guy has racked up a ton of them. I just don't see how anyone could think they're completely useless.

The argument can be made that any stat that relies on human judgment is flawed to begin with, and numbers derived from it are useless because of that. I am not making that argument.

But you just admitted that Royce Clayton looking like a ballplayer equals deserving the record he holds, thanks for proving my point about errors and perception.

CWSpalehoseCWS
11-07-2009, 10:28 PM
Comparing SS and LF is apples and oranges.

I wasn't, I was just agreeing that you can't go with a player's number of errors to point out how good they are in the field. Lee was not a GG LF, only an average one.

Ranger
11-08-2009, 01:56 AM
I don't know, I see what you're saying but errors truly are a terrible stat... Not that any of the sabermetric stats like ZR are any better, though. Individual defense is just impossible to quantify, IMO, the only way you can really evaluate it is just to watch a guy play.

This is absolutley correct and will remain so until companies like Stats Inc can perfect their systems that can actually measure range, positioning and batted ball speed. There is also a system that MLB teams are starting to use now that uses cameras to actually be able to chart range and such. It's really exciting and promising and should be able to provide real defensive data based on acual measurable numbers. RF and ZR are not all that objective right now.

Errors is a terrible stat if that's all you use to analyze a player. But you can't tell me it's insignificant if a player leads the league in errors, for example. Like I said, it doesn't mean everything, but it definitely means something.

The argument can be made that any stat that relies on human judgment is flawed to begin with, and numbers derived from it are useless because of that. I am not making that argument.

But you just admitted that Royce Clayton looking like a ballplayer equals deserving the record he holds, thanks for proving my point about errors and perception.

No, I didn't prove your point because you missed mine. I'm saying that Clayton pretended to dress and carry himself like a ballplayer. Not sure how else to describe it, but it appeared he was more concerned and conscious of how he looked than how well he played. I didn't make any argument about Royce Clayton regarding anything. He wasn't good but I get the impression he liked to be "pretty" if you know what I mean.

JermaineDye05
11-08-2009, 02:05 AM
No, I didn't prove your point because you missed mine. I'm saying that Clayton pretended to dress and carry himself like a ballplayer. Not sure how else to describe it, but it appeared he was more concerned and conscious of how he looked than how well he played. I didn't make any argument about Royce Clayton regarding anything. He wasn't good but I get the impression he liked to be "pretty" if you know what I mean.

Pretty and witty and gay?

:D: I couldn't resist.

Kmv3WlKa6U8

Tragg
11-08-2009, 10:01 AM
Royce Clayton holds a Sox record because of a sympathetic scorer, do you really want to continue this debate?
The absence of errors (low error totals) is meaningless.

However, high error totals are probative imo.

TornLabrum
11-08-2009, 10:37 AM
Bingo, I don't think Ranger was around for the wonderful Royce Clayton years. If he was, he'd know how easy it is for a guy to be a terrible defender, but not rack up any errors.

:buddylee

"I got to more balls than "The Choice."

Ranger
11-08-2009, 12:01 PM
The absence of errors (low error totals) is meaningless.

However, high error totals are probative imo.

Exactly. Maybe I should have said this earlier, but I thought it was understood.

Daver
11-08-2009, 12:09 PM
The absence of errors (low error totals) is meaningless.

However, high error totals are probative imo.


We'll agree to disagree.

Ranger
11-08-2009, 01:09 PM
We'll agree to disagree.

Not sure how you can disagree with that. If a player has a ton of errors, it isn't because of bad luck. It's because he's probably committing them. It can't be that every scorekeeper around the league is conspiring to exaggerate his error total.

I just don't see how you could say it doesn't mean anything to have a lot of errors.

Daver
11-08-2009, 01:18 PM
Not sure how you can disagree with that. If a player has a ton of errors, it isn't because of bad luck. It's because he's probably committing them. It can't be that every scorekeeper around the league is conspiring to exaggerate his error total.

I just don't see how you could say it doesn't mean anything to have a lot of errors.

