Reynolds: one error since July 4th

[CA-ORIOLE]

He did and the dude had a high baseball IQ. Do you remember the A's game in the playoffs where he cut off the overthrow and flipped it to the catcher to tag Giambi? Stats had nothing to do with Jeter being in that spot and probably winning that series for them. I look at Jeter and see an average fielder with limited range on balls to his left. That being said, he has always seemed to go to his right well and make some terrific throws in the hole. His arm is league average at best, but the guy is just a winner and I would have been happy if he would have replaced Cal Ripken as our shortstop for the decade and a half after Cal retired.

Baseball and the rest of the world still puts more stock in winning championships than a UZR/150 rating. Jeter's awesomeness resided in his ability to rise to the moment and his intangibles. He really did do numerous things pretty well and he did them year after year. I will sit here and destroy his defense as well, but I do not think anyone here could knock the effect he had on those championship teams. Even with the defensive issues Jeter has been worth 73.9 WAR over his last 15 seasons which is 4.92 WAR/yr. As good as Hardy has hit and fielded this year his WAR is likely to be at least 1 WAR behind Jeter's average in that same span. Jeter's WAR last season was 2.8 and Hardy's is currently 2.0. We can focus on whatever we want, but there is still a chance that a 36-year old Jeter was better than a 28-year old Hardy.

I don't know about anyone here, but I would take a near 5 WAR from my shortstop over a 15-year career any day of the week! That being said, I suppose arguing over Jeter's defensive metrics is still fun to do. Especially in the same year that he became the first Yankees player to EVER get 3,000 hits.

Jeter was a great player by his tangibles alone. He was good at hitting the ball to the right side, not because it was an intangible, but it was just something that was natural for him. Like Cal he had solid fundmentals but lacked range. I'd question how much the Jeter Jump actually helped him. He certainly wasn't a gold glover and certainly had below average range, but not nearly as bad as some make him out to be, even by some of the defensive metrics. Since defense/UZR is very unstable at 1 year, chasing WAR/DWAR over a one year or less than one year period is fairly meaningless especially when looking at relatively small WAR differential.

[GoldGlove21]

As a logical thinker, would what lead you to conclude that one fielder would be exposed to more bad bounces and faster runners than another fielder in any significant way, especially when considered over a larger sample/3 year period? I suppose a hard home field might cause more bad bounces. I could perhaps buy into that being possible. Is that what you think?

I've seen several people accuse others of this but nobody actually say it. It depends, both have their places. As far as evaluating existing ML players, statistics are far more telling imo. Minor leaguers or players with injuries/aging issues etc, then you need to get more into the scouting.

Yes, I do think that one player could have some tough breaks for half a season or so, but over an entire career I think it probably averages out. I am not arguing that Reynolds is a good or even average fielder, because anyone who watches him play can see that one. I do not advanced stats or metrics to separate what Beltre does from what Reynolds does.

That is what separates fans from organizations. You do not ignore stats, but they can't be the end-all, be-all either. A guy not getting his front foot down could be the reason why he is slumping at the plate. If you look at his numbers alone you do not get a handle on the trigger, you only get the effect. If you put too much stock into the effects then you will always see a give player as lacking. The same can be said the other way. So and so does a bad job of getting their hips around on inside fastballs and this causes them to ground out weakly verses turning and hitting a line drive. Maybe you see that and shy away because you think it can not be fixed.

I would have to look at projection. This guy does A and B wrong, but if we can fix those then he has the tools to be an All-Star. The other guy does everything right, but he just lacks the natural ability of player A. He kind of is what he is. I will take my chances on player A before player B everytime. Stats are just stats, in small doses they tell you how how the player is doing right now and in larger doses they can be used to project some sort of expectation or base level readings. The reality is that a good change could make the player great and a bad change could make him less effective. You can like stats, I can prefer to watch the player play, but at the end of the day if we both only look at one area, then we both failed IMO.

[CA-ORIOLE]

I'm sure they consider a swinging bunt the same as an intentional bunt. Not sure wht you mean by a slow roller. It may be regarded as a slow GB. They compAre it to other players success on similar balls. the information they give on the Bill James site is not as detailed as the info they provide teams. I would guess they make more distinctions between bunts, slow rollers, and swinging bunts, in that case.

Yeah that's what I was getting at. Slow roller = softly hit ball on infield grass. Reynolds is horrible at that play.

