Except those stats are worthless. Like I posted in the main offseason thread, Everett was far and away the best defensive SS in baseball. He had a FRAR of 39, Vizquel's was 20. Not even close. Thanks.
See, I can't simply use FRAR or any stat to "rest my case" like that. I've *seen* Everett, so any stat that bears out his defensive prowess holds water with me. But I can only use stats as a reference to what I've seen, not as proof of what I haven't seen. Like when Cruz, Jr. won it over Hidalgo a few seasons ago. Insane.
Well, what you see is a poor way of evaluation. You are not a professional, and haven't been trained. Even if you watched every single game, it's still not good enough. Some things most people just can't tell from watching. Like the difference between a .275 and a .300 hitter. However, stats are a good logical way to evaluate players. It is based in concrete fact: what happened in the games. I don't understand why you don't accept statistical evidence in lieu of observation. It's not like somebody is feeding in numbers randomly. It all comes from what happens on the field.
The Golden Glove hasn't been the most honest evaluation of a players defensive abilities over the years,very political.That said,despite his arm being far from what it was,Brad handles a staff better than anyone in the game.He knows the book on the hitters and will give a pitcher plenty of confidence to throw any pitch in any situation with his ability to work back there.
Brad's ability to work with pitchers is overstated. He didn't do anything for any of our young 4th and 5th starters, all of whom struggled. He didn't get Lidge on track or keep Pettite from having an off year. Aside from Oswalt and Clemens, I wouldn't say there's a pitcher who particularly benefitted from his presence. Not that I hold him responsible for bad pitching, I'm just saying that I believe his ability to call a game is overstated. And his arm, once awesome, is now weak. He didn't deserve the Gold Glove, imo. Everett, on the other hand, is simply amazing. I think the defensive stats can be overstated, but he's easily the best glove on the team and probably the best defensive shortstop in baseball. It's too bad he didn't win the award, because he deserves it. Then again, any credence to the gold glove award went away years ago when Palmeiro won for playing 28 games at 1B.
You're right. To hell with watching the game. Let's just enumerate it. How in the hell do you know? Odds are, you are not a professional, and you haven't been trained. So, how about let's talk baseball? So I ask others who have seen guys play. And, what is the difference between a .275 and a .300 hitter? 10 or 15 hits. Interesting you pull that stat out when you're probably usually shooting down BA as something reliable. But can I tell a guy who'll hit for average by watching? Yes. Yes, I can. I can tell a guy's range from watching, too. I can also get a good feel for how well he sees the ball off the bat, or the spin out of the pitcher's hand. I can tell all that from watching. Can you? Better yet, can you enumerate that for me in a damned statistic? You say that as if MadMax's observation of AE's range (for example), is not. Stats are "based in concrete fact". Fine. I *saw* the "concrete fact". Give me a stat for runners who didn't try to advance because Richard Hidalgo was in right field. Does "FRAR" account for that? I don't think so. Because statistics can be manipulated. (Surely you're aware of how easy it is to twist numbers.) Bill James said Craig Biggio was the greatest player of the '90s, all based on statistics ("Win Shares", I believe.) As much as I love Bidge, that right there is an indictment on stats-only evaluation. ...and it must be taken alongside what actually happened on the field. If I completely throw out stats, I'm wrong--dead wrong. They are very, very valuable. But I won't say, for example, that Vizquel isn't near the defensive SS AE is based solely upon "FRAR", just like I won't say Vizquel did better than AE based solely upon fpct. I want to talk to guys who saw them play. The stats then can add to my understanding of what has been observed. Look, I asked about defensive stats because they're constantly coming up with new ones and I wanted to know about them. It's not that I don't lend them any credence at all. They just can't replace observation.
Now you're being ridiculous. I'm talking about from an evaluation standpoint. You're right, I don't know. So are you a professional baseball player evaluator? I didn't say that we can't talk baseball if we aren't pro, I'm just saying the usefulness of our own observation is limited when trying to compare players. Sure you can tell if a player is a good hitter, but you can't accurately compare him to another good hitter as precisely as with stats. Yeah I can get a sense of how well a player picks up the ball... and actually that ability will bear itself out in statistics. Good hitters pick up the ball well, and will put up good strike zone judgement numbers generally. I didn't say that observation isn't based in concrete fact, I'm stating that stats are. Can you see how many runners didn't try to advance on Hidalgo compared to an average armed right fielder? What makes you think that Bill is wrong? It is easy to twist numbers I suppose, but I don't just accept any stat or use of stats at face value. I personally evaluate the statistic and logic behind it and it's use. Well, it's a difference of philosophy I guess. FRAR is enough for me to believe that Everett is far and away better than Vizquel. It's also corroborated by +/-. I would go so far as to say that I would be more confident in a team built solely on statistics because I believe observational scouting brings in human error and bias.
ROFL. Don't get your panties in a bunch, nomar. I was just stating why I thought each player won. For the record, I think Everett should have gotten the Golden Glove, and Ausmus shouldn't have.
Great! I don't just accept any stat or accept them at face value, either. The difference in philosophy, as you accurately term it below, is that I evaluate the statistic not only against the logic behind it and the way it is applied but against what has been observed on the field by qualified individuals. Cool. I didn't mean to sound critical when I said it wasn't enough for me; it just isn't enough for me. There are those who agree with you. The Rockets, I believe, have just hired one. Call me "old school", or something not quite so complimentary if you wish. But statistics can *misrepresent* something just as easily as a human can misinterpret something.
Well, while I saw Bidge play and loved every minute of a great ride, I saw some others play, too. I'm pretty confident a lot of other stats will agree that Mr. Bonds, for example, was greater in the '90s than Bidge. They weren't measuring defense quite as well in the '90s, but in his prime Barry was an outstanding defensive outfielder. I don't even believe Bidge was the best on his own team, but I wouldn't blame anyone for flipping the top two on his or her list.
So we can be friends. BTW: One thing I forgot to say about scouting: I think it's absolutely vital in evaluating prospects. It's hard to read from stats whether or not an 18 year old kid has good makeup, work ethic in the weight room, solid mechanics, etc.
There's something I've always wanted to ask "old school" people. What does old school mean? Does it mean you simply prefer numbers used in the past over that of modern metrics? Or you just base everything based on personal viewing. That is, you won't make a judgement on any player you've never seen with your own eyes. I ask this because if you do like stats such as HRs, RBIs, hits, etc., what's preventing you from embracing more recent ones? It's not as if they're fundamentally different. Every stat tries to describe in part what kind of player someone is. The only difference is how well it accomplishes that. People who uses modern metrics simply feel that their stats better "describes" a player more than another one, not making up new numbers because they have nothing better to do.
i have a problem with "substitution" stats. stats comparing players to a mythical player that doesn't exist. opportunity cost stats. lies, damn lies and statistics.
in the context of a mythical player who doesn't play. in the context of a mythical substitute that isn't sitting on the bench for any major leage ball club. i think there's more to sports than can be measured by numbers. but that's me. i don't have a problem with the numbers, themselves...and i use them all the time to discuss. but i think there's an over-emphasis on them right now.
I want to defend Ausmus somewhat here. Even though his arm has declined significantly, he still has better "plate coverage" (for lack of a better term) than any other catcher that I have watched recently. The fact that he almost never allows passed balls and prevents many wild pitches definitely inspires confidence in pitchers to throw their nasty stuff. And catchers who throw out more runners typically (often necessarily) have poor plate coverage. great article from last year I do think this vote was mainly a reputation vote, but just because he's got a poor arm does not make him a poor defensive catcher.
