How about this guy for SS?

[Sports Guy]

See, I probably hold Fahey in the same regard in which you hold LH.

Personally, Fahey would probably be the first player cut off the 40-man roster then next time I needed space on it.

And LH would be right behind him.

Neither of them deserve to wear a ML uniform unless the ML team has had a ton of injuries.

[RShack]

What seems to be happening here is that some folks are so dug-in to blind OPS-religion that they're not even reading what the stat-exercises actually say. I see that some folks are still complaining about how LH's ML-OPS isn't trustworthy and how he's not gonna hit enough. That has ZERO to do with the point. NOBODY here has said that LH is gonna hit. BOTH stat exercises completely ignore LH's ML-OPS and instead rely on Bill James 2008 projection, which is clearly based primarily on his MiL performance, and which projects his 2008 OPS to be 84 points worse than his ML-OPS and 46 points worse than his MiL-OPS. Which tells me that people are so rabidly anti-LH for no good reason that they're ignoring the fact that both exercises rely on what Bill James (of all people!) is saying.

Once you realize that nobody is using especially optimistic offensive numbers for LH, then the only way to diss the exercises is to say that D-stats just don't count. The fact that people are so eager to do this doesn't really surprise me, given that a typical day around here features anywhere from 50 to a couple hundred posts in which people refer to OPS but then just say vague mumble-mumble about defense. But I don't see how it makes any sense to arbitrarily dismiss long-term D-data. I simply used the BBHQ range data that 1970 posted. According to 1970, the BBHQ data *is* based on both ML and MiL performance, just like Bill James' numbers are. And, while I guess 1970 could somehow be mistaken about that, I bet he's not lying.

In actual fact, there is no lack of MiL performance to go by. Just because all the minute details of the D-data isn't readily available online (it appears to be available inconsistently), that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And there's a whole lot of it: for the guys being discussed, there is between 5 and 7 years of more-or-less full-time experience to go by. So why wouldn't you trust that data? Frankly, if you just stop and think for a sec about the fundamental difference between hitting and defensive performance, you can see that it makes sense to trust upside MiL defensive performance *more* than you trust upside MiL hitting performance, simply due to the different nature of the phenomena. So, apart from the blind-ideology part, why oh why would you not trust it? The only reason I can think of is that people just don't want to believe the excellent-D has actual value that can seriously mitigate offensive performance. For people who say they trust stats, this is simply not a defensible attitude. Rather, it's an arbitrary bias that selectively ignores what the data tells us.

[Sports Guy]

What seems to be happening here is that some folks are so dug-in to blind OPS-religion that they're not even reading what the stat-exercises actually say. I see that some folks are still complaining about how LH's ML-OPS isn't trustworthy and how he's not gonna hit enough. That has ZERO to do with the point. NOBODY here has said that LH is gonna hit. BOTH stat exercises completely ignore LH's ML-OPS and instead rely on Bill James 2008 projection, which is clearly based primarily on his MiL performance, and which projects his 2008 OPS to be 84 points worse than his ML-OPS and 46 points worse than his MiL-OPS. Which tells me that people are so rabidly anti-LH for no good reason that they're ignoring the fact that both exercises rely on what Bill James (of all people!) is saying.

Once you realize that nobody is using especially optimistic offensive numbers for LH, then the only way to diss the exercises is to say that D-stats just don't count. The fact that people are so eager to do this doesn't really surprise me, given that a typical day around here features anywhere from 50 to a couple hundred posts in which people refer to OPS but then just say vague mumble-mumble about defense. But I don't see how it makes any sense to arbitrarily dismiss long-term D-data. According to 1970, the BBHQ range data *is* based on both ML and MiL performance, just like Bill James' numbers are. And, while I guess 1970 could somehow be mistaken about that, I bet he's not lying.

In actual fact, there is no lack of MiL performance to go by. Just because all the minute details of the D-data isn't readily available online (it appears to be available inconsistently), that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And there's a whole lot of it: for the guys being discussed, there is between 5 and 7 years of more-or-less full-time experience to go by. So why wouldn't you trust that data? Frankly, if you just stop and think for a sec about the fundamental difference between hitting and defensive performance, you can see that it makes sense to trust upside MiL defensive performance *more* than you trust upside MiL hitting performance, simply due to the different nature of the phenomena. So, apart from the blind-ideology part, why oh why would you not trust it? The only reason I can think of is that people just don't want to believe the excellent-D has actual value that can seriously mitigate offensive performance. For people who say they trust stats, this is simply not a defensible attitude. Rather, it's an arbitrary bias that selectively ignores what the data tells us.

