The only context a baseball team is concerned with is: How's my guy doing? How are the other guys - guys I can realistically replace my guy with - doing? There are a myriad of other stats to determine these answers. Performance vs. mythical "replacement" is not helpful.
Excellent post, was thinking the same thing as I read the thread. So many people saw "Catcher + Defense" & immediately thought "Caught Stealing". So, so much more to it than that. On a staff with as many nasty, nasty breaking balls as the Stros staff throws - Clemens, AP, Roy, Lidge, Qualls, Wheeler, Nieve, Miller (that's about 800 innings of pitches right there) - to lead the league in passed balls allowed & be one of the better teams in allowing wild pitches (44, league leader had 34, most in the league was over 80) is very, very impressive. And the pitchers have spoken numerous times about how having Brad behind the plate gives them more confidence to throw breaking balls in the dirt & off the plate. Would be interesting to see wild pitch totals broken down by what catcher was behind the plate at the time. I'd imagine Ausmus is right there at/near the top of the list.
I don't shun modern metrics. I don't base everything solely on personal observation. I just believe metrics need to be appropriated properly. Statistics don't describe a player, they describe a player's past results which came in specific sets of circumstances surrounded by specific players. Given all those variables, one can reasonably extrapolate the *range* of a player's probable future results from statistics (given a large enough sample size), but they do *not* serve as an exact predictor. Nor do they tell the whole story of what actually happened. But I asked about new defensive metrics because I was interested.
You mean stats that compare players in different generations based on their performance over their peers? I don't see anything wrong with that. Why do you not like those? It seems the only way to compare players from different generations, like with Yao/Sampson/Olajuwon threads we have in GARM. I think our ideas are similar, just with different wording. I think what you said does "describe" someone in my opinion. But the problem with watching games is that personal observation is just as deceiving as stats, if we allow it to be. How many times have you seen a mediocre OF make a diving catch on a ball that great OFs simply run under routinely like nothing? We can't possibily see at games exactly where the players are set up every play, the motion of the ball, and determine how hard it is to make a play. Since I'm a math major and a baseball fan, I guess I look into modern statistics more than most people. Personally, I like them a lot for the simple reason that old counting stats are so horrible. That is, while I don't think these stats are close to perfect, but they're a lot better than the stats that you hear on TV and used in newspapers, which tends to horribly skew a player's performance.
no i mean like VORP. you make up a replacement player from a composite of other players who play the same position and compare your guy to that fantasy character...as opposed to comparing him directly to other available talent on your bench or on the market. i think there is a trend to qualify everything with stats. stats can be extremely misleading. i'm not saying they shouldn't be considered. i'm saying they're not end all, be all. i'm saying it's still worth having a scouting department that consists of guys who actually go out and watch talent. and i tend to think "counting stats" aren't nearly as awful as you and others would. you can always judge the context around those counting stats.
(also posted in Astros offseason) from Boston Globe, on 'Gold Gloves' - check out C and SS: http://www.boston.com/sports/baseba...ycle/?page=full Panel has its own leather-brained ideas "The Fielding Bible" author John Dewan and Bill James put together a 10-person panel to vote on the best defensive players in baseball. The panel includes the Baseball Info Solutions video scouts; Strat-O-Matic Baseball creator Hal Richman; Kansas City Star columnist Joe Posnanski; Seattle Mariners scout Mat Olkin ; Chicago sports talk show host Mike Murphy; Nate Birtwell, who oversees the BIS data collection; and ESPN.com baseball columnist Rob Neyer. Results from a poll taken on the fan website Tango on Baseball (tangotiger.net) was also used. It's interesting to compare how the "TFB" panel jibed with the managers and coaches who voted for the Gold Gloves. "TFB" voted on the best in baseball, while Gold Glove voting is conducted in each league. The panel's choices: First base: Albert Pujols, St. Louis. It's amazing to think that the best hitter of this generation is also the best-fielding player at his position. Gold Gloves: Mark Teixeira (Texas) and Pujols. Second base: Orlando Hudson, Arizona. Hudson also was finally recognized by the managers and coaches. Gold Gloves: Mark Grudzielanek (Royals) and Hudson. Third base: Adrian Beltre, Seattle. Beltre and the Cardinals' Scott Rolen tied, and Beltre won in a series of tiebreakers. Gold Gloves: Eric Chavez (Oakland) and Rolen. Shortstop: Adam Everett, Houston. He garnered all but two first-place votes from the panel. Gold Gloves: Derek Jeter (Yankees) and Omar Vizquel (San Francisco). Left field: Carl Crawford, Tampa Bay. No surprise. Although he has never won a Gold Glove, his excellent defense is well-known. Center field: Carlos Beltran, Mets. Most might have expected Andruw Jones to win, but Beltran easily received the nod. Right field: Ichiro Suzuki, Seattle. A clear-cut winner. Gold Gloves: Torii Hunter (Minnesota), Suzuki, Vernon Wells (Toronto), Mike Cameron (San Diego), Jones, and Beltran. Catcher: Ivan Rodriguez, Detroit. Gold Gloves: Rodriguez and Brad Ausmus (Houston). Pitcher: Greg Maddux, Los Angeles. Maddux has also won 15 of the last 16 National League Gold Gloves. Gold Gloves: Kenny Rogers (Detroit) and Maddux.
