Why is baseball discussion revolve around acronyms?

[Captain Obvious]

Ive seen managers, people who know baseball better than people on a message board pull him because he is a defensive liability.

That's not true at all. You become a manager by the people you know, not the amount of knowledge you have. Lou Pinella was a manager. I guess that means that he is smarter than everyone on here. Lou Pinella also played Koyie Hill over Geovany Soto. That's real fuckin' smart. Generally, managers don't know shit.

 

[Jntg4]

That's not true at all. You become a manager by the people you know, not the amount of knowledge you have. Lou Pinella was a manager. I guess that means that he is smarter than everyone on here. Lou Pinella also played Koyie Hill over Geovany Soto. That's real fuckin' smart. Generally, managers don't know shit.

CO, any MLB manager would know more than you, especially a 3-time Manager of the Year.

 

[poodski]

What the **** is going on in here?

 

[Jntg4]

What the **** is going on in here?

CO claiming Soriano is a good defender, and only using saber.

Nothing wrong with saber, but if he is obviously a bad outfielder (which equates to good LF via CO), you bring in Fuld, Colvin, or Fukudome to take over in the late innings. They are all good defenders who could play LF too and have better defense than Soriano.

 

[poodski]

CO claiming Soriano is a good defender, and only using saber.

Nothing wrong with saber, but if he is obviously a bad outfielder (which equates to good LF via CO), you bring in Fuld, Colvin, or Fukudome to take over in the late innings. They are all good defenders who could play LF too and have better defense than Soriano.

Right....

So again I ask what the **** is going on in here? I guess I just don't understand where all this hating of defensive stats is coming from.

 

[X]

Well...I think stats have their place, but that place is typically w/ the statistical analysts employed by the teams. You're very rarely going to use stats to convince a fan that they're wrong about a player. They've SEEN what they know...and you've got a hell of a fight on your hands if you want them to re-think what they've seen.

 

[poodski]

Well...I think stats have their place, but that place is typically w/ the statistical analysts employed by the teams. You're very rarely going to use stats to convince a fan that they're wrong about a player. They've SEEN what they know...and you've got a hell of a fight on your hands if you want them to re-think what they've seen.

I get that but I don't get the arbitrary hatred for all these defensive stats. There is a lot of study behind these things. Are they perfect? No, but they show a lot, and when used over several different values you can start to see a trend. There is a reason why Soriano plays left field and that is because he is a bad fielder. This is why guys play the corner OF spots. I mean if Soriano could play SS or catcher he would be playing those positions, but he can't so he plays LF.

Here is where the problem lies with all of this discussion. When compared to other LF'ers Soriano is an above average defender. Just like when Jeter is compared to other SS's he is a well below average defender. But who is the better defender? Definitely Jeter. If you put Jeter in LF I bet he would be a top notch LF'er.

Soriano is pulled simply because there are better defenders on the bench. Those guys can't hit. There are several teams that do this.

I guess the problem here seems to be considering Soriano a good fielder and considering Soriano a good fielder compared to other LF'ers.

Soriano is fine for what he does and the position he plays. Bill James did have Soriano as negative last year though.

 

[Jntg4]

Right....

So again I ask what the **** is going on in here? I guess I just don't understand where all this hating of defensive stats is coming from.

No, I misunderstood. I thought he was using an OF UZR, not LF UZR. He once claimed Soriano was a good defender, had he said good for LF originally, I wouldn't have cared.

 

[X]

I get that but I don't get the arbitrary hatred for all these defensive stats. There is a lot of study behind these things. Are they perfect? No, but they show a lot, and when used over several different values you can start to see a trend. There is a reason why Soriano plays left field and that is because he is a bad fielder. This is why guys play the corner OF spots. I mean if Soriano could play SS or catcher he would be playing those positions, but he can't so he plays LF.

Here is where the problem lies with all of this discussion. When compared to other LF'ers Soriano is an above average defender. Just like when Jeter is compared to other SS's he is a well below average defender. But who is the better defender? Definitely Jeter. If you put Jeter in LF I bet he would be a top notch LF'er.

Soriano is pulled simply because there are better defenders on the bench. Those guys can't hit. There are several teams that do this.

I guess the problem here seems to be considering Soriano a good fielder and considering Soriano a good fielder compared to other LF'ers.

Soriano is fine for what he does and the position he plays. Bill James did have Soriano as negative last year though.

I don't get what the problem is. You pretty much just spelled everything out.

Look, stats are what they are. People don't like to use them by-and-large because they don't understand how to use them, and since that's the case those same stats have been used against them in arguments. It's one of the reasons Lefty has a bad rep...He uses stats that he understands more than anyone else on the board. Yeah, he's just flat out wrong from time to time, but who isn't?

 

[Jntg4]

I don't get what the problem is. You pretty much just spelled everything out.

Look, stats are what they are. People don't like to use them by-and-large because they don't understand how to use them, and since that's the case those same stats have been used against them in arguments. It's one of the reasons Lefty has a bad rep...He uses stats that he understands more than anyone else on the board. Yeah, he's just flat out wrong from time to time, but who isn't?

