PDA

View Full Version : Another Crede/Clayton/Valentin post


bc2k
03-11-2002, 11:30 PM
This is from monday's tribune.

http://chicagosports.com/whitesox/content/story/0,1984,177384,00.html

From our talks on WSI, myself and many of you assumed that in 2003, once Clayton was gone, Valentin would move back to Short with Crede finally moving up to third. Well not according to this article. If I'm Crede, I'm fuming.

Daver
03-11-2002, 11:34 PM
Originally posted by bc2k
This is from monday's tribune.

http://chicagosports.com/whitesox/content/story/0,1984,177384,00.html

From our talks on WSI, myself and many of you assumed that in 2003, once Clayton was gone, Valentine would move back to Short with Crede finally moving up to third. Well not according to this article. If I'm Crede, I'm fuming.

Keep in mind the fact that Paul Sullivan is an idiot and the world returns to normal.

cornball
03-12-2002, 12:18 AM
I think Sully maybe right on this one though, I dont believe Sox management want Valentin at short regularly. I dont know what Crede has to do to earn a chance....it is a shame.

RedPinStripes
03-12-2002, 12:33 AM
Valentine might be gone after 2003. Clayton better be gone after this year.

RichH55
03-12-2002, 02:27 AM
Originally posted by RedPinStripes
Valentine might be gone after 2003. Clayton better be gone after this year.


NO E!!!! Though even if you are right....wouldn't 2004 be just a touch late for Joe Crede? I think Jose is here til after the 2005 season(just a hunch)

bc2k
03-12-2002, 02:55 AM
So what are you guys doing with Crede? With Valentin now the one blocking Crede's way to the bigs, is...gulp...Jose trade bait? Who is playing SS in 2003? Heck, who is playing third? Is Crede trade bait? Does this mean Royce will continue to screw up the left side of the infield even after he is gone? This is a mess! Curse of the Bambino is nothing compared to the curse of Clayton Island. How I long for Mike Caruso.

RedPinStripes
03-12-2002, 03:09 AM
Originally posted by bc2k
So what are you guys doing with Crede? With Valentin now the one blocking Crede's way to the bigs, is...gulp...Jose trade bait? Who is playing SS in 2003? Heck, who is playing third? Is Crede trade bait? Does this mean Royce will continue to screw up the left side of the infield even after he is gone? This is a mess! Curse of the Bambino is nothing compared to the curse of Clayton Island. How I long for Mike Caruso.

I think Royce will be gone after this year, Valentin will be at SS, then hell be gone after 2003 and Hummel or gonzalez from the farm will be there in 2004. I don't think Crede is trade bait to be honest and he'll have the job next year.

CubKilla
03-12-2002, 01:06 PM
Originally posted by bc2k
So what are you guys doing with Crede? With Valentin now the one blocking Crede's way to the bigs, is...gulp...Jose trade bait? Who is playing SS in 2003? Heck, who is playing third? Is Crede trade bait? Does this mean Royce will continue to screw up the left side of the infield even after he is gone? This is a mess! Curse of the Bambino is nothing compared to the curse of Clayton Island. How I long for Mike Caruso.

Valentin isn't blocking Crede's way to the bigs..... JM and Choice are the reason why Crede will start the year in AAA. Because of Choice, Valentin is forced to play out of position. At this point, Valentin has the better bat and is a team leader. Crede hasn't proven himself yet. So while Valentin may "technically" be blocking Crede, it is truly out of his control. Given the choice to play SS or 3B, I think Valentin would choose SS.

Randar68
03-12-2002, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by RedPinStripes
I think Royce will be gone after this year, Valentin will be at SS, then hell be gone after 2003 and Hummel or gonzalez from the farm will be there in 2004.

Well, unless Gonzalez is the next Albert Pujols, I seriously doubt it. There are very real concerns about his defensive potential and he's never swung at a pitch higher than the lowest rookie league...2004 is a prayer...

idseer
03-12-2002, 03:33 PM
i find it funny so many still think clayton is the reason valentin is playing out of position.

JOSE DOESN'T HAVE A POSITION!!! :o:

i found it funnier still that someone actually suggested clayton will still be at fault even when he's gone!!!!!

holy COW !!!! :whiner:

maybe some of you will be blaming royce after he's dead ??? :?:

the way it SHOULD be is ... crede at third ... royce at short .... valentin is traded for someone who actually has value! :smile:

:) :D: :cool: :angry: :gulp: :(:
* just wanted to use all the faces in one post!

FarWestChicago
03-12-2002, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by idseer
i find it funny so many still think clayton is the reason valentin is playing out of position.

JOSE DOESN'T HAVE A POSITION!!! :o:

Uhhh, yes, he does. It's just being occupied by Buddy until they can get rid of him. He's on the trading block and has been for a long time. The worst case scenario is Manos doesn't get back to short until the door hits Buddy in the butt after this season.

Originally posted by idseer

the way it SHOULD be is ... crede at third ... royce at short .... valentin is traded for someone who actually has value! :smile: Manos has value. It's your hero Buddy we can't even give to somebody. It's interesting the entire baseball world can see this and you can't.

idseer
03-12-2002, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago


Uhhh, yes, he does. It's just being occupied by Buddy until they can get rid of him. He's on the trading block and has been for a long time. The worst case scenario is Manos doesn't get back to short until the door hits Buddy in the butt after this season.

uhhh, no he doesn't! he never HAS had a position. he's been moved to every conceivable position by every team he's been on to try and keep his bat in the lineup. does this sound like a guy with a position? ummmm nope! not to me. :smile:


Originally posted by FarWestChicago
Manos has value. It's your hero Buddy we can't even give to somebody. It's interesting the entire baseball world can see this and you can't.

it's interesting you think the entire baseball world feels the way all the jose fans do. :)

voodoochile
03-12-2002, 05:41 PM
Originally posted by idseer


uhhh, no he doesn't! he never HAS had a position. he's been moved to every conceivable position by every team he's been on to try and keep his bat in the lineup. does this sound like a guy with a position? ummmm nope! not to me. :smile:

it's interesting you think the entire baseball world feels the way all the jose fans do. :)

Jose's best position is SS. IF a team wants to keep his bat in the lineup (and it is so much better than Royce that that should be the obvious choice, IMO) then the team has to trade Royce. The question as always is - does Royce's "supposedly" better defense make him a better choice at SS than Jose and his "definitely" better bat (one is arguable, one is not).

Most Sox fans seem to feel that Jose should be at SS and Crede should be at 3B. Doesn't make them right, but it is the concensus.

To paraphrase John Lennon...

"All we are saying is, 'give Crede a chance.'"

RichH55
03-12-2002, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by idseer
i find it funny so many still think clayton is the reason valentin is playing out of position.

JOSE DOESN'T HAVE A POSITION!!! :o:

i found it funnier still that someone actually suggested clayton will still be at fault even when he's gone!!!!!

holy COW !!!! :whiner:

maybe some of you will be blaming royce after he's dead ??? :?:

the way it SHOULD be is ... crede at third ... royce at short .... valentin is traded for someone who actually has value! :smile:
* just wanted to use all the faces in one post!


:troll

FarWestChicago
03-12-2002, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by idseer
it's interesting you think the entire baseball world feels the way all the jose fans do. :) It's not a feeling. It's a fact. Manos got offers when on the free agent market. The Sox can't give Buddy away for nothing. Any logical person can see Buddy has no value.

:dumbash

Geez, even I can figure that one out.

idseer
03-12-2002, 06:33 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile


Jose's best position is SS. IF a team wants to keep his bat in the lineup (and it is so much better than Royce that that should be the obvious choice, IMO) then the team has to trade Royce. The question as always is - does Royce's "supposedly" better defense make him a better choice at SS than Jose and his "definitely" better bat (one is arguable, one is not).

Most Sox fans seem to feel that Jose should be at SS and Crede should be at 3B. Doesn't make them right, but it is the concensus.

To paraphrase John Lennon...

"All we are saying is, 'give Crede a chance.'"

you're probably right about ss being his best position, but to me ... that's rather pathetic.

the question as you say is who is the obvious choice. my answer is ... the sox seem to think royce is! it doesn't much matter what the fans think. but i agree with the sox.

Daver
03-12-2002, 06:36 PM
Originally posted by idseer


you're probably right about ss being his best position, but to me ... that's rather pathetic.

the question as you say is who is the obvious choice. my answer is ... the sox seem to think royce is! it doesn't much matter what the fans think. but i agree with the sox.

There are 4.5 million reasons the Sox will play Royce,and none of them have to do with who is the better SS,merely the with the fact that the better ballplayer can play third base,but Buddy can only play SS.

idseer
03-12-2002, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
It's not a feeling. It's a fact. Manos got offers when on the free agent market. The Sox can't give Buddy away for nothing. Any logical person can see Buddy has no value.


it's not a fact until you poll the whole baseball world.
so jose got offers ... we think (his agent never would disclose who they were from ...... hmmmmm).
the difference is ... royce isn't on the free agent market, now is he?

you all keep saying how he's on the trade market. i don't think i believe it. maybe to the extent that everyone is on the market ... for the right offer.
no, i think the sox want royce right where he is.

it's a catch 22 for royce haters. either the sox are so stupid to clog up their lineup with royce and cause all these problems that it's hopeless to root for these guys ...... OR ...... royce is right where he belongs ... right where they want him.

it's only some fans that seem bent out of shape about it!

idseer
03-12-2002, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by daver


There are 4.5 million reasons the Sox will play Royce,and none of them have to do with who is the better SS,merely the with the fact that the better ballplayer can play third base,but Buddy can only play SS.

yeah i keep hearing this excuse. i think it's a rather poor one myself. if JR wants to win then he puts his best team on the field.

it'll be very interesting to see if in fact royce is still on the team next season.

bjmarte
03-12-2002, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by idseer


yeah i keep hearing this excuse. i think it's a rather poor one myself. if JR wants to win then he puts his best team on the field.

it'll be very interesting to see if in fact royce is still on the team next season.

