Orioles had over a full WAR more than the Reds..

[weams]

We gave up 210 Home Runs last season.

As Gary Thorne so aptly suggests,

"You can't defense that!"

[mikegallo]

With a few tweaks, I think we've made this more accurate above.

Why do you have to keep taking shots at me dude really it's getting to be childish and immature...Like I said before if you don't like what I have to say then IGNORE it.

Really just stop your quickly revealing yourself to be a jerk and by harping on your own conclusion about my own proclaimed self importance is showing everyone your own inferior complexes.

Just move on and talk about baseball....

[weams]

I have read this board for over seven years...thats plenty of listening for anyone and I'll post when I want to but thanks for the advice...self proclaimed 'old man' lol that made me laugh.

No one wants to ban or get rid of you. But if you have read this board for over seven years, then you are aware of certain codes of conduct and interaction.

Even some of the "feather rufflers" around here have learned to respect that as a cornerstone of OH superiority.

I find myself out of conformity with this occasionally, but it is a good place to start.

.

[Lucky Jim]

Why do you have to keep taking shots at me dude really it's getting to be childish and immature...Like I said before if you don't like what I have to say then IGNORE it.

Really just stop your quickly revealing yourself to be a jerk and by harping on your own conclusion about my own proclaimed self importance is showing everyone your own inferior complexes.

Just move on and talk about baseball....

These aren't shots. (Well, save perhaps for my joke about how much you have to offer. If that's offensive, and it wasn't meant to be, apologies. I was actually saying that I think you have something to offer, but reign in the grandiosity.)

Did you read the tweaks? They're modifying the extremes of the positions you've staked out - for instance, have you considered the fact that the Orioles' (defense-independent) tERA was over .40 runs worse per game than any other team? That's taking into account batted-ball data. It's not a perfect stat, but it points out a serious limitation in your (extreme) position re: defense.

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=pit&lg=al&qual=y&type=1&season=2011&month=0&season1=2011&ind=0&team=0%2cts&players=0

True Runs Allowed (tERA) is a defense-independent metric built by Graham MacAree from StatCorner that is meant to improve upon FIP and xFIP. The most common complaint about FIP and xFIP is that they completely ignore performance on balls in play, while batted balls can still tell us something about a pitcher’s skill level: groundballs are good (since they normally result in outs), flyballs have a higher probability of resulting in extra basehits, pop-ups are almost guaranteed outs, and line drives are the most likely type to end up as a hit.

tERA includes all of these variables, and is based on the same scale as ERA, FIP, and xFIP. It is a little less accurate in predicting future performance than xFIP, but it is still more valuable than ERA and provides us with another lens through which to evaluate pitchers.

The fact is, you're using ERA - which is retrospective - to measure development, when FIP and xFIP are better predictive stats. A disparity between ERA and FIP/xFIP isn't a sign of lack of development; in fact, it counsels that development may be happening in contradiction to present results. It may seem like a small thing, but until you define (i) a metric for defense; (ii) a definition of development; and (iii) a way to measure development, you haven't really gotten anywhere. Absent some proof that FIP/xFIP regress to ERA over time due to poor defense, I don't see where this gets us. It just says: hey, let's try to defend better. And, again, no one disputes this.

I'll note again: read my tweaks and, if you can - I'd welcome it - rebut them.

[mikegallo]

These aren't shots. (Well, save perhaps for my joke about how much you have to offer. If that's offensive, and it wasn't meant to be, apologies. I was actually saying that I think you have something to offer, but reign in the grandiosity.)

Did you read the tweaks? They're modifying the extremes of the positions you've staked out - for instance, have you considered the fact that the Orioles' (defense-independent) tERA was over. 40 runs worse per game than any other team? That's taking into account batted-ball data. It's not a perfect stat, but it points out a serious limitation in your (extreme) position re: defense.

