PDA

View Full Version : I'm Confused


dougs78
01-20-2002, 09:11 PM
I just read the new article on the front page of the site. I though Iwritecode put an inordinate amount of work in on this and for that I thank him. It is always interesting to look at how some seemingly trivial parts of games either do or don't affect the outcome. I guess what I'm really confused about is the conclusion he reached at the end of the article. Was this a parody or a joke that I just didn't get?

You can't honestly be saying that a combined total of 29 errors had absolutely no effect on the White Sox season, can you?? That even if neither Jose nor Royce had ever made and error, our season would have been exactly the same as it was??

Again, maybe I'm missing the punchline here, but I am just plain confused.

oldcomiskey
01-20-2002, 09:29 PM
I think what hes trying to say is that Royce sucks because if KW dont trade for him Crede wouldve been at third while Milkman was injured----and maybe Manos has a healthy season instead of tracking ICBM missiles off the bat of the oppenents. Also hitless gutless didnt help his cause by bitching whe he was hitting 100

CLR01
01-20-2002, 09:32 PM
Always put you underwear and socks on first.

He is saying that if the error had not occured and everything after that remained the same, not one error made by the two of them would have effected the outcome of that game.

I think some of this one got cut off:

#10 June 27 Loss Twins SS

He eventually comes around to score making it 2 - 0 Twins. That's all they really needed as the Sox could only muster 1 run losing 4 - 1.

Decision: NO

dougs78
01-20-2002, 10:46 PM
CLR, I did read it and I understood what it said literally. It was the implications that confused me. I didn't want to assume it was being said in complete seriousness. I would like to hear what Code has to say about, so perhaps he can put it in a better light for me.

I mean do other people honestly agree that none of these errors affected the season? I find this preposterous. More importantly will errors not affect next season's games either? If this is truly the case then why do we worry about how bad Lee's defense is? After all, if these 29 errors at SS had no ill effects, then why should his 12 in LF make a difference? I guess in my way of thinking, every single moment of every game affects the outcome, while some have more obvious effects others are just as important in more subtle ways.

Also, if Oldcomiskey is correct in his assumption, that it was mainly an attempt to discredit the defensive differences between Jose and Royce, followed by implications that these choices in personnel would have had on the Sox season, then why not just come out and say it rather than spend so much time with these errors?? The possibilities for alternative "endings", with players like Crede are interesting to explore in their own right and it seems that if this was the writers intent he could have just done so.

Perhaps Code had something else in mind, entirely. I just was wondering.

Iwritecode
01-21-2002, 12:30 AM
OK, I'll see if I can explain my thoughts here without taking up half the page.

First of all, yes this article was written in complete seriousness. In the one that I wrote last year I only came up with a total of 5 games the Sox could have possibly won without Jose's 36 errors. 3 of them were only maybes.

In 2001 even though these two guys combined for 29 errors, not one of them affected the final outcome of the game, assuming everthing else remained the same. I believe this was mostly due to the Sox anemic offense. If the Sox can only manage 1 run in a game then they could have 20 errors and it really wouldn't matter. Let me see if I can explain how I came to my decisions.

First off, a win is automatically a no. Obvious reasons. If it was a loss then I look at the number of runs that could have been prevented that inning had the error not been made. Most of the time, no runs score when they make an error. So obviously the final score wouldn't have changed had the error not been made. If a run does score, then I just subtract that from the team's final score to see if it made a difference. Let's take an example:

Another game where Jose makes an error on the first play of the game. This time he allows a man to first. The next guy grounds into a fielder's choice (gee, no DP?) to SS. Three homeruns later, Texas is up 5 - 0. The Sox manage 6 runs but all for not since Texas pounds out 16.

OK, Jose made an error and a guy got to first. The next guy grounds out so there is one man on first with one out instead of 2 outs with no one on. Texas still managed 3 homeruns that inning. So even without the error, they would have been up 3 - 0. Add the 11 more runs they later score and the Sox 6 runs still aren't enough.

I hope this helps. :smile:

Kilroy
01-21-2002, 07:49 AM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
In 2001 even though these two guys combined for 29 errors, not one of them affected the final outcome of the game, assuming everthing else remained the same.

Not that I disagree with what you're saying in your piece, but your premise is flawed from the outset. If you take away the errors, you can't assume everything else stays the same.

For starters, each error means more pitches thrown. That is a fact and nothing changes that. Also, stress is applied to all 9 players on the field when an error is made.