He won't be. He wasn't meant to be on the team in the first place.

idseer
03-12-2002, 07:14 PM
Originally posted by bjmarte


He won't be. He wasn't meant to be on the team in the first place.

apparently fate disagrees with you

Daver
03-12-2002, 07:14 PM
Originally posted by idseer


yeah i keep hearing this excuse. i think it's a rather poor one myself. if JR wants to win then he puts his best team on the field.

it'll be very interesting to see if in fact royce is still on the team next season.

I notice you chose not to comment on whom is the better ballplayer,which leads me to beleive you agree that Jose is a better ballplayer.

It is well documented that Williams acquired Royce to trade him,not to play him,and got stuck with him because every other team in MLB knows that he is,in fact,Buddy Lee.It is one of the few situations where the fans would applaud the loss of a player.

bjmarte
03-12-2002, 07:16 PM
Originally posted by idseer


apparently fate disagrees with you

Kenny Williams never meant for him to be on the team. He has stated that his intention in getting Clayton was to turn around and trade him to another team. Apparently KW was the only GM who wanted to touch him and even he wasn't dumb enough to want it to be permanent.

PaleHoseGeorge
03-12-2002, 07:22 PM
Originally posted by idseer
it's not a fact until you poll the whole baseball world.
so jose got offers ... we think (his agent never would disclose who they were from ...... hmmmmm).
the difference is ... royce isn't on the free agent market, now is he?

Actually, it is a FACT Valentin was offered a four-year deal with Baltimore that was worth over $3 million more guaranteed than the Sox offered. It was reported in all the newspapers back in November, 2000. Go to the Tribune archive, pay your $2.95, and look it up yourself.

Valentin wanted to play for a winner, even though the Sox were in hot pursuit of Arod at the time, and offering him less money than Baltimore. He agreed to take less money and play wherever the Sox asked him to--to help the team win. Such a concept, huh?

I love ya, ID. You were missed all winter. However, you've got lots of catching up to do on the whole Manos/Choice debate. That will teach you to dumb yourself down hanging out at the Troll board. Your Sox Fan I.Q. has suffered.

That's okay. WSI will assign make up work. You can still pass.

:)

Paulwny
03-12-2002, 07:23 PM
Originally posted by bjmarte


Kenny Williams never meant for him to be on the team. He has stated that his intention in getting Clayton was to turn around and trade him to another team. Apparently KW was the only GM who wanted to touch him and even he wasn't dumb enough to want it to be permanent.

Is this another mistake by KW?. He aquires Royce to trade him, he must have had a deal in the works and then the other GM bailed out of the deal. KW should get it in writing next time.

idseer
03-12-2002, 07:25 PM
Originally posted by daver


I notice you chose not to comment on whom is the better ballplayer,which leads me to beleive you agree that Jose is a better ballplayer.

It is well documented that Williams acquired Royce to trade him,not to play him,and got stuck with him because every other team in MLB knows that he is,in fact,Buddy Lee.It is one of the few situations where the fans would applaud the loss of a player.

i didn't realize you were expecting a comment on how i value them but since you ask......

... jose is a more dangerous hitter.
... jose is flashier in the field.
... royce is a weaker but still, a fair hitter.
... royce is a steadier fielder.
... either one's likability doesn't matter one whit to me.
... i believe royce puts our pitchers more at ease in the field.
... i believe we'd get more by trading jose because i think a hitter with 20 homerun potential is more valuable in trade than a good fielder.
... therefore keeping royce makes us stronger in the field, and trading jose helps fill our needs better than the other way around.
... so, really, it's not a question to me of who is ultimately the better all around baseball player ... but what is best for the team.

(or keep jose as a lefthanded hitter off the bench and fill in when needed ... and trade leifer)

PaleHoseGeorge
03-12-2002, 07:29 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny
Is this another mistake by KW?. He aquires Royce to trade him, he must have had a deal in the works and then the other GM bailed out of the deal. KW should get it in writing next time.

By Kenny's own admission, acquiring Clayton was a mistake. He talked to one of the beatwriters (Cowley?) last August and admitted he had only acquired Royce to turn around and trade him again. The Sox GM admitted Royce had been on the block for eight months, LOL!

It's worth noting, Royce's supercharged second-half had sputtered in August. The Choice's batting average had slumped back beneath .230 at the time of Kenny's public statements. Was it a coincidence that Royce suddenly got hot again? You be the judge.

idseer
03-12-2002, 07:32 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


Actually, it is a FACT Valentin was offered a four-year deal with Baltimore that was worth over $3 million more guaranteed than the Sox offered. It was reported in all the newspapers back in November, 2000. Go to the Tribune archive, pay your $2.95, and look it up yourself.

Valentin wanted to play for a winner, even though the Sox were in hot pursuit of Arod at the time, and offering him less money than Baltimore. He agreed to take less money and play wherever the Sox asked him to--to help the team win. Such a concept, huh?

I love ya, ID. You were missed all winter. However, you've got lots of catching up to do on the whole Manos/Choice debate. That will teach you to dumb yourself down hanging out at the Troll board. Your Sox Fan I.Q. has suffered.

That's okay. WSI will assign make up work. You can still pass.

:)

LOL good post george. got a belly laugh outta that.

ok, i believe you about the baltimore offer. but it didn't alter my point ... which was, royce isn't a free agent, so the 2 aren't comparable in that matter.

i think i have a good handle on the royce/jose affair. you guys just don't agree with me!
i understand your love of jose. i just think you let it cloud your judgement a little

btw i'm still waiting for when we log all our prognotications for the year. will that be before st ends or what?

Daver
03-12-2002, 07:35 PM
Originally posted by idseer


i didn't realize you were expecting a comment on how i value them but since you ask......

... jose is a more dangerous hitter.
... jose is flashier in the field.
... royce is a weaker but still, a fair hitter.
... royce is a steadier fielder.
... either one's likability doesn't matter one whit to me.
... i believe royce puts our pitchers more at ease in the field.
... i believe we'd get more by trading jose because i think a hitter with 20 homerun potential is more valuable in trade than a good fielder.
... therefore keeping royce makes us stronger in the field, and trading jose helps fill our needs better than the other way around.
... so, really, it's not a question to me of who is ultimately the better all around baseball player ... but what is best for the team.

(or keep jose as a lefthanded hitter off the bench and fill in when needed ... and trade leifer)

You forgot to mention that trading Royce is impossible because no team would touch him with a barge pole.

How do you justify that you make the team better by trading Valentin?You are trading away a proven clutch hitter as well as a guy that can play every infield position.

And I bet if asked in private most of the pitchers would say they cringe every time Royce goes to the plate and then takes his jacket off,cause it will be time to get back to the mound.

The best option is to cut Royce,play Jose at SS and Crede at third.

Daver
03-12-2002, 07:36 PM
Originally posted by idseer


LOL good post george. got a belly laugh outta that.

ok, i believe you about the baltimore offer. but it didn't alter my point ... which was, royce isn't a free agent, so the 2 aren't comparable in that matter.

i think i have a good handle on the royce/jose affair. you guys just don't agree with me!
i understand your love of jose. i just think you let it cloud your judgement a little

btw i'm still waiting for when we log all our prognotications for the year. will that be before st ends or what?

Yes it will.

FarWestChicago
03-12-2002, 07:40 PM
Originally posted by idseer
btw i'm still waiting for when we log all our prognotications for the year. will that be before st ends or what? The program should be done soon.

idseer
03-12-2002, 07:42 PM
Originally posted by daver


You forgot to mention that trading Royce is impossible because no team would touch him with a barge pole.

How do you justify that you make the team better by trading Valentin?You are trading away a proven clutch hitter as well as a guy that can play every infield position.

And I bet if asked in private most of the pitchers would say they cringe every time Royce goes to the plate and then takes his jacket off,cause it will be time to get back to the mound.

The best option is to cut Royce,play Jose at SS and Crede at third.

my justification is based on the fact the sox are a very strong hitting team with or without jose.
if this was a team short on hitting i might feel differntly.

as to pitchers cringing when royce come to the plate let me remind you royce is a better hitter than jose, and has only a slightly worse obp.

PaleHoseGeorge
03-12-2002, 07:46 PM
Originally posted by idseer
...as to pitchers cringing when royce come to the plate let me remind you royce is a better hitter than jose, and has only a slightly worse obp.

ID, are you wearing a bag on your head when you write this stuff?

:)

Daver
03-12-2002, 07:47 PM
Originally posted by idseer


my justification is based on the fact the sox are a very strong hitting team with or without jose.
if this was a team short on hitting i might fell differntly.

as to pitchers cringing when royce come to the plate let me remind you royce is a better hitter than jose, and has only a slightly worse obp.

Perhaps by the numbers,but numbers don't play the game,people do.Keep in mind that Jose's numbers get hurt by the fact that he continues to switch hit even though he is weak against lefties.I was referring more to the fact that Jose is a better clutch hitter,can and will work a count,has a better chance of hitting a sac fly,and will leg out everything he hits.Royce does little of any of those.I don't look at numbers,I look at ballplayers and the way they play the game,Jose plays to win at all times,Royce plays to collect a paycheck,and you can see it on the field.

idseer
03-12-2002, 07:50 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


ID, are you wearing a bag on your head when you write this stuff?

