- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: American League Gold Gloves
Posted on 11/11/09 at 2:03 pm to lsu31always
Posted on 11/11/09 at 2:03 pm to lsu31always
quote:
Think he was talking about his brother
YES....
1
Posted on 11/11/09 at 2:05 pm to DEANintheYAY
Matt Kemp!
That's two for the Dodgers!
That's two for the Dodgers!
Posted on 11/11/09 at 2:07 pm to mannybeingmanny
quote:
But that still doesn't make up for his lack of range!
you dont have to be rangy if the ball is coming right to you
Posted on 11/11/09 at 2:08 pm to Lester Earl
That's true. That happens with him a lot. He knows he has to give himself any advantage he can. And he does a good job of it.
Posted on 11/11/09 at 2:17 pm to lsu31always
quote:
Adam Jones
Posted on 11/11/09 at 2:20 pm to Lester Earl
Well, I'd bet that Cal doesn't watch a lot of Ranger games anymore. I love Cal, but old baseball players say a lot of things. What we do is nod politely and thank them for their great play. Joe Morgan was a great player and an awful analyst. Just citing to a guy, who likely doesn't actually study the issue all that closely, is not very convioncing.
Hell, I'll even refute it with evidence. If positioning would make up for his lack of range, Jeter would be able to get to a similar number of balls as other shortstops.
In 1260 innings, Jeter had 554 chances. He reached that many balls.
In 1238 innings, Andrus had 690 chances.
In 1189 innings, Aybar has 629 chances.
In 1153 innings, Bartlett had 529 chances.
Yuni Betancourt is perhaps the worst defensive player in baseball, he played 1159 innings and got to 570 balls.
In 1388 innings, Cabrera had 711 chances.
In 942 innings (3/4 of Jeter), Everett had 457 chances (4/5 of Jeter).
Choose a regular shortstop. They almost ALL got to more balls than Jeter. If Jeter was getting better range through positioning, it certainly has not shown up in the numbers. He simply doesn't get to many balls, comparatively.
But I can anticipate your objection: "that's because of the pitching staff, they don't give up ground balls". OK, let's investigate. The Yankees played 1450 defensive innings and their shortstops had 641 chances. Jeter's rate of 554 chances over 1260 innings is .439 chances/inning. His BACKUPS had 87 chances over 190 innings, a rate of .458 chances/inning. Even his BACKUPS showed more range than Jeter.
This was one of Jeter's best defensive seasons, so those Gold Glove isn't nearly as outrageous as his other ones, but this is the body living up to its rep of giving a defensive award to a DH.
Hell, I'll even refute it with evidence. If positioning would make up for his lack of range, Jeter would be able to get to a similar number of balls as other shortstops.
In 1260 innings, Jeter had 554 chances. He reached that many balls.
In 1238 innings, Andrus had 690 chances.
In 1189 innings, Aybar has 629 chances.
In 1153 innings, Bartlett had 529 chances.
Yuni Betancourt is perhaps the worst defensive player in baseball, he played 1159 innings and got to 570 balls.
In 1388 innings, Cabrera had 711 chances.
In 942 innings (3/4 of Jeter), Everett had 457 chances (4/5 of Jeter).
Choose a regular shortstop. They almost ALL got to more balls than Jeter. If Jeter was getting better range through positioning, it certainly has not shown up in the numbers. He simply doesn't get to many balls, comparatively.
But I can anticipate your objection: "that's because of the pitching staff, they don't give up ground balls". OK, let's investigate. The Yankees played 1450 defensive innings and their shortstops had 641 chances. Jeter's rate of 554 chances over 1260 innings is .439 chances/inning. His BACKUPS had 87 chances over 190 innings, a rate of .458 chances/inning. Even his BACKUPS showed more range than Jeter.
This was one of Jeter's best defensive seasons, so those Gold Glove isn't nearly as outrageous as his other ones, but this is the body living up to its rep of giving a defensive award to a DH.
Posted on 11/11/09 at 2:23 pm to Baloo
you're a stud Baloo
Posted on 11/11/09 at 2:23 pm to Baloo
PREACH!!!!!!
Posted on 11/11/09 at 2:23 pm to Baloo
Posted on 11/11/09 at 2:27 pm to lsu31always
Oh, the AL average is 140 innings and 70 chances, a nice .5 chance/inning rate. Jeter is pretty far below average. Forgot to add that important bit of info.
Posted on 11/11/09 at 2:38 pm to Baloo
quote:
Well, I'd bet that Cal doesn't watch a lot of Ranger games anymore
so Andrus is your GG winner?
i dont know what Cal watches....i can assure u though that after decades of playing baseball, he can make a pretty accurate assumption concerning a player, especially a SS
.
quote:
Choose a regular shortstop. They almost ALL got to more balls than Jeter
and that doesnt make them better
only 4 full time American League SS had more putouts than Jeter
One was Andrus, who had 20 errors. Another was Cabrera, who had 25 errors, and another was Bethancourt, who u just called the worst def SS in the game.
