Jump to content

Adam Jones voted 2d best defensive outfielder in the AL by AL Managers


wildcard

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply
What's the point then? You don't care about the subject and it shouldn't be discussed? Analytical opinions are shoving an opinion down somebody's throat (because you don't like them I guess in this case) and non-analytical opinions aren't?

I guess I'm bothered that people are really getting flustered on both sides of this arguement. I'm honestly not sure that I need defensive metrics to tell me who is a good fielder, and who isn't. My eyes tell me that Manny Machado is a great third baseman, and Mark Reynolds was not. What did people use before defensive metrics to determine if a guy was a good fielder? Did people watching Belanger or Blair, or Brooks, etc need defensive metrics to say they were great fielders? If you are convinced that defensive metrics have advanced enough to the point they are more convincingly accurate than your eyes, well I'm not at that point yet. It's not that I don't like them in this case, I just don't think that the managers deciding who is a good fielder or who isn't is a real big deal, or that important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are many many posts that have nothing to do with how good he could be were he to tweak x and change y and you know that. There are numerous Lamentations of what he is that in no way touch on what he could be.

Some of that can be implied, no? For instance, if I were to say "There he goes again swinging at a slider down and away, no where near the strike zone," that is lamentations of what he is and not touching on what he could be, but look at it this way...if he didn't do what I'm lamenting about would that not make him even better?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I'm bothered that people are really getting flustered on both sides of this arguement. I'm honestly not sure that I need defensive metrics to tell me who is a good fielder, and who isn't. My eyes tell me that Manny Machado is a great third baseman, and Mark Reynolds was not. What did people use before defensive metrics to determine if a guy was a good fielder? Did people watching Belanger or Blair, or Brooks, etc need defensive metrics to say they were great fielders? If you are convinced that defensive metrics have advanced enough to the point they are more convincingly accurate than your eyes, well I'm not at that point yet. It's not that I don't like them in this case, I just don't think that the managers deciding who is a good fielder or who isn't is a real big deal, or that important.

Well Said Sir!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I'm bothered that people are really getting flustered on both sides of this arguement. I'm honestly not sure that I need defensive metrics to tell me who is a good fielder, and who isn't. My eyes tell me that Manny Machado is a great third baseman, and Mark Reynolds was not. What did people use before defensive metrics to determine if a guy was a good fielder? Did people watching Belanger or Blair, or Brooks, etc need defensive metrics to say they were great fielders? If you are convinced that defensive metrics have advanced enough to the point they are more convincingly accurate than your eyes, well I'm not at that point yet. It's not that I don't like them in this case, I just don't think that the managers deciding who is a good fielder or who isn't is a real big deal, or that important.

I'm in agreement with you in thought, but don't like your initial argument.

The phrase highlighted above irks me some. Just because it didn't always exist doesn't mean you can use newer tools to help gauge and quantify what happens on the field. This argument reads like we didn't have it in the 'good ole days' and we got along just fine, so we don't need it.

Still, I agree that the defensive metrics are still lacking and i agree that your eyes can serve as a tool as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't even think defensive metrics for outfielders are accurate. Who is the best rated center fielder in the American League for the past 5 years?

By the bb-ref methods the top totals for defensive runs for players with at least 200 games played in center, since 2008, are Brett Gardner, Carlos Gomez, Michael Bourn, Franklin Gutierrez, and Austin Jackson. The top single season totals are by combinations of those same players minus Gardner, followed closely by Mike Trout last year. To me that list looks like a bunch of fast guys in their 20s with good defensive reputations. I can't really argue with any of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the bb-ref methods the top totals for defensive runs for players with at least 200 games played in center, since 2008, are Brett Gardner, Carlos Gomez, Michael Bourn, Franklin Gutierrez, and Austin Jackson. The top single season totals are by combinations of those same players minus Gardner, followed closely by Mike Trout last year. To me that list looks like a bunch of fast guys in their 20s with good defensive reputations. I can't really argue with any of it.