:)

if you mean my thinking cap .... why, of course!
:D:

FarWestChicago
03-12-2002, 07:52 PM
Originally posted by idseer
as to pitchers cringing when royce come to the plate let me remind you royce is a better hitter than jose, and has only a slightly worse obp. LMAO!! Well, we all know what kind of car id drives.



:partybus

idseer
03-12-2002, 07:54 PM
Originally posted by daver


Perhaps by the numbers,but numbers don't play the game,people do.Keep in mind that Jose's numbers get hurt by the fact that he continues to switch hit even though he is weak against lefties.I was referring more to the fact that Jose is a better clutch hitter,can and will work a count,has a better chance of hitting a sac fly,and will leg out everything he hits.Royce does little of any of those.I don't look at numbers,I look at ballplayers and the way they play the game,Jose plays to win at all times,Royce plays to collect a paycheck,and you can see it on the field.

the very qualities that would make him a very good lefthanded bat off the bench!

Daver
03-12-2002, 08:01 PM
Originally posted by idseer


the very qualities that would make him a very good lefthanded bat off the bench!

No,the very qualities you want playing at SS.I can live with twenty five errors if he is going to get to more chances to make a play,and don't bother posting the range factor,Jose beats the snot out of Royce there,in fact he beats the snot out of most AL SS's.

Be my guest in continuing to back a mutt id,I prefer to cheer for a player that will give his all to win.

Bmr31
03-12-2002, 08:28 PM
Originally posted by daver


No,the very qualities you want playing at SS.I can live with twenty five errors if he is going to get to more chances to make a play,and don't bother posting the range factor,Jose beats the snot out of Royce there,in fact he beats the snot out of most AL SS's.

Be my guest in continuing to back a mutt id,I prefer to cheer for a player that will give his all to win.

I prefer to cheer for a SS who wont lose games by playing the part of a butcher.....You can about range all you want but i know how to watch guys play SS and clayton is much better than jose, defensively. Its not even close....

Daver
03-12-2002, 08:30 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31


I prefer to cheer for a SS who wont lose games by playing the part of a butcher.....You can about range all you want but i know how to watch guys play SS and clayton is much better than jose, defensively. Its not even close....

This from a guy that thinks Jeter is a good SS.

Bmr31
03-12-2002, 08:31 PM
Originally posted by daver


This from a guy that thinks Jeter is a good SS.

defensively? Hes good when it counts. Overall? There isnt a player in baseball id rather have on my team, if i cared about winning.

voodoochile
03-13-2002, 02:04 AM
Originally posted by idseer


my justification is based on the fact the sox are a very strong hitting team with or without jose.
if this was a team short on hitting i might feel differntly.

as to pitchers cringing when royce come to the plate let me remind you royce is a better hitter than jose, and has only a slightly worse obp.

WHAT!???!???!??!!!!???

Man, where is the teal?

You can't honestly believe that Royce is a better hitter than Jose. Jose's OPS is 150 points higher than Royce. Too funny... ID - lay off the :bluerock

or whatever it is you are using, it is messing up your thinking process...

voodoochile
03-13-2002, 02:08 AM
Originally posted by Bmr31


I prefer to cheer for a SS who wont lose games by playing the part of a butcher.....You can about range all you want but i know how to watch guys play SS and clayton is much better than jose, defensively. Its not even close....

That is very debatable. Jose lead all SS in the AL last year in chances/9 innings. If that were carried out for a whole year it would be around an extra 100 outs recorded that Buddy would have just watched or that his weak arm would have made impossible and that was Royce's best year defensively every. How happy will you be if he returns to form and puts up 18 errors this year? Still think he will be better?

The defensive argument is not set in stone the way the offensive one is.

Bmr31
03-13-2002, 02:13 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile


That is very debatable. Jose lead all SS in the AL last year in chances/9 innings. If that were carried out for a whole year it would be around an extra 100 outs recorded that Buddy would have just watched or that his weak arm would have made impossible and that was Royce's best year defensively every. How happy will you be if he returns to form and puts up 18 errors this year? Still think he will be better?

The defensive argument is not set in stone the way the offensive one is.

You make some good points. Dont get me wrong i do like jose, just not at SS and i dont want royce for our SS. If it were up to me id trade royce, get a better SS somehow and use jose at 3b,2b, DH.

voodoochile
03-13-2002, 02:17 AM
Originally posted by Bmr31


You make some good points. Dont get me wrong i do like jose, just not at SS and i dont want royce for our SS. If it were up to me id trade royce, get a better SS somehow and use jose at 3b,2b, DH.

STOP THE PRESSES!!!

New headline...

Bmr agrees with Voodoo (or anybody for that matter)

You in love Bmr? Where's that old feistiness? Some woman making you soft?

:D:

Just teasing you B-man...

Bmr31
03-13-2002, 02:58 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile


STOP THE PRESSES!!!

New headline...

Bmr agrees with Voodoo (or anybody for that matter)

You in love Bmr? Where's that old feistiness? Some woman making you soft?

:D:

Just teasing you B-man...


me??? feisty? NAAAAH lol. Actually ive never changed my stance on royce. I want him gone, i want a better SS and i want jose moved to another position. I just think royce is unfairly picked on and blamed. He had an average season for himself last season.

RedPinStripes
03-13-2002, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by Randar68


Well, unless Gonzalez is the next Albert Pujols, I seriously doubt it. There are very real concerns about his defensive potential and he's never swung at a pitch higher than the lowest rookie league...2004 is a prayer...

That's too bad. I don't know much about the guy, but I must have the wrong impression. I thought he was great defensivly and needs improvement on his offense. (Guess not) O well. Anotehr pipe dream lost my a Sox fan. It would be nice to at least have an Ozzie Guillen in the system somewhere and have a real SS for years to come.

RedPinStripes
03-13-2002, 10:48 AM
Originally posted by idseer


my justification is based on the fact the sox are a very strong hitting team with or without jose.
if this was a team short on hitting i might feel differntly.

as to pitchers cringing when royce come to the plate let me remind you royce is a better hitter than jose, and has only a slightly worse obp.

Now I'm convinced that you smoke crack. :D:

idseer
03-13-2002, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile


WHAT!???!???!??!!!!???

Man, where is the teal?

You can't honestly believe that Royce is a better hitter than Jose. Jose's OPS is 150 points higher than Royce. Too funny... ID - lay off the :bluerock

or whatever it is you are using, it is messing up your thinking process...

no teal needed. i was refering to one thing only ... his batting average. i probably should have been more specific. royce has a 9 point edge in career batting average.

Soxboyrob
03-13-2002, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile


That is very debatable. Jose lead all SS in the AL last year in chances/9 innings. If that were carried out for a whole year it would be around an extra 100 outs recorded that Buddy would have just watched or that his weak arm would have made impossible and that was Royce's best year defensively every. How happy will you be if he returns to form and puts up 18 errors this year? Still think he will be better?

While many of the pro-Valentin defensive arguments are fairly valid, I don't feel that the above carries any weight at all for the reason that Jose played only 43 games at SS last season. That's about 1/4 of a season. That doesn't seem a large enough sample size to assume that his 2001 rate of amassing chances would have continued. No doubt Jose was on a pretty nice pace, but a whole season might have had a negative effect on your projections.

voodoochile
03-13-2002, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by Soxboyrob


While many of the pro-Valentin defensive arguments are fairly valid, I don't feel that the above carries any weight at all for the reason that Jose played only 43 games at SS last season. That's about 1/4 of a season. That doesn't seem a large enough sample size to assume that his 2001 rate of amassing chances would have continued. No doubt Jose was on a pretty nice pace, but a whole season might have had a negative effect on your projections.

I did say "If" in my original post, but regardless, check back the last 3 years when Jose was playing regularly at SS. His cances/9 innings blow Claytons out of the water.

Paulwny
03-13-2002, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile


I did say "If" in my original post, but regardless, check back the last 3 years when Jose was playing regularly at SS. His cances/9 innings blow Claytons out of the water.

I don't see how you can make comparisons since we had almost an entirely different pitching staff last yr. then we had in previous yrs.

PaleHoseGeorge
03-13-2002, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny
I don't see how you can make comparisons since we had almost an entirely different pitching staff last yr. then we had in previous yrs.

I will GLADLY concede, to anyone here, that baseball's defensive statistics SUCK! I can't think of a single one of them that doesn't have a giant disclaimer attached to it.

Unfortunately, there are people here who INSIST that one ballplayer is better than another based solely on that ballplayer's alledged defensive superiority. It's a certified load of a crap we here have been dancing around for months.

You want to believe defensive stats have merit, fine. Be my guest to make your case.

However, be warned! We've traveled over this turf many times before and nobody exits the fight unbloodied. Only the fools here think they haven't been cut.

Me? I'm not buying a word of it.

Soxboyrob
03-13-2002, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile


I did say "If" in my original post, but regardless, check back the last 3 years when Jose was playing regularly at SS. His cances/9 innings blow Claytons out of the water.

I will do exactly as you asked, and then some. These stats were taken from http://www.baseball-reference.com/ if anyone is wondering. Both of these guys played SS "full time" during the span of 1995-2000.

