Luis Hernandez shining in Winter League playoffs

[RShack]

Tango's formula isn't one that tells you if a specific player was average or not. His tells you how bad a hitter can be and still be close to average if they have an elite glove. How individual people choose to define "best glove in the league" is up to them, but he caps the defensive contributions at 2.5 wins for SS (lesser amounts for other positions), as well as scale for offensive contribtion relative to position.

A few SS's have D that's better than 2.5 wins. I could be wrong, but I think he was just using 2.5 wins as a general rule-of-thumb about GG-quality SS's. I don't think was saying that nobody's better than that. We know that there's been a couple guys better than that just in the last couple years alone.

[mweb]

That is not true. That is one small thing that a Few People have decided to make a federal case out of by telling me to prove it or else I'm a liar. If you think that's my main point, then you haven't been reading any of the various threads we've had about this. Which is OK, there's no law saying you're supposed to. But you didn't even need to do that, all you had to do was *actually read* what I clearly said in post #133 of this thread. Evidently, you responded to it without even bothering to read it. If you're gonna characterize what my point is, at least bother to read what my point is. You don't have to agree with it, but at least read it.

No, it is *not*. A runs-prevented is worth *more* than a run scored.

Have you been reading any of the various threads around here concerning this?

This is not a new factoid.

Concerning the bolded part, I was just talking about your point that started the debate in this thread, not your entire crusade against the 4 basic mythologies, I don't think it was hard to figure that out either. So the rest of your post, where you act like a jerk while lecturing me, is totally unwarranted.

Yes it is. Once again, a player is able to contribute many more runs offensively than they're defensively. Preventing 30 runs compared to average is not worth as much as creating 75 runs above average. Both would represent the total of an elite defensive/offensive player.

[RShack]

I think this is a very fair and valid point...So, what does this tell you?

I remember reading a few years ago about how they were trying to come up with a much better defensive stat...They wanted live people at the games tracking every single aspect...But how are you defining range? Or "zone"? How are you determining how many runs are saved?

I agree that defensive stats are far from perfect...I have always said they are a tool that should be used but that your eyes are a better measure(if you know what you are looking at).

So what does all of this mean to you? My guess is that since you can't really measure it accurately, that you don't really know who is great defensively and who isn't.

What does it mean to me? Not what you suggested. Because readily-available stats are not useful about measuring how many runs D provides, it means that *stats* don't tell you who is great defensively. But that doesn't mean you don't know. It only means you don't know from stats. Everybody knew Brooks and Belanger were great, but that was way before modern expanded stats. It was before anybody started trying to actually *define* great defensive players based on stats. *Nobody* said that Brooks or Belanger weren't worth it if they hit like crap, because nobody thought like that, nobody defined them primarily by their hitting numbers. People mostly defined them by their D, with hitting being an optional goody. Back then, people still knew that hitting and defense value existed in balanced proportion to each other. The idea that they aren't is mostly a modern disease.

But this is why offense is so valuable and used so much more...It is very easy to measure.

Huh? What?

You're right that it's easy to measure.

You're right that it's used so much more.

You're wrong that that makes it more valuable.

It's *not* more valuable... at least not in Actual Baseball.

(However, I hear that it is more valuable in fantasy baseball ;-)

Stats just make it *look like* it's more valuable, but that only happens if you're having stat-based arguments about baseball. I think it's fine (although of dubious spiritual value) to have stat-based arguments about baseball. But that's a different sport than Actual Baseball. Thinking that stats *define* baseball is what you might call a fantasy. The truth is exactly opposite: stats are secondary, not primary. Stats are the shadow that baseball throws. Studying that shadow can teach us stuff. But the shadow ain't the real thing.

[mweb]

Well, if you wanna use Bill James formula for players values, then you'll be disagreeing with Bill James.

In the issue of Everett vs. Jeter, Win Shares said one thing, but when Bill James looked beyond the equation, and really looked at D in detail, his estimate of Everett's value (compared to Jeter) went up to 281% of what the equation said. And when we correct for one specific error Bill James made in the latter number, then it went up to 439% of the original number. These differences are huge. So, which version of Bill James are you gonna plug into the equation?

In the first case, he said that Jeter was worth several more Wins than Everett. But in the latter case, Everett is worth more Wins than Jeter. That's quite the turnaround. And the difference is based 100% on looking closely at D. So, you tell me: which one is correct? The original one based on Win Shares, which is the one we can look up when we're browsing stats? Or the latter one that we can't just look up because it's based on the kind of D-data that we evidently just can't get about most players?

This is a clear-cut case of the readily-available stats leading people to wrong conclusions. People assumed Jeter was a lot more valuable than Everett. Why? Because they were basing their opinion on the huge diff in their *hitting stats*. But when you look closely at D, you find that the MFY who swings a future-HOF bat was actually *less* valuable in terms of providing his team with runs than was a good-D guy who many people never heard of. This means that the D-stats we can get weren't just a little-bit wrong, they were big-time, mega-sized super-wrong. Since you keep saying that the readily-available D-stats are so useful, could you please explain to me how they could possibly be *that* wrong? And could you also explain to me exactly why you trust them?

