PDA

View Full Version : The best reason to support Manuel


PaleHoseGeorge
09-23-2001, 08:52 PM
Give the man credit. The team never gave up on him. Even back in May when they were 15 games under .500, the team played hard. Sure they played lousy, but that's not the point. The fact they came back says a lot about what the players think about Manuel.

What's the second-best reason to support Manuel? Frankly, I haven't a clue. Somebody help me out.

While we pound our chest about how great our team stood up to adversity, Oakland just peeled off their 92nd victory of the year. I remember a series last May when both our teams were in the crapper. The A's took all three from us.

So how important is having the team in your manager's corner? Is there anything more a manager is accountable for?

I'm just asking.

KempersRS
09-23-2001, 09:07 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Give the man credit. The team never gave up on him. Even back in May when they were 15 games under .500, the team played hard. Sure they played lousy, but that's not the point. The fact they came back says a lot about what the players think about Manuel.

What's the second-best reason to support Manuel? Frankly, I haven't a clue. Somebody help me out.

While we pound our chest about how great our team stood up to adversity, Oakland just peeled off their 92nd victory of the year. I remember a series last May when both our teams were in the crapper. The A's took all three from us.

So how important is having the team in your manager's corner? Is there anything more a manager is accountable for?

I'm just asking.

It's a good point, PHG, but there are so many factors against him as well. To answer your last question there, I think you need a guy who atleast makes some intelligent moves too. Its great that they came back this season, but why were they in the hole in the first place? Well, I don't wanna just start repeating everything I wrote in the last thread on this, so I will talk about leadership a little. I'm sure a lot of the players like Jerry, but I think we have a lot of fighters on this team, aside from Manuel. I think part of the comeback was also due to Jerry finally getting a set lineup. How bad was our offense early on this year? Every night we were playing corpseball, we all sat here and tore our hair out with Julio and Royce swinging their little sticks. Right now I am undecided if I want Jerry as the manager, but my biggest fear is that he is going to make the same mistake next year. The way this season is ending, it is setting up next season to look the same. Liefer will be battling with Crede and Valentin for time, they will all be platooning with each other, and Jerry wants Canseco to stick around! Could you imagine what that would do?

Daver
09-23-2001, 09:10 PM
For what it is worth,no team has come back from 15 games below .500 in ten years,and that team did not have the injuries that this team has had.I know injuries are part of the game,and I know my opinoin means little in the scope of things,but it it is to the credit of Jerry Manuel AND Kenny Williams that this team is above the .500 mark right now.With a healthy pitching staff next year I expect the Sox to go far,with a healthy Frank Thomas I expect them to go even further.The fact that we even had pretensions of a wildcard spot into Sept. is to the full credit of JM and KW.
But then again what the hell do I know?

idseer
09-23-2001, 09:51 PM
Originally posted by daver
For what it is worth,no team has come back from 15 games below .500 in ten years,and that team did not have the injuries that this team has had.I know injuries are part of the game,and I know my opinoin means little in the scope of things,but it it is to the credit of Jerry Manuel AND Kenny Williams that this team is above the .500 mark right now.With a healthy pitching staff next year I expect the Sox to go far,with a healthy Frank Thomas I expect them to go even further.The fact that we even had pretensions of a wildcard spot into Sept. is to the full credit of JM and KW.
But then again what the hell do I know?


what everyone keeps pointing to, clinging to, is that the sox came back from 15 under to (hopefully) finish above .500.
those that argue for jm assume it was jm's doing. those like myself believe it was in spite of him. isn't it odd you can point to nothing else to show any effectiveness? having pretensions of a wildcard into sept. says more about the division than about the jm or kw.
why is it so hard for so many to believe jm isn't a good manager?
what happened in the first half of last year happened because the players ALL were doing so well. jm didn't have much to do but fill out the same lineup card to win. when they started to come back to earth jm started making moves, mishandled foulke,
and basically kept the team at .500 the rest of the way. you say it was all pitching injuries. i say it was the sox inability to shore up pitching in the stretch. other teams do it all the time. sox never tried. this goes to kw and jr.
you all SAW the moves jm has made this year with what he had. why would you think he'll do any different next year?

Jerry_Manuel
09-23-2001, 09:56 PM
Originally posted by idseer
why would you think he'll do any different next year?

Because next year he won't have as many options. Thomas will be at DH not this rotation of Liefer, Canseco, Lee or whoever. I'm pretty sure Perry signed a one year deal this past offseason and I doubt he comes back. If Clayton is traded then Jose plays short with Crede or god help us Liefer at 3rd. So as you can see he would have less toys to play with.

idseer
09-23-2001, 10:15 PM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel


Because next year he won't have as many options. Thomas will be at DH not this rotation of Liefer, Canseco, Lee or whoever. I'm pretty sure Perry signed a one year deal this past offseason and I doubt he comes back. If Clayton is traded then Jose plays short with Crede or god help us Liefer at 3rd. So as you can see he would have less toys to play with.

dream on. he's talking about frank at first already, and getting canseco back, and god knows what else. a bad manager can screw up ANYtyhing!

and don't bet clayton will be traded. you MAY lose a bundle.

Jerry_Manuel
09-23-2001, 10:17 PM
Originally posted by idseer
dream on. he's talking about frank at first already, and getting canseco back, and god knows what else. a bad manager can screw up ANYtyhing!

and don't bet clayton will be traded. you MAY lose a bundle.

Well he was talking about Frank at first with Canseco at DH. Williams has already came out and said Canseco will not be on the team next year.

idseer
09-23-2001, 10:19 PM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel


Well he was talking about Frank at first with Canseco at DH. Williams has already came out and said Canseco will not be on the team next year.

that's partly my point! one hand doesn't know what the other is doing. does this inspire confidence?