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=pit&lg=al&qual=y&type=1&season=2011&month=0&season1=2011&ind=0&team=0%2cts&players=0

The fact is, you're using ERA - which is retrospective - to measure development, when FIP and xFIP are better predictive stats. A disparity between ERA and FIP/xFIP isn't a sign of lack of development; in fact, it counsels that development may be happening in contradiction to present results. It may seem like a small thing, but until you define (i) a metric for defense; (ii) a definition of development; and (iii) a way to measure development you haven't really gotten anywhere.

I'll note again: read my tweaks and, if you can - I'd welcome it - rebut them.

Thanks for explaining them and I also apologize....Now I don't have the time right now to rebut them but maybe I will although I agree I do use extreme statements that can be shown to have flaws for which any absolute statement can be...

As to the ERA to measure development thing I have typed so many posts in the last two days IDK if thats what I said or not but your right ERA is in no way predictive, FIP and xFip our much more predictive...In other threads I have used ERA which are actual results and xFIP, predictive results, to highlight that in fact.

How do we develop these pitchers when there actual results are so much worse than there predicted results....Inflated ERA's to a 24 year old pitcher can go a long way toward making that guy think he has to change is approach when in fact he is pitching so much better than it appears.

So then the question is how do we close the gap between actual results and predicted results and I think we both agree a big way to do that is improved D.

I know this post doesn't really answer what you want me to define but sry I g2g later I might have time to explain these points.

[Frobby]

Honestly, I agree with mikegallo here. His comments have been within board rules, and his overall point (defense is important and tends to be underrated) is correct, IMO. I just don't want to excuse the poor pitching by saying it's all (or primarily) the defense's fault.

Another way to look at this is that the defense, per UZR, was 33 runs worse in 2011 than in 2010, but the pitchers allowed 75 more runs. So, the majority of the additional runs allowed had to do with the pitching, not the defense; but, the defense was a significant factor that shouldn't be ignored and should be addressed as a pretty high priority.

At bottom, isn't that all mikegallo is trying to say?

[Fan4Life]

Honestly, I agree with mikegallo here. His comments have been within board rules, and his overall point (defense is important and tends to be underrated) is correct, IMO. I just don't want to excuse the poor pitching by saying it's all (or primarily) the defense's fault.

Another way to look at this is that the defense, per UZR, was 33 runs worse in 2011 than in 2010, but the pitchers allowed 75 more runs. So, the majority of the additional runs allowed had to do with the pitching, not the defense; but, the defense was a significant factor that shouldn't be ignored and should be addressed as a pretty high priority.

At bottom, isn't that all mikegallo is trying to say?

Most of us agree that pitching metrics aren't necessarily reliable. But are they more reliable when comparing players? Or is the root of the issue subjectivity and thus it's difficult to know how any one player's rating was formed as compared to another players?

You could think if the same algorithms are used, even a flawed system might be useful when comping players since the same formula is used. However, then the formula becomes the question.

[weams]

Honestly, I agree with mikegallo here. His comments have been within board rules, and his overall point (defense is important and tends to be underrated) is correct, IMO. I just don't want to excuse the poor pitching by saying it's all (or primarily) the defense's fault.

Another way to look at this is that the defense, per UZR, was 33 runs worse in 2011 than in 2010, but the pitchers allowed 75 more runs. So, the majority of the additional runs allowed had to do with the pitching, not the defense; but, the defense was a significant factor that shouldn't be ignored and should be addressed as a pretty high priority.

At bottom, isn't that all mikegallo is trying to say?

Probably true. Our Pitching is bad. Our Hitting is ok. Our Defense is below average.

Our pitching would be slightly better with much better defense.

Our hitting can't get worse while attempting to improve our defense..

I think all would agree with those bullets.

[Frobby]

Probably true. Our Pitching is bad. Our Hitting is ok. Our Defense is below average.

Our pitching would be slightly better with much better defense.

Our hitting can't get worse.

I think all would agree with those bullets.

I assume you meant "pitching," not "hitting" in that last point.