Yet, without these stats and equations that you are using, no one would think Everett was more valuable than Jeter. Ahh, the irony. BTW, link to this?

I'm not going to repeat myself once again on why I feel that defensive stats are helpful but at the same time, far from perfect.

[DrungoHazewood]

Well, if you wanna use Bill James formula for players values, then you'll be disagreeing with Bill James.

In the issue of Everett vs. Jeter, Win Shares said one thing, but when Bill James looked beyond the equation, and really looked at D in detail, his estimate of Everett's value (compared to Jeter) went up to 281% of what the equation said. And when we correct for one specific error Bill James made in the latter number, then it went up to 439% of the original number. These differences are huge. So, which version of Bill James are you gonna plug into the equation?

In the first case, he said that Jeter was worth several more Wins than Everett. But in the latter case, Everett is worth more Wins than Jeter. That's quite the turnaround. And the difference is based 100% on looking closely at D. So, you tell me: which one is correct? The original one based on Win Shares, which is the one we can look up when we're browsing stats? Or the latter one that we can't just look up because it's based on the kind of D-data that we evidently just can't get about most players?

This is a clear-cut case of the readily-available stats leading people to wrong conclusions. People assumed Jeter was a lot more valuable than Everett. Why? Because they were basing their opinion on the huge diff in their *hitting stats*. But when you look closely at D, you find that the MFY who swings a future-HOF bat was actually *less* valuable in terms of providing his team with runs than was a good-D guy who many people never heard of. This means that the D-stats we can get weren't just a little-bit wrong, they were big-time, mega-sized super-wrong. Since you keep saying that the readily-available D-stats are so useful, could you please explain to me how they could possibly be *that* wrong? And could you also explain to me exactly why you trust them?

Adam Everett and Derek Jeter are two of the more extreme cases you can find. That a system occasionally breaks down on the margins doesn't make it fundamentally flawed. It doesn't make it useless.

This is like saying that you have a GPS that works in some areas, and a compass that works in others. Since the compass doesn't give you the data that the GPS does, you've decided to throw it out the window and just set out in a direction you think might be close whenever you can't use the GPS.

We go over this time and time again - with the value of translated minor league numbers, the value of defensive stats, etc. Lack of perfection doesn't equal lack of utility.

[Frobby]

This is a clear-cut case of the readily-available stats leading people to wrong conclusions. People assumed Jeter was a lot more valuable than Everett. Why? Because they were basing their opinion on the huge diff in their *hitting stats*. But when you look closely at D, you find that the MFY who swings a future-HOF bat was actually *less* valuable in terms of providing his team with runs than was a good-D guy who many people never heard of. This means that the D-stats we can get weren't just a little-bit wrong, they were big-time, mega-sized super-wrong. Since you keep saying that the readily-available D-stats are so useful, could you please explain to me how they could possibly be *that* wrong? And could you also explain to me exactly why you trust them?

You seem to be putting a lot of credence in your own analysis of a specific set of defensive stats you've decided you like. However, if there is a set of stats out there that suggests that Adam Everett is a more valuable player than Derek Jeter, apparently there are 30 baseball GM's who don't believe that statistical conclusion. Including the Astros' GM, who after watching Everett for years, didn't even tender him a contract this winter.

With due respect to the guys who are out there trying to come up with reliable defensive stats, I have yet to see any defensive stat that doesn't appear to have common sense anomolies. You would think that RZR, Rate, +/-, defensive win shares and other stats would have a fair degree of correlation with each other, but they just don't, and you can pick a stat you like to reach just about any conclusion you choose with respect to a player's defensive prowess.

I think it will take another 10 years before the stat guys reach some form of consensus on the best way to measure defense, and how to weigh a player's offensive and defensive contributions correctly. To me, there is simply too much disagreement among the top thinkers in the field right now to put much faith in any single system.

P.S. - Please tell me where Bill James said that he had undervalued Everett's value by 281%, and that Everett was more valuable than Jeter. Is there a link? Is it in an article? Or is this some conclusion you have drawn yourself based on your interpretation of something James said?

[Hank Scorpio]

So!!!

Anyone enjoy some good defense around here?

[bobmc]

So!!!

Anyone enjoy some good defense around here?

Along with the 13th of 14 rated pitching staffs - awesome!

[El Gordo]

Along with the 13th of 14 rated pitching staffs - awesome!

AM on XM MLB this morning: "Defense is hard to quantify, and easy to let go of, but is extremely important when it comes to winning ball games."

[Sports Guy]

AM on XM MLB this morning: "Defense is hard to quantify, and easy to let go of, but is extremely important when it comes to winning ball games."

And this is 100% true.

However, you also need to score runs.

[ChrisAF79]

And this is 100% true.

However, you also need to score runs.

Exactly. No team has ever won a 0-0 game. You can prevent all the runs in the world, but it won't mean diddly-squat if you don't score any.

[El Gordo]

And this is 100% true.

However, you also need to score runs.

My point is about the philosophy AM is using to rebuild the team. Good pitching beats offense; good defense bolsters good pitching, and this is the best way to compete with Boston and New York. As to offense, this morning it was interesting to me that AM placed a lot of emphasis on improving PPA numbers.