PaleHoseGeorge
09-23-2001, 10:26 PM
Originally posted by idseer
dream on. he's talking about frank at first already, and getting canseco back, and god knows what else. a bad manager can screw up ANYtyhing! and don't bet clayton will be traded. you MAY lose a bundle.


Let's face it. Jerry Manuel hasn't said anything but psycho-babble since the beginning of spring training. It's the kind of stuff you would expect from an overmatched rookie manager, except Jerry is completing his fourth season at the helm.

I haven't a clue what Jerry Manuel really has in mind for 2002 and I bet his players don't either. That's the only saving grace for any of this. Thank God that what Jerry says and what Jerry does are two different things.

LongDistanceFan
09-23-2001, 11:02 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge



Let's face it. Jerry Manuel hasn't said anything but psycho-babble since the beginning of spring training. It's the kind of stuff you would expect from an overmatched rookie manager, except Jerry is completing his fourth season at the helm.

I haven't a clue what Jerry Manuel really has in mind for 2002 and I bet his players don't either. That's the only saving grace for any of this. Thank God that what Jerry says and what Jerry does are two different things. man i like jm, but i missed half of the damn season, so i will listen to those who seen the games.

But if Felipe Alou is available, i wouldn't mind him as an asst to KW and like this he can help kenny and Jery.

MikeKreevich
09-23-2001, 11:11 PM
I,too, am not a Manual fan. The arguement that he must be a good manager because his team came back from 15 games under .500 makes little sense. The biggest reason, aside from injuries, that they started out so poorly was Manuel's insistence on troting out a lineup with three .100 hitters and how long he stuck with them. Now, if I find out down the road that he was following orders when he was playing Harold and Ramirez, Ill feel less critical of him.
Other things I don't like about him are his handling of the bullpen, his insistance on playing the percentages, and his lineup selection.
Damm, I wish we still had Jeff Torberg!

RichieRichAllen
09-24-2001, 02:27 AM
I've tried hard to support Manuel this year. Or, at the very least, tried not to maul him...especially after he appeared to be the best thing since sliced bread during the millenium season.

But, there's been a helluva lot to complain about this year. What stands out most to me is the appalling number of our pitchers that went down to serious arm injuries. Manuel's fault? Williams' fault? Coincidence? Wasn't Williams going to study this? Hey, get back to us Kenny! We'd like to hear the results of the study. I doubt we'll hear it was due to upper management's mishandling of young pitchers, but I'd be curious to hear the results, nonetheless.

A lot of stuff got magnified this year. I think we'd all have given Harold Baines more support (despite his atrocious half season) if we were winning. I still tip my hat to Williams for giving Harold the chance to get to 3000 hits. Unfortunately, the timing proved to be disastrous as Harold's AB's did.

Clayton was miserable at the plate in the beginning, but it wouldn't have been so obvious if the Sox big guns (especially Thomas) were doing their jobs early in the season. He made up for it, but has never been given credit by Sox fans for his stellar defense (something we sorely need going in the '02 season).

I love Valentin. But Valentin is a DH. Do you play Manos over Frank? Somebody's gotta go (this includes other DHer's i.e., Carlos Lee, Jose Canseco and Jeff Liefer, as well).

Ramirez was an experiment (back to the petri dish, Julio!), but could prove to be a very good center fielder and hitter in the future.

I won't even touch the pitching, because I think Manuel got the most out of a young staff still struggling to find a front man to lead them. David Wells had a tremendous effect on Mark Buehrle in his short time here. The other guys were shown that if they didn't produce or change their evil ways, they would wind up in the bullpen or (worse yet) AAA. Manuel was pretty candid (with the media) about what these guys needed to do. Sean Lowe is the only guy I would question management's approach to. Maybe the approach is because he's a little older (and supposedly "wiser") than the rest of the young staff. Who knows?

Geez.....I could go on all night.

In short....yeah, I've seen Manuel make some seemingly stupid decisions this year. Overall, though, who would've thought we'd be 6 games over .500 at this point in May or June? Only the heartiest of optimists, that's for damn sure.

And as a fairly hearty optimist myself, can you imagine if we could end up 15 games over .500 from where we were in June? Taking into account all the injuries?

I say give Jerry another year to get it together. Lest we not forget Kenny, the other Jerry and Eddie. It'll be an interesting off season.

And if we all become practicing Buddhists next year at this time, don't say I didn't tell you so!

GASHWOUND
09-24-2001, 02:33 AM
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge [/i

What's the second-best reason to support Manuel? Frankly, I haven't a clue. Somebody help me out.

While we pound our chest about how great our team stood up to adversity, Oakland just peeled off their 92nd victory of the year. I remember a series last May when both our teams were in the crapper. The A's took all three from us.


The reason Oakland peeled off their 92nd victory is because their good. Their entire team has been healthy the whole year, unlike the WS. They have stuck with the same 3 guys in their rotation, Hudson, Mulder, and Zito while the WS have played marry go round with the rotation because of injury and so on.. So I think it's unfair to compare Oakland and the WS. What if Big Hurt and all the guys in the bullpen were healthy, how many wins would we have? We have lke 78 wins with all these injuries. I think if everybody was healthy you can guarantee at least 10 more victories and fighting for the division. 88 wins with over 10 to go. We would have over 90 wins again this year just like Oakland.

You know, I've just made a good point!
We would be winning our second consecutive divison!! In my mind we are the division champs! We won the season season series against The Toons. We are the best team in that division!!

"Uhhh, I got to go take me medication...." :)

kermittheefrog
09-24-2001, 03:00 AM
I agree with what PHG said to begin this thread, the team is still in JM's corner however it's true there isn't much else to say for him. I really don't fault him for sticking with Baines and Ramirez in the lineup. Those were the guys he had available on the roster. He stuck with his guys, I like that. I'm glad he didn't panic as soon as the guys struggled. Part of the reason the team is still in his corner is probably the confidence he showed in his struggling hitters.

