I hope you don't really expect/want him to become that kind of hitter, he will only disappoint you. Unless he learns to go the other way and to lay off the slider low and away, he will never become that productive of a hitter. Yesterday, he somehow rolled over an away fastball and grounded it to the ss, he needs a lot of work to become an elite hitter.
I don't know a lot about advanced defensive statistics but if I'm reading this data right, Pence has been one of the best defensive RFers in the NL over the last 3 years based on these numbers: http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=rf&stats=fld&lg=nl&qual=y&type=1&season=2010&month=12 Among qualified NL RFers over that period, it rates him as having... -the best arm (Outfield Arm Runs Above Average) -the 3rd best range (Range Runs Above Average) -the best Ultimate Zone Rating -the 2nd best Ultimate Zone Rating per 150 innings Even if you sort by all of baseball, he's above average or near the top in every category. He's actually rated to have the best arm out of all qualified RFers over the past 3 years, AL or NL. The problem is when you look at just 2010. He's dropped off dramatically in almost every category. Even with those dropoffs, he still has the aforementioned ranks over the more meaningful 3-year period.
you think you'll get young pitchers for an older OF who'll be declining defensively and isn't an RBI guy? Morey has really spoiled us! Exactly. I have observed this on many occasions. [BrooksBall]I don't know a lot about advanced defensive statistics but if I'm reading this data right, Pence has been one of the best defensive RFers in the NL over the last 3 years based on these numbers:[/quote] meh. defensive statistics, even with all the recent developments are the poorest of all metrics. How do you "measure" whether a guy knows where to play for each hitter--for example, Fats Lee playing so deep the other night that a shallow fly, what should be an easy out, became a "bloop single"? And NO, "range factor" does not account adequately for this as there are far too many other variables. Like speed. And route--how well a guy "tracks" the ball on the fly and gets to it. And opportunity--some guys, because of the pitchers they have, see different amounts of fly balls or line drives or ground balls than others. I value the statistics, but I always have temper them with what I *see*. For a truly above-average, outstanding outfield defender, please reference Richard Hidalgo ca 2001-2003. As far as Pence, here's what I see: - strong arm, but the ball "flies" on him as DM correctly pointed out - goofy routes: he doesn't track flies very well - baseball IQ: he *does* know what's going on, where runners are, and makes *great* "heads-up" plays - not sure about how well he positions himself with respect to each hitter. anyone else have any thoughts? - decent speed, but it only makes up for his bad routes To me, Pence is an average OF defender.
So you temper factual data with your flawed recall of what you saw in a limited sample size? Sounds logical.
So you think Lance Berkman had a good year in 2009? His OPS was over .900, so stats say he did but it was obivous he did not.
Surely you understand that my point is that statistics don't tell the complete story and that actual observation has great value. Otherwise, everyone fire your scouts; all we need is a stat sheet and a slide rule. As far as my "flawed recall", care to give specifics, or were you just being generally snippy? I'm wrong often enough, but I'm quite capable of admitting it. And that's a genuine invitation: you generally seem to know what you're talking about; so what of my observations were incorrect or "flawed"? I will greatly enjoy discussing it with you, but I'm not all that interested in smack talk and insult-swapping.
Of course they don't. I know what you were saying, I was just being snarky about the comment because it gave me a chuckle. I wasn't referencing a particular issue. Everyone has flawed recall. What we recall is highly biased. If we go to a game every day for a month and Hunter Pence never makes an exciting catch out there but plays the position perfectly with no errors, but the last week he makes two terrible errors where a ball bounces off his head, he throws one from right field to left field instead of 3B, etc. our memory will recall that he is not a good outfielder. No insults here.