[Sports Guy]

Honestly, I agree with mikegallo here. His comments have been within board rules, and his overall point (defense is important and tends to be underrated) is correct, IMO. I just don't want to excuse the poor pitching by saying it's all (or primarily) the defense's fault.

Another way to look at this is that the defense, per UZR, was 33 runs worse in 2011 than in 2010, but the pitchers allowed 75 more runs. So, the majority of the additional runs allowed had to do with the pitching, not the defense; but, the defense was a significant factor that shouldn't be ignored and should be addressed as a pretty high priority.

At bottom, isn't that all mikegallo is trying to say?

Of course the defense needs to improved. Of course its a big problem. We all know this and many of us have talked about this for years.

As you say, he ignores the things that the pitchers have control over and hasn't even addressed that for what I have seen.

As I said, the pitching blows and so does the defense. At times, they go hand in hand...at other times, it doesn't.

[Lucky Jim]

How do we develop these pitchers when there actual results are so much worse than there predicted results....Inflated ERA's to a 24 year old pitcher can go a long way toward making that guy think he has to change is approach when in fact he is pitching so much better than it appears.

So then the question is how do we close the gap between actual results and predicted results and I think we both agree a big way to do that is improved D.

Now we're getting somewhere. This seems like a real, identifiable risk. There's no question that many of our pitchers appear to nibble, or appear tentative. But anytime you want to find a causal relationship, you need to also identify confounding factors and make sure you can regress them away.

For instance, is Matusz's step backward a result of defense-avoiding tentativeness? Or is it injury? Pre-season issues? The dip in velocity that made his FB sub-MLB average and threatened his velo differential? Similar issues plague Tillman.

Identifying a weakness is the first step in any analysis. But simply identifying the problem doesn't - at that point - merit wholesale and extreme changes, unless you can truly regress and pinpoint what the problem is costing you. If the Orioles return to they're typical sub-average but not-disastrous defense, are the pitchers really being hurt? And if they are, how do we explain Guthrie's historical penchant for pitching better than his FIP/xFIP even w/ mediocre-to-bad defense?

[Lucky Jim]

Honestly, I agree with mikegallo here. His comments have been within board rules, and his overall point (defense is important and tends to be underrated) is correct, IMO. I just don't want to excuse the poor pitching by saying it's all (or primarily) the defense's fault.

Another way to look at this is that the defense, per UZR, was 33 runs worse in 2011 than in 2010, but the pitchers allowed 75 more runs. So, the majority of the additional runs allowed had to do with the pitching, not the defense; but, the defense was a significant factor that shouldn't be ignored and should be addressed as a pretty high priority.

At bottom, isn't that all mikegallo is trying to say?

Well, I think that's what folks are trying to figure out. Would anyone honestly argue w/ that? I mean, the bold are precisely the points that I've made.

That said, the idea that elite defense is the only answer is probably too extreme. Which is the other point I was trying to make. And - I think - it's the very point you've made elsewhere, which is that there's generally a trade-off between offense and defense (save for elite players or anomalous single-year performance - both of which may be necessary for a team like the O's to contend) and you need to manage that trade-off well, diversifying your assets.

[El Gordo]

I actually agree that the pitching would be helped if the defense is better. I doubt anyone disagrees with that statement. It's just an issue of how do we get there, and do it without sacrificing offense that will more than negate our defensive gains?

I think everyone agrees that 3B was our biggest defensive weak spot. There, I think the issue is (1) do we assume Reynolds cannot do any better than he did last year, and deny him any opportunity to compete for the position, or (2) do we leave open the possibility that Reynolds can improve, and allow him to compete with the other candidates available to play 3B? To me, the answer is, we allow him to compete, for three reasons. First, because his historical record shows he is a below average 3B, but nowhere near as bad as last year. Second, because he has given a plausible reason why he feels his defense was below his own standards last year, and I'd like to see if he's right. And third, because the other candidates aren't necessarily an improvement, especially when looking at the offense/defense combination.