Can you say you know what the effect of a pitcher throwing 6-10 more pitches will be? Maybe in the inning the error occurred, its nothing. But 2 innings later, who knows. That fastball may be at 91 instead of 94 and get turned on.

I think there was at least one maybe on your list of errors vs. outcome. That game Aug 15-16 vs KS. As it read, because I can't remember from watching, it appeared that there was a chance to come out of that inning down 2-0 or possibly even w/ no runs scored and down only 1-0. Being down 1-0 is a whole lot different than being down 6-0. Things would have probably turned out a lot differently without those two errors. Who pitched that game? Did they survive that inning?

What you can't measure is the mental effect, or the fatigue factor from throwing extra pitches and from added stress. That's not gonna show in the box score.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-21-2002, 08:57 AM
Boy, if we're going to get into a discussion about what causes more pitches, we're going to be here a long, long time.

Without even trying, here is a short list of ways pitchers end up throwing more pitches through no fault of their own:

The umpire misses the call,
The catcher fails to frame the pitch,
The groundskeeper fails to smooth the dirt properly,
The stadium authority failed to correct known faults in the grade of the infield,
An infielder jakes it on a play he knows would be too difficult to turn into an out,
An outfielder gets a lousy jump on a pop fly,
An outfielder is poorly positioned to defense a certain hitter,
Somebody is playing hurt, but is too afraid of losing their job to tell anyone,
The manager has orders to showcase somebody that wouldn't otherwise be playing,
The pitching coach hasn't a clue what he's doing ("Just throw 'em low smoke!"),
etc. etc. etc.

This is real life. I guarantee any of these occurences are far more common in the average game than errors. Let's get real about "mental strain".

Code's premise is very simple: look at the game situation of each error committed and measure what (if any) effect it had on the final outcome of the game. By Code's yardstick, the only meaningful stat is wins. Surprisingly, that's MLB's yardstick, too.

:smile:

Iwritecode
01-21-2002, 09:30 AM
Originally posted by Kilroy
Not that I disagree with what you're saying in your piece, but your premise is flawed from the outset. If you take away the errors, you can't assume everything else stays the same.

For starters, each error means more pitches thrown. That is a fact and nothing changes that. Also, stress is applied to all 9 players on the field when an error is made.

Can you say you know what the effect of a pitcher throwing 6-10 more pitches will be? Maybe in the inning the error occurred, its nothing. But 2 innings later, who knows. That fastball may be at 91 instead of 94 and get turned on.

What you can't measure is the mental effect, or the fatigue factor from throwing extra pitches and from added stress. That's not gonna show in the box score.

Some very good points. I agree that my article is not a exact science but then again neither are errors. They depend on the scorer's interpretation of whether or not the fielder should have been able to make the play. I agree that each error causes extra pitches to be thrown but I'm not sure how much of a difference that makes with Jerry Manuel's usual early hook. He doesn't he let his starter get to 100 pitches too often. The mind set and fatigue can be argued a little both ways. Sure all these guys are human and knowing that you are down by a few more runs that you should be may effect you a little but these guys are also supposed to be professionals. No matter if they are down 1 run or 10 runs they should always be playing to win at 100% effort. They cannot let the score affect their play. Although some guys (ray) let it affect their batting (durham) sometimes by trying to tie the game with a 3-run homer even when nobody is on base. Other players it seems to serve as motivation to play better.

Originally posted by Kilroy
I think there was at least one maybe on your list of errors vs. outcome. That game Aug 15-16 vs KS. As it read, because I can't remember from watching, it appeared that there was a chance to come out of that inning down 2-0 or possibly even w/ no runs scored and down only 1-0. Being down 1-0 is a whole lot different than being down 6-0. Things would have probably turned out a lot differently without those two errors. Who pitched that game? Did they survive that inning?

I'm still gonna stand by my decision on this one. Considering the Sox offense only managed 1 run that game and the Royals managed 4 more after those 2 errors I don't think they really mattered. Sean Lowe started that game and went 7 full innings throwing 117 pitches. Embree pitched the eighth and the ninth was not needed.