Aybar is the only one with a respectable error total.
you simply cant give a gold glove to someone that makes 20 errors
and people say Cabrera has no range, but yet he led the AL in "total chances"......explain that one, Bill.
This post was edited on 11/11/09 at 2:40 pm
Posted on 11/11/09 at 2:41 pm to Lester Earl
quote:
you simply cant give a gold glove to someone that makes 20 errors
so the formula is to not get to balls other than the easy ones and just don't frick the easy ones up
Posted on 11/11/09 at 2:41 pm to Lester Earl
quote:
Aybar is the only one with a respectable error total.
AYBAR should be 09 GG SS
Posted on 11/11/09 at 2:49 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
so the formula is to not get to balls other than the easy ones and just don't frick the easy ones up
i think the point is, its irrelevant if u can get to the ball but cant make the play. Whether you make an error, eat the ball, the runner being safe, etc...
then again i just go by what i see and watch. I watch a lot of baseball...a lot..and im not saying Jeter is the best SS in the AL, i dont think he is. But i dont think its crazy that he won the award, given his name, and the team he played on. The GG has been a joke for years, and to be shocked that he won it is just stupid. He was prob a top 3-4 candidate to win it, not like its totally out of left field.
the people that come up with these secondary stats are math nerds, not baseball purists....they are taking a pure game, and turning it into something its not, giving other little math nerds something to get their jollies off on. most sabermetrics
and the people that take it as gospel, even worsePosted on 11/11/09 at 3:03 pm to Lester Earl
quote:
the people that come up with these secondary stats are math nerds, not baseball purists....they are taking a pure game, and turning it into something its not, giving other little math nerds something to get their jollies off on
nope.
It's changing the face of the game from the inside out day by day. Some of it goes too deep, but a lot of it is right on. Hence the reason why most front offices are built on people with a sabermetric/ analytical background now.
How do you find the little things that can give you an advantage when everyone is researching the same player pool? Going deeper or only watching the surface?
As per you point on Cal watching shortstops. I don't doubt for a second he can analyze anyone playing that position or any other for that matter. However, he cannot (no one can) break down one player's performance over everyone else's just by using his eyes. That's why more detailed defensive stats are coming out, because it's too hard to judge just based on watching. You can see solid fundamentals and ability at the position sure, but you cannot see if a ball that shortstop A would get to, shortstop B wouldn't.
Posted on 11/11/09 at 3:13 pm to LfcSU3520
quote:
Some of it goes too deep,
i like the offensive stats, but defensively, there are way too many outside variables when trying to figure who is an elite defensive player and who isn't.
the naked eye, when observing defensive capabilities, will ALWAYS prevail over any statistic. Always.
quote:
How do you find the little things that can give you an advantage when everyone is researching the same player pool? Going deeper or only watching the surface?
so lets take MLB SS defensive stats.
the top 2 SS in terms of total chances, each known for having HORRIBLE range, Orlando Carbrera and Miguel Tejada.
take range factor, Cristian Guzman #1...Miguel Tejada, #2.... no team barely wanted to touch these guys because they were so bad defensively.
zone rating, #1 SS...Edgar Renteria....
too many variables in the defensive sabermetric stats...
which on is the end all??? there's inaccuracies in all. If im a scout, im not evaluating players on defense by some stupid stat
.
quote:
However, he cannot (no one can) break down one player's performance over everyone else's just by using his eyes
you can't??
go ask a scout in spring training if they can't tell if one player is better defensively than the other.
people have been determining this since baseball started without some stupid stat.
Posted on 11/11/09 at 3:24 pm to Lester Earl
quote:
people have been determining this since baseball started without some stupid stat.
this is one of the dumbest arguments in any area. Just because something has been done one way for a long time doesn't mean that's the best way. They treated diseases with leeches for a long time too.
Point is, scouts can see fundamentals and the other thing the human eye is capable of seeing.
It can't see if Andrus just got to a ball that nobody else would get to. It might think that's the case, but there's no way to be sure.
Also, if you think these stats are finished products and wont someday end up being completely trustworthy then you're crazy. As advanced and technological as we're getting now in all sports, EVERYTHING will be quantifiable.
I don't hate these new stats, rather I look at them as the beginning of something new. Not the end product.