The real problem was that Baines and Ramirez shouldn't have been on the roster in the first place. This goes to say that the problem starts higher up. JM may not be the best manager in baseball but he ain't the worse either (see Muser, Tony). Kenny is the biggest problem, if Jerry doesn't have the pieces he can't put the puzzle together anyway. Kenny is one of the most clueless GMs in baseball he trades for (Osuna, Antonio) and away (Sirotka, Mike) injured players without awareness of their phsyical condition. He says OBP is important after an offseason in which he acquired Royce Clayton and Sandy Alomar, two OBP sinkholes. Kenny doesn't seem to have a clue what he's doing.

Until we get a GM with a clue I don't think there's a good chance of our manger getting a clue.

Bmr31
09-24-2001, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
I agree with what PHG said to begin this thread, the team is still in JM's corner however it's true there isn't much else to say for him. I really don't fault him for sticking with Baines and Ramirez in the lineup. Those were the guys he had available on the roster. He stuck with his guys, I like that. I'm glad he didn't panic as soon as the guys struggled. Part of the reason the team is still in his corner is probably the confidence he showed in his struggling hitters.

The real problem was that Baines and Ramirez shouldn't have been on the roster in the first place. This goes to say that the problem starts higher up. JM may not be the best manager in baseball but he ain't the worse either (see Muser, Tony). Kenny is the biggest problem, if Jerry doesn't have the pieces he can't put the puzzle together anyway. Kenny is one of the most clueless GMs in baseball he trades for (Osuna, Antonio) and away (Sirotka, Mike) injured players without awareness of their phsyical condition. He says OBP is important after an offseason in which he acquired Royce Clayton and Sandy Alomar, two OBP sinkholes. Kenny doesn't seem to have a clue what he's doing.

Until we get a GM with a clue I don't think there's a good chance of our manger getting a clue.


Hey, i agree with kermie!

oldcomiskey
09-24-2001, 07:43 PM
yime for my two cents worth--On the ss situation---one has range--and Clayton does not

idseer
09-24-2001, 07:57 PM
Originally posted by oldcomiskey
yime for my two cents worth--On the ss situation---one has range--and Clayton does not

saying the same thing over and over does not make it true. why do you keep trying to start this argument? if you ever looked at the facts ..... well, never mind i don't think you care about facts.

Bucktown
09-24-2001, 10:36 PM
I would like to see us get rid of Manuel and get a first class manager. Maybe we could even get last year's manager of the year. Nobody could argue with that kind of talent.

LongDistanceFan
09-24-2001, 11:19 PM
Originally posted by Bucktown
I would like to see us get rid of Manuel and get a first class manager. Maybe we could even get last year's manager of the year. Nobody could argue with that kind of talent. wasn't that manuel?

Daver
09-24-2001, 11:23 PM
Originally posted by LongDistanceFan
wasn't that manuel?

I noticed that myself,but didn't want to point out the obvious.
And I do have a firm grasp of the obvious,everything else kinda confuses me though.

oldcomiskey
09-24-2001, 11:23 PM
Originally posted by idseer


saying the same thing over and over does not make it true. why do you keep trying to start this argument? if you ever looked at the facts ..... well, never mind i don't think you care about facts.

Manos got to balls last season that Royce couldnt have gotten to in his dreams--and if Jose is so bad why did the Sox lead the league in DPs in 2000

idseer
09-25-2001, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by oldcomiskey


Manos got to balls last season that Royce couldnt have gotten to in his dreams--and if Jose is so bad why did the Sox lead the league in DPs in 2000


apparently because he had more situational chances to make them.

as to jose getting to more balls, it just isn't so. you go back and look at the history of both these players and you'll find the one with the edge in chances per season (just relative to ss to be fair to jose)is CLAYTON! over a short period of time that fact doesn't mean much, but over years it means plenty. it means clayton covers more ground, gets to more balls! in addition to having a fielding percentage about 15 points better than jose (36 points better this year) !

but don't let any of these facts get in your way, old. wait another week and make the same ignorant claim.

Dadawg_77
09-25-2001, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by idseer



apparently because he had more situational chances to make them.

as to jose getting to more balls, it just isn't so. you go back and look at the history of both these players and you'll find the one with the edge in chances per season (just relative to ss to be fair to jose)is CLAYTON! over a short period of time that fact doesn't mean much, but over years it means plenty. it means clayton covers more ground, gets to more balls! in addition to having a fielding percentage about 15 points better than jose (36 points better this year) !

but don't let any of these facts get in your way, old. wait another week and make the same ignorant claim.

I can't take the time to go get them, but the stats say Jose has better range at SS. If you go back a couple of weeks I posted them in a thread. When I get the time, I'll get the stats to support the "ignorant" claim.

Iwritecode
09-25-2001, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by idseer
apparently because he had more situational chances to make them.

as to jose getting to more balls, it just isn't so. you go back and look at the history of both these players and you'll find the one with the edge in chances per season (just relative to ss to be fair to jose)is CLAYTON! over a short period of time that fact doesn't mean much, but over years it means plenty. it means clayton covers more ground, gets to more balls! in addition to having a fielding percentage about 15 points better than jose (36 points better this year) !

but don't let any of these facts get in your way, old. wait another week and make the same ignorant claim.

Chances per season has nothing to do with the player. That's just how many times the ball was hit to him. What he does with those chances is what counts.

Whether or not he got the out.