Or he's taking more chances and getting to balls that an average defender won't, leaving him open to get called on a misplayed ball that others wouldn't even get to.

I really don't see how you can think that errors is any measure of how a player plays defense.

JermaineDye05
11-08-2009, 01:59 PM
Or he's taking more chances and getting to balls that an average defender won't, leaving him open to get called on a misplayed ball that others wouldn't even get to.

I really don't see how you can think that errors is any measure of how a player plays defense.

An error is still an error. A guy can have great range but still throw the ball into the stands.

There are plenty of players who dive at a ball with a quick guy running up the line and instead of sticking it in their pocket, they throw the ball away and give the guy an extra base.

Ranger
11-08-2009, 02:19 PM
Or he's taking more chances and getting to balls that an average defender won't, leaving him open to get called on a misplayed ball that others wouldn't even get to.

I really don't see how you can think that errors is any measure of how a player plays defense.


Because I understand that an error can be significant. I'm not sure if you've noticed, but tough plays (whether it's a bad hop, a groundball out of normal range, etc.) are almost never ruled errors. If anything, the fielder gets the benefit of the doubt most of the time. When scorekeepers err, they err to the side of base hits almost always. So, for the most part, when a fielder gets charged with an error, he's probably deserved it. If you've watched a lot of baseball in your lifetime, you should know that.

And like JD said above, it doesn't matter how much range a player has. If he makes a diving stop up the middle and then throws the ball in the stands, he deserves an error. You don't get bonus points for having great range. You still threw it away. Throwing it away is an error and should be.

Daver
11-08-2009, 03:06 PM
Because I understand that an error can be significant. I'm not sure if you've noticed, but tough plays (whether it's a bad hop, a groundball out of normal range, etc.) are almost never ruled errors. If anything, the fielder gets the benefit of the doubt most of the time. When scorekeepers err, they err to the side of base hits almost always. So, for the most part, when a fielder gets charged with an error, he's probably deserved it. If you've watched a lot of baseball in your lifetime, you should know that.

And like JD said above, it doesn't matter how much range a player has. If he makes a diving stop up the middle and then throws the ball in the stands, he deserves an error. You don't get bonus points for having great range. You still threw it away. Throwing it away is an error and should be.

If I have a choice between a player that is going to play average defense and have a low number of errors, or a player that is going to get to 1/3 more balls in play and throw away one ball in twenty I'll take the player with better range.

We will agree to disagree over judging a player based on errors, errors don't tell you a damn thing.

veeter
11-08-2009, 03:32 PM
I think we're all going to love Gordon Beckham at second base.

Daver
11-08-2009, 03:41 PM
I think we're all going to love Gordon Beckham at second base.

Suffice it to say I have my doubts.

veeter
11-08-2009, 03:44 PM
Suffice it to say I have my doubts.How come?

Ranger
11-08-2009, 04:05 PM
If I have a choice between a player that is going to play average defense and have a low number of errors, or a player that is going to get to 1/3 more balls in play and throw away one ball in twenty I'll take the player with better range.

We will agree to disagree over judging a player based on errors, errors don't tell you a damn thing.

How many times do I need to repeat this? I never said it means everything and I never said it should be the only thing. Take a look at the players with relatively high error totals and tell me how many of them you consider to be good fielders. Of course, there are exceptions, but for the most part, you'll see poor fielders with a large amount of errors relative to the amount of chances they have and games they play.


Suffice it to say I have my doubts.

Based on?

Craig Grebeck
11-08-2009, 04:10 PM
I don't love any part of Beckham being moved to accommodate a butcher at third base.

Daver
11-08-2009, 04:10 PM
Based on?

The way he played SS in college, his skillset is better suited to third than to middle infield, his range is average, he moves better to his left than he does to his right, and he has a strong and accurate throwing arm. Watch a season worth of Georgia tape and see for yourself.

