Jump to content

Reynolds: one error since July 4th


Frobby

Recommended Posts

So, you're really just arguing semantics.

I would virtually guarantee that most pitchers are pretty familiar with which of their fielders makes the most errors.

I do not think it "penalizes good defense" nearly as often as you make it out to happen.

Agreed on both fronts. Obviously, you can't make an error on a ball you can't reach, so a rangier player has more opportunities to make errors. But since a good fielder is only going to make an error less than 10% of the time, we're not talking about a ton of extra errors, especially at 3B it seems to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 123
  • Created
  • Last Reply
He is not a 3B on a contending team.

Funny, because he was 3B for Arizona when they made the playoffs in 2007.

He's a below average defensive 3B, no doubt. If you think that no contending teams ever have a below average defensive 3B, that's pretty silly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reynolds is a terrible 3B and should be moved to LF or DH next year. For every one error he has, he's got several more lack-of-range or non-error errors. We've got a young pitching staff, and the two best prospects among them aren't power/strikeout pitchers. You need to field a decent left-side of the infield for them. I haven't watched every game this season, but I've watched enough to know that Mark Reynolds is negating his offense with his dreadful defense. Even if he has had 1 error the past month, just watch a game or two and you'll see drops and other misplays that may not count as errors, but definitely cost us runs. I don't think the Orioles will address the issue given that upper management/ownership is satisfied with pretending to contend, but pitching necessitates defense. You have a defense that can make plays, and neither of the 1st inning debacles that Britton recently experienced occurs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, you're really just arguing semantics.

I would virtually guarantee that most pitchers are pretty familiar with which of their fielders makes the most errors.

How am I arguing semantics? An error is not the same thing as a bad play. An error has a written, albeit poorly, definition. (http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/official_rules/official_scorer_10.jsp)

So if you were a pitcher, which would make you more upset, a tough play that goes off the glove while at full sprint, or a ball that goes over a poorly placed or lazy defenders head?

I do not think it "penalizes good defense" nearly as often as you make it out to happen.

Feel free to go ahead and prove me wrong, with articles or stats. I have already given you an example of how errors "prove" that Reynolds was a better fielder last year than Adrian Beltre. They also show that Reyes is worse than Jeter, Howard is better than D. Lee. Oh, and Franklin Gutierrez had one of the best defense CF seasons EVER in 2009. Where did he rank on the CF Fld% chart...18th out of 20.

Errors are a terrible stat. HRs are a good stat because they are never bad plays. K's are a good stat because they are never good plays. Errors are a terrible stat because not only do they miss a large percentage of what they were set out to do (catch bad defensive plays) they also group in plays that were not bad AT ALL. No good stat includes the opposite of what it is supposed to.

Agreed on both fronts. Obviously, you can't make an error on a ball you can't reach, so a rangier player has more opportunities to make errors. But since a good fielder is only going to make an error less than 10% of the time, we're not talking about a ton of extra errors, especially at 3B it seems to me.

The problem is, players don't make a ton of errors in a year anyway, so a swing of a few here and there (which constantly happens) is a big one in the world of errors and fielding percentage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny, because he was 3B for Arizona when they made the playoffs in 2007.

He's a below average defensive 3B, no doubt. If you think that no contending teams ever have a below average defensive 3B, that's pretty silly.

I don't think the O's have that kind of margin for error in the AL East.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Errors are a terrible stat. HRs are a good stat because they are never bad plays. K's are a good stat because they are never good plays. Errors are a terrible stat because not only do they miss a large percentage of what they were set out to do (catch bad defensive plays) they also group in plays that were not bad AT ALL. No good stat includes the opposite of what it is supposed to.

I see a lot of bad plays that are not ruled errors. I see very few plays ruled as errors that weren't bad plays. Overall, I don't think it is a bad stat at all; it simply isn't one you can look at in isolation, without also looking at range.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Errors are the subjective judgements of the official scorer. Many players with range don't get penalized on balls the just get to, though failing to make the play. Occasionally they do. For the most part errors are an indication of how steady a fielder is, within his range. They aren't totally meaningless, IMO any more than BA is totally meaningless. They simply don't tell the whole story. IMO Reynolsd is a below average 3B, as his career -8 UZR would indicate, but not the terrible 3B that his current UZR suggests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see a lot of bad plays that are not ruled errors. I see very few plays ruled as errors that weren't bad plays.

I disagree, but even if that is true, it is a bad thing to say about a stat.

Overall, I don't think it is a bad stat at all; it simply isn't one you can look at in isolation, without also looking at range.