Chances per 9 innings.......Clayton..........Valentin
"range factor"
1995...................................4.66....... ...........4.78
1996...................................4.58....... ...........4.66
1997...................................4.44....... ...........4.41
1998...................................4.71....... ...........3.91
1999...................................4.59....... ...........3.85
2000...................................4.90....... ...........5.12

I won't harp on what's shown in these numbers, because I feel, as George earlier notes, that defensive stats can be very deceiving. For one, the average Chances/9 in the AL was 4.26 while the NL average was 4.00 during the '95-'00 span. I think that maybe there are more infield chances in the AL than the NL, which might be oweable to the DH. Clayton and Valentin have both spent a fair amount of time playing in both leagues, so that is almost a wash.

During the above noted 6-year span, Valentin turns .68 double plays per game against .62 for Royce. That means that Jose turns one more DP than Clayton about once every 17 games.

Careerwise, Clayton's range is 4.52 against a league average of 4.13 while Jose's is 4.46 against a league average of 4.18. Clayton performs at a rate of 9.4% above the league average in his career, while Jose performs at a rate of 6.9% above the league average.

I won't bother getting into fielding percentage because we all know where that will take us.

All of the above info, I think, clearly shows that Valentin doesn't blow Clayton out of the water either careerwise or recently, as you suggested. There are a lot of factors that still need consideration, such as "how injured was Jose during '98-'99?" Maybe that effected his numbers. The other factor is that Jose has shown a very upward trend in the last two years. Is that a statistical trend or an anomaly?

All things considered (hitting, fielding, leadership), Valentin ought to play SS over Clayton, with Crede playing 3B. When it comes to evaluating just defense, I still lean a little toward Clayton. His numbers lend me no reason to believe he hasn't any range or arm.

idseer
03-13-2002, 03:48 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


I will GLADLY concede, to anyone here, that baseball's defensive statistics SUCK! I can't think of a single one of them that doesn't have a giant disclaimer attached to it.

Unfortunately, there are people here who INSIST that one ballplayer is better than another based solely on that ballplayer's alledged defensive superiority. It's a certified load of a crap we here have been dancing around for months.

now i KNOW you don't mean me. in fact i'm not sure just who falls into the catagory of saying one ballplayer is better than another based SOLELY on their defense.

Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
You want to believe defensive stats have merit, fine. Be my guest to make your case.

However, be warned! We've traveled over this turf many times before and nobody exits the fight unbloodied. Only the fools here think they haven't been cut.

it's always been my contention that one may be better at a certain position FOR THE TEAM than another, given the makeup of the team. but that's not saying one is arbitrarily better than the other. i've always been very careful about that.

Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Me? I'm not buying a word of it.

i've yet to see anyone here change their minds regarding royce/jose, and i don't expect to.
i HAVE, however, seen a slight shift in in the amount of disrespect royce has gotten and less blame on him for jose's plight ... which is as it should be.

in fact the only time i speak up about these guys is when someone jumps down his throat unfairly (IMO).

BUT ..... i MAY start a thread when at the allstar break, jose is on the bench injured and hitting .242 with 7 hr's and 22 rbi's, and clayton is hitting .286 with 7 hr's and 46 rbi's ... and, of course leading the american league in fldg percentage. :D:

bjmarte
03-13-2002, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by idseer


now i KNOW you don't mean me. in fact i'm not sure just who falls into the catagory of saying one ballplayer is better than another based SOLELY on their defense.



it's always been my contention that one may be better at a certain position FOR THE TEAM than another, given the makeup of the team. but that's not saying one is arbitrarily better than the other. i've always been very careful about that.



i've yet to see anyone here change their minds regarding royce/jose, and i don't expect to.
i HAVE, however, seen a slight shift in in the amount of disrespect royce has gotten and less blame on him for jose's plight ... which is as it should be.

in fact the only time i speak up about these guys is when someone jumps down his throat unfairly (IMO).

BUT ..... i MAY start a thread when at the allstar break, jose is on the bench injured and hitting .242 with 7 hr's and 22 rbi's, and clayton is hitting .286 with 7 hr's and 46 rbi's ... and, of course leading the american league in fldg percentage. :D:

And if it doesn't happen I'll be looking for a post from you too.

idseer
03-13-2002, 04:03 PM
Originally posted by bjmarte


And if it doesn't happen I'll be looking for a post from you too.

fair enough!

Bmr31
03-13-2002, 06:21 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


I will GLADLY concede, to anyone here, that baseball's defensive statistics SUCK! I can't think of a single one of them that doesn't have a giant disclaimer attached to it.

Unfortunately, there are people here who INSIST that one ballplayer is better than another based solely on that ballplayer's alledged defensive superiority. It's a certified load of a crap we here have been dancing around for months.

You want to believe defensive stats have merit, fine. Be my guest to make your case.

However, be warned! We've traveled over this turf many times before and nobody exits the fight unbloodied. Only the fools here think they haven't been cut.

Me? I'm not buying a word of it.

Here is an idea and i dont care who this offends....stop staring at stupid numbers and watch baseball games! After that, evaluate the players on your own. Its not that difficult. I dont need to stare at statistics to tell you jose is a horrible SS. In addition, anyone who says jeter is a poor defensive SS, needs to watch more baseball games and look at less stats. GOd gave us all brains and believe me our brains are more reliable than biased numbers...

MisterB
03-13-2002, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31


....stop staring at stupid numbers and watch baseball games!

GOd gave us all brains and believe me our brains are more reliable than biased numbers...

Unfortunately, he didn't give us all season tickets and sattelite dishes. :D:

czalgosz
03-13-2002, 08:44 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31


Here is an idea and i dont care who this offends....stop staring at stupid numbers and watch baseball games!

The problem with that thinking is this - anyone can look good for one play, or one at-bat, or one game. Most people have selective memories - they remember what they want to remember. Our memories are a lot more fallible than numbers are. Stats help us sort through all of our individual and biased memories, and give us a picture of the player as a whole.

Defense is really, really hard to objectively analyse, because it's dependent on a lot of factors outside of that player. It depends on who's pitching, who the other guys on the field are, even who's batting. For this reason, fielding stats are really misleading. Even statheads will acknowledge this.

But watching someone play defense is almost as deceiving as looking at their fielding stats. You end up with "you say potato, I say potatoh" type arguments like this -

A - Jeter has great range - look at that play!

B - No, he doesn't - he just made an easy play look hard because he doesn't have good instincts and doesn't know how to position himself to make those plays.

A - You're crazy!

B - No, you're a moron!

(conversation descends rapidly)

I just got the Baseball Prospectus, 2002 edition, and they do a really long and complicated formula that varies from position to position to determine fielding worthiness. Long story short, they found that Clayton had a career year defensively last year, and was better defensively than Valentin was in 2000. However, two codicils for BP -

1) Last year was the first year that Clayton had a higher defensive rating than Valentin in the last three, and

2) In Clayton's blurb, they refer to him as "useless crap."

So take it for what it's worth.

bc2k
03-13-2002, 10:36 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31


Here is an idea and i dont care who this offends....stop staring at stupid numbers and watch baseball games! After that, evaluate the players on your own. Its not that difficult. I dont need to stare at statistics to tell you jose is a horrible SS. In addition, anyone who says jeter is a poor defensive SS, needs to watch more baseball games and look at less stats. GOd gave us all brains and believe me our brains are more reliable than biased numbers...

Preach on brother. When evaluating the Red Sox we may have to depend on stats. When we see 150 games of our home town team, we can form a better judgement than any stat.

Bmr31
03-13-2002, 10:49 PM
Originally posted by bc2k


Preach on brother. When evaluating the Red Sox we may have to depend on stats. When we see 150 games of our home town team, we can form a better judgement than any stat.

some people have access to most MLB games. It amazes me that people can have opinions of players by seeing them play rarely or never. For instance, how many of the Todd Ritchie supporters have ever seen him pitch. My guess is none of them.

RedPinStripes
03-13-2002, 11:07 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31


Here is an idea and i dont care who this offends....stop staring at stupid numbers and watch baseball games! After that, evaluate the players on your own. Its not that difficult. I dont need to stare at statistics to tell you jose is a horrible SS. In addition, anyone who says jeter is a poor defensive SS, needs to watch more baseball games and look at less stats. GOd gave us all brains and believe me our brains are more reliable than biased numbers...

HELL YEAH!!!!!!!!

Soxboyrob
03-14-2002, 09:37 AM
Originally posted by Bmr31


some people have access to most MLB games. It amazes me that people can have opinions of players by seeing them play rarely or never. For instance, how many of the Todd Ritchie supporters have ever seen him pitch. My guess is none of them.

I saw him pitch vs. the Sox and he looked pretty good, despite our scoring quite a bit on him. I seem to remember the Buc defense really letting him down.

PaleHoseGeorge
03-14-2002, 09:44 AM
Originally posted by Bmr31
some people have access to most MLB games. It amazes me that people can have opinions of players by seeing them play rarely or never. For instance, how many of the Todd Ritchie supporters have ever seen him pitch. My guess is none of them.

FWIW, the empirical evidence collected from "watching ballgames" needs to be qualified, too. Statistics don't tell the story, but neither does going to the ballpark and spending half your time watching the bikini tops in the bleachers either.

Sorry, watching a game on TV is usually a poor substitute for watching a game in person. The view of the camera is too slow and too narrow to capture what is happening on the playing field. Even worse, there are simply too many distractions watching at home or a bar. Commercial breaks invite you to get off the couch, surf other channels, or (and you KNOW this happens all the time), tune into another sporting event--like one of the other ten ballgames that the MLB Ticket package provides on the bird.

Sorry. "Watching ballgames" is a lousy reason for staking a claim to baseball expertise.

voodoochile
03-14-2002, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


FWIW, the empirical evidence collected from "watching ballgames" needs to be qualified, too. Statistics don't tell the story, but neither does going to the ballpark and spending half your time watching the bikini tops in the bleachers either.

