Top position players 25 and under?

[Moose Milligan]

I'm sorry, but why do SO many people hate Cano?

I'm not trying to be a Yankee apologist here or anything but he's hitting .324 this year.

I know he wasn't the prized, hyped Yankee prospect but he's doing really well. I'm also aware that he's in an incredible lineup but he's doing his part and contributing a great deal.

He absolutely deserves to be a part of this conversation.

[Baltimoron]

I don't trust rate much, but it says Cano is quite good at 2nd, Weeks, not so much. Cano also easily rated higher in ZR and had a much better fielding %. So what defensive stats do you have that rate Weeks as being much better? Cano was .133 better in OPS, so I have a hard time believing Weeks defense(rated very poorly by rate) and baserunning makes up that difference.

Weeks had a broken wrist last year and missed the last part of the year. Cano's ZR was .807 - to Weeks .765 *BUT* Weeks made only 2 less plays out of zone (OOZ) than Cano in 200+ fewer innings (1009 - 794) and only turned 6 fewer double plays (The Brew crew had Bill Hall at SS after Hardy got hurt, and he was initially shaky and got pretty good, yet Weeks was gone during a lot of this "better" period).

To put it in perspective, Orlando Hudson, probably the best defensive second baseman in baseball, had a lower ZR than Cano. OOZ is very important (see article below).

I'd suggest you give a look at THT's ZR and OOZ if you are using STATs ZR data leave the Rate alone.

FYI:

Unfortunately, Baseball Info Solutions decided not to release the +/- fielding system they published in The Fielding Bible last year. So no Fielding Bible.

Thankfully, the folks at The Hardball Times purchased detailed Zone Rating (the new Zone Rating that was behind the +/- system, not the Zone Rating available elsewhere, like ESPN) statistics from BIS. While they're not the same as the stats that were the highlight of the fielding bible, they're still very good: essentially they assign each fielder a zone (or rather, a set of zones) on the field and assess how many balls hit into that zone the fielder converts into outs. They also lists plays made out of zone. This has advantages over more traditional fielding stats like fielding percentage because it incorporates fielder range into the estimate of fielder quality in addition to his sure-handedness and ability to throw accurately. And it's better than range factor because it accounts for the number of balls a player had the opportunity to field, rather than just assuming that all players get the same number of chances at a given position.

THT stats

Explanation of "Fielding Bible" Zone Rating and Stats Zone Rating, i.e. ESPN ZR

Cano's 2006 OPS = 342 BA. Do it again? If he only hits .320 that's a minimum of .044 off his OPS and likely more than .05.

Cano has shown better plate discipline, but he still only has 4 non-IBBs in 71 ABs this year. And he hasn't yet shown any power at all, hitting .325 but only slugging .408.

Rickie Weeks is slugging and drawing walks and being healthy.

[Baltimoron]

I'm sorry, but why do SO many people hate Cano?

I'm not trying to be a Yankee apologist here or anything but he's hitting .324 this year.

I know he wasn't the prized, hyped Yankee prospect but he's doing really well. I'm also aware that he's in an incredible lineup but he's doing his part and contributing a great deal.

He absolutely deserves to be a part of this conversation.

I don't think he is one of the ten best or even 15 best but he should be in the conversation.

High average but Low BB/Low Patience (career high 3.49P/PA in 07)/Low Power and bad D and poor baserunning.

[mweb]

Weeks had a broken wrist last year and missed the last part of the year. Cano's ZR was .807 - to Weeks .765 *BUT* Weeks made only 2 less plays out of zone (OOZ) than Cano in 200+ fewer innings (1009 - 794) and only turned 6 fewer double plays (The Brew crew had Bill Hall at SS after Hardy got hurt, and he was initially shaky and got pretty good, yet Weeks was gone during a lot of this "better" period).

To put it in perspective, Orlando Hudson, probably the best defensive second baseman in baseball, had a lower ZR than Cano. OOZ is very important (see article below).

I'd suggest you give a look at THT's ZR and OOZ if you are using STATs ZR data leave the Rate alone.

FYI:

THT stats

Explanation of "Fielding Bible" Zone Rating and Stats Zone Rating, i.e. ESPN ZR

Cano's 2006 OPS = 342 BA. Do it again? If he only hits .320 that's a minimum of .044 off his OPS and likely more than .05.

Cano has shown better plate discipline, but he still only has 4 non-IBBs in 71 ABs this year. And he hasn't yet shown any power at all, hitting .325 but only slugging .408.

Rickie Weeks is slugging and drawing walks and being healthy.