<Clayton>If the scorekeeper was generous enough to credit the batter with a hit when the SS boubles a routine grounder.<Clayton>

PANFIRECRACKER
09-25-2001, 03:48 PM
Manuel is a good motivator. So much for the positives. Particularly for a former NL coach, he is poor on fundamentals. He was tactically better when he began with the Sox but has adopted the current AL central mantra- if hitting is good hitting for power is better and who cares about OBP, pitching and defense. I don't believe he preaches fundamentals or discipline in any phase of the game. He has a team that doesn't walk, gives too many walks, makes errors both physical and mental and probably leads the league in men left on and solo HRs. It bothers me that some of the best athletic moves I see from the Sox involve their efforts to avoid being HBP when they should be taking one for the team. I'll often hear that they are a young team and players are rushed. Maybe, but that's management's choice and responsibility. That's teaching at the major league level and unfortunately a reality for our team under present ownership.

idseer
09-25-2001, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode


Chances per season has nothing to do with the player. That's just how many times the ball was hit to him. What he does with those chances is what counts.

Whether or not he got the out.


chances certainly does have something to do with the ability to field. a slower player over a period of time will have far less chances than a quick one, for one.
but even so ... as you say it matters what they do with those chances, and it's obvious that royce commits far fewer errors.

i might also add that royce's zone-rating is also far superior to jose's. lifetime clayton - .937 ... valentin - .921

i'm including a definition of the zr system. ---

STATS, Inc. developed their own defensive rating system to track locations of EVERY hit ball for EVERY game played. The Zone Rating system is different because the area of responsibility, or zone, for each fielder is considered a "playable" area and does not account for balls hit into "Bermuda Triangles", "No Mans Land" or other impossible to field balls. A fielder that turns a double play is credited with 2 outs in the ZR system as their play on the ball actually resulted in both outs versus Defensive Average which only credits the 1 out. It also takes the pitcher out of the equation.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-25-2001, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by idseer
apparently because he had more situational chances to make them.

That's not what the numbers say. Valentin has had more fielding chances per game at shortstop than Clayton this year, last year, and the past 3 years combined.

2000 Valentin 5.15 vs. Clayton 4.66, advantage Valentin +0.49
2001 Valentin 4.45 vs. Clayton 4.21, advantage Valentin +0.24
99-01 Valentin 4.68 vs. Clayton 4.45, advantage Valentin +0.02

Valentin gets to more balls. That is a fact.

as to jose getting to more balls, it just isn't so. you go back and look at the history of both these players and you'll find the one with the edge in chances per season (just relative to ss to be fair to jose)is CLAYTON! over a short period of time that fact doesn't mean much, but over years it means plenty. it means clayton covers more ground, gets to more balls! in addition to having a fielding percentage about 15 points better than jose (36 points better this year) !

I did go back and I'm shocked you would make such utterly misinformed statement like this. Valentin gets to more balls. He also is superior to Clayton for assists. Clayton has never been good turning double-plays and the Sox have given the opposition 51 more outs from the double-plays Clayton failed to turn in his 148 games at SS this year compared to Valentin's playing in seven FEWER games a year ago. (118 Valentin DP's LY minus 67 Clayton DP's TY= 51 extra outs for the opposition)

Sure Clayton has superior fielding percentage, but nobody ever suggested Clayton wasn't superior for commiting fewer errors. Of course the difference in errors (36 vs. 7) that resulted in 29 extra outs for the opposition is NOTHING compared to the 51 extra outs Clayton gave the opposition with his weak arm, low range, and resulting poor-ability to turn double-plays.

but don't let any of these facts get in your way, old. wait another week and make the same ignorant claim.

I totally agree. Why some people here continue to insist Clayton does things on defense that clearly he doesn't is beyond me. And every week we have to repeat the same facts to the "ignorant".

KempersRS
09-25-2001, 06:49 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


That's not what the numbers say. Valentin has had more fielding chances per game at shortstop than Clayton this year, last year, and the past 3 years combined.


Isn't that what he said?

PaleHoseGeorge
09-25-2001, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by idseer
chances certainly does have something to do with the ability to field. a slower player over a period of time will have far less chances than a quick one, for one.
but even so ... as you say it matters what they do with those chances, and it's obvious that royce commits far fewer errors.

i might also add that royce's zone-rating is also far superior to jose's. lifetime clayton - .937 ... valentin - .921

i'm including a definition of the zr system. ---

STATS, Inc. developed their own defensive rating system to track locations of EVERY hit ball for EVERY game played. The Zone Rating system is different because the area of responsibility, or zone, for each fielder is considered a "playable" area and does not account for balls hit into "Bermuda Triangles", "No Mans Land" or other impossible to field balls. A fielder that turns a double play is credited with 2 outs in the ZR system as their play on the ball actually resulted in both outs versus Defensive Average which only credits the 1 out. It also takes the pitcher out of the equation.


Wow, ID. That's as clear as mud. I wonder how STATS defines "Bermuda Triangle" and "No Mans Land". This stat is sabrmatician's equivalent to alchemy--"if we have to explain it to you, you'll never understand".

When you can dig up a definition for how ZR is CALCULATED (not a bunch a platitudes), I'll offer a more thoughtful response. For now I'll settle to note Clayton's "advantage" in ZR has eroded the last three years--and that's not even counting "Bermuda Triangle" bouncers and "No Mans Land" grounders, LMAO!

1999 advantage Clayton +0.07
2000 advantage Clayton +0.01
2001 advantage Clayton +0.05

PaleHoseGeorge
09-25-2001, 07:13 PM
Originally posted by KempersRS


Isn't that what he said?


Nope. Go back to Post #22 in this thread and read ID's response to OldComiskey. He dismisses the extra chances as "situational". Hopefully ID won't suggest Valentin's superior number of chances have been "situational" for the last 3 years combined.

Post #22 (http://130.94.169.158/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=20559#post20559)

idseer
09-25-2001, 07:15 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


That's not what the numbers say. Valentin has had more fielding chances per game at shortstop than Clayton this year, last year, and the past 3 years combined.