[El Gordo]

What do the numbers tell us? I think most would agree that Tulo is one of the best fielding SS and Betancourt is one of the worst and all the best defensive measures bear that out, including fileding %. But how about four SS not so far apart? Reyes, Aybar, Jeter, and Hardy? I would have said off the top of my head that Reyes is a litttle better than Aybar and Aybar has an edge on Hardy but Jeter is well behind the other 3. Not so according to UZR. Reyes is .8, Aybar .1 Jeter -7, Hardy -1.9. (Hardy has the highest fielding % of ML SS , BTW). The FB has it Aybar -1, Reyes and Hardy at -5 and Jeter -9. Reyes is better than Hardy to his left by a wide margin this season and worse to his right by a good margin, about the same straight on, but much worse on pop ups. Jeter is equaly poor to his right and left but a +3 straight on. He also struggles with pop ups. My question is what gives with Hardy this year? He has been consistently much better to his left than his right, though always above average to his right, and a little above average straight on. But what made him a superior SS was his ability to go behind the bag and get the ball. This year is very different. He is stronger in the hole than he has been in the past, but way below average going to his right. I wonder if the oblique has affected this or is he compensating for Reynolds lack of range at 3B?

[allstar1579]

All these threads where saber guys and non-saber guys butt heads are dangerous.

To cherry pick a couple comments cause I don't have time to reply to everything...

A fielder on turf wouldn't have to worry about unpredictable hops, but it would be different kinds of hops they'd have to be used to, for that harder ground point.

Sometimes good fielders have bad years, re: Beltre, and most times fielders to a new position or a new home park are going to have adjustment periods. I think this is part of why Reynolds was so bad in the first half and he's settling down now. A lot of people considered Mora a great fielder, but the first half of his first year over there at 3rd he was AWFUL and he settled down in the 2nd half.

Another reason why errors aren't useless is without them you wouldn't know how many runs a pitcher is personally responsible for.

No stats are going to be perfect, this is why you need both stats and scouting to be successful in baseball, and some are more flawed than others, but to shrug one off completely, especially one that has been integral enough to the game to be actually recorded on the scoreboard is kinda snotty.

[CA-ORIOLE]

He is stronger in the hole than he has been in the past but way below average going to his right. I wonder if the oblique has affected this or is he compensating for Reynolds lack of range at 3B?

Could be both.

New home field.

Also a low/poor sample size even at one full year.

He's also almost 29 where you might expect some decline.

Maybe the pool of shortstops has improved.

In Andino's case I've noticed some seamingly poor positioning where slants toward second even against LH batters. I haven't noticed Hardy too much.

I'd question if our pitchers are pitching to the positioning.

[Phantom]

Sometimes good fielders have bad years, re: Beltre, and most times fielders to a new position or a new home park are going to have adjustment periods. I think this is part of why Reynolds was so bad in the first half and he's settling down now. A lot of people considered Mora a great fielder, but the first half of his first year over there at 3rd he was AWFUL and he settled down in the 2nd half.

Beltre isn't having a bad year. Fld% is just wrong. I am not breaking new ground here...

Another reason why errors aren't useless is without them you wouldn't know how many runs a pitcher is personally responsible for.

This is some circular logic. ERA has a slew of issues itself, but stating that errors aren't flawed because they feed into ERA doesn't change anything.

No stats are going to be perfect, this is why you need both stats and scouting to be successful in baseball, and some are more flawed than others, but to shrug one off completely, especially one that has been integral enough to the game to be actually recorded on the scoreboard is kinda snotty.

At the risk of being snotty, this is the kind of thinking that leads to people still believing the sun revolves around the earth. To assume that a stat is meaningful because it is historical or appears on the scoreboard is the opposite of logic.

[CA-ORIOLE]

.. to shrug one off completely, especially one that has been integral enough to the game to be actually recorded on the scoreboard is kinda snotty.

Getting tired of the nonsense and it appears to be mostly/fully from one side.

Show me where it's been said that scouting should be ignored/shrugged of completely. Show me one post.

[GoldGlove21]

Getting tired of the nonsense and it appears to be mostly/fully from one side.

Show me where it's been said that scouting should be ignored/shrugged of completely. Show me one post.

Isn't that what he is doing here and I did see it in another place.

Post: No stats are going to be perfect, this is why you need both stats and scouting to be successful in baseball, and some are more flawed than others, but to shrug one off completely, especially one that has been integral enough to the game to be actually recorded on the scoreboard is kinda snotty.

Response: At the risk of being snotty, this is the kind of thinking that leads to people still believing the sun revolves around the earth. To assume that a stat is meaningful because it is historical or appears on the scoreboard is the opposite of logic.

[GoldGlove21]

Beltre isn't having a bad year. Fld% is just wrong. I am not breaking new ground here...

This is some circular logic. ERA has a slew of issues itself, but stating that errors aren't flawed because they feed into ERA doesn't change anything.

At the risk of being snotty, this is the kind of thinking that leads to people still believing the sun revolves around the earth. To assume that a stat is meaningful because it is historical or appears on the scoreboard is the opposite of logic.