This method is obviously far less accurate than asking one guy to compare all of the players in the league, a vast majority of which he has seen play a handful of times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I'm bothered that people are really getting flustered on both sides of this arguement. I'm honestly not sure that I need defensive metrics to tell me who is a good fielder, and who isn't. My eyes tell me that Manny Machado is a great third baseman, and Mark Reynolds was not. What did people use before defensive metrics to determine if a guy was a good fielder? Did people watching Belanger or Blair, or Brooks, etc need defensive metrics to say they were great fielders? If you are convinced that defensive metrics have advanced enough to the point they are more convincingly accurate than your eyes, well I'm not at that point yet. It's not that I don't like them in this case, I just don't think that the managers deciding who is a good fielder or who isn't is a real big deal, or that important.

No, you don't need metrics to tell you that Manny Machado is better than Mark Reynolds. Just as you don't need a military-quality GPS unit to answer "am I in the middle of the Inner Harbor, or am I standing on second base at OPACY?" Huge differences are usually obvious.

But when you're trying to tell whether nuances between JJ Hardy's range and arm strength and Elvis Andrus' quickness and Brendan Ryan's overall abilities result in the most runs saved... yea, you need a metric, or you need to very carefully watch hundreds of Orioles and Rangers and Mariners games with the express intent of judging shortstop defense, during which time you'd probably write some stuff down to make sure you got it correct, which is basically coming up with a metric.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This method is obviously far less accurate than asking one guy to compare all of the players in the league, a vast majority of which he has seen play a handful of times.

If there's one thing I've learned about defense in baseball, it's that a lot of people think watching something casually is vastly superior to observing things rigorously and writing things down according to a set of guidelines and aggregating them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I'm bothered that people are really getting flustered on both sides of this argument. .

I'm certainly not flustered. I've voiced my opinion and others have voiced theirs. The only person I expressed some frustration with was atomic who can't seam to stay on point of the topic. Now I find opinions such as "defensive metrics are worthless" to be worthless, but I don't feel those opinions are being rammed down my throat, nor do I think I've been uncivil in disagreeing with them.

I'm honestly not sure that I need defensive metrics to tell me who is a good fielder, and who isn't. My eyes tell me that Manny Machado is a great third baseman, and Mark Reynolds was not.

When you get to watch guys like this (Machado vs Betemit or Reynolds) on a regular basis (as we did as Orioles fans) it's pretty easy to determine one is horrible as compared to the other, but most cases aren't that blatantly obvious and even then just by watching them you don't get a tangible value if you're not using a metric to try and capture it.

What did people use before defensive metrics to determine if a guy was a good fielder?

Fielding percentage and the old eye test I guess. Good enough for Mark Belanger and Brooks Robinson (and many others) I'm sure but was it good enough to determine that Ray Oyler, Dal Maxvill and Sonny Jackson were making positive contributions to their teams? There's probably a good reason the no hit-good field shortstop is essentially a thing of the past and it's not because teams can't get them if they wanted them. There's probably a good reason why we don't see too many Adam Dunn's in the outfield any more or that some teams are going to think twice before signing Michael Morse to play out there.

If you are convinced that defensive metrics have advanced enough to the point they are more convincingly accurate than your eyes, well I'm not at that point yet.

Yes, since we are talking about comparing relative value in comparison to other defenders. There is no way I (or anyone else) could process that much information. That doesn't mean I agree with every valuation or think there aren't issues with defensive metrics.

So here's a link with the top defensive CF's since 2008 (4,000 innings) by DRS. I'm not saying you may (or need to) agree agree with all of them, but do you see any major issues there? (I sure don't). Do you think it's reasonable that Adam Jones could rank ahead of most of those guys on that list? Could you have put that list together yourself?

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=cf&stats=fld&lg=all&qual=4000&type=1&season=2013&month=0&season1=2008&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&sort=10,d

It's not that I don't like them in this case, I just don't think that the managers deciding who is a good fielder or who isn't is a real big deal, or that important

Well, that's what the debate is about. I appreciate you don't like metrics, but some people do, and quite frankly the people that do seam to be in the minority. So how is the minority ramming down their opinions and the majority isn't?