There are plenty of stats that include what errors are supposed to do, without all of the god awful things it does. Advanced defensive metrics were started for this specific reason. How can you call a stat that judges Beltre and Gutierrez as terrible defenders anything but awful? This would be like if Babe Ruth's career OPS was .500. I would judge OPS pretty harshly on that basis.

For the most part errors are an indication of how steady a fielder is, within his range.

I think this overlooks how aggressive a player is, both in fielding and throwing (not to mention the ability of a 1B to bail a 3B out). Surely no one would suggest Beltre's glove is anything but amazing, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How am I arguing semantics? An error is not the same thing as a bad play. An error has a written, albeit poorly, definition. (http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/official_rules/official_scorer_10.jsp)

So if you were a pitcher, which would make you more upset, a tough play that goes off the glove while at full sprint, or a ball that goes over a poorly placed or lazy defenders head?

I'd probably be most upset by a routine grounder that my SS lets go through his legs. Why do you insist on arguing this point as if every "error" is due to a player having superior range?

Feel free to go ahead and prove me wrong, with articles or stats. I have already given you an example of how errors "prove" that Reynolds was a better fielder last year than Adrian Beltre. They also show that Reyes is worse than Jeter, Howard is better than D. Lee. Oh, and Franklin Gutierrez had one of the best defense CF seasons EVER in 2009. Where did he rank on the CF Fld% chart...18th out of 20.

No - what you've "proven" is that a flawed stat, if used erroneously, can lead to flawed conclusion.

Errors are a terrible stat. HRs are a good stat because they are never bad plays. K's are a good stat because they are never good plays. Errors are a terrible stat because not only do they miss a large percentage of what they were set out to do (catch bad defensive plays) they also group in plays that were not bad AT ALL. No good stat includes the opposite of what it is supposed to.

I honestly don't see anyone arguing that errors are a good stat. What they are arguing is that they are not meaningless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is not surehanded. He misses throws for Wieters that should be outs. He misses throws from the outfield the should be outs. He positions himself for throw from the outfield poorly. When he plays in to cut off the bunt his reactions are poor. He is darn hard to watch in the field.

I don't get to see a lot of games but agree on the above.

That said, isn't a lot of that stuff which can and should be coached and practiced? If you get Reynolds together with Brooksie or Bordy for some 1-on-1 coaching for a month don't you think that much of that stuff would improve by a lot? I mean - positioning? Shouldn't this just be a function of coaching and then practicing over and over to get the mechanical reps in? It seems that a lot of those throws that have gotten by him have been a result of questionable positioning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd probably be most upset by a routine grounder that my SS lets go through his legs. Why do you insist on arguing this point as if every "error" is due to a player having superior range?

Because sadly a lot of them are. Many, if not most, bad defensive plays are not errors. Why would we ever talk about errors when we have stats that are far better at judging defensive ability?

No - what you've "proven" is that a flawed stat, if used erroneously, can lead to flawed conclusion

I honestly don't see anyone arguing that errors are a good stat. What they are arguing is that they are not meaningless.

A flawed stat would have a poor correlation to what it is trying to deduce. Errors are a useless stat, because they have no correlation to good or bad defense. They are subjective and counterproductive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because sadly a lot of them are. Many, if not most, bad defensive plays are not errors. Why would we ever talk about errors when we have stats that are far better at judging defensive ability?

A flawed stat would have a poor correlation to what it is trying to deduce. Errors are a useless stat, because they have no correlation to good or bad defense. They are subjective and counterproductive.

There is subjectivity in pretty much all of the major defensive metrics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is not a 3B on a contending team. He is not surehanded. He misses throws for Wieters that should be outs. He misses throws from the outfield the should be outs. He positions himself for throw from the outfield poorly. When he plays in to cut off the bunt his reactions are poor. He is darn hard to watch in the field.

He has to be moved off 3rd if the O's want to contend IMO.

Agree with this. He's poor on the bunts and slow rollers. I'm almost surprised when he actually makes that play. Also poor from transitioning the ball from his glove to make a throw. He just seams to lack the coordination you'd see in a good third baseman. Perhaps there is some potential for him to be near average if he worked on these things more, but I really don't know how much of a hard worker he is or how much it would even help.

He's a good (not great) offensive player, but considering his projected salary the next couple of years, we're going to need better efficiencies than Reynolds at third base will likely give us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is subjectivity in pretty much all of the major defensive metrics.

UZR is pretty objective as compared to Plus Minus. Unless you believe the technology is not precise enough to plot the location of a batted ball through film and other tools, the only subjective thing is the error component. You can omit that if you want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...