Like I said before this is not an exact science and I am assuming a lot so you can take it for what it's worth. I do appreciate the feedback though. At least I know people are reading it and thinking about it a little bit. :D:

Iwritecode
01-21-2002, 09:33 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
The umpire misses the call,
The catcher fails to frame the pitch,
An infielder jakes it on a play he knows would be too difficult to turn into an out,
An outfielder gets a lousy jump on a pop fly,
An outfielder is poorly positioned to defense a certain hitter,
Somebody is playing hurt, but is too afraid of losing their job to tell anyone,
The manager has orders to showcase somebody that wouldn't otherwise be playing,
The pitching coach hasn't a clue what he's doing ("Just throw 'em low smoke!"),
etc. etc. etc.

I took out the ones about the playing field, but boy can Sox fans relate to all the rest of these! :(:

dougs78
01-21-2002, 09:40 AM
OK, thanks for clarifying Code, I understand what you are saying better now. I guess I still just have to disagree that the errors didn't "hurt the team". As I said earlier I do think that every single instance of every game affects the outcome, some blatantly and some subtly. With that being said, I also agree with PHG's list of other things that affect games. Well, at least the ones directly under the other players control.

From:

An infielder jakes it on a play he knows would be too difficult to turn into an out.

all the way down to...

The manager has orders to showcase somebody that wouldn't otherwise be playing

I think that those situations obviously have a great impact on games and thus the season. Those have very serious negative impacts and yes I do think they hurt the team. Those are also entirely subjective, whereas errors are only a small bit subjective (made by someone who is paid and trained to make those decisions). Therefore I think errors are a more legitimate to look at than some of those other things. But it does not make the other things ok, either.

Bottom line is errors DO impact games. I think Lee's errors affect outcomes, I think Durham's E's affect games...etc, etc....so why should 29 errors from the SS position be any different???

PS: Kilroy you are from Bloomington, right????

czalgosz
01-21-2002, 10:20 AM
No. 1 effect that errors tend to have on ballgames is this - when a fielder (any fielder) makes an error, it tends to make pitchers, especially young pitchers,lose confidence in their defense. They begin to try to not let the batter hit the ball, and they fall behind in the count. Then, when they are 2-0, 3-1, then they serve up a fat one. That's not the only reason that pitchers get battered, but poor fielding leads directly to poor pitching, IMHO.

Kilroy
01-21-2002, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
This is real life. I guarantee any of these occurences are far more common in the average game than errors. Let's get real about "mental strain".


That's true, any one of those things is probably more common.
My only point was that the effect of an error is not always measureable in the box score. As far as mental strain, how many times have we seen Parque turn to **** after an error behind him?
Or, pardon me for mentioning this bum, but Navarro always went into the toilet after an error (well deeper into the toilet in his case). Maybe mental strain was just a piss poor way to phrase it.

Iwritecode
01-21-2002, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz
No. 1 effect that errors tend to have on ballgames is this - when a fielder (any fielder) makes an error, it tends to make pitchers, especially young pitchers,lose confidence in their defense. They begin to try to not let the batter hit the ball, and they fall behind in the count. Then, when they are 2-0, 3-1, then they serve up a fat one. That's not the only reason that pitchers get battered, but poor fielding leads directly to poor pitching, IMHO.

I think it really depends on the pitcher. They shouldn't lose confidence in their defense because of one error. Most players will make a play 9.5 times out of 10. The chance of them making a second error is even greater.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-21-2002, 12:41 PM
Cz raises an interesting point. What are we to make of pitchers who find excuses in the shortcomings of others? For example, Mike Sirotka was clearly a talented pitcher. However, he was scolded several times for whining about close calls by the umpire, bang-bang plays at first base, and of course errors, too. He claimed for himself to be "snake-bitten" and I wouldn't be surprised to know it was a factor in KW willingly giving the guy up for Boomer last January.

And of course there is that other famous whiner...

:jaime
"These guys in Newark can be brutal on your ERA!"

czalgosz
01-21-2002, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode


I think it really depends on the pitcher. They shouldn't lose confidence in their defense because of one error. Most players will make a play 9.5 times out of 10. The chance of them making a second error is even greater.

It's not a particularly rational way to think, but it happens, especially with young pitchers, which makes up most of the Sox staff. When an error is made, it's jarring. It throws the pitcher out of his rhythm, and it gives him a baserunner to deal with that's not his fault. Like someone said before, how many times have you seen a pitcher fallen apart after an error? It happens more times than you'd like to believe.

It happens a lot after a homer is given up - the pitcher suddenly gets a lot more tentative, is afraid to throw strikes. How often do back-to-back homers happen? Not often, even in this day and age, but pitchers still act like it will happen to them.