2000 Valentin 5.15 vs. Clayton 4.66, advantage Valentin +0.49
2001 Valentin 4.45 vs. Clayton 4.21, advantage Valentin +0.24
99-01 Valentin 4.68 vs. Clayton 4.45, advantage Valentin +0.02

Valentin gets to more balls. That is a fact.

i was clearly using career numbers. but i will state this. after going over these figures again .... well, here they are:
valentin - 899 games ... 4203 total chances ... 4.675 per gm
clayton - 1309 games ... 6097 tc ... 4.657 per gm
so the SLIGHT favor in tcpg is jose's
but factor out the errors, and clayton has the edge.


I did go back and I'm shocked you would make such utterly misinformed statement like this. Valentin gets to more balls. He also is superior to Clayton for assists. Clayton has never been good turning double-plays and the Sox have given the opposition 51 more outs from the double-plays Clayton failed to turn in his 148 games at SS this year compared to Valentin's playing in seven FEWER games a year ago. (118 Valentin DP's LY minus 67 Clayton DP's TY= 51 extra outs for the opposition) [/QUOTE]

don't go into shock george. i would hardly say 'utterly informed'.
his superiority in assts.? jose - 2.97 per gm / royce - 2.96
not exactly a slaughter like you make it seem.
the one thing you hang onto is jose's apparent doubleplay ability. but as i said that is situational. if one player has more opportunities he can make more dp's.
also, i don't think it's fair to compare one year of one player against another year for another player. in a statistcal court that info would be throw out as not truly comparable.

Sure Clayton has superior fielding percentage, but nobody ever suggested Clayton wasn't superior for commiting fewer errors. Of course the difference in errors (36 vs. 7) that resulted in 29 extra outs for the opposition is NOTHING compared to the 51 extra outs Clayton gave the opposition with his weak arm, low range, and resulting poor-ability to turn double-plays. [/QUOTE]

i notice you completely ignored the zone rating! in fact IT shows that royce DOES have more range ... based on ACTUAL balls hit to his area (the same for all shorstops)

better range, surer hands!
plus i believe the pitchers feel better having clayton in the field than valentin. i don't KNOW this for a fact, but i'd be surprised if it weren't true.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-25-2001, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by idseer
i notice you completely ignored the zone rating! in fact IT shows that royce DOES have more range ... based on ACTUAL balls hit to his area (the same for all shorstops)

better range, surer hands!
plus i believe the pitchers feel better having clayton in the field than valentin. i don't KNOW this for a fact, but i'd be surprised if it weren't true.


Keep reading, "Bermuda No-Man's Land". There is hope for you yet.

I guess all those extra double-plays were "situational", right? (Here's a hint: Be smart--don't go here).

KempersRS
09-25-2001, 07:42 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge



Nope. Go back to Post #22 in this thread and read ID's response to OldComiskey. He dismisses the extra chances as "situational". Hopefully ID won't suggest Valentin's superior number of chances have been "situational" for the last 3 years combined.

Post #22 (http://130.94.169.158/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=20559#post20559)

Whoops, kinda got mixed up there, sorry PHG.

idseer
09-25-2001, 08:05 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge



Wow, ID. That's as clear as mud. I wonder how STATS defines "Bermuda Triangle" and "No Mans Land". This stat is sabrmatician's equivalent to alchemy--"if we have to explain it to you, you'll never understand".

When you can dig up a definition for how ZR is CALCULATED (not a bunch a platitudes), I'll offer a more thoughtful response. For now I'll settle to note Clayton's "advantage" in ZR has eroded the last three years--and that's not even counting "Bermuda Triangle" bouncers and "No Mans Land" grounders, LMAO!

1999 advantage Clayton +0.07
2000 advantage Clayton +0.01
2001 advantage Clayton +0.05

well, you can make fun of the that rating tool if you want, but it's highly regarded in all of the articles i looked up on it.

basically it's the number of balls a defender got to divided by the number of balls he should have gotten to.
all players use the same fixed zone for their positions.

every ball that was ever hit as been logged and plotted on a chart. the higher the number, the better a defender did.
and clayton's is significantly higher.

rating defenders has always been inexact, but many baseball statisticians seem to think this is one of the best if not THEE best systems because it eliminates most all other factors, such as pitchers, runners etc.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-25-2001, 09:51 PM
Originally posted by idseer
well, you can make fun of the that rating tool if you want, but it's highly regarded in all of the articles i looked up on it.

Zone Rating is highly regarded? By who? References, please.


basically it's the number of balls a defender got to divided by the number of balls he should have gotten to.
all players use the same fixed zone for their positions.

Wrong. Zone Rating is "the percentage of balls fielded by a player in his typical defensive "zone," as measured by STATS, Inc."
(From STATS, Inc.). Your guess is as good as mine what that means. Statistics is a very precise science. Words like "basically", "should have", and "typical" aren't precise at all.

At least with Range Factor we all know precisely what is measured: (Putouts + Assists) divided by innings.

Why wouldn't you use Range Factor to compare Valentin and Clayton? (Everyone else already knows the answer).


every ball that was ever hit as been logged and plotted on a chart. the higher the number, the better a defender did. and clayton's is significantly higher.

You know why Clayton's ZR is better than Valentin's? Because STATS uses errors in the equation. Why don't you cut to the chase and tell us Royce commits fewer errors? Nobody will dispute the fact and I won't accuse you of attempting to get two bites of the apple for the same measly accomplishment.

rating defenders has always been inexact, but many baseball statisticians seem to think this is one of the best if not THEE best systems because it eliminates most all other factors, such as pitchers, runners etc.

This is the worst kind of argument. You don't even attempt to explain the science behind ZR because even you can't define how it's calculated. If you want us to believe ZR is such a fabulous stat, you had better do better homework than this.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-25-2001, 10:12 PM
Originally posted by idseer
the one thing you hang onto is jose's apparent doubleplay ability. but as i said that is situational. if one player has more opportunities he can make more dp's.
also, i don't think it's fair to compare one year of one player against another year for another player. in a statistcal court that info would be throw out as not truly comparable.