Jesus

 

[X]

Jesus

Thanks for keepin' it real, homey

 

[poodski]

I don't get what the problem is. You pretty much just spelled everything out.

Look, stats are what they are. People don't like to use them by-and-large because they don't understand how to use them, and since that's the case those same stats have been used against them in arguments. It's one of the reasons Lefty has a bad rep...He uses stats that he understands more than anyone else on the board. Yeah, he's just flat out wrong from time to time, but who isn't?

I think the biggest problem with stats (and the people that use them) is that people use them as gospel. Since fangraphs says player X is worth 5 wins if we get him we immediately add 5 wins. That's not true at all. Might we? Possibly. But you just dont know. Its a good estimation, but its not exact. These stats are just guestimations. I love stats I have spent a lot of time studying them, but they aren't perfect.

I do not like it though when people just spout off stats and have no clue what they mean or how to use them right. I am not perfect with them, but I buy a book or two a year just to read up on them, and try and learn more. Its not like I will ever work in a front office, but its nice to know stuff and understand what a manager is doing right/wrong.

Plus I just REALLY like numbers.

 

[poodski]

Speaking of the stats and how they are not gospel I am reading the Bill James handbook at work (its a slow time and my second to last day of the year, so I aint doin shit today)

Anyhow talking about his pitcher projections this is what he wrote:

This year, we're hoping to at least get everybody's won-lost record projected right. Last year we were exactly right on 8 out of 387; that's a start. It's a cornerstone.

That quote is the epitome of why baseball is great. It's largely a numbers game and you can see correlation, but yet things happen, and nothing comes out like its supposed to. i.e. San Francisco Giants winning the World Series.

 

[Jntg4]

Speaking of the stats and how they are not gospel I am reading the Bill James handbook at work (its a slow time and my second to last day of the year, so I aint doin shit today)

Anyhow talking about his pitcher projections this is what he wrote:



That quote is the epitome of why baseball is great. It's largely a numbers game and you can see correlation, but yet things happen, and nothing comes out like its supposed to. i.e. San Francisco Giants winning the World Series.

I had the Giants making it, actually I had all of my picks right except for the World Series. In 09, I had them all right. Quite depressing way to end a streak.

 

[poodski]

I had the Giants making it, actually I had all of my picks right except for the World Series. In 09, I had them all right. Quite depressing way to end a streak.

So on April 1st you had the Giants and the Rangers in the World Series?

 

[Got teeth? Keith doesn't.]

juan pierre 13.4 UZR and a 13.4 UZR 150 2010
juan pierre 4.1 UZR and a 9.4 UZR 150 2009
juan pierre -3.1 UZR and a -6.4 UZR 150 2008

yet we all know he sucks as sox fans in the outfield

soriano 5.2 UZR 6.3 UZR 150 2010
soriano -3.1 UZR -5.2 UZR 150 2009
soriano 15.9 UZR 25.5 UZR 150 2008

I guess we only are looking at 2008 to judge soriano? no?

I don't know why some Sox fans hated the dude. He sometimes had bad jumps but more than made up with it with his speed. He has a weak arm, but hey, that's why he's in LF.

So on April 1st you had the Giants and the Rangers in the World Series?

Come on d00d, he's Nostradamus' son.

 

[Jntg4]

So on April 1st you had the Giants and the Rangers in the World Series?

No, on October 1st. I had the Rangers winning it from pre-season, didn't have Giants until the day before the playoffs started, that's when I make playoff predictions.

 

[GrinderBall41]

Well Rush, mainly that is because baseball, as it is played, lends itself to statistical analysis, or at least the isolation of variables. In a given plate appearance, it is the batter, the pitcher and the ballpark, that's about it, everything else is a far-distant second (umpire, catcher, etc.). One-on-one matchups dominate the landscape, and because of that, variables are easily pinpointed, and random statistical noise siphoned out. I guess the only exception (which, in a twist of irony, proves the rule) is fielding: it is decidedly not a one-on-one matchup, and therefore there are many, many more variables that come into play to affect each situation, and thus the calculation of "value", "worth", "production" etc.

And awwww...I think Dew was talking about me!

Exactly the point I was going to make. Isolation is key.

 

[Mackman]

Stats don't always tell the whole story. All I know is that if any manager had to choose a LF for just defensive purposes, Pierre and Soriano would be towards the bottom of the list. Any pro baseball outfielder can catch a fly ball and throw it back to the infield. That is why they are able to stay in the outfield because they usually can do the basics. However, stats are not going to show instincts. Soriano doesn't have great outfield instincts. Can I prove that with stats? No. But just watch him play and you should come to the conclusion that he is in fact a defensive liability (comparatively speaking to other outfielders in the MLB). If you compare him to the average Joe, then yes he is a solid fielder.

 

[Mackman]

I don't know why some Sox fans hated the dude. He sometimes had bad jumps but more than made up with it with his speed. He has a weak arm, but hey, that's why he's in LF.



I am not trying to hate on him. He could very well be a major asset to the team. I think our point is that based on Defense alone, he wouldn't be at the top of the outfield list.