This post was edited on 11/11/09 at 3:26 pm
Posted on 11/11/09 at 3:33 pm to LfcSU3520
quote:
It can't see if Andrus just got to a ball that nobody else would get to. It might think that's the case, but there's no way to be sure.
a trained baseball eye can usually tell after years and years of watching.
strictly talking about scouting and evaluating talent at this point....i dont see that info as too helpful.
You can tell if a guy has range or not by watching. You can tell if a guy positions himself well in the field by watching....you can tell how good someone is on defense by just watching
seriously, did u need some stat to tell u Franklin Gutierrez can flat out go get the ball in the OF??? Or did you base that off watching him play?
did some stat tell u that Elvis Andrus may have the best range of anyone in the league, and an absolute cannon for an arm???
u watch the dude every day, u dont need some stat to tell u what u already know. Now think of yourself as a scout that has been watching players for 2-3 decades. You dont think they know?
quote:
I don't hate these new stats, rather I look at them as the beginning of something new.
meh, maybe. Baseball has been the same for decades upon decades.
these same geeks will tell you not to sacrifice bunt, but I dont see many managers adhering to that type of thought.
now are front office people looking at some of the offensive stats? sure, because they are actually useful.
Posted on 11/11/09 at 3:35 pm to LfcSU3520
Aybar>>>Andruss
Posted on 11/11/09 at 3:41 pm to Lester Earl
You're the one who made a silly, unsubstantiated claim (Jeter's positioning makes up for his lack of range) and I disproved it with evidence. That's not math, that's just looking at what actually happened. And if you'll note, I even made an observational argument -- Jeter LOOKS terrible in the field as well.
You want to disparage stats because you wish to have an argument without evidence. i'm hardly bringing up advanaced metrics like Dewan plus minus (who, BTW, watches EVERY PLAY OF EVERY GAME to make his rating). You made a claim about range, I showed it to be wrong, and then you dismissed all stats (while using PO's and E's -- both of which are stats). Has it occurred to you Jeter doesn't make many errors because A) he doesn't get to many balls and B) a generous local scorer?
And at the end of the day, if a fielder fails to make an out, does it make one lick of difference if its because he booted the ball or because he simply couldn't get there? A runner on is a runner on. a baserunner doesn't count any more or less if he reaches by error.
You want to use putouts? Fine. Let's use putouts. Jeter ranks 5th only if you don't count Betantcourt's full season total. Jeter's actually a whopping SIXTH in putouts. He's also THIRD in total innings, which may have something to do with it. Only 8 shortstops played 1000 innings, so by arguing that Jeter finished 6th in a counting stat among 8 viable contenders is, well, NOT GOOD. It means he is BELOW AVERAGE.
Of those 8 regular shortstops, he's 7th in assists, ahead of only Bartlett. He was involved in 75 DP's, 7th among the 8 qualifiers. He was 7th in Range Factor and 8th in RF/game. The only shortstop who played 1000 innings who was as bad as Jeter was Bartlett.
The ONLY positive stat on Jeter's ledger is errors, which is so low because he gets to so few balls AND he has a Gold Glove 1st baseman who has eradicated his throwing errors.
Jeter's not a plus defender. No among of wishing it to be so will make it so. It shows up in the numbers. It shows up in observation.
You want to disparage stats because you wish to have an argument without evidence. i'm hardly bringing up advanaced metrics like Dewan plus minus (who, BTW, watches EVERY PLAY OF EVERY GAME to make his rating). You made a claim about range, I showed it to be wrong, and then you dismissed all stats (while using PO's and E's -- both of which are stats). Has it occurred to you Jeter doesn't make many errors because A) he doesn't get to many balls and B) a generous local scorer?
And at the end of the day, if a fielder fails to make an out, does it make one lick of difference if its because he booted the ball or because he simply couldn't get there? A runner on is a runner on. a baserunner doesn't count any more or less if he reaches by error.
You want to use putouts? Fine. Let's use putouts. Jeter ranks 5th only if you don't count Betantcourt's full season total. Jeter's actually a whopping SIXTH in putouts. He's also THIRD in total innings, which may have something to do with it. Only 8 shortstops played 1000 innings, so by arguing that Jeter finished 6th in a counting stat among 8 viable contenders is, well, NOT GOOD. It means he is BELOW AVERAGE.
Of those 8 regular shortstops, he's 7th in assists, ahead of only Bartlett. He was involved in 75 DP's, 7th among the 8 qualifiers. He was 7th in Range Factor and 8th in RF/game. The only shortstop who played 1000 innings who was as bad as Jeter was Bartlett.
The ONLY positive stat on Jeter's ledger is errors, which is so low because he gets to so few balls AND he has a Gold Glove 1st baseman who has eradicated his throwing errors.
Jeter's not a plus defender. No among of wishing it to be so will make it so. It shows up in the numbers. It shows up in observation.
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News