He absolutely did have a good year. Not good by his standards perhaps and was unfortunately marred by some serious slumps, but at the end of the year he did manage to produce a good season.
bah! understood; sorry about the defensiveness. I hear what you're saying, but I simply don't watch defense that shallowly. I *do* watch where they place themselves, the routes they take to balls in the air or on the ground, what they do with baserunners, whether they hit the cutoff man, etc. I may be as given to bias as the next guy, but I look for more than "OOOOO a sliding catch!!!" Sometimes, it was a "sliding catch" because dude got an obviously poor jump on the ball to begin with. But, I digress. Agree with you on Berkman. We were so spoiled by his Bagwellian production that when he came down to earth he seemed more like Ausmus than he was. Even this year, my impression of him at the plate was far worse than he actually was by the numbers.
That's my point, he struggled compared to his overall past performance however if you simply look at his numbers and ignore the eyeball test he had a darn good season...except it wasn't for Lance Berkman. You can't just look at numbers because they will fool you instead use both the data and actually game film to see how a player does. Those stats make Pence look like a top defensive RF and we all know he isn't. I get msn's point on that, you can't just look at numbers and an eyeball test is not flawed logic.
Your post makes zero sense. I can absolutely look just at the numbers and see whether Berkman's 2009 was good by Berkman's standards. I am not constrained by some magical force to look only at one year's numbers. And yes, an eyeball test is flawed logic for the vast majority of us. We don't watch every game, every play, every defensive route taken, etc. Even if you do for the Astros, I guarantee you don't for every team in the league, heck even half of them. You have no frame of reference. No matter how good/bad you think Pence is in the outfield, the only frame of reference you have to compare him with based on the eyeball test is other players in the league you see on a very limited basis. That makes it flawed regardless of any other factor.
I don't mean you necessarly, but your earlier point seemed to imply that numbers are the be all end all and just watching the game to determine how a player performances is irrevelant? I was not impressed with Lance's year at all, however if Wallace were to produce that next season I'd be thrilled. My point is Puma had a bad season IMHO because he was the Puma but if you remove the name from his stats most fans would think that it was a darn good season.
You are reading way too much into my earlier post that was made as a snarky reply to MSN because the way he phrased his post made me chuckle. Never have I said that numbers are the be all end all, but your eyes are significantly less reliable than the numbers, particularly when you are not a trained professional scout. OK but that is still irrelevant because you can't remove his name from his states. You look at his numbers and you can see it was better than a lot of the league but not one of his best years. I can deduce that without ever watching a game and we are in agreement. Your eyes provided you no extra insight in this case.
Okay, I think this is what are difference of opinion is about. I do believe you can gather more info from just viewing a player on the field but I agree with you numbers should still be the more important of the two.
Ah see, I also believe you can gather more info by actually viewing the player. That isn't what you said though. You specifically said that just looking at the stats you wouldn't think Berkman's 2009 was down for his standards, you'd only know by watching him play.
Correct, unless you watch him play on a regular basis, you would have thought his numbers equalled a good to great year. Which is my point of view in this discussion, I like to view the players on a regular basis or semi-regular basis to see what he does or how he does it over a large sample size and combining all his stats before I make a solid observation, just me though. Overall, while we both put a strong significance in numbers, I think you put more weight in those numbers then do I.
Which they did except when compared to his usual yearly totals, which again can be deduced by looking at statistics. You're just wrong here. It's not opinion. You are just wrong. You are absolutely right that statistics can't tell 100% of the story and that actually seeing the games can tell you a lot that statistics can't (although more advanced statistics can tell you much more than your eyes could tell you like swing rates, whiff percentages, etc.) but you are wrong on your point about not being to tell it wasn't as good of a year for Berkman as his prior years without watching.
Its my opinion, how can I be wrong? If you want me to admit that I am wrong okay fine but its an opinion. Okay in comparison, take 2005 Puma to 2009 Puma and check out the numbers by themselves they are VERY similar but unless you watch the games played then you wouldn't have seen Puma had a much better and bigger impact in 2005. Puma in 05 was going on a one leg and was tearing the ball off the cover, a truly great season but unless you watched for the majority of the season most people would say both season were equivalent.