Very well, ID. Have it your way...

As shortstop Valentin has turned more double-plays the past two years and the last three years combined.

2001: Advantage Valentin, +0.26 double-plays per game.
2000: Advantage Valentin, +0.20 double-plays per game.
99-01: Advantage Valentin, +0.07 double-plays per game.

So how much were those extra double-plays worth? Spreading those rates across 162 games for both players...

2001: Advantage Valentin, +42 double-plays per season.
2000: Advantage Valentin, +33 double-plays per season.
99-01: Advantage Valentin, +11 double-plays per season.

Now let's do the same thing for error rate per game multiplied by 162 games...

2001: Advantage Clayton, +24 fewer errors per season.
2000: Advantage Clayton, +24 fewer errors per season.
99-01: Advantage Clayton, +13 fewer errors per season.

LMAO! Now who is costing us more outs, ID?

2001: Advantage Valentin, +18 more outs per season.
2000: Advantage Valentin, +9 more outs per season.
99-01: Advantage Clayton, +2 more outs per season.

We get all of this psuedo-superior defense... from our "defensive specialist".

Now toss on top of that how subjective the art of judging an error is, the fact Clayton has one of the lowest OPS in the league, and the fact not even Manuel is fool enough to put his hot-hitting shortstop higher than #8 in the batting order, and this whole discussion becomes one giant joke.

Bucktown
09-25-2001, 10:41 PM
I kind of like Clayton because he has a cool name, "Royce." You know, like a Rolls-Royce. Isn't that cool?

I like "Jose" too, but its just so/so. And Valentin sounds too much like Valentine. That's kind of gay.

So, based on this analysis I would have to give the edge to Royce Clayton.

KempersRS
09-25-2001, 10:44 PM
Originally posted by Bucktown
I kind of like Clayton because he has a cool name, "Royce." You know, like a Rolls-Royce. Isn't that cool?

I like "Jose" too, but its just so/so. And Valentin sounds too much like Valentine. That's kind of gay.

So, based on this analysis I would have to give the edge to Royce Clayton.

That was one of the most meaningful posts I have ever read...

idseer
09-25-2001, 10:46 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


Zone Rating is highly regarded? By who? References, please.

obviously espn uses it, stats created it, baseball prospectus, etc.

Wrong. Zone Rating is "the percentage of balls fielded by a player in his typical defensive "zone," as measured by STATS, Inc."
(From STATS, Inc.). Your guess is as good as mine what that means. Statistics is a very precise science. Words like "basically", "should have", and "typical" aren't precise at all.

what do you mean wrong? it's not wrong because you don't understand it! it's very exact, not basically or should have. i never claimed to give you the scien-damn-tific explanation, but read this:
Zone Rating
Simply the percentage of balls fielded by a player in his typical defensive "zone," as measured by STATS reporters. To understand zone ratings, you need to understand how the STATS scoring system divides up the field of play. Picture the playing field as a piece of pie where the fair
territory is sliced up into 22 equal (and rather narrow) parts. Starting at home plate, "cuts" are made, running to the outfield fence. The first "slice," running along the left field line, is called Zone C. Like any properly formed piece of pie, it grows wider as you approach the "crust" (i.e., the outfield fence). Zone C is about six or seven feet wide at the third base bag, and about 20 feet wide at a distance of 300 feet from the plate. (Zones A, B, Y and Z are in foul territory.) The next 21 Zones extend from Zone C to the edge of the right field line. The dividing line between Zones M and N runs over second base, splitting the field in half. Once you're able to picture the Zones, it's easy to understand the area assigned to each fielder. For infielders, only ground balls are considered when zone rating is calculated. Line drives, popups and fly balls are ignored. (One additional wrinkle is that the first baseman is responsible for all bunts that travel more than 40 feet and land in his area of responsibility.) The first baseman is responsible for covering Zones V through X, the three most rightward zones on the field. This includes all grounders hit within approximately 20 feet of the right field line, up to the line itself. The second baseman is responsible for Zones O through T.
Remember, the left boundary of Zone N is midfield; the right boundary of Zone N, where it meets Zone O, is the leftward edge of the second baseman's territory. It lies about eight feet to the right of second base. The second baseman's area runs through Zone T, and the first baseman's area begins at Zone V. The is one "slice" in between, Zone U, which belongs to neither fielder. The respective areas of responsibility for the third baseman and shortstop are mirror images of the first and second baseman's zones. The third baseman is responsible for Zones C through F, and the shortstop is responsible for Zones H through L. Zone G lies in between. There is an unassigned area between the shortstop and second baseman's zone, but it is twice as large as the gap between 3B/SS or 1B/2B. The two middle zones, M and N, belong to neither middle infielder. Unlike the infielders, the outfielders are each given two separate zones, one for fly balls and one for line drives. Since line drives remain in the air for a shorter amount of time, outfielders are assigned a smaller zone on those types of balls. For a batted ball to be assigned to an outfielder, it must travel a certain distance. Corner outfielders are responsible for all line drives in their area that travel between 250 and 350 feet.
They also are responsible for all fly balls that travel over 200 feet. The center fielder is responsible for all line drives between 270 and 370 feet, and all fly balls over 220 feet. The left fielder's area covers Zones E through I on line drives and D through I on fly balls. Zone C along the left field line is unassigned. The center fielder is responsible for Zones K through P on lines drives and Zones J through Q on fly balls. His fly-ball area borders on that of the left fielder. On line drives, Zone J is the unassigned area between the two fielders. The right fielder is responsible for zones R through V on line drives and R through W on fly balls. Zone Q is unassigned on line drives, and Zone X along the right field line is unassigned. Using these zones, we determine how many balls are hit into each fielder's area of responsibility. An infielder's zone rating is equal to the number of outs made divided by the number of balls hit into the player's zone. "Outs made" equals every ball fielded within the zone that is turned into an out, plus all balls fielded outside the zone turned into outs, plus double plays started. When a player fields a ball outside his zone and turns it into an out, it is counted as both an "out" and a "ball in zone" for the purposes of calculating his zone rating. This means that a double play is counted as two outs. It also means that a player's zone rating can approach or even exceed 1.000, since a player can make up for unfielded chances by turning double plays. Also, a player's ability to get to balls outside his zone can boost his zone rating. Therefore, zone rating should not be interpreted simply as the percentage of balls hit into a player's zone that the fielder was able to turn into outs (if that were the proper definition, it obviously would be impossible for a player to post a zone rating anywhere close to 1.000). An outfielder's zone rating equals the balls hit into his zone which do not result in hits, divided by the number of balls hit into his zone. The player is credit with both an "out" and a "ball in zone" in balls caught outside his zone. Again, this measure is not equal to the percentage of balls in his zone that an outfielder is able to turn into an out, since he can make up for unfielded chances by recording outs outside his zone.


