Jump to content

If you don't undestand that Buck likes Izzy at SS...


wildcard

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 141
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Most projections use past data to look at what will happen in the future. Projection are not fact, they are just a best guess based on past experience. The fact that Furcal has only played on 40% of the Dodgers games over the last three years in concerning. Considering he is getting old the chances that his body will be able to keep him off the the DL of extended periods looks poor. That is not twisting data. That is just looking at the facts and projection forward.

I did not say the O's would be able to sustain .600 win percentage over a full season without adding more players. So don't say I said it if I didn't. I am not tell you what you think I would appreicate the same treatment.

I have read about fangraphs and their projections of their defensive data. Its very subjective. As are there value of players worth. People can accept what they project if they want. I see their system as flawed. It's not that I have not looked into them. Do you understand how they come up with their data?

Setting aside your *ahem* skepicism of value metrics, how about a much simpler one - Cesar Izturis has failed to play 115 games in four of his nine full years in the majors. If you're going to gig Furcal for being injury prone, I think you have to do the same for Izturis and more.

Furcal is a productive shortstop who's been occasionally hurt. Izturis is a good fielding shortstop with an historically awful bat who's been frequently hurt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Setting aside your *ahem* skepicism of value metrics, how about a much simpler one - Cesar Izturis has failed to play 115 games in four of his nine full years in the majors. If you're going to gig Furcal for being injury prone, I think you have to do the same for Izturis and more.

Furcal is a productive shortstop who's been occasionally hurt. Izturis is a good fielding shortstop with an historically awful bat who's been frequently hurt.

Furcal $12M vs Izturis $2.6M tells the whole story there. No one expects Izturis to out play Furcal for that money. But there is a whole lot expected of Furcal for $12M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most projections use past data to look at what will happen in the future. Projection are not fact, they are just a best guess based on past experience. The fact that Furcal has only played on 40% of the Dodgers games over the last three years in concerning. Considering he is getting old the chances that his body will be able to keep him off the the DL of extended periods looks poor. That is not twisting data. That is just looking at the facts and projection forward.

OldFan????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Furcal $12M vs Izturis $2.6M tells the whole story there. No one expects Izturis to out play Furcal for that money. But there is a whole lot expected of Furcal for $12M.

Yea, about three wins over replacement. Over his career he's averaged 3.8 per 162 games, or just about three in 140. He's fairly compensated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea, about three wins over replacement. Over his career he's averaged 3.8 per 162 games, or just about three in 140. He's fairly compensated.

As I said I have not problem with Furcal when he plays. He is an outstanding SS when he is on the field. The concerning part is that he has been out a lot over the last three years. That is a big enough sample to be meaningful. He doesn't help his team while he is on the DL and he is a important part of the team. That is very similar to BRob being out so long from the O's. We know how much that hurt the O's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't the slightest idea what you are trying to say or why.

That's not surprising, b/c apparently you haven't had the slightest idea of what everyone in this thread has been trying to explain to you also.

Here's a shot. We would be immensely better off with Furcal playing 100 games (he should play more) and Andino playing 62 games than we would be with Izzy playing 162. Hell, Izzy is so bad offensively that we would be better off with Andino playing 162 games than Izzy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the fallacy here is that Izzy isn't the only good defensive SS in the world, and there are others who hit better than he does.

Because the O's tolerated a couple of years of Tejada when his defense was on the decline, and then suffered through the horrible 5 stooges in 2008, a lot of folks seem to think that Izzy is miles better than most major league starting shortstops defensively. He's not. He's got slightly better than average range, and makes fewer mistakes than average. He's very sound fundamentally. It's a pleasure to watch him play the position. But he's not Ozzie Smith, or Mark Belanger, or Omar Vizquel. There are 28 shortstops who have played 600+ innings this year, and Izzy is 15th in UZR/150. If you prefer to go by RZR, Izzy ranks 18th.

Meanwhile, on offense Izzy is dead last. Not by a little. By a ton. He's at -26.6 runs, 8 worse than the next worst guy out of all the shorstops in the majors. And as a result, his solid but not amazing defense just can't make up for his pathetic hitting.