Sorry, watching a game on TV is usually a poor substitute for watching a game in person. The view of the camera is too slow and too narrow to capture what is happening on the playing field. Even worse, there are simply too many distractions watching at home or a bar. Commercial breaks invite you to get off the couch, surf other channels, or (and you KNOW this happens all the time), tune into another sporting event--like one of the other ten ballgames that the MLB Ticket package provides on the bird.

Sorry. "Watching ballgames" is a lousy reason for staking a claim to baseball expertise.

There needs to be a balance between the two. Watching a live ball game, we all tend to remember the big plays. That is considered "anecdotal evidence" and is the same reason people believe in ghosts and UFO's (for which there is no "empirical evidence" at all). Our minds tend to remember big hits and spectacular plays, but gloss over the events that don't fit our belief structure. Statistics can help us back up that which we belive with numbers.

For example: It is easy to say Frank Thomas is a great hitter, watching the games, but many people on this site are surprised to find out how great Frank was early in his career. We tend to remember that he had sub-par years in '98/'99 and then toss in the fact that he was injured most of last season (after a slow start) and then make statements like, "he's done". The fact is the evidence doesn't support that statement. When you compare his numbers from the "down years" they are still very solid and one of them included a month off for foot surgery. Last year cannot be talked about at all - due to the small sample size. In 2000 got robbed for the MVP, but our anecdotal evidence says, "He stunk, was injured, held out, whined. He's done." Statistically speaking it doesn't hold up, but our minds tell us otherwise...

(trying to find an example that doesn't include Royce and Jose)

idseer
03-14-2002, 12:18 PM
statistics are what separate baseball from most other sports. to say you can't judge a player JUST BY HIS STATS is not true.
show me a good player who has lousy stats, or a poor player who has good stats. there are hitters with beautiful swings that can't hit, hitters with horrible swings that can. flashy fielders who are inconsistant and fielders who make everything look routine.

the great thing about stats is that you NEVER HAVE TO SEE A GAME AT ALL, to know who is great, good, or poor!

sorry bmr .... over time, stats don't lie!

PaleHoseGeorge
03-14-2002, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by idseer
statistics are what separate baseball from most other sports. to say you can't judge a player JUST BY HIS STATS is not true.
show me a good player who has lousy stats, or a poor player who has good stats. there are hitters with beautiful swings that can't hit, hitters with horrible swings that can. flashy fielders who are inconsistant and fielders who make everything look routine.

the great thing about stats is that you NEVER HAVE TO SEE A GAME AT ALL, to know who is great, good, or poor!

sorry bmr .... over time, stats don't lie!

Oh, brother... now we're swinging 180 degrees the opposite direction.

Look, baseball's offensive statistics are probably the best and most accurate of any statistics available in any team sport. They tell a real story because:

1. They measure quantifiable INDIVIDUAL performance,
2. The results are specific, measurable, and largely unchanged over the past 100 years, and
3. The sample size is plenty big enough to draw conclusions--even within single-seasons.

Compare that to the crap that fills up the average NFL, NHL, or NBA boxscore. It's not even close. "Statistics" (using the loosest sense of the word) in these sports depend too much on what the latest rules changes allow, and the contribution of other players. For example, who was football's better quarterback, Johnny Unitas or Joe Montana? Nobody can possibly know the answer because these two greats played a game that was vastly different.

Baseball's pitching stats aren't nearly as good as offensive stats, and the defensive stats are no better than the crap other sports provide as "numeric proof". It's a joke.

The result of a ballplayer's at-bat is one of the few times in team sports everything relies solely on individual effort. The closest comparision I can think of is basketball's free throw percentage. How well your team shoots from the charity stripe isn't nearly as important to winning a basketball game as how well you hit to winning a baseball game.

idseer
03-14-2002, 03:04 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


Oh, brother... now we're swinging 180 degrees the opposite direction.

Look, baseball's offensive statistics are probably the best and most accurate of any statistics available in any team sport. They tell a real story because:

1. They measure quantifiable INDIVIDUAL performance,
2. The results are specific, measurable, and largely unchanged over the past 100 years, and
3. The sample size is plenty big enough to draw conclusions--even within single-seasons.

Compare that to the crap that fills up the average NFL, NHL, or NBA boxscore. It's not even close. "Statistics" (using the loosest sense of the word) in these sports depend too much on what the latest rules changes allow, and the contribution of other players. For example, who was football's better quarterback, Johnny Unitas or Joe Montana? Nobody can possibly know the answer because these two greats played a game that was vastly different.

Baseball's pitching stats aren't nearly as good as offensive stats, and the defensive stats are no better than the crap other sports provide as "numeric proof". It's a joke.

The result of a ballplayer's at-bat is one of the few times in team sports everything relies solely on individual effort. The closest comparision I can think of is basketball's free throw percentage. How well your team shoots from the charity stripe isn't nearly as important to winning a basketball game as how well you hit to winning a baseball game.

then show me a very FIELDING good ss with a crummy fldg percentage.
or show me a poor one with a really good percentage.
i think you downgrade fldg percentage way too much. fldg percentage alone may not be the holy grail of of measuring sticks but i believe it ultimately separates the good from the bad.
it's not the only stat ..... but i believe it's a very good one.

czalgosz
03-14-2002, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by idseer


then show me a very FIELDING good ss with a crummy fldg percentage.
or show me a poor one with a really good percentage.
i think you downgrade fldg percentage way too much. fldg percentage alone may not be the holy grail of of measuring sticks but i believe it ultimately separates the good from the bad.
it's not the only stat ..... but i believe it's a very good one.

All fielding percentage measures is how often a player makes errors, which is only one part of fielding. What's more important is how many balls in play that you can get to. Now, we can look at how many balls that a fielder handles, but if you're a shortstop who plays on a team that has a lot of fly-ball pitchers, or play next to an outstanding defensive shortstop or thirdbaseman, you're not going to get to as many balls as you would normally.

Fielding stats just don't tell you the whole story. Really, you've got to look at scouting reports to get any sort of indication of what kind of fielder a player is.

RichH55
03-14-2002, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by idseer


then show me a very FIELDING good ss with a crummy fldg percentage.
or show me a poor one with a really good percentage.
i think you downgrade fldg percentage way too much. fldg percentage alone may not be the holy grail of of measuring sticks but i believe it ultimately separates the good from the bad.
it's not the only stat ..... but i believe it's a very good one.

Whats the line? You can't make an error on a ball you don't get to? And if you are a fraction of a second slower than a normal SS and that means you turn less DPs does that show up in the Fielding Percentage? Even the Gold Glove is sort of a joke(Didn't Palmero win it with like 39 games in the field?)...Baseball defensive statistics are some of the worse stats out there....just riddled with holes

idseer
03-14-2002, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by RichH55


Whats the line? You can't make an error on a ball you don't get to? And if you are a fraction of a second slower than a normal SS and that means you turn less DPs does that show up in the Fielding Percentage? Even the Gold Glove is sort of a joke(Didn't Palmero win it with like 39 games in the field?)...Baseball defensive statistics are some of the worse stats out there....just riddled with holes

you can keep saying the same thing over and over ... or you can answer my questions.

idseer
03-14-2002, 03:54 PM
here's my point. over 1000 games .... best fielding percentage leader most consecutive years ... aparicio (8), o. smith (7)
career leader ... vizquel .981
season leader ... c. ripken .996 (tho one season doesn't mean as much)

all you're doing is pointing out individual cases of where ther are anomalies.
what i'm saying is that all things being even your best fielders are going to have the best fldg percentages.
don't tell me about what kind of pitching staff a team has. that all evens out in the long run.
don't tell me about guys who can't move lead in fldg %. it's not true! look at all the best fielding percentages and you'll find all the best fielders!

who cares if some guys won the gold glove by playing only 39 games? we aren't talking about prizes.
i'm saying that over a certain amount of time the cream rises to the top and fielding percentage is a pretty darn good gauge of this!

czalgosz
03-14-2002, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by idseer


you can keep saying the same thing over and over ... or you can answer my questions.

Fine, I'll answer... Arod was right in the middle of the pack last season in terms of fielding percentage at .976, but I would argue that he's the best defensive shortstop in the American League. Omar Vizquel was first at .989, but I would say that he's overrated defensively at this point in his career.

You can argue that Vizquel is a better shortstop than Arod, but fielding stats just aren't the argument-ender the way hitting stats are.

czalgosz
03-14-2002, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by idseer

don't tell me about what kind of pitching staff a team has. that all evens out in the long run.
don't tell me about guys who can't move lead in fldg %. it's not true! look at all the best fielding percentages and you'll find all the best fielders!

The problem is that you're using the player to prove the stat, not the stat to prove the player. You're saying, well, Ozzie Smith had a good fielding percentage, and Smith was a good fielder, so fielding percentage is a good indicator. You're using good fielders as a given, and then looking at their fielding stats. You can't look at a fielding stat, without knowing whose it is, and make a judgement call as to what kind of fielder they are, the way you can with hitting stats.

voodoochile
03-14-2002, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz


The problem is that you're using the player to prove the stat, not the stat to prove the player. You're saying, well, Ozzie Smith had a good fielding percentage, and Smith was a good fielder, so fielding percentage is a good indicator. You're using good fielders as a given, and then looking at their fielding stats. You can't look at a fielding stat, without knowing whose it is, and make a judgement call as to what kind of fielder they are, the way you can with hitting stats.

That is an excellent statistical point. Finding guys who were good fielders who have excellent stats does not mean that all good fielders have good stats. The best ones not only have few errors, but they make the most plays.

