Players are skeptical about Adam Jones' defensive metrics

[weams]

22 minutes ago, esmd said:

Good find.  I still think he's in the top half of CFers in MLB.  That's my personal opinion.  And I think the fact that he so often plays hurt contributes to his defensive metrics being low.  I also think Kiermaier makes a good point in that the metrics, though valuable, aren't perfect.  That said, Adam is 31, and it's natural to think he may have lost a 1/2 step.  I think a move to RF or LF (depending on personnel) is certainly in his near future.  I'd do it now if they could find a good defensive CFer (maybe one that gets on base at least at a .330 clip and could hit leadoff?  Please?  Pretty please?).  I think right now Adam would be one of the best defensive corner OFers in the game if he made the move.

Kiermaier is the top recipient of the metric's goodness. If he thinks it's flawed then he is tremendously humble or relatively honest.

[DrungoHazewood]

4 minutes ago, Ruzious said:

I disagree with that19 games comment and would go as far to say that any decent baseball person should be able to get a good basis for judgment on the quality of a CFer after watching him for 19 full games in a season.  

After 19 games you should have a reasonable take on whether a guy is a major league CFer.  Maybe some concept as to whether he appears above or below average.

But the difference between Kiermaier and Jones is maybe a run every five games or so.  Between most any other CFers it's going to be a run every 10 or 20 or 40 games.  No one can quantify something like that with 19 games of kind of paying attention to the CFer.

[waroriole]

10 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

The sum of the opinions of all of his peers might be one of many inputs to the process.  By itself Kiermaier's opinion is little better than your opinion or mine.

It wasn't just Kiermaier though. Bradley mentioned him too. Also, writers have voted him for 4 Gold Gloves. So, the opinions of people who watch with a close eye tell a different story than the numbers. 

That said, I get that he's not one of the best defensive CF right now. But, maybe the numbers are too skewed in a negative direction.

[DrungoHazewood]

1 minute ago, weams said:

Kiermaier is the top recipient of the metric's goodness. If he thinks it's flawed then he is tremendously humble or relatively honest.

He's probably a decent guy who knows Jones is a very good CFer compared to hundreds of other MLB and MiLB outfielders he's watched.  But he's probably also like the vast majority of players (and fans, for that matter) who don't have the interest, inclination, or maybe aptitude to dig into what these metrics are doing.  He's projecting his casual observation and practical knowledge onto bits and pieces of the metrics.

[DrungoHazewood]

Just now, waroriole said:

It wasn't just Kiermaier though. Bradley mentioned him too. Also, writers have voted him for 4 Gold Gloves. So, the opinions of people who watch with a close eye tell a different story than the numbers. 

That said, I get that he's not one of the best defensive CF right now. But, maybe the numbers are too skewed in a negative direction.

We're all acutely aware of the limitations of offhand recollections of casual observations as recorded in the Gold Glove records.

[weams]

1 minute ago, DrungoHazewood said:

He's probably a decent guy who knows Jones is a very good CFer compared to hundreds of other MLB and MiLB outfielders he's watched.  But he's probably also like the vast majority of players (and fans, for that matter) who don't have the interest, inclination, or maybe aptitude to dig into what these metrics are doing.  He's projecting his casual observation and practical knowledge onto bits and pieces of the metrics.

And I believe that bias and human error are components of the current defensive metrics. Some math is math. Some is theory. 

[esmd]

20 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Why is that a good point?  No metric is perfect.  A yardstick is a flawed, imperfect way to measure your height.  A cesium clock, although it only loses a second every billion years or so, is imperfect.

No one should let imperfection get in the way of making use of good metrics.  This imperfection in defensive metrics seems to be an excuse to throw out systematic approaches and fall back on even more flawed subjective observations.

 

 

The point is, that the metrics aren't the final authority.  It's a good tool, but I wouldn't depend on the metrics alone to make the determination.  If you don't think that's a good point, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[weams]

7 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

After 19 games you should have a reasonable take on whether a guy is a major league CFer.  Maybe some concept as to whether he appears above or below average.

But the difference between Kiermaier and Jones is maybe a run every five games or so.  Between most any other CFers it's going to be a run every 10 or 20 or 40 games.  No one can quantify something like that with 19 games of kind of paying attention to the CFer.

We also do not know how much of Jones' defense is adversely affected by trying to go left and right for Joey, Trumbo, Cruz, Delmon, Reimold and Kim.

[DrungoHazewood]

16 minutes ago, weams said:

And I believe that bias and human error are components of the current defensive metrics. Some math is math. Some is theory. 

But subjective observations take bias and human error and present them as features.

[weams]

3 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

But subjective observations take bias and human error and present them as features.

Both ways. Sometimes I want things to be one way, but it's the other.

[DrungoHazewood]

15 minutes ago, esmd said:

The point is, that the metrics aren't the final authority.  It's a good tool, but I wouldn't depend on the metrics alone to make the determination.  If you don't think that's a good point, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I like to look at the metrics then entertain reasons why people think they may be wrong. If someone has a really compelling case maybe we bump them one way or the other a bit.

But what often happens is someone sees a result that doesn't agree with their prior opinion and they throw out the metrics.

[weams]

1 minute ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I like to look at the metrics then entertain reasons why people think they may be wrong. If someone has a really compelling case maybe we bump them one way or the other a bit.

But what often happens is someone sees a result that doesn't agree with their prior opinion and they throw out the metrics.

I think the fact that Adam always has to compensate for others a great deal is a compelling case. 

[waroriole]

43 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

We're all acutely aware of the limitations of offhand recollections of casual observations as recorded in the Gold Glove records.

Of course, but grouped with other opinions it can carry a small amount of weight 

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, weams said:

I think the fact that Adam always has to compensate for others a great deal is a compelling case. 

Wouldn't playing alongside inferior fielders make your own metrics look better?  He's going after any ball halfway plausible he can reach, nobody's taking anything from him.  I'd think playing next to Trumbo and Kim would give him more opportunities.

[weams]

56 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Wouldn't playing alongside inferior fielders make your own metrics look better?  He's going after any ball halfway plausible he can reach, nobody's taking anything from him.  I'd think playing next to Trumbo and Kim would give him more opportunities.

The measurements at this point are still based on manual input, with error and omission. Adam tries to do too much sometimes. And he rarely dives for balls that he knows his co-fielders will play into inside the parkers.