I agree, Code, that a good pitcher won't let an error or a homer rattle them. I saw it with David Wells last season, as well as with Mark Buerhle - they would shrug off a miscue or a hard hit ball and go after the next guy. But I saw Kip Wells come completely unglued more than once after something like that happened.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-21-2002, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz
I agree, Code, that a good pitcher won't let an error or a homer rattle them. I saw it with David Wells last season, as well as with Mark Buerhle - they would shrug off a miscue or a hard hit ball and go after the next guy. But I saw Kip Wells come completely unglued more than once after something like that happened.

Yep, Kip Wells. Another good example of a pitcher weak between the ears getting traded rather than accommodated. He didn't need errors behind him to become completely unglued.

Should we make life easier for guys like Kip Wells or should we fill our roster with guys who battle through adversity?

I know what the Marines would say. :smile:

czalgosz
01-21-2002, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


Yep, Kip Wells. Another good example of a pitcher weak between the ears getting traded rather than accommodated. He didn't need errors behind him to become completely unglued.

Should we make life easier for guys like Kip Wells or should we fill our roster with guys who battle through adversity?

I know what the Marines would say. :smile:

Well, I always thought Kip was a talented pitcher - had more potential than Garland, for instance. But after a good audition in late '99, he couldn't seem to get his head screwed on straight. The only reason his numbers were acceptable at all last year is that Manuel learned to keep him on a short leash and would pull him before the situation got out of hand. He worked best out of the pen, I thought, when he didn't have enough time to get all worked up over a game.

Maybe a change of scenery will work wonders for Kip. I really do hope for the best for him. I just hope that Todd Ritchie doesn't make us miss him.

doublem23
01-21-2002, 01:13 PM
Yeah, when Kip was in the zone, he was very good. I remember in 2000, the first home game after the back-to-back road sweeps of the Yanks and the Toons, Kip Wells was pitching against the Tribe and he was fabulous! In front of that packed crowd and everything, man, that is one of my fondest memories of my Sox fandom...

But I remember some bad Kip Wells performances... Oh well, life goes on...

AsInWreck
01-22-2002, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


Yep, Kip Wells. Another good example of a pitcher weak between the ears getting traded rather than accommodated. He didn't need errors behind him to become completely unglued.

Should we make life easier for guys like Kip Wells or should we fill our roster with guys who battle through adversity?

I know what the Marines would say. :smile:

So are you saying its good to have a bad defense to weed out the pitchers who don't have the toughness to overcome his teams mistakes? Interesting theory, but i'm more from the team-oriented approach ethos to winning ballgames, i guess--it's a good thing when your defense prevents scoring in my opinion-call me crazy

bjmarte
01-22-2002, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by AsInWreck


So are you saying its good to have a bad defense to weed out the pitchers who don't have the toughness to overcome his teams mistakes? Interesting theory, but i'm more from the team-oriented approach ethos to winning ballgames, i guess--it's a good thing when your defense prevents scoring in my opinion-call me crazy

Don't take it out on PHG just because you are unhappy with the Ritchie trade. He didn't say that a bad defense was a good thing. All he was saying was that Kip lost his cool at the pop of a cork. No one is trying to make excuses for the defense so quit making them for Kip.

AsInWreck
01-22-2002, 05:30 PM
Originally posted by bjmarte


Don't take it out on PHG just because you are unhappy with the Ritchie trade. He didn't say that a bad defense was a good thing. All he was saying was that Kip lost his cool at the pop of a cork. No one is trying to make excuses for the defense so quit making them for Kip.

Actually, i am happy w/ ritchie trade - i was just arguing his logic

bjmarte
01-22-2002, 05:38 PM
Originally posted by AsInWreck


Actually, i am happy w/ ritchie trade - i was just arguing his logic

If you are talking about the logic in thinking that pitchers shouldn't lose their cool everytime something goes wrong, I think it is solid. That is not the same thing as excusing bad defense.

kermittheefrog
01-22-2002, 05:45 PM
I think the problem here is evaluating defense based on errors. The msot damaging part of bad defense is something you don't see in the stat sheets, balls guys just don't get to.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-22-2002, 05:53 PM
LOL! Yeah, what Kermie said!!!

:)

FarWestChicago
01-22-2002, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
I think the problem here is evaluating defense based on errors. The most damaging part of bad defense is something you don't see in the stat sheets, balls guys just don't get to. :ray
Hey! Me and my friend Buddy Lee don't like that kind of talk!