You are so completely dense, it is amazing.

What has everyone basically always said??...That his defense wasn't enough to overcome the shortcomings of his offense and that there is no way we can't find a better all around player.

What is amazing to me is that YOU seem to ignore his offense and only focus on his defense...Everyone else is looking at both sides.

You have done nothing but put words into people's mouths...You need to stop doing that.

[Sports Guy]

Rshack...Do you think Bedard will have an ERA better than 3.69 this year?

[El Gordo]

You are so completely dense, it is amazing.

What has everyone basically always said??...That his defense wasn't enough to overcome the shortcomings of his offense and that there is no way we can't find a better all around player.

What is amazing to me is that YOU seem to ignore his offense and only focus on his defense...Everyone else is looking at both sides.

You have done nothing but put words into people's mouths...You need to stop doing that.

If any body is dense, in the context of this thread, it's you. The point of 1970's work is to demonstrate the relative value of defense vis a vis offense. He demonstrates that good defense can compensate for poor offense to a greater extent than most have previously thought. Instead of calling people names why don't you do what Rshack and 1970 have done and come up with some counter numbers.

[nyjimbo]

I've asked for names of these better options available for SS that are available for nothing for days in this thread and haven't seen any. I'd rather see LH then trade a prospect for Uribe.

[El Gordo]

I've asked for names of these better options available for SS that are available for nothing for days in this thread and haven't seen any. I'd rather see LH then trade a prospect for Uribe.

I think Wilson might be worth it. Of the MiL FA SS mentioned, Rouse would be worth a look IMO. Of course a trade for Brignac, Andrus, Truinfel, Hu, or Lillibridge would be nice.

[Migrant Redbird]

...for the guys being discussed, there is between 5 and 7 years of more-or-less full-time experience to go by. So why wouldn't you trust that data?

Because I don't regard defensive stats as being particularly reliable measurands of defensive ability. I'd take a solid scouting report from an experienced infield scout over 5 to 7 years of minor league defensive data any time, simply because I don't know how to interpret the defensive data. It's difficult enough for major league defensive stats, on which a world of analysis has been lavished by the best statistical minds in baseball. What is it that Bill James says in the introduction to The Fielding Bible?

Fielding statistics, in short, are a failure--and despite our great efforts, we have done embarrassingly little to correct this.

...Frankly, if you just stop and think for a sec about the fundamental difference between hitting and defensive performance, you can see that it makes sense to trust upside MiL defensive performance *more* than you trust upside MiL hitting performance, simply due to the different nature of the phenomena.

Frankly, I can't agree with you. While I haven't studied in detail the analysis of how well minor league hitting stats project to the major leagues, I'm aware that it's been done and it's reliable to a certain degree. Even if MiLB defensive stats did project as well into major league defensive stats, what would it actually gain us?

[RShack]

Hey 1970... Just for grins, I compared the R numbers your method provided with the D-adjusted-OPB my guestimethod came up with. Your numbers are in the first column. My numbers are in the second column. The third column is what you get when you multiply my number by a constant value, which happens to be 197. (There is no big secret to 197, it's just that's the number that works best.) As you can see, our two results show not only the same ranking, but for most of these guys it also gives pretty much the same numerical result. My guestimethod gives Aybar way more value than yours does, but the other numbers are either pretty close or else exactly the same. So, it looks like we're using different means of finding more-or-less the same thing, whatever it is ;-)

Hernandez	81    .418    82Cedeno		68    .344    68Ryan            62    .337    66Hu		47    .239    47Aybar	        26    .202    40

Hey 1970, another statistical curiosity jumped out at me... which leads me to ask a question. First, here's the other curiosity: when you reported on each guy's Total Runs, what you reported was RC, then DR, then Total Runs as follows:

Hernandez	42	39	81	Cedeno		66	 2	68Ryan		56	 6	62Hu		66     -19	47Aybar		51     -25	26

Just looking at the DR you reported and at the D-adjusted-OPB I reported, we see the following. The first column is the DR numbers you reported. The second column is the number of extra on-base occurrences I factored into their D-adjusted-OPB, based soley on what I did with the BBHQ range data. The third column is what happens to the data-points in the 2nd column if I just apply a simple constant to everybody:

Hernandez	39	82     39	Cedeno		 2	 2      1Ryan		 6	11      5Hu	       -19     -40    -19Aybar	       -25     -54    -26