Yeah, I think Weeks will be better than Cano, but I don't see any reason to put him ahead now based on what they've done in their young careers. And defense certainly doesn't close the gap as of right now. You still haven't shown how Cano is bad defensively. BTW, Cano has a .324 AVG, but a better OBP compared to last years, so if he can get his power back up to last years level, he may still be very productive even with a lower average.

[Baltimoron]

Yeah, I think Weeks will be better than Cano, but I don't see any reason to put him ahead now based on what they've done in their young careers. And defense certainly doesn't close the gap as of right now. You still haven't shown how Cano is bad defensively. BTW, Cano has a .324 AVG, but a better OBP compared to last years, so if he can get his power back up to last years level, he may still be very productive even with a lower average.

I know, I showed how Weeks is better.

[mweb]

I know, I showed how Weeks is better.

Not exactly.

[Baltimoron]

Not exactly.

Do you somehow disagree that the THT defensive stats are better than the traditional zone rating, or do you not understand how they demonstrate that Weeks is better defensively?

[davearm]

Do you somehow disagree that the THT defensive stats are better than the traditional zone rating, or do you not understand how they demonstrate that Weeks is better defensively?

I have no knowledge of how THT comes up with its defensive stats.

I can tell you two things though.

One is that defensive stats as a rule need to be taken with a grain of salt, because as most experts will tell you, nobody's yet established a truly reliable measure. The PBP work that's being done now shows a lot of promise (IMO), but that approach is really in its infancy.

Two is that Baseball Prospectus' best currently-available defensive metric, Rate2, shows Cano to be head and shoulders better than Weeks. Cano shows a 107 Rate2 (in 268 G), while Weeks shows an 88 (in 212 G).

The bottom line is you open yourself up to some very valid criticism if/when you quote any website's or expert's defensive measures as some sort of gospel truth.

[mweb]

Do you somehow disagree that the THT defensive stats are better than the traditional zone rating, or do you not understand how they demonstrate that Weeks is better defensively?

Like Dave said, defensive stats are not the gospel. And THT's ZR has Cano being better than Weeks for 2006, so I guess I don't understand how their stats show Weeks was so much better last year. And yes, I saw that Weeks has an edge in OOZ when considering innings played.

And besides, my point was that you didn't show how Weeks alledged defensive edge makes up for the large gap in their offense going into this season.

Once again, I think Weeks will be better(probably already is, but needs to prove his start is legit), but going into this season, Cano had a clear edge, show me how that is wrong.

[Baltimoron]

I have no knowledge of how THT comes up with its defensive stats.

I can tell you two things though.

One is that defensive stats as a rule need to be taken with a grain of salt, because as most experts will tell you, nobody's yet established a truly reliable measure. The PBP work that's being done now shows a lot of promise (IMO), but that approach is really in its infancy.

Two is that Baseball Prospectus' best currently-available defensive metric, Rate2, shows Cano to be head and shoulders better than Weeks. Cano shows a 107 Rate2 (in 268 G), while Weeks shows an 88 (in 212 G).

The bottom line is you open yourself up to some very valid criticism if/when you quote any website's or expert's defensive measures as some sort of gospel truth.

Ms-information and distortion help no one. Add something instead of providing irrelevant generalizations and inaccurate statements about defensive statistics you obviously don't understand. LOL at Rate2. I'm not sure why you think anyone has suggested a defensive stat is gospel. Its only been suggested than one measure is far superior to the prior version of a measure (cited by MWEB) that was invented over 20 years ago and whose shortcoming has been a topic of conversation for sometime until the stats original inventor published a revised version in the fielding bible. Thanks for the lecture though dad, maybe next time you'll provide something insightful and pertinent to the conversation.

[Baltimoron]

Like Dave said, defensive stats are not the gospel. And THT's ZR has Cano being better than Weeks for 2006, so I guess I don't understand how their stats show Weeks was so much better last year. And yes, I saw that Weeks has an edge in OOZ when considering innings played.

This was the whole point of Sean Smith's article comparing the old and new versions of zone ratings. Every ball you field and turn into an out has value. Weeks fields more balls per inning.

And besides, my point was that you didn't show how Weeks alledged defensive edge makes up for the large gap in their offense going into this season.

Once again, I think Weeks will be better(probably already is, but needs to prove his start is legit), but going into this season, Cano had a clear edge, show me how that is wrong.

What am I supposed to show? I expressed my opinion that Weeks is a better young player because he is a better defender, hits for more power and takes more walks. You responded with the ZR stuff. I showed you how ZR favors Weeks.