:hitless

That's right. You tell 'em Fire Hydrant!

AsInWreck
01-22-2002, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by bjmarte


If you are talking about the logic in thinking that pitchers shouldn't lose their cool everytime something goes wrong, I think it is solid. That is not the same thing as excusing bad defense.

That's not exactly what i was talking about/mainly what i am saying is that in answer to the original question -- YES, it is a good idea for a team to make it easier on their pitchers by fielding a good defense, and i do agree a bad defense can have negative impact w/o making an error, but a large amount of errors generally indicates you have a pretty bad defense-

dougs78
01-22-2002, 07:06 PM
This is where I guess I just disagree with some of you. While I think there is a certain amount of validity to getting to balls, something that obviously affects games, but you certainly can't underestimate errors. They are not the end all and be all of defense, but just getting to balls is certainly not either. I mean should we go out and field a team of Donovan Baileys who will get to every ball, but yet can't make a play once they have it?

And as I expressed earlier you can't go back and look at errors ex post facto, either. You take them as they come and deal with it. Should pitchers work over errors? Absolutely. But are they still human? Yes. Should batters lay off every ball out of the strike zone? Absolutely. But that is still easier said that done.

Bottom line is our defense is pretty ****ty. No amount of rationalizing about how many errors we commit vs. seeing-eye singles we give up will make it any better. I think these arguments would go much smoother if everyone was willing to admit their main premise. For instance, we all know that when we start talking about that ever elusive quality of "range" then we are ripping on royce and rationalizing Jose's errors. And likewise, when we start talking about fielding % and errors comitted then we are advocating royce over Jose. I for one could give two poops who plays SS. Its 6 of one half a dozen of the other. What I do care about is having a good team. While I think Royce is the better defensive shortstop, I'm willing to sit him if it helps the team. What it comes down to for me is one man, Joe Crede. If playing Jose at SS means that Joe can play 3rd, then I am all for it. What I refuse to see is us playing two shortstops, when we have Crede riding the pine.

I just wish we didn't have to say these arguments are about defense when they are obviously about shortstops. No one ever give the examples of Lee in LF as a good indicator of how errors dont' "really matter". likewise no one ever seems to criticize Magglio for having a high fielding % when it must mean hes not getting to balls. I dont' know...sorry to ramble on, the whole thing just never seems logical to me.

Daver
01-22-2002, 09:08 PM
Originally posted by dougs78


Bottom line is our defense is pretty ****ty. No amount of rationalizing about how many errors we commit vs. seeing-eye singles we give up will make it any better. I think these arguments would go much smoother if everyone was willing to admit their main premise. For instance, we all know that when we start talking about that ever elusive quality of "range" then we are ripping on royce and rationalizing Jose's errors. And likewise, when we start talking about fielding % and errors comitted then we are advocating royce over Jose. I for one could give two poops who plays SS. Its 6 of one half a dozen of the other. What I do care about is having a good team. While I think Royce is the better defensive shortstop, I'm willing to sit him if it helps the team. What it comes down to for me is one man, Joe Crede. If playing Jose at SS means that Joe can play 3rd, then I am all for it. What I refuse to see is us playing two shortstops, when we have Crede riding the pine.

I just wish we didn't have to say these arguments are about defense when they are obviously about shortstops. No one ever give the examples of Lee in LF as a good indicator of how errors dont' "really matter". likewise no one ever seems to criticize Magglio for having a high fielding % when it must mean hes not getting to balls. I dont' know...sorry to ramble on, the whole thing just never seems logical to me.

If you are trying to say that there is no difference between having Royce play SS over Jose you are sadly mistaken,there is a difference between a gamer that gives 100%in all facets of the game and a guy that won't go after anything out of his reach because it might affect his feilding percentage ,and decided it was time to pay attention at the plate because the Manager and the media thought it best that he collect splinters in his worthless ass instead of playing.

czalgosz
01-22-2002, 09:12 PM
Originally posted by daver


If you are trying to say that there is no difference between having Royce play SS over Jose you are sadly mistaken,there is a difference between a gamer that gives 100%in all facets of the game and a guy that won't go after anything out of his reach because it might affect his feilding percentage ,and decided it was time to pay attention at the plate because the Manager and the media thought it best that he collect splinters in his worthless ass instead of playing.