Anyone who is an Izzy advocate simply doesn't watch enough of the other shorstops in MLB. There are plenty of good ones. So, no I have no interest in having some hack like Yuniesky Betancourt or Asdurbral Cabrera. But I'd gladly take a Jason Bartlett, even in a down year both offensively and defensively for him, as compared to Izzy.

Objective analysis like this is one of the best things about this board. Well, that and the sheer entertainment value of some of the threads that go way far astray. But I appreciate the comments from knowledgeable fans who watch more games than I do and have knowledge of players from other teams that I don't have. I haven't even read the rest of the thread and likely won't due to time constraints, but this alone was worth clicking on the thread.

Rep to you, Frobby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not surprising, b/c apparently you haven't had the slightest idea of what everyone in this thread has been trying to explain to you also.

Here's a shot. We would be immensely better off with Furcal playing 100 games (he should play more) and Andino playing 62 games than we would be with Izzy playing 162. Hell, Izzy is so bad offensively that we would be better off with Andino playing 162 games than Izzy.

Not if the O's have to pay $12M for 100 games of Furcal. He will hit better over those hundred games then Izzy. No question. But the O's have a limited budget and if they pay him $12M he has to play like a $12M player which is at least 140-150 games. That is just not what Furcal projects to do.

There is a opportunity cost to Furcal. If the O's pay him $12m the O's will no doubt pass on some other high priced player that might help them. Then when Andino is playing for Furcal the lineup will suffer because the team would be built expecting Furcal offense to be there. And instead it would be on the DL.

I thought this was a discussion. If we don't agree there is no reason to get insulting about it. It just means we have different views that we are sharing with each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have the time to identify every SS who might be attainable, who plays good enough defense to meet the threshold, and who hits substantially better than Izturis. But here are some. In parentheses I put batting runs, UZR, and WAR. For context, Izturis' numbers are (-26.6, 1.4, -0.4).

1. Alex Gonzalez (4.4, 4.7, 3.6) is a free agent after this season.

2. Rafael Furcal (16.1, 6.8, 4.1) may be available due to Dodgers fiscal problems.

3. Jose Reyes (5.8, -4.2, 2.6) may be available due to Mets fiscal problems.

4. Stephen Drew (8.2, 5.4, 4.0) may be available due to Diamondbacks fiscal problems.

5. Either J.J. Hardy (-1.2, 8.4, 2.3) or Nick Punto (-6.1, 13.2, 1.8) may be available from the Twins.

6. Orlando Cabrera (-10.0, 5.6, 1.7) is likely available from the Reds.

7. Reid Brignac (-4.7, 1.6, 0.9) or Jason Bartlett (-8.7, -4.9, 0.8) may be available from the Rays.

8. Clint Barmes (-17.1, 3.7, 0.4) may be available from the Rockies.

9. Edgar Renteria (-2.2, 0.8, 1.0) is likely available from the Giants.

Now, I don't watch these guys play every day. There might be some I would rule out if I did. There might be others on this list are won't be made available. But I'm pretty confident there are some others not on this list who are available, and who meet my criteria of playing solid shortstop defense while being a significantly better hitter than Izzy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the O's have a limited budget

Really? They have a pretty low payroll, with some money coming off the books.

if they pay him $12M he has to play like a $12M player which is at least 140-150 games. That is just not what Furcal projects to do.

He's been injured for 2 of the last 3 years. Before that, he played at least 138 games for the past 6 years. Why do you ignore that bit of history?

Even if he doesn't project to play 150 games, it doesn't mean he won't be worth $12M. If he does enough in those 120 games to make him worth $12M then he is worth it. When you put Andino (or Izzy) in as his replacement then he will still be worth alot more than Izzy, even when their salaries are included in the calculation. Hell, he's been worth almost 5 wins more than Izzy this year, and he's only played in 87 games.

There is a opportunity cost to Furcal. If the O's pay him $12m the O's will no doubt pass on some other high priced player that might help them.

What player are we passing on that will be able to help us more than an improvement of 5 WAR? Even if you don't completely buy into WAR there is no denying that we won't find a more significant upgrade than Izzy to Furcal.