At least with Range Factor we all know precisely what is measured: (Putouts + Assists) divided by innings.

Why wouldn't you use Range Factor to compare Valentin and Clayton? (Everyone else already knows the answer).

there are many ways to compare. i never said there wasn't. from what i've read zone-rating, to some baseball minds, appears to be more accurate. in any event my initial reason for posting here was in comment to o.c.'s comment about clayton couldn't DREAM of making plays jose could. it's hogwash, and i gave my reasons.

You know why Clayton's ZR is better than Valentin's? Because STATS uses errors in the equation. Why don't you cut to the chase and tell us Royce commits fewer errors? Nobody will dispute the fact and I won't accuse you of attempting to get two bites of the apple for the same measly accomplishment.

i already made that point. his fielding percentage is much better. are you trying to suggest i'm trying to hide that somehow?

This is the worst kind of argument. You don't even attempt to explain the science behind ZR because even you can't define how it's calculated. If you want us to believe ZR is such a fabulous stat, you had better do better homework than this.

here are a few website's that talk about zone-rating;

http://slate.msn.com/tagteam/entries/01-07-24_112399.asp
http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~davearch/zrvalue.html
this one roughly shows the chart;
http://www.stathead.com/articles/nichols/zr.gif

the worst kind of argument huh? i could see you saying that if I made the stat up myself, but i think you ought to get off your big horse, pal. i was under no obligation to give you a scientific explanation.
maybe the worst kind of argument is by someone, ignorant of the stat, claiming it's worthless?

idseer
09-25-2001, 10:56 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge



Very well, ID. Have it your way...

As shortstop Valentin has turned more double-plays the past two years and the last three years combined.

2001: Advantage Valentin, +0.26 double-plays per game.
2000: Advantage Valentin, +0.20 double-plays per game.
99-01: Advantage Valentin, +0.07 double-plays per game.

So how much were those extra double-plays worth? Spreading those rates across 162 games for both players...

2001: Advantage Valentin, +42 double-plays per season.
2000: Advantage Valentin, +33 double-plays per season.
99-01: Advantage Valentin, +11 double-plays per season.

Now let's do the same thing for error rate per game multiplied by 162 games...

2001: Advantage Clayton, +24 fewer errors per season.
2000: Advantage Clayton, +24 fewer errors per season.
99-01: Advantage Clayton, +13 fewer errors per season.

LMAO! Now who is costing us more outs, ID?

2001: Advantage Valentin, +18 more outs per season.
2000: Advantage Valentin, +9 more outs per season.
99-01: Advantage Clayton, +2 more outs per season.

We get all of this psuedo-superior defense... from our "defensive specialist".

Now toss on top of that how subjective the art of judging an error is, the fact Clayton has one of the lowest OPS in the league, and the fact not even Manuel is fool enough to put his hot-hitting shortstop higher than #8 in the batting order, and this whole discussion becomes one giant joke.

my only answer here is, it's absurd to consider jose's few games at short and spreading them out for the season. like saying a batter who hits 3 triples in a week is going to hit over 70 triples.
hey george! why not just pick one game of your choosing and make your comparison?
i've tried to use lifetime stats for 2 guys who've played about as long and are almost the same age. meanwhile you've picked your seasons and extrapolated to get your phony figures.
you can L your AO all you want. personally i don't care.

FarWestChicago
09-25-2001, 11:01 PM
personally i don't care. You have an interesting way of showing you don't care. :)

PaleHoseGeorge
09-25-2001, 11:06 PM
Originally posted by idseer


here are a few website's that talk about zone-rating;

http://slate.msn.com/tagteam/entries/01-07-24_112399.asp
http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~davearch/zrvalue.html
this one roughly shows the chart;
http://www.stathead.com/articles/nichols/zr.gif

the worst kind of argument huh? i could see you saying that if I made the stat up myself, but i think you ought to get off your big horse, pal. i was under no obligation to give you a scientific explanation.
maybe the worst kind of argument is by someone, ignorant of the stat, claiming it's worthless?

Show me where I ever suggested ZR was a "worthless" stat. I did suggest ZR was baseball's version of alchemy and I believe the definition of "zones" from STATS proves my point. My goodness, they can't even accurately measure the distance a homerun travels but but I'm suppose to believe STATS has accurate information on whether a fly ball travelled 250 feet or 270 feet--and where every other ball ever hit landed, too? I'm sorry. You are a more trusting soul than I am.

If you want to believe what STATS is selling, more power to you.

idseer
09-25-2001, 11:06 PM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
You have an interesting way of showing you don't care. :)

meaning i shouldn't respond at all?
no, i mean i don't care if he laughs. laughing at someone you're supposedly discussing (arguing) with says more about the laugher than the laughee.

