Roch's Latest... Speculation about Dunn?

[Mackus]

Adam Dunn doesn't want to play DH? Oh, I guess his poo doesn't stink, either. He is a joke with the glove. You shouldn't put a bad defense behind young pitching! Can we be done with Dunn? Let's move on!

If the offers aren't there from teams wanting him as a LF, then he'll probably start taking offers from teams that want him to DH. Or have to take less to play LF.

If he'll agree to DH, he's still a phenomenal target. Dude can rake. Only problem is he takes that rake out to LF with him too instead of bringing a glove.

[RShack]

Its not style points. It goes into determining range. Your Paul Blair example is exactly my point, or Andruw Jones in his prime. They should get credit for both being able to play shallow and catch balls that other guys drop in while also being able to go back on the ball great.

But the system already does that.

Those guys *do* get higher scores because of that.

You don't need extra adjustments for it, it already shows up. It's built in to the system.

The basic principle of baseball is that guys get credit for what they do.

Introducing the idea that they should get special compensation for how they stand or what coaches tell them to do is inconsistent with baseball.

• Should a kid-P get credit and/or demerits for RK's instructions and for the pitch selection?

  Or should his performance be based on how he actually pitches?

• Should a batter get points for how much plate coverage his stance in the batters box gives him?

  Or should his performance be based on how he actually hits?

• Should a base-stealer get scored based on how much of a lead he takes?

  Or should it be based on his successes vs. failures?

In every aspect of the game, stats are based on what a player actually does, not based on how he tries to go about it.

This system is consistent with that principle.

I don't want to falsely reward Melvin Mora for having huge range if he fields a ball right where the SS would be, but its only because he was standing right there in a Ortiz-style shift. He shouldn't get bonus points for that.

You don't want Mora getting credit for being in the right place to get Ortiz out.

But you do want BRob to get credit for being in the right place to get Ortiz out.

How does that work?

[Roll Tide]

I seriously dont get it.... Dunn could play a average LF & be a plus with his bat. Scott can certainly be traded. IMO Scott may rank well in the fielding journals, But he has little speed. So he doesn't cover a lot of ground.

[Mackus]

You don't want Mora getting credit for being in the right place to get Ortiz out.

But you do want BRob to get credit for being in the right place to get Ortiz out.

How does that work?

I don't want them being falsely rewarded as having more range than they do. Mora didn't range over from the normal position to the SS's normal position. The play was as difficult for him as any play hit right at him. It should be deemed as such. Thats why you need to account where both the ball was hit and where the fielder started to determine how much range someone has.

I'm not talking about the exact methodology for the Fielding Bible.

[Mackus]

I seriously dont get it.... Dunn could play a average LF & be a plus with his bat. Scott can certainly be traded. IMO Scott may rank well in the fielding journals, But he has little speed. So he doesn't cover a lot of ground.

If you think "Dunn could play a average LF" then you are right, you seriously don't get it.

[Peace21]

I seriously dont get it.... Dunn could play a average LF & be a plus with his bat. Scott can certainly be traded. IMO Scott may rank well in the fielding journals, But he has little speed. So he doesn't cover a lot of ground.

Obviously they want to keep Scott.

Which makes you wonder if Scott were a FA this offseason and the O's were after him, if AM would do the whole one year offer that he is doing with Wiggington.

[El Gordo]

Its not style points. It goes into determining range. Your Paul Blair example is exactly my point, or Andruw Jones in his prime. They should get credit for both being able to play shallow and catch balls that other guys drop in while also being able to go back on the ball great.

Basically I would try to figure out how far a player runs to get to where each ball lands, how long it takes to get there, if they get there in time. All those things. And basically figure out who has the best range, who can cover the most ground, prevent the most balls from being fielded.

I don't want to falsely reward Melvin Mora for having huge range if he fields a ball right where the SS would be, but its only because he was standing right there in a Ortiz-style shift. He shouldn't get bonus points for that.