We are trying to evaluate young players, of course its speculative. I'm not arguing Weeks was better last year (which is what a reliance on last year's numbers will show you). These guys are young players. I'm arguing he is better now, and better going forward. Of course Cano has an edge, he didn't miss over two months of last season with a wrist injury. From the underlined part it sound like we agree.

07 stats are certainly to early to rely on for much but what has held true is Weeks is much better at drawing walks and hitting for more power. Cano's hitting a lot of singles and for average but isn't seeing many pitches or hitting for power.

That's why these posts are fun - there is no "right answer" that can be quantified in any way other than waiting. Sure, you could try a silly argument like Cano is better than MCab but the whole reason why these threads are good is that the answer is more subjective so there is more room for original thoughts and ideas and less room for dismissive numbers.

If you can't accept disagreement and the fact that we can't anoint a clear winner just yet, you've missed why this type of thread is the best. Prospects and young players = no clear answer just yet.

[Baltimoron]

BTW, I'm lost. You listed the top players under 25, and when I said Weeks was better than Cano you challeneged me, but then you wrote:

I think Weeks will be better(probably already is, but needs to prove his start is legit)

We seem to agree this is not an MVP like discussion. What's done is done. Cano has been better so far. That said, I think Weeks is better now and going forward. Past stats may be relevant to the extent they allow us to extrapolate into the future, but are otherwise irrelevant.

How do we disagree, other than our respective certainties that Weeks is better now?

[Baltimoron]

Weeks is not very good at all at 2B.

In fact the Brewers thought long and hard about biting the bullet and moving him to the OF. They've stuck with him at 2B for now, but that's still a somewhat tenuous situation.

The reason he is such a highly regarded prospect is his athleticism. I'm not sure what your post has to do with anything. No one claims he was always a good second baseman, just that he is pretty good now, much better than Cano and most importantly, still getting better. Its not a tenuous situation. For example, from the brewers 07 preview:

Rickie Weeks

Before his season ended prematurely, Weeks showed us that his defense was much improved. In fact, his second half of '06 was rather impressive. Weeks will solidify the middle of the infield with a fine glove. Perhaps most importantly, Weeks will prove to us that although not a typical lead off hitter, he will show discipline at the plate and show the National League that power can be put in the lead off spot.

- Jamie Siegel

Brewer fan link

Young players take time to develop.

[davearm]

Ms-information and distortion help no one. Add something instead of providing irrelevant generalizations and inaccurate statements about defensive statistics you obviously don't understand. LOL at Rate2. I'm not sure why you think anyone has suggested a defensive stat is gospel. Its only been suggested than one measure is far superior to the prior version of a measure (cited by MWEB) that was invented over 20 years ago and whose shortcoming has been a topic of conversation for sometime until the stats original inventor published a revised version in the fielding bible. Thanks for the lecture though dad, maybe next time you'll provide something insightful and pertinent to the conversation.

I'm not sure why you felt the need to be such a jerk here.

I'm not claiming Rate2 is a great stat or anything. What I'm pointing out is that two different systems aimed at measuring defensive production can give wildly different results. This example illustrates that reality in spades.

The bottom line is that two guys sitting down to answer the same question, each using reasonable and well-constructed analytical methodologies, can (and have) come to vastly different conclusions. Guys like Bill James, John Dewan, and Clay Davenport (among many others) are all really bright guys, yet what they have to say about quantifying defense differs considerably -- not only in method, but in findings.

Now if you want to believe that there really is one be-all and end-all measure of defensive production, one that would allow you to conclude definitively and without a doubt, as you have ("I showed how Weeks is better"), that Weeks is a better defender than Cano, then that's your business.

Just be aware that the majority of folks that have given this issue some thought disagree with that conclusion, and would suggest that you're reaching by making such declarative statements.

[Baltimoron]

In fact the Brewers thought long and hard about biting the bullet and moving him to the OF.

Assuming this is true, doesn't this bolster the case for Weeks. If just a few years ago he was horrible, and has shown such great improvement already (in part a testament to his athleticism), doesn't that bode well for the future and suggest he may in fact not yet have peaked defensively?

He played the last half of 05 and 2/3rds of 06 in the majors, and few doubt he showed great improvement over that time period. One can see similarities in the way in which Nick M. grew over his first season in the big leagues.

Fun stats: Weeks is walking 11.7% of the time he comes to the plate this year. Although he is only hitting .241, he is slugging .542. 5 hrs, 3 3Bs and 4 2bs. And his Ks per plate appearance are down 10% from his 05-06 numbers, from 25% to 15%. If he keeps making contact his average won't stay down for long with his speed and power.

link