The opposite of the statement "all good defensive players have good fld%" is NOT "All bad defensive players have bad fld%". Instead it is "all players with bad fld% are bad defensively." (a poor stat will prove a bad defender, but a good one will not rule out a poor defender). You cannot prove one way or the other that a player is good or bad defensively by strictly looking at their fld% (as some bad defenders could have excellent fld%). (Though technically the opposite of good is not-good = Bad OR average).

Still the question of what makes a fielder a good fielder goes unanswered. Fld% is overrated as a stat, but we have been down that road before and idseer disagrees...

bjmarte
03-14-2002, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by idseer
here's my point. over 1000 games .... best fielding percentage leader most consecutive years ... aparicio (8), o. smith (7)
career leader ... vizquel .981
season leader ... c. ripken .996 (tho one season doesn't mean as much)

all you're doing is pointing out individual cases of where ther are anomalies.
what i'm saying is that all things being even your best fielders are going to have the best fldg percentages.
don't tell me about what kind of pitching staff a team has. that all evens out in the long run.
don't tell me about guys who can't move lead in fldg %. it's not true! look at all the best fielding percentages and you'll find all the best fielders!

who cares if some guys won the gold glove by playing only 39 games? we aren't talking about prizes.
i'm saying that over a certain amount of time the cream rises to the top and fielding percentage is a pretty darn good gauge of this!

It sounds like you are saying that the anomalies average out over the course of a career. That may be true but that only makes the stat useful in judging a player when looking back in retrospect at the end of their career. If "one season doesn't mean as much" in terms of the stat, it doesn't make it very useful for comparing seasons between players or evaluating young players or prospects.

idseer
03-14-2002, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz


The problem is that you're using the player to prove the stat, not the stat to prove the player. You're saying, well, Ozzie Smith had a good fielding percentage, and Smith was a good fielder, so fielding percentage is a good indicator. You're using good fielders as a given, and then looking at their fielding stats. You can't look at a fielding stat, without knowing whose it is, and make a judgement call as to what kind of fielder they are, the way you can with hitting stats.

i believe it would work either way. show me good fldg % over at least 500 games and i'll show you a good fielder.
i was just pointing to some examples in my previous post.

idseer
03-14-2002, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile


That is an excellent statistical point. Finding guys who were good fielders who have excellent stats does not mean that all good fielders have good stats. The best ones not only have few errors, but they make the most plays.

The opposite of the statement "all good defensive players have good fld%" is NOT "All bad defensive players have bad fld%". Instead it is "all players with bad fld% are bad defensively." (a poor stat will prove a bad defender, but a good one will not rule out a poor defender). You cannot prove one way or the other that a player is good or bad defensively by strictly looking at their fld% (as some bad defenders could have excellent fld%). (Though technically the opposite of good is not-good = Bad OR average).

Still the question of what makes a fielder a good fielder goes unanswered. Fld% is overrated as a stat, but we have been down that road before and idseer disagrees...

the show me a really good fielder who has a fairly poor fldg %.

where we disagree is how important fldg % is. i will admit there are small differences and someone with a slightly higher fldg % may NOT be as good as someone who has MANY more chances. but over all i stick with my theory that the best fielders ultimately end up with the best fldg %

idseer
03-14-2002, 05:11 PM
Originally posted by bjmarte


It sounds like you are saying that the anomalies average out over the course of a career. That may be true but that only makes the stat useful in judging a player when looking back in retrospect at the end of their career. If "one season doesn't mean as much" in terms of the stat, it doesn't make it very useful for comparing seasons between players or evaluating young players or prospects.

statistics are statistics and we make judgements based on probablities. when evaluating players with, say, 3 years experience and everything elses equals out between the 2 except one player has a better fielding percentage. who do you chose?

i choose the one with the better avg. i may not always be right, but i'll bet i'll be right more than 50% of the time.

idseer
03-14-2002, 05:19 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz


Fine, I'll answer... Arod was right in the middle of the pack last season in terms of fielding percentage at .976, but I would argue that he's the best defensive shortstop in the American League. Omar Vizquel was first at .989, but I would say that he's overrated defensively at this point in his career.

You can argue that Vizquel is a better shortstop than Arod, but fielding stats just aren't the argument-ender the way hitting stats are.

i can't disagree too much, however, you could take the same stance with two great hitter ... one who hit .372 and the other who hits .365.

my point (at least partially) is that that average says a LOT about their ability. same with the fldg %!

PaleHoseGeorge
03-14-2002, 06:30 PM
Originally posted by idseer


i can't disagree too much, however, you could take the same stance with two great hitter ... one who hit .372 and the other who hits .365.

my point (at least partially) is that that average says a LOT about their ability. same with the fldg %!


Read my lips, ID:

FIELDING PERCENTAGE IS NOT THE SAME AS DEFENSIVE WORTH.

Of all the conventional baseball stats, fielding percentage is--by far--the most subjective and least useful. That's because it's based on the subjective opinion of the official scorer as to what constitutes an error. These people are hired by the home team and serve plenty of home cooking to the local nine. Fielding percentage is baseball's equivalent to alchemy.

Comparing hitting percentage to fielding percentage is ludicrous. 99 percent of at-bats are decided clearly as hits or outs. The official scorer had NOTHING to do with it.

Please pick another stat to attempt to hang your argument on.

idseer
03-14-2002, 06:40 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge



Read my lips, ID:

FIELDING PERCENTAGE IS NOT THE SAME AS DEFENSIVE WORTH.

Of all the conventional baseball stats, fielding percentage is--by far--the most subjective and least useful. That's because it's based on the subjective opinion of the official scorer as to what constitutes an error. These people are hired by the home team and serve plenty of home cooking to the local nine. Fielding percentage is baseball's equivalent to alchemy.

Comparing hitting percentage to fielding percentage is ludicrous. 99 percent of at-bats are decided clearly as hits or outs. The official scorer had NOTHING to do with it.

Please pick another stat to attempt to hang your argument on.

gee george, you KNOW how i hate to disagree with you ....but .....
it isn't all as subjective as you try to make it sound. it's only based on a scorer's subjective opinion RARELY ... unless you really think every play is questionable! do you?
and even when it DOES happen ... i still say it averages out over time. no, i believe it holds much more importance than you seem to think.

FarWestChicago
03-14-2002, 06:58 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Of all the conventional baseball stats, fielding percentage is--by far--the most subjective and least useful.:hitless :ray

We have no idea what you mean by subjective. We see no reason why the scorer at Comiskey should expect us to field a ball hit within 5 feet of us...and they don't!!

PaleHoseGeorge
03-14-2002, 07:00 PM
Originally posted by idseer
gee george, you KNOW how i hate to disagree with you ....but .....
it isn't all as subjective as you try to make it sound. it's only based on a scorer's subjective opinion RARELY ... unless you really think every play is questionable! do you?
and even when it DOES happen ... i still say it averages out over time. no, i believe it holds much more importance than you seem to think.

Who said anything about trying to convince you? I'm trying to head off anybody else before they fall for such nonsense as comparing hitting and fielding percentage.

I've already stated my case for why fielding percentage is a subjective pile of crap, baseball's version of alchemy. You're entitled to your opposing opinion.

So instead, answer this question. In the entire recorded history of the game, how many errors have ever been called that weren't subject to the opinion of the official scorer?

Game, set, match.

Bmr31
03-14-2002, 07:17 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


FWIW, the empirical evidence collected from "watching ballgames" needs to be qualified, too. Statistics don't tell the story, but neither does going to the ballpark and spending half your time watching the bikini tops in the bleachers either.

Sorry, watching a game on TV is usually a poor substitute for watching a game in person. The view of the camera is too slow and too narrow to capture what is happening on the playing field. Even worse, there are simply too many distractions watching at home or a bar. Commercial breaks invite you to get off the couch, surf other channels, or (and you KNOW this happens all the time), tune into another sporting event--like one of the other ten ballgames that the MLB Ticket package provides on the bird.

Sorry. "Watching ballgames" is a lousy reason for staking a claim to baseball expertise.

Obviously i pay attention to stats as im into fantasy baseball, big time. I get more out of watching baseball than statistics and i win almost every league i join. Thats proof enough for me.......

voodoochile
03-14-2002, 07:19 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


Who said anything about trying to convince you? I'm trying to head off anybody else before they fall for such nonsense as comparing hitting and fielding percentage.

I've already stated my case for why fielding percentage is a subjective pile of crap, baseball's version of alchemy. You're entitled to your opposing opinion.

So instead, answer this question. In the entire recorded history of the game, how many errors have ever been called that weren't subject to the opinion of the official scorer?

Game, set, match.

Billy Buck, WS, 9th inning, game 6, through the wickets...

I don't see much subjective about that call. Not a lot of room for ambiguity. That was an error, period.

I understand your point though, but I think idseer has a valid point also - most errors are not ambiguous. Yes, they all require the official scorers stamp of approval, and there are no official rules about when a ball is or is not an error (I don't think). Still, most of them are pretty cut and dried.

There, ID, I stuck up for you... feel better?

Paulwny
03-14-2002, 07:26 PM
I guess Manny Ramirez ( lifetime fd% of0.976) is almost the equal of Willie Mays (lifetime fd% 0.981).

Bmr31
03-14-2002, 07:28 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny
I guess Manny Ramirez ( lifetime fd% of0.976) is almost the equal of Willie Mays (lifetime fd% 0.981).


LOL! Thats what im saying!