Ranger
11-08-2009, 04:28 PM
The way he played SS in college, his skillset is better suited to third than to middle infield, his range is average, he moves better to his left than he does to his right, and he has a strong and accurate throwing arm. Watch a season worth of Georgia tape and see for yourself.

Almost every right-handed thrower moves better to their left. I've seen Beckham tape and his range is good enough to his right to play at 2nd and his arm will allow him to easily make the throw from up the middle. Most scouts don't disagree with that.

He's not going to be any lesser of a 2B than any other player in the league and I'd be surprised if he doesn't eventually become one of the better ones.

Ranger
11-08-2009, 04:29 PM
I don't love any part of Beckham being moved to accommodate a butcher at third base.

A little hyperbole, anyone? Not sure what your definition of "butcher" is, but Mark Teahen, while not a Gold Glover, is certainly not a butcher.

TDog
11-08-2009, 04:34 PM
Or he's taking more chances and getting to balls that an average defender won't, leaving him open to get called on a misplayed ball that others wouldn't even get to.

I really don't see how you can think that errors is any measure of how a player plays defense.

I don't disagree with your point (not much, anyway), and I used to believe that. But I don't see a lot of errors being called on balls an average defender wouldn't get to. There are outfielders with strong arms who make strong throws and are charged with errors because of bad bounces, the theory being that you can't give the catcher the error and you have to give the error to someone.

(Jerome Holtzman used to lobby for someting called a team error, for when, say, a catcher would make a perfect throw to second base on a steal attempt but the fielder didn't get to the base in time, or two outfielders collide and drop an easy fly ball. But the rules committee has always held firm to the belief that every error can be charged to one, and just one fielder.)

Often the infielders I see making a lot of errors have real problems in the field, but you can't simply go by errors to judge an infielder.

thomas35forever
11-08-2009, 04:36 PM
I don't love any part of Beckham being moved to accommodate a butcher at third base.
I'll admit I don't know much about Teahen defensively other than he plays two positions, but how do you know he'll be as bad as you think he'll be.

Daver
11-08-2009, 04:50 PM
Almost every right-handed thrower moves better to their left. I've seen Beckham tape and his range is good enough to his right to play at 2nd and his arm will allow him to easily make the throw from up the middle. Most scouts don't disagree with that.

He's not going to be any lesser of a 2B than any other player in the league and I'd be surprised if he doesn't eventually become one of the better ones.

Time will tell, until then we will continue to agree to disagree, the White Sox are weaker defensively with Gordon at second and Teahen at third.

veeter
11-08-2009, 05:01 PM
Almost every right-handed thrower moves better to their left. I've seen Beckham tape and his range is good enough to his right to play at 2nd and his arm will allow him to easily make the throw from up the middle. Most scouts don't disagree with that.

He's not going to be any lesser of a 2B than any other player in the league and I'd be surprised if he doesn't eventually become one of the better ones.This is a really good assessment. Not to mention Gordon is a smart guy and will learn to cheat with his positioning. IMO, the Sox want Gordon to be an offensive force. Second base is argueably the easiest postion in the infield.(besides first) The guy's a stud. He'll learn the turn at second, he'll get better at going to his right. But by playing second, he won't have the pressure of playing short and can really focus on hitting .300 with 50 doubles and 100 rbi's. I think the move will be great for him.

Ranger
11-08-2009, 06:08 PM
I don't disagree with your point (not much, anyway), and I used to believe that. But I don't see a lot of errors being called on balls an average defender wouldn't get to. There are outfielders with strong arms who make strong throws and are charged with errors because of bad bounces, the theory being that you can't give the catcher the error and you have to give the error to someone.

(Jerome Holtzman used to lobby for someting called a team error, for when, say, a catcher would make a perfect throw to second base on a steal attempt but the fielder didn't get to the base in time, or two outfielders collide and drop an easy fly ball. But the rules committee has always held firm to the belief that every error can be charged to one, and just one fielder.)

Often the infielders I see making a lot of errors have real problems in the field, but you can't simply go by errors to judge an infielder.

Yes. To the entire post.