We're getting a bit away from the FB and sort of into OOZ plays, but its all part of the same thing. None of these defensive stats are perfect, so when a particular player's ratings in one or another of the stats doesn't pass my smell test, I don't feel bad about discarding it in a particular case. Certainly any of the defensive stats are better than traditional stats, or just following the Web Gems on baseball tonight. But when I think I've got enough justification to think my opinion of a player is more accurate than what the Fielding Bible says, I don't have any hesitation in trusting myself over their system. I don't do this for everyone, because obviously I don't see everyone play enough to be justified to take my opinions over some of these stats. I don't have any sort of running plays made or missed tally, but I am confidant enough to put someone into an average category, slightly above or below, or way above or below.

I'm not sure you are clear on exactly how the FB measures plays.:laughlol: But given your system of ave., below and above ave., how would you rate Nick, Gutierrez, R. Winn, B.Giles and A.Rios? All above average? If so how would you distinguish between them. A quick glance at the FB stats will show that there's no question that Gutierrez is #1. The difference between the others is more difficult and in the case of Giles, I am confused by his enhanced rank. Nick, Rios and Winn are pretty close but in reverse order.

[Mackus]

I'm not sure you are clear on exactly how the FB measures plays.:laughlol: But given your system of ave., below and above ave., how would you rate Nick, Gutierrez, R. Winn, B.Giles and A.Rios? All above average? If so how would you distinguish between them. A quick glance at the FB stats will show that there's no question that Gutierrez is #1. The difference between the others is more difficult and in the case of Giles, I am confused by his enhanced rank. Nick, Rios and Winn are pretty close but in reverse order.

I don't see all of them enough to judge all of them. Only Nick.

Nick I would rank as well above average defensively for a RF. I'm including arm in that though, which I don't think the FB does.

[El Gordo]

I seriously dont get it.... Dunn could play a average LF & be a plus with his bat. Scott can certainly be traded. IMO Scott may rank well in the fielding journals, But he has little speed. So he doesn't cover a lot of ground.

Maybe, but he make 12 more plays than the average LF. Must be that O's Magic.:rolleyestf:

[El Gordo]

I don't see all of them enough to judge all of them. Only Nick.

Nick I would rank as well above average defensively for a RF. I'm including arm in that though, which I don't think the FB does.

It does include his arm. It shows him to allow about 50% of the runners with an opportunity to advance to do so. This is quite good in comparison to all but Gutierrez and Rios and one of the reason he ranks as high as he does. He doesn't get to as many balls above average as the others do however.

[Hank Scorpio]

I seriously dont get it.... Dunn could play a average LF & be a plus with his bat. Scott can certainly be traded. IMO Scott may rank well in the fielding journals, But he has little speed. So he doesn't cover a lot of ground.

It's not always about speed.

It's about reaction and routes. Speed allows for deficiencies in the each of the latter.

[Roll Tide]

It's not always about speed.

It's about reaction and routes. Speed allows for deficiencies in the each of the latter.

Sure Hank ...But the Orioles view Scott as a platoon player by the way they used him last year. So they should trade him for a couple guys close to ready.

[Roll Tide]

Obviously they want to keep Scott.

Which makes you wonder if Scott were a FA this offseason and the O's were after him, if AM would do the whole one year offer that he is doing with Wiggington.

Yeah ... I get it ...They want to keep a platoon player than sign a guy like Dunn.

If Scott were on the market you can believe they'd be low balling just like they have with everyone else they've spoken to lately.

[Andy_Dufresne]

I've changed my mind, there's no way the Orioles can compete with the finacially superior Yankees and Red Sox and the superior talent of the Rays (at least for the next few years). They shold not sign any free agents that increase payroll, replace players, but don;t commit financial resources, just rent a fillin player when absolutely neccessary and try and develop All Stars from within and trade them for prospects when they get close to free agency. Kind of like Florida, Oakland and Minnesota.

[Hank Scorpio]

Sure Hank ...But the Orioles view Scott as a platoon player by the way they used him last year. So they should trade him for a couple guys close to ready.

I just don't think Dunn fits in unless he's DH'ing... and his price tag is entirely too high for someone who only contributes offensively. He can't play 1st base at all and he's below average in left field.

Ideally, I'd have Huff at first base, Reimold / Montanez in left field and Scott DH'ing... but we can't be sure how Reimold will perform in Spring Training. Freel will be the 4th outfielder, 2nd infielder and pinch runner.

Gotta say, I'm disappointed by the notion of 3 man bench, but I'm not surprised.