Managers are holding the cards they are dealt. Lets face it, Buck isn't going to go public and state that Brett Gardner and Jacoby Ellsbury (or anyone) are better defenders in CF than Adam Jones. Just doesn't work that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I'm bothered that people are really getting flustered on both sides of this arguement. I'm honestly not sure that I need defensive metrics to tell me who is a good fielder, and who isn't. My eyes tell me that Manny Machado is a great third baseman, and Mark Reynolds was not. What did people use before defensive metrics to determine if a guy was a good fielder? Did people watching Belanger or Blair, or Brooks, etc need defensive metrics to say they were great fielders? If you are convinced that defensive metrics have advanced enough to the point they are more convincingly accurate than your eyes, well I'm not at that point yet. It's not that I don't like them in this case, I just don't think that the managers deciding who is a good fielder or who isn't is a real big deal, or that important.

I'm honestly not sure I need offensive statistics to tell me who is a good hitter, and who isn't. My eyes tell me that Chris Davis is a great hitter and Cesar Izturis isn't.

A North Korean who has never seen baseball before could tell you that Manny Machado is a good fielder and Mark Reynolds isn't after watching a few games. If you think that's all the metrics are good for, then you're really missing the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't think that the managers deciding who is a good fielder or who isn't is a real big deal, or that important.

Well that depends on whether or not you think the Gold Glove Award is a real big deal or that important... since its the managers who are responsible for handing them out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Malike. Let's just take the complement. Important people respect the players on our team.

Yay us.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

Yes, I suppose that was the intent of "Take that UZR" in the OP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I suppose that was the intent of "Take that UZR" in the OP.

Meh. I personally think the defensive metrics for outfielders leave a lot to be desired. Sometimes they just don't jibe right. I know that is the point of advanced metrics and the are meant to challenge a lot of perceptions. However, it seems to me that they are sometimes so very far off.

That being said. They are the best we have available and can not be disregarded.

The debate is fun.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • Posts

    • It was 6-9 last year as well IIRC.
    • It’s okay.  It’s a “Phil” thing.  Have you ever noticed any poster with the name “Phil” all have something else in common?   🙂
    • I do think we have players who are not very good in RISP for careers. Names that jump to mind are Mullins, Hays, Mountcastle, Santander, Mateo, McCann, Cowser-not much track record. I only feel confident with Gunnar, Adley, Ohearn, Westburg and Kjerstad-small sample size. When any of the good group are struggling we really struggle.
    • Thanks. BTW, I'm not really picking on Fruit who does have some pitches to work from and considering his awful college stats is a nice development just to get to this point.  I'm certainly not rooting against nor do I no one develops, it just the who "Orioles are masters at drafting and development" really holds no weight when it comes to pitching so far. Are they learning from past mistakes and finding better pitchers? Are they now going invest early draft capital more often, maybe even their first pick since it's late 1t round on pitching? Could they decided to take on more risk/reward High School arms early in teh draft? Perhaps. I know that Elias and Sig are smart guys. I think Holt is a good development guys given the right guys (Bradish, Kremer and even Grayson come to mind), but this organization is in need of pitching on a really good major league team and there's not a lot to bring up because they have not been good and drafting and/or developing their minor league pitching.   I'm hopeful like with anyone else, they've learned from their mistakes and will take a more balanced approached in the draft because as I've also shown, they've haven't exactly hit too often after the 1st round with college hitters since 2020 (Can't really judge Norby). 
    • It does seem like we get "up" for divisional rivals and then fall prone to trap series. Still, let's give some credit to the Cubs. Imanaga and Steele are excellent pitchers. If they were starting for us we would expect to win most of the time.
    • All the pitchers we developed but didn’t draft. They did develop. 1. Grayson Rodriguez 2. D.L. Hall (ok, ok) 3. Kyle Bradish 4. Dean Kremer (was fastball/curveball) 5. Felix Bautista 6.  Cade Povich 7.  Chayce McDermott 8.  Maybes (Portes/Chace/DeLeon/)
    • We focus on Mayo and rightfully so but Norby should also be getting at bats over Mateo, Urias and arguably some others.  
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...