Daver
09-25-2001, 11:07 PM
What does any of this have to do with Jerry Manuel,or should I not go there?

idseer
09-25-2001, 11:08 PM
Originally posted by daver
What does any of this have to do with Jerry Manuel,or should I not go there?

very true. we got way off the subject here. i'll stop now.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-25-2001, 11:19 PM
Originally posted by idseer
my only answer here is, it's absurd to consider jose's few games at short and spreading them out for the season. like saying a batter who hits 3 triples in a week is going to hit over 70 triples.
hey george! why not just pick one game of your choosing and make your comparison?
i've tried to use lifetime stats for 2 guys who've played about as long and are almost the same age. meanwhile you've picked your seasons and extrapolated to get your phony figures.
you can L your AO all you want. personally i don't care.


Have you forgotten that it was YOU who pooh-poohed a more complete set of stats comparing our everyday shortstop's actual numbers in 2000 vs. the everyday shortstop in 2001? Have you forgotten it was YOU who suggested any difference in double-plays was strictly "situational"?

Now you accuse me of offering phony figures comparing season to season. In your eyes I'm damned either way, isn't that right?

I've chosen relevant time periods and presented them as best I could. If I didn't extrapolate the rates per game to a full season, the meaning is lost. Besides that, the whole point here was to either prove or debunk who is costing us the most outs. I fail to see how anything you've presented makes a case for Clayton's superiority. You do recall it was YOU who called out OldComiskey on his assertion starting this whole discussion, don't you?

Clayton's defensive superiority is VERY suspect. Beyond that, I doubt any position is provable.

Iwritecode
09-26-2001, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
Chances per season has nothing to do with the player. That's just how many times the ball was hit to him. What he does with those chances is what counts.

Whether or not he got the out.

Originally posted by idseer
chances certainly does have something to do with the ability to field. a slower player over a period of time will have far less chances than a quick one, for one.
but even so ... as you say it matters what they do with those chances, and it's obvious that royce commits far fewer errors.


I know this horse is dead and beaten but I just have to answer this post...

I don't understand this. The speed of a player is taken into account when figuring chances? So if a ball is hit to the exact same spot to 2 different players and one is faster than the other, it only counts as a chance for the faster player? That doesn't make sense. Or is a chance only counted when a player actually touches the ball? If someone watches a ball 1 foot to the right of them roll past is that a chance?

Also, I've mentioned this before, the official scorer as been very generous with Royce as far as errors go. I've seen quite a few scored as hits.

idseer
09-26-2001, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode




I know this horse is dead and beaten but I just have to answer this post...

I don't understand this. The speed of a player is taken into account when figuring chances? So if a ball is hit to the exact same spot to 2 different players and one is faster than the other, it only counts as a chance for the faster player? That doesn't make sense. Or is a chance only counted when a player actually touches the ball? If someone watches a ball 1 foot to the right of them roll past is that a chance?

Also, I've mentioned this before, the official scorer as been very generous with Royce as far as errors go. I've seen quite a few scored as hits.

i'll try to answer this.
if you're talking just fielding % yes. thats why a sure-handed but very slow player may look better on paper. or if you're talking range factor.
but zone-rating plots out an area that if a ball is hit to .. either a fielder will make the play or not. in other words if you're just slow and can't reach it, it counts against you. likewise, if you can reach it but can't make the play, it still just counts against you. if you make the play it counts for you.

RichieRichAllen
09-28-2001, 01:41 PM
I have got to say....I am LMAO on this Bucktown.

If you were serious in any way, my apologies. ;-)

Originally posted by Bucktown
I kind of like Clayton because he has a cool name, "Royce." You know, like a Rolls-Royce. Isn't that cool?

I like "Jose" too, but its just so/so. And Valentin sounds too much like Valentine. That's kind of gay.

So, based on this analysis I would have to give the edge to Royce Clayton.

Joel Perez
09-28-2001, 04:52 PM
Did we really need Harold Baines this year?
Did we really need Royce Clayton this year?
Did we really need Alan Embree?
Jose Canseco?

Probably not. Before we picked up these guys, we were OK. Then, the tinkering began. Now, the Sox have decisions to be made.

The Sox brass should've kept things simple. Once Frank went down, they should've let Jeff Liefer prove himself. Once if he didn't then go after another power hitter. Or, put Lee in the DH role, and then call up Aaron Rowand; keep Singleton in CF as well.

Once Wunsch went down, and Vining went down, our options were few and far between. So the Embree trade, although it gave us a lefty, did not help us at all anyway. Neither did the Bill Pulshipher project.

Royce Clayton, for all of the improvements this 2nd half, really disappointed me still. If he consistently hit .240 throughout the season, then the disappointment would be minimal if his errors were down. But everyone still remembers the .099 BA in May. And unfortunately, that will cause him to leave. And even if Clayton is a better SS than Jose Valentin, he does not possess the leadership qualities that a Valentin has that makes your ballclub rally and go forward. That is what this club needs bigtime. I can take Valentin's 30 errors ONLY IF HE SHOWS BE A BATTING AVERAGE AND LEADERSHIP SKILLS.

Why WAS Harold resigned, anyway?

To me, it sounds like the new GM wanted to help out his new ball club, and show the world that he was aggressive in what he did. But in hindsight, its now creating a little more problems that we would like to have.

The David Wells project, although the results were below average, gave the Sox a legit ace in the rotation, something that was sorely lacking in since the Black Jack McDowell days. If he comes back 100% next year, and if the Sox do sign him, then the Sox still get some necessary help.

This year left a bad taste in my mouth, but then again, "just wait until next year." I'm sure Kenny learned a few lessons this year. Who knows? All I know is this: The Sox, who were 15 games below .500 in May, are now 80-73 with a handful of games to go. With that in mind, the nod should go to Jerry Manuel of who I support. My jury is still out on Kenny Williams. Let's see what happens this off-season.