Bmr31
03-14-2002, 07:33 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny
I guess Manny Ramirez ( lifetime fd% of0.976) is almost the equal of Willie Mays (lifetime fd% 0.981).

although i do have to admit, that isnt as close as it looks....

czalgosz
03-14-2002, 07:55 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31


Obviously i pay attention to stats as im into fantasy baseball, big time. I get more out of watching baseball than statistics and i win almost every league i join. Thats proof enough for me.......

Well, that explains it... the stats used in fantasy baseball (batting average, home runs, stolen bases, etc.) are not very good ones in determining how good a player is. There are much better ones out there, and not complicated ones, either, like SLG, OBP, WHIP, K/BB ratio - if you look at those four numbers, they give you a much better picture of the player.

Throw in park adjustments like Sabermetricians do, and you've got yourself some really useful stats.

The problem I have with going off of the experience of watching games is that even if you watch every at-bat a player has, or every pitch a pitcher throws, you aren't going to remember every single one. It's just not possible. So, unless you've got hours and hours of footage of every AB the way Tony Gwynn used to do, stats are a better way to determine how good a player really is.

Paulwny
03-14-2002, 08:00 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31


although i do have to admit, that isnt as close as it looks....

OK, Maggs 0.986 better then Mays 0.981.

idseer
03-14-2002, 08:05 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny
I guess Manny Ramirez ( lifetime fd% of0.976) is almost the equal of Willie Mays (lifetime fd% 0.981).

tell you what paul .... show me willie's of fielding percentage alone and then get back to me.

Bmr31
03-14-2002, 08:09 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz


Well, that explains it... the stats used in fantasy baseball (batting average, home runs, stolen bases, etc.) are not very good ones in determining how good a player is. There are much better ones out there, and not complicated ones, either, like SLG, OBP, WHIP, K/BB ratio - if you look at those four numbers, they give you a much better picture of the player.

Throw in park adjustments like Sabermetricians do, and you've got yourself some really useful stats.

The problem I have with going off of the experience of watching games is that even if you watch every at-bat a player has, or every pitch a pitcher throws, you aren't going to remember every single one. It's just not possible. So, unless you've got hours and hours of footage of every AB the way Tony Gwynn used to do, stats are a better way to determine how good a player really is.


sorry that is incorrect. Your brain can recall everything that has happened in your entire life...

Paulwny
03-14-2002, 08:11 PM
Originally posted by idseer


tell you what paul .... show me willie's of fielding percentage alone and then get back to me.


Look at just of at the bottom

Daver
03-14-2002, 08:11 PM
Originally posted by idseer


tell you what paul .... show me willie's of fielding percentage alone and then get back to me.

He did,so go ahead with your reply.

idseer
03-14-2002, 08:11 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile


Billy Buck, WS, 9th inning, game 6, through the wickets...

I don't see much subjective about that call. Not a lot of room for ambiguity. That was an error, period.

I understand your point though, but I think idseer has a valid point also - most errors are not ambiguous. Yes, they all require the official scorers stamp of approval, and there are no official rules about when a ball is or is not an error (I don't think). Still, most of them are pretty cut and dried.

There, ID, I stuck up for you... feel better?

actually i do voo! (ha)
i was beginning to lose faith in the reasoning in here.
thanks!

idseer
03-14-2002, 08:12 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31



LOL! Thats what im saying!

wait till you have the facts bmr.

Paulwny
03-14-2002, 08:13 PM
Originally posted by idseer


tell you what paul .... show me willie's of fielding percentage alone and then get back to me.

Sorry about the last one, look at the bottom of


Fielding Glossary

Year Ag Tm Lg Pos G PO A E DP FP lgFP RnF lgRnF LF CF RF
+--------------+---+----+------+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+----+----+
1951 20 NYG NL OF 121 353 12 9 2 .976 .981 3.02 2.23 0 121 0
1952 21 NYG NL OF 34 109 6 1 2 .991 .981 3.38 2.10 0 34 0
1954 23 NYG NL OF 151 448 13 7 9 .985 .975 3.05 2.18 0 151 0
1955 24 NYG NL OF 152 407 23 8 8 .982 .977 2.83 2.10 0 152 0
1956 25 NYG NL OF 152 415 14 9 6 .979 .977 2.82 2.05 0 152 0
1957 26 NYG NL OF 150 422 14 9 5 .980 .980 2.91 2.07 0 150 0
1958 27 SFG NL OF 151 429 17 9 2 .980 .980 2.95 1.95 0 151 0
1959 28 SFG NL OF 147 353 6 6 2 .984 .977 2.44 1.90 2 146 0
1960 29 SFG NL OF 152 392 12 8 2 .981 .978 2.66 1.92 0 152 0
1961 30 SFG NL OF 153 385 7 8 3 .980 .977 2.56 1.86 0 153 0
1962 31 SFG NL OF 161 429 6 4 1 .991 .974 2.70 1.79 0 161 0
1963 32 SFG NL OF 157 397 7 8 1 .981 .977 2.57 1.75 0 157 0
SS 1 0 0 0 0 .000 .961 0.00 4.22
1964 33 SFG NL OF 155 370 10 6 4 .984 .973 2.45 1.72 0 155 0
1B 1 6 1 0 1 1.000 .990 7.00 8.83
3B 1 0 1 0 0 1.000 .941 1.00 2.60
SS 1 0 0 0 0 .000 .963 0.00 4.32
1965 34 SFG NL OF 151 337 13 6 4 .983 .975 2.32 1.75 1 147 5
1966 35 SFG NL OF 150 370 8 7 2 .982 .974 2.52 1.78 1 145 5
1967 36 SFG NL OF 134 277 3 7 0 .976 .976 2.09 1.81 0 134 0
1968 37 SFG NL OF 142 301 7 7 2 .978 .975 2.17 1.82 0 142 0
1B 1 9 0 0 1 1.000 .992 9.00 8.91
1969 38 SFG NL OF 108 199 4 5 0 .976 .973 1.88 1.75 0 106 2
1B 1 6 0 0 1 1.000 .992 6.00 8.84
1970 39 SFG NL OF 129 269 6 7 3 .975 .976 2.13 1.78 0 129 0
1B 5 34 3 0 3 1.000 .992 7.40 8.37
1971 40 SFG NL OF 84 192 2 6 1 .970 .979 2.31 1.92 0 84 0
1B 48 384 27 11 43 .974 .992 8.56 8.58
1972 41 NYM NL OF 49 109 3 3 1 .974 .978 2.29 1.96 1 48 0
1B 11 75 2 1 3 .987 .992 7.00 8.42
SFG NL OF 14 29 0 0 0 1.000 .978 2.07 1.96 0 14 0
TOT NL OF 63 138 3 3 1 .979 .978 2.24 1.96
1973 42 NYM NL OF 45 103 2 1 0 .991 .977 2.33 1.96 5 43 9
1B 17 143 4 3 9 .980 .992 8.65 8.40
+--------------+---+----+------+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+----+----+
Position Total OF 2842 7095 195 141 60 .981 .977 2.57 1.91 10 2827 21
1B 84 657 37 15 61 .979 .991 8.26 8.52
SS 2 0 0 0 0 .000 .000 0.00 4.50
3B 1 0 1 0 0 1.000 1.000 1.00 3.00
+--------------+---+----+------+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+----+----+
Overall Total 2929 7752 233 156 121 .981 .978 2.73 2.10

Postseason Batting

Bmr31
03-14-2002, 08:18 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny


Sorry about the last one, look at the bottom of


Fielding Glossary

Year Ag Tm Lg Pos G PO A E DP FP lgFP RnF lgRnF LF CF RF
+--------------+---+----+------+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+----+----+
1951 20 NYG NL OF 121 353 12 9 2 .976 .981 3.02 2.23 0 121 0
1952 21 NYG NL OF 34 109 6 1 2 .991 .981 3.38 2.10 0 34 0
1954 23 NYG NL OF 151 448 13 7 9 .985 .975 3.05 2.18 0 151 0
1955 24 NYG NL OF 152 407 23 8 8 .982 .977 2.83 2.10 0 152 0
1956 25 NYG NL OF 152 415 14 9 6 .979 .977 2.82 2.05 0 152 0
1957 26 NYG NL OF 150 422 14 9 5 .980 .980 2.91 2.07 0 150 0
1958 27 SFG NL OF 151 429 17 9 2 .980 .980 2.95 1.95 0 151 0
1959 28 SFG NL OF 147 353 6 6 2 .984 .977 2.44 1.90 2 146 0
1960 29 SFG NL OF 152 392 12 8 2 .981 .978 2.66 1.92 0 152 0
1961 30 SFG NL OF 153 385 7 8 3 .980 .977 2.56 1.86 0 153 0
1962 31 SFG NL OF 161 429 6 4 1 .991 .974 2.70 1.79 0 161 0
1963 32 SFG NL OF 157 397 7 8 1 .981 .977 2.57 1.75 0 157 0
SS 1 0 0 0 0 .000 .961 0.00 4.22
1964 33 SFG NL OF 155 370 10 6 4 .984 .973 2.45 1.72 0 155 0
1B 1 6 1 0 1 1.000 .990 7.00 8.83
3B 1 0 1 0 0 1.000 .941 1.00 2.60
SS 1 0 0 0 0 .000 .963 0.00 4.32
1965 34 SFG NL OF 151 337 13 6 4 .983 .975 2.32 1.75 1 147 5
1966 35 SFG NL OF 150 370 8 7 2 .982 .974 2.52 1.78 1 145 5
1967 36 SFG NL OF 134 277 3 7 0 .976 .976 2.09 1.81 0 134 0
1968 37 SFG NL OF 142 301 7 7 2 .978 .975 2.17 1.82 0 142 0
1B 1 9 0 0 1 1.000 .992 9.00 8.91
1969 38 SFG NL OF 108 199 4 5 0 .976 .973 1.88 1.75 0 106 2
1B 1 6 0 0 1 1.000 .992 6.00 8.84
1970 39 SFG NL OF 129 269 6 7 3 .975 .976 2.13 1.78 0 129 0
1B 5 34 3 0 3 1.000 .992 7.40 8.37
1971 40 SFG NL OF 84 192 2 6 1 .970 .979 2.31 1.92 0 84 0
1B 48 384 27 11 43 .974 .992 8.56 8.58
1972 41 NYM NL OF 49 109 3 3 1 .974 .978 2.29 1.96 1 48 0
1B 11 75 2 1 3 .987 .992 7.00 8.42
SFG NL OF 14 29 0 0 0 1.000 .978 2.07 1.96 0 14 0
TOT NL OF 63 138 3 3 1 .979 .978 2.24 1.96
1973 42 NYM NL OF 45 103 2 1 0 .991 .977 2.33 1.96 5 43 9
1B 17 143 4 3 9 .980 .992 8.65 8.40
+--------------+---+----+------+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+----+----+
Position Total OF 2842 7095 195 141 60 .981 .977 2.57 1.91 10 2827 21
1B 84 657 37 15 61 .979 .991 8.26 8.52
SS 2 0 0 0 0 .000 .000 0.00 4.50
3B 1 0 1 0 0 1.000 1.000 1.00 3.00
+--------------+---+----+------+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+----+----+
Overall Total 2929 7752 233 156 121 .981 .978 2.73 2.10