Then when Andino is playing for Furcal the lineup will suffer because the team would be built expecting Furcal offense to be there. And instead it would be on the DL.

Of course it will suffer, but it will be so much better off with Furcal in it that he will more than make up for it. We may actually be better off with Andino than Izturis.

I thought this was a discussion. If we don't agree there is no reason to get insulting about it. It just means we have different views that we are sharing with each other.

I apologize if I was rude, but you have completely ignored or spun every argument against you. You say you don't buy into WAR, but don't say why. All I can assume is that it is because it doesn't fit your preconceived notion. That is reminiscent of a certain poster on here who nobody respects, and it annoyed the crap out of me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have the time to identify every SS who might be attainable, who plays good enough defense to meet the threshold, and who hits substantially better than Izturis. But here are some. In parentheses I put batting runs, UZR, and WAR. For context, Izturis' numbers are (-26.6, 1.4, -0.4).

1. Alex Gonzalez (4.4, 4.7, 3.6) is a free agent after this season.

2. Rafael Furcal (16.1, 6.8, 4.1) may be available due to Dodgers fiscal problems.

3. Jose Reyes (5.8, -4.2, 2.6) may be available due to Mets fiscal problems.

4. Stephen Drew (8.2, 5.4, 4.0) may be available due to Diamondbacks fiscal problems.

5. Either J.J. Hardy (-1.2, 8.4, 2.3) or Nick Punto (-6.1, 13.2, 1.8) may be available from the Twins.

6. Orlando Cabrera (-10.0, 5.6, 1.7) is likely available from the Reds.

7. Reid Brignac (-4.7, 1.6, 0.9) or Jason Bartlett (-8.7, -4.9, 0.8) may be available from the Rays.

8. Clint Barmes (-17.1, 3.7, 0.4) may be available from the Rockies.

9. Edgar Renteria (-2.2, 0.8, 1.0) is likely available from the Giants.

Now, I don't watch these guys play every day. There might be some I would rule out if I did. There might be others on this list are won't be made available. But I'm pretty confident there are some others not on this list who are available, and who meet my criteria of playing solid shortstop defense while being a significantly better hitter than Izzy.

Excellent list. I think there's a kind of Mark Belanger hangover effect that happens on the Hangout. The thought that because the O's of the 60s and 70s won with an historically awful hitter, it must be acceptable or even desireable to have a glove who hits like he's using a whiffle ball bat.

It's not. Izzy isn't Belanger with the glove, and if Mark Belanger had even been a halfway decent hitter he'd be in the Hall of Fame. The O's won because they had a very strong supporting cast and Belanger was probably one of the five best defensive players of all time.

The O's can, should, and probably will do better than an F- bat coupled with a B glove. It says something when the O's could improve by 2-3 wins just by acquiring a player another team is essentially discarding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is good to know. What are the rating for those players for 2008 and 2009?
Here's a quick and dirty way to look at Izturis.

Think of the way Fielding Bible tracks plays. Whether you agree with the application of the data and how they come up with an exact plus/minus number for everybody, I think most people agree that the idea is a sound one, and if there was high confidence in the numbers, it would be the exact way people judge defenders right now. So, make up your own numbers for Izturis, and use them. Do you think he's a +10 play guy? +20? Whatever you think he is, just go with that for this example.

Then, look at his OBP. Just the OBP, not worried about power or anything else. Izturis has a .280 OBP this year. He's at .296 for his career. The OBP of all MLB SS over the past 3 seasons has been .325. Over 600 PAs, the difference between a .325 OBP and a .296 OBP is 17.4 times on base. Its 27 times on base difference between .325 and .280 OBP.

Without even taking power into consideration, Izturis is already 17 to 27 times on base behind an "average" SS. So unless he's between +17 to +27 plays with the glove, he's below average, and I don't think anybody thinks he's that type of impact with the glove. I think even the people who are really high on his defense would put him in the +5 to +10 range, and I think most metrics have him right around average. As El Gordo told us he's +0 through Fielding Bible and his UZR/150 is 2.1 this year.

Add power into the equation and he falls behind even further. Izturis has a .325 SLG for his career and an anemic .280 SLG this season. The average 3-year SLG of all MLB SS is .387.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...