You find me a single person in a single organization who has made or will make any type of quote that identifies the ability to trade for or draft players by looking at stats alone and I will no longer argue with you. I know of no organizations that make trades prior to scouting players. You get information from watching a player that you do not get from numbers. It is like a pass or fail test. Does it determine how smart you are compared to other? Maybe if you fail it I guess, but it doesn't separate the people in the pass group from one another or the people in the fail group from one another. It was the outcome of an action. The outcome of hitting a ball might mean a hit, but a line drive isn't the same as bloop. You need to see players, that is not an opinion because of some outdated philosophy or stat, it will probably be the case 50 years from now and in reality it should be.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Isn't that what he is doing here and I did see it in another place.

Post: No stats are going to be perfect, this is why you need both stats and scouting to be successful in baseball, and some are more flawed than others, but to shrug one off completely, especially one that has been integral enough to the game to be actually recorded on the scoreboard is kinda snotty.

Response: At the risk of being snotty, this is the kind of thinking that leads to people still believing the sun revolves around the earth. To assume that a stat is meaningful because it is historical or appears on the scoreboard is the opposite of logic.

The "snotty" remark was not made by him first. It was made by the initial poster. Kinda of an important point. Also no where in there does it say or imply that scouting should be ignored. It's specifc response to a point/implication that because a stat has been recorded (and may have had some meaning) in the past, must mean it has some relvance now. We clearly know that's not the case in many instances.

[GoldGlove21]

The "snotty" remark was not made by him first. It was made by you. Kinda of an important point. Also no where in there does it say or imply that scouting should be ignored. It's specifc response to your point/implication that because a stat has been recorded (and may have had some meaning) in the past, must mean it has some meaning. We clearly know that's not the case.

I never made a snotty remark, I never even posted it. I copied this from another post. My point is that we are arguing over the importance of the error and likely fielding percentage. Your point is that we should get rid of all these metrics and instead use more advanced stats like UZR/150. One thing to point out is, how do you compare Babe Ruth's UZR/150 to JJ Hardy's? If I am not mistaken, you can't.

One thing I always laugh at is that people argue how good one player was when compared against another. So I will ask you this, who was the better player Babe Ruth or Ken Griffey Jr.? What about Mickey Mantle verses Barry Bonds?

[CA-ORIOLE]

I never made a snotty remark, I never even posted it. I copied this from another post. My point is that we are arguing over the importance of the error and likely fielding percentage. Your point is that we should get rid of all these metrics and instead use more advanced stats like UZR/150. One thing to point out is, how do you compare Babe Ruth's UZR/150 to JJ Hardy's? If I am not mistaken, you can't.

One thing I always laugh at is that people argue how good one player was when compared against another. So I will ask you this, who was the better player Babe Ruth or Ken Griffey Jr.? What about Mickey Mantle verses Barry Bonds?

Yeah, I did go back and correct that after I realized it was from another poster not you. Sorry about that. Point was it has nothing to do with ignoring scouting over stats. Which is the point you and others have unfairly been making. Lets not play musical chairs with the argument.

If your point is that the old stats are important to compare existing players to old players because we didn't have better stats then, that's fine. I doubt that was the point the poster was making though. We have better stats and knowledge now then we did then. That's the point.

[OFFNY]

Yeah, I did go back and correct that after I realized it was from another poster, and not you. Sorry about that.

NOOOOOO !!! Mistakes are not allowed here. :laughlol: Actually, if that were the case, I would have been suspended about 6,588 times (the number of times that I have been wrong since I joined OH).

[Phantom]

You find me a single person in a single organization who has made or will make any type of quote that identifies the ability to trade for or draft players by looking at stats alone and I will no longer argue with you. I know of no organizations that make trades prior to scouting players. You get information from watching a player that you do not get from numbers. It is like a pass or fail test. Does it determine how smart you are compared to other? Maybe if you fail it I guess, but it doesn't separate the people in the pass group from one another or the people in the fail group from one another. It was the outcome of an action. The outcome of hitting a ball might mean a hit, but a line drive isn't the same as bloop. You need to see players, that is not an opinion because of some outdated philosophy or stat, it will probably be the case 50 years from now and in reality it should be.

I'm not sure who or what you are arguing with here? I have never nor will I ever say that scouting is not valuable. I will say, easily and without doubt in my mind, that statistics are more useful than scouting, if given a decent collection pool, but I will never say observation should not make up a part of the pie. Observation is just often extremely flawed as a measurement tool. There is a reason the scientific method attempts to take as much subjectivity out of experiments as possible. SABR did not pop up by accident...it arose because of the severe issues with scouting and evaluation.