Postseason Batting


lol okay someone needs additional interests......

idseer
03-14-2002, 08:20 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny


Sorry about the last one, look at the bottom of


Fielding Glossary

Year Ag Tm Lg Pos G PO A E DP FP lgFP RnF lgRnF LF CF RF
+--------------+---+----+------+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+----+----+
1951 20 NYG NL OF 121 353 12 9 2 .976 .981 3.02 2.23 0 121 0
Overall Total 2929 7752 233 156 121 .981 .978 2.73 2.10

Postseason Batting

paul ... that .981 includes 15 errors made in a very short period of time at 1st base!
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/mlb/all_time_stats/players/m/42662/fielding.html

did you really think willie was that bad???

Paulwny
03-14-2002, 08:25 PM
Originally posted by idseer


paul ... that .981 includes 15 errors made in a very short period of time at 1st base!
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/mlb/all_time_stats/players/m/42662/fielding.html

did you really think willie was that bad???

As I said look at the bottom it's down by position

Position Total OF 2842 7095 195 141 60 .981 .977 2.57 1.91 10 2827 21
It just so happens that the totals for all positions also = the same for his of position

idseer
03-14-2002, 08:31 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny


As I said look at the bottom it's down by position

Position Total OF 2842 7095 195 141 60 .981 .977 2.57 1.91 10 2827 21
It just so happens that the totals for all positions also = the same for his of position

then i think your figures are wrong. you show games total of 2842 fldg % of .981

i show games total of 2930 with the same fldg % .981

i don't think your figures subtract out the other positions he played. or are you saying his fldg % was also .981 at the other positions?

Paulwny
03-14-2002, 08:31 PM
Here's the site with fielding broken down for all positions Mays played. I'm not saying Mays was a poor outfielder, but going by statistics you would say he was.


http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/mayswi01.shtml

idseer
03-14-2002, 08:42 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny
Here's the site with fielding broken down for all positions Mays played. I'm not saying Mays was a poor outfielder, but going by statistics you would say he was.


http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/mayswi01.shtml

ok i see your point. let me revise slightly. and i think this is fair.

my comments about fielding percentages don't work as well in the outfield. after checking and seeing clemente's % was .972 (wow can you believe THAT?) i believe assists chances and doubleplays may be as or more important.


i DO believe you won't find this situation in the infield however (maybe not counting 1b)

Paulwny
03-14-2002, 08:51 PM
Originally posted by idseer


ok i see your point. let me revise slightly. and i think this is fair.

my comments about fielding percentages don't work as well in the outfield. after checking and seeing clemente's % was .972 (wow can you believe THAT?) i believe assists chances and doubleplays may be as or more important.


i DO believe you won't find this situation in the infield however (maybe not counting 1b)


I don't have the time to look at any of the infieders however, according to statistcs Ron Hansen in 63 had a fd% of 0.983. That's better then the best attained by Aparicio and Dent. Ron Hansen was "ok" at short but not better then Aparicio or Dent.

It's been fun.

PaleHoseGeorge
03-14-2002, 08:56 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny
I don't have the time to look at any of the infieders however, according to statistcs Ron Hansen in 63 had a fd% of 0.983. That's better then the best attained by Aparicio and Dent. Ron Hansen was "ok" at short but not better then Aparicio or Dent.

It's been fun.


YES! Hansen had the highest fielding percentage of any Sox shortstop in the history of the franchise. To believe in the relevance of fielding percentage, not even Luis Aparicio was as good as the great Ron Hansen.

And who broke Hansen's record?

:hitless
"Ahem..."

LMAO!!! You knew we would end up right back here, again!!!!

:gulp:

idseer
03-14-2002, 10:43 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge



YES! Hansen had the highest fielding percentage of any Sox shortstop in the history of the franchise. To believe in the relevance of fielding percentage, not even Luis Aparicio was as good as the great Ron Hansen.

And who broke Hansen's record?

:hitless
"Ahem..."

LMAO!!! You knew we would end up right back here, again!!!!

:gulp:

i think i DID state that one season isn't enough to make a conclusion with. if it were then davey johnson would be a better homerun hitter than joe morgan

LongDistanceFan
03-14-2002, 11:01 PM
a great thread......... too bad i missed it.

PaleHoseGeorge
03-14-2002, 11:28 PM
Originally posted by idseer
i think i DID state that one season isn't enough to make a conclusion with. if it were then davey johnson would be a better homerun hitter than joe morgan

No need to convince me of this fact. Tell it to Jerry Manuel and Kenny Williams. They are the ones who gave the Choice another season as everyday shortstop based on this fraud of an accomplishment.

:KW
"I'm too dumb to know what the real value of fielding percentage is."

Mathew
03-15-2002, 04:32 AM
Originally posted by idseer
statistics are what separate baseball from most other sports. to say you can't judge a player JUST BY HIS STATS is not true.
show me a good player who has lousy stats, or a poor player who has good stats. there are hitters with beautiful swings that can't hit, hitters with horrible swings that can. flashy fielders who are inconsistant and fielders who make everything look routine.

the great thing about stats is that you NEVER HAVE TO SEE A GAME AT ALL, to know who is great, good, or poor!

sorry bmr .... over time, stats don't lie!

I got here late so I'll spare you repeating that I think a lot of pitchers in the league are better that Clayton at the plate.

The only stat I believe in is winning. Manny Lee of Toronto(omly player to strike out 100+ times in a season and not hit a home run) won a world series as a shortstop he wasn't that good but they won. Funny the way team sports are like that(fielding %s by season range from .967 to .993). Stats can help but I could never be a stathead. I'll introduce another random analogy. Football. QB Stats here can be important because it is accepted he runs the game. Trent Dilfer I think sucks. He has won his last 14 starts including a Super Bowl on two different teams. His stats aren't too impressive he just wins. A QB can throw a hail mary at the end of a half with :03 on the clock for the hell of it, it's still a pick like any other in the stats. A ball player can be up by 12 runs and hitting against the crap pitching the other team wants to waste, those stats count. I don't buy the stats don't lie thing, I'll try a different line. You make 1000 houses, you're a house builder but you F**k on chicken and you're a... Do I win for being as confusing as possible? Hope so, In conclusion (finally) JUST WIN BABY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111

RichH55
03-15-2002, 04:33 AM
Originally posted by idseer


i think i DID state that one season isn't enough to make a conclusion with. if it were then davey johnson would be a better homerun hitter than joe morgan


So essentially your argument is "I'm right, if you think I'm wrong your reason is faulty.....if I use stats they were handed down from God on a mountaintop, but if you use stats/facts of your own or refuse to accept mine by bringing up counter points you are also wrong and/or you point is a one in a million scenario" Royce is god regardless of what anyone else might say........Is this assumption correct?

ma-gaga
03-15-2002, 10:07 AM
Originally posted by RichH55

So essentially your argument is "I'm right, if you think I'm wrong your reason is faulty.....if I use stats they were handed down from God on a mountaintop, but if you use stats/facts of your own or refuse to accept mine by bringing up counter points you are also wrong and/or you point is a one in a million scenario" Royce is god regardless of what anyone else might say........Is this assumption correct?

Yes. Well technically my argument would be: "I'm right."

not that you were talking to me...

Stats should be non-subjective. iron clad. everyone can agree on the source of them. The subjective part is what we're seeing in this thread. "What does fielding percentage mean."

Baseball is a subjective sport. Always has been, always will be. As long as the sport is being played by humans, umpired by humans and scored by humans, mistakes will be made. The Royce Clayton's of the world will play shortstop, and people will bitch about fielding percentage being a crappy stat.

:) I love this game.

Paulwny
03-15-2002, 10:55 AM
Originally posted by idseer

even catching wouldn't be looked at the same way.


Agree about the catching.
I think one big reason that better of's don't have high fd% is because their more aggresive. Poor of's rarely charge a ball, don't try to throw out runners going from 1st to 3rd. etc. The better of's will take chances and try to make a defense play. This creates situations for a greater chance to commit an error.