You know, I think I figured this out. I don't see what all the fuss is about because I never saw him play, living in California as I do. I just had daily boxscores, and after the first couple months, Clayton stopped embarassing himself in the boxscores.So if you say that he was playing lackadasically in the field, I'll just have to take your word for it.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-22-2002, 09:25 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz
You know, I think I figured this out. I don't see what all the fuss is about because I never saw him play, living in California as I do. I just had daily boxscores, and after the first couple months, Clayton stopped embarassing himself in the boxscores.So if you say that he was playing lackadasically in the field, I'll just have to take your word for it.


Hey, if you think you're confused for never having seen the games actually played, imagine how the average Cubs fan at Wrigley feels.

Da-dum-bump!

"Thank you, I'll be here all weekend!"

dougs78
01-22-2002, 09:31 PM
Yes Daver I am trying to say there is a difference between Jose and Royce playing shortstop. I think Royce is a better defensive player by all objective measures. I can't comment on your subjective opinions about effort and the like, becuase they are just that; opinions. You are more than entitled to them I respect you right to have them. I also think that by all objective measures Jose is a better offensive player, so that when it comes down to the whole picture, you pick your poison.

As I said, for me the difference comes down to the percieved (on my part) notion that only if Jose plays SS will crede get to play 3rd everyday and that and only that, is the deciding factor.

czalgosz
01-22-2002, 09:38 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge



Hey, if you think you're confused for never having seen the games actually played, imagine how the average Cubs fan at Wrigley feels.

Da-dum-bump!

"Thank you, I'll be here all weekend!"

(huge roar of approval from the peanut gallery)

Daver
01-22-2002, 09:40 PM
Originally posted by dougs78
Yes Daver I am trying to say there is a difference between Jose and Royce playing shortstop. I think Royce is a better defensive player by all objective measures. I can't comment on your subjective opinions about effort and the like, becuase they are just that; opinions. You are more than entitled to them I respect you right to have them. I also think that by all objective measures Jose is a better offensive player, so that when it comes down to the whole picture, you pick your poison.

As I said, for me the difference comes down to the percieved (on my part) notion that only if Jose plays SS will crede get to play 3rd everyday and that and only that, is the deciding factor.

So basically you agree that the TEAM is better with Jose at SS,aside from my opinion ,that is blatantly obvious, as to Jose being the better player.

dougs78
01-22-2002, 09:53 PM
Daver don't get me wrong, I lot to watch Jose play and I think he provides a definite offensive boost from the shortstop position. However, I don't feel the need to stretch that into saying hes a better defensive player than royce, becuase there is just no way to back that up.

I'll agree that he plays the game with more gusto and exuberance than most any player, making him fun to watch and giving the impression that he "plays harder" but I don't know if thats necessarily the case. There are lots of stoic players who were quite good and I'm sure played with just as much "heart" as Jose Valentin. The best example, of the top of my head, that I can give of this is from basketball and that is Bryce Drew. I grew up watching him play all 4 years of HS and through college. The man never once changes his expression on the floor, but I guarantee you has as much 'guts' as anyone on the floor.

Daver
01-22-2002, 10:00 PM
Originally posted by dougs78
Daver don't get me wrong, I lot to watch Jose play and I think he provides a definite offensive boost from the shortstop position. However, I don't feel the need to stretch that into saying hes a better defensive player than royce, becuase there is just no way to back that up.

I'll agree that he plays the game with more gusto and exuberance than most any player, making him fun to watch and giving the impression that he "plays harder" but I don't know if thats necessarily the case. There are lots of stoic players who were quite good and I'm sure played with just as much "heart" as Jose Valentin. The best example, of the top of my head, that I can give of this is from basketball and that is Bryce Drew. I grew up watching him play all 4 years of HS and through college. The man never once changes his expression on the floor, but I guarantee you has as much 'guts' as anyone on the floor.

I never tried to say that Jose was a better defensive player,and I don't know how you arrived at that,all I said was that Jose was a better TEAM player than Royce.I know if I was picking a team for street baseball he would probably get picked last.

czalgosz
01-22-2002, 10:04 PM
Originally posted by daver


I never tried to say that Jose was a better defensive player,and I don't know how you arrived at that,all I said was that Jose was a better TEAM player than Royce.I know if I was picking a team for street baseball he would probably get picked last.

Wow, who do you play street ball with? Joking, joking...