LF seems like a place where defense could be improved in 2012. Last year Pie posted -13.4 UZR there, and watching the games, he misjudged or misplayed numerous fly balls, despite his tremendous speed. Reimold posted decent numbers there, but has seemed shaky at times, so we will have to see how he performs. Endy Chavez without a doubt is a solid defender, so overall that position should improve.

If you trust the stats, the third-worst defensive problem was in CF. Problem is, a lot of folks don't trust the stats. In a recent OH poll, 75% of posters ranked Jones average or above (43% average, 29% above average, 3% excellent). Tom Tango's fan poll had Jones ranked 37th out of 55 CF, so, below average but not bottom of the barrel. There certainly seem to be a number or credible commentators who think he is a pretty good defender. So, is he a big part of the problem, or not? He's probably not going anywhere.

UZR has Nick Markakis at -5.0 UZR, yet he won the Gold Glove and came in 2nd in the AL in the Fielding Bible awards, and he gets high marks in Tango's poll. Personally, I'm going with the voters, not UZR. But, I can't blame anyone who believes the stats, either. In any event, Nick isn't likely to go anywhere.

1B is a mixed bag since we don't know who will man the position. I doubt anybody on the roster will play the position as well as Derrek Lee did, so we probably are headed the wrong direction here.

2B is very interesting to me. Andino was a bit shaky there for the first 1-2 months, but once he got the hang of it, he was above average at 2B in my opinion. UZR has him at 0.4, but I think he can be stronger into positive territory in 2012 -- if he is the starter, which isn't clear.

Wieters and Hardy are very good defenders no matter how you slice it. No real debate there.

All in all, it is a pretty blurry picture. If 3B improves, the defense should be improved. That's about all I can say for sure.

I agree with this in general except for Reynolds. No doubt last season's horror was an outlier, but you really can't expect him to be much better than the -12 RS that would make him the defensive equivalent to an average 1B. I think that is too much IF defense to sacrifice. and would rather take my chances with his defense at 1B being better. I'd take a long look at Davis, Antonelli, Flaherty, and Reynolds, in that order, at 3B. Buck has said he thinks 3B is Andino's best position, but I doubt his bat can play there. I'd rather put up with it at 2B or UTIF.

[Frobby]

I agree with this in general except for Reynolds. No doubt last season's horror was an outlier, but you really can't expect him to be much better than the -12 RS that would make him the defensive equivalent to an average 1B. I think that is too much IF defense to sacrifice. and would rather take my chanced with his defense at 1B being better. I'd take a long look at Davis, Antonelli, Flaherty, and Reynolds, in that order, at 3B. Buck has said he thinks 3B is Andino's best position, but I doubt his bat can play there. I'd rather put up with it at 2B or UTIF.

As I've said elsewhere, I am not at all convinced that Davis is superior to Reynolds at 3B. The stats certainly don't show it, and my eyes didn't tell me that, either. As to Antonelli and Flaherty, I simply have no idea if they are better defensively or not, and I don't know if either can hit major league pitching well enough to justify being in the lineup whether or not they are decent defenders at 3B. So, we will simply have to see how it plays out. Buck and his staff are going to have to give all these guys a lot of work at 3B this spring to try to make a good decision.

[El Gordo]

As I've said elsewhere, I am not at all convinced that Davis is superior to Reynolds at 3B. The stats certainly don't show it, and my eyes didn't tell me that, either. As to Antonelli and Flaherty, I simply have no idea if they are better defensively or not, and I don't know if either can hit major league pitching well enough to justify being in the lineup whether or not they are decent defenders at 3B. So, we will simply have to see how it plays out. Buck and his staff are going to have to give all these guys a lot of work at 3B this spring to try to make a good decision.

We know how bad Reynolds is, Davis hasn't played 3B enough to put up numbers sufficient to judge. On the chance that Buck and Co. might have a clue, I'd take my chances with Davis over Reynolds, who has had 4 full seasons at 3B to demonstrate that he is very subpar there.