As you can see, the values in the first and third columns about D-value are remarkably, scarily similar, so it appears once again that we're finding the same thing by different means. Now, this alone doesn't surprise me at all, simply because in my experience this happens a lot when folks are using stats to search for something. But what does surprise me is that we appear to be using different underlying data to get to almost exactly the same place. If I understand you correctly, the data you are using to get DR is based on their ML D-performance, with its obviously small sample size. But I'm using the BBHQ range data and, if I understood you correctly, the BBHQ data includes both ML and MiL performance. Is this correct? I ask simply because the results look eerily similar. Which makes me think that either (a) both of us are using data that's based on just ML D-performance, or (b) both of us are using data that's based on both ML and MiL D-performance, or © if we are using data from different samples of performance, then the small sample of ML D-performance turns out to track combined professional D-performance more closely than we would have reason to expect. Which one do you think it is?

ps: As it turns out, the if-fy assumptions I made (using Miggi as a point of reference for chances and D-outs, and arbitrarily using 600 AB's) don't matter at all. When I plug in your assumptions about chances and AB's, I get the same thing, modulo some constant value. I'm just not good at looking at stats without some concrete frame-of-reference. Somebody who was better at doing these things in the abstract wouldn't even need those values to get to the crux of the matter, it's just that we're not them ;-)

[nyjimbo]

Trading for a young long term option would be outstanding and should be AM's focus. The point I was making were posters saying there are several better options than LH available as free agents and I don't think thats the case.

[nyjimbo]

I'll even go a point futher as some have said that LH shouldn't be in a major league uniform. His solid glove should at least make him a decent utility guy IMO

[El Gordo]

I need to clarify something that seems to be have been confused.

The BBHQ data I've mentioned is their 2008 offensive projections - which are based on both actual MLB performance and MLEs.

I don't know this for a fact, but I think the Bill James projections are also based on MLB performance and MLEs (which could explain why they are so close to the BBHQ projections).

I'm the cause of the confusion because I said the BBHQ and BJ data are based on MLEs in an earlier post. I should have clarified way back then that I was referring to projections and not defensive stats.

Any defensive data I have used in this thread has been based on RZR data posted on the THT website - which is based strictly on MLB data. I have not used any defensive data from the minors. To my knowledge, they don't do MLEs for defensive stats.

I will say one thing about minor league fielding stats. As crude as they may be, LH's minor league fielding stats do compare favorably to Adam Everett's.

I'd also like to say that until a few weeks ago I would never have argued that a player's great defense could make up for his terrible offense. But then I read something that was written by someone I have a lot of respect for (unfortunately I can't remember the site, but I believe it was on THT or maybe even in their annual). This person essentially said that Adam Everett's defense is so good that it makes up for a terrible bat.

This thread has been a lot of fun, and has been an eye opener for me. I personally wish we could cut down on the cheap shots that are going back and forth. And along those lines, I apologize to el gordo for the cheap shot I threw in his direction.

Thanks for that, no need really, it's cool, but apology accepted any way. I really appreciate your numbers work. This is a question that has been bugging me for a long time but I didn't know how or where to find the answer.

As regards Everett, I also heard someone making the same arguement on XM MLB a week ago or so. When I watched LH last year I thought his defense was exceptional so I looked at his small sample numbers and compared them to Everett's who I knew to be the standard for excellence. When I saw that LH 's numbers compared favorably I went to find his MiL nimbers to see weither or not he was playing over his head. I couldn't find anything that was difinitive there, but if his ML sample was indeed representitive of his play then I thought he might be a viable short term option.

[Sports Guy]

If any body is dense, in the context of this thread, it's you. The point of 1970's work is to demonstrate the relative value of defense vis a vis offense. He demonstrates that good defense can compensate for poor offense to a greater extent than most have previously thought. Instead of calling people names why don't you do what Rshack and 1970 have done and come up with some counter numbers.

Coming up with defensive numbers based on what he did in his limited time in the majors is a spointless exercise IMO.

1970 did the work(not rshack) but it is still based on a small sample size...He just said that himself.

At this point, relying on what you see and what scouting reports tell you is much more important than projecting out defensive stats(which are shaky stats to begin with) based off of a very small sample size.

LH is an above average defensive SS...How far above average is up for debate but not one single person on this board knows this for sure.

What we do know is that the guy can't hit, doesn't walk and has no power.

Even Adam Everett only had a WARP3 of 1.6 last year.

Everett's best year, according to WARP3, was last year when it was 5.7. But most years, he averages around a WARP3 of 3.

I think that is LH's ceiling...A WARP3 of 3.

I think mostly he will be somewhere between a 1-2 win player.

[Sports Guy]

This may be pointless, but can you explain what spointless means?

Means the same thing as when you higher an employee.

[Migrant Redbird]

Highering an employee is like a promotion.

Or hang him out to dry.