Why is baseball discussion revolve around acronyms?

[Got teeth? Keith doesn't.]

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.

Do you really expect managers to put a fielder with a .996 fielding % the past two years at the bottom of their list?

 

[Jntg4]

Do you really expect managers to put a fielder with a .996 fielding % the past two years at the bottom of their list?

If you mean Soriano, they do pull him.

If you meant Pierre, then IDK.

 

[poodski]

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.

Oh. Well I was meaning that predictions are still way off on things. That's what makes baseball awesome. No one could have projected Bautista would hit 3.2 million home runs last year.

 

[Got teeth? Keith doesn't.]

If you mean Soriano, they do pull him.

If you meant Pierre, then IDK.

I'm talking about Pierre. Managers are the group of people that use the most basic stats to death, such as fielding % for fielders. I don't know how a collective group of them can pass on Pierre and his two errors over the past two seasons.

 

[Jntg4]

Oh. Well I was meaning that predictions are still way off on things. That's what makes baseball awesome. No one could have projected Bautista would hit 3.2 million home runs last year.

Or the Padres almost making the playoffs.

 

[poodski]

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.

Instincts? I am not sure what you are saying. Soriano doesn't react all that fast no, but he takes very good routes to the ball.

If Soriano cut out the bonehead mistakes me makes he would actually be a very good LF'er. His instincts are pretty good I would say.

 

[Mackman]

Instincts? I am not sure what you are saying. Soriano doesn't react all that fast no, but he takes very good routes to the ball.

If Soriano cut out the bonehead mistakes me makes he would actually be a very good LF'er. His instincts are pretty good I would say.

Yes that's what I mean about insticts is his reaction. And you are correct that Soriano makes way too many bonehead mistakes.

 

[Mackman]

I'm talking about Pierre. Managers are the group of people that use the most basic stats to death, such as fielding % for fielders. I don't know how a collective group of them can pass on Pierre and his two errors over the past two seasons.[/QUOTE

I am not saying that the Sox should not play Pierre. And I am not saying is at the bottom of the list either. I am saying he is not an elite outfielder and it is mainly because of his arm. That's all. I am not saying either that I don't want him on the team. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Lefty]

Not true. If you use a one year sample size of UZR it will more than likely be inaccurate. However, if you use 3 years worth, it becomes reliable.

You obviously don't remember, so allow me to refresh your mind...

rARM, which is number of outfield arms runs saved: 5 years: 34(next is Willingham with 16) 4 years: 24(Willingham again in 2nd with 12) 3 years: 7(2nd to only Crawford and Ibanez who have 8). Pretty freakin' great.

rPM, which is plus or minus the number of runs saved: 3 years: - 10. Which may seem bad, but it's 4th best. 4 years: -11(again 4th). 5 years: 0(3rd best, behind Holliday and Carl.) While these numbers aren't great, they aren't bad. Which is the point I'm trying to get across to you.

DRS, or defensive runs saved. Over 5 years, he is 2nd to only Crawford. 4 years, 3rd to Holliday and Crawford. Same for 3 years.

RZR, revised zone rating, he is in the middle of the pack for each of the 3 year increments I am using.

TZL, total zone with location, is basically another form of UZR. 5 years: Soriano was great with a 23.6 TZL, 2nd to only Mr. Crawford. 4 years: 3rd to Carl and Holliday, with a 2.3, which is still considered average. 3 years: -2.6, which is still average, but it was good enough for 2nd.

TZ, total zone without location has Soriano in the top 3 year each time, too.

This, coupled with high UZR totals is what I have based my opinion on. I don't see how the human eye can be right and all these defensive stats can be wrong.

They're not, you are just horrendously over-stating what they (the stats) are telling us. I'll just give you bullet-point formula from the top-down, just to keep it easier on you:

1) No, you have to use 3-years woth of UZR data when computing UZR. It's not enough to just look at three individual UZR numbers and take their average because it is based on a sliding average for each and every season, meaning the numbers fluctuate violently. So, just simply averaging a bunch of UZR numbers won't accomplish much because they were all based on their own average. Now, I know for a fact you didn't go through and re-compute UZR with this goal in mind, so how about you just drop it.

2) Nobody was saying Soriano has a crappy arm, his is actually pretty good, but one's arm is just one small sub-set of fielding, particularly so for a position in the OF. Just because the numbers indicate he has a great arm from the OF doesn't make him a great fielder overall.

3) Funny here how you force yourself to defend Soriano's obvious sub-optimum grade in an overall fielding category. Look, like I said with UZR: it doesn't matter, at least for our purposes, what the average is for that stat, it really doesn't, because it is all based off of one year of data or a few years of wildly-fluctuating averages. All we need to know is what the stat puts right in front of our faces: Soriano is pretty shitty at saving runs from his OF spot. End of story.

4) The rest of this is just the same kind of crap: you list a stat, and even though the stat shows Soriano to be pretty bad, you somehow twist the perspective in such a manner so as to make Soriano look to be the victim of the calculations, usually by listing where he sits in relation to the rest of the MLB. I'm only going to say this once more: that shit doesn't matter. Where Soriano is relative to everyone else is an irrelevant discussion, because what we are talking about here does not include everyone else, and what's more Soriano's position relative to those people is more than likely the result of some random fluctuation of the aforementioned volatile averages.

So, nice try, but no dice. Soriano blows, end of story.

 

[poodski]

Also for those discussing Pierre. He did have the most OOZ plays last year in the majors for LF.

 

[Captain Obvious]

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

What, in God's name, are you basing that off of? So what if he won a MOY award 3 times, that's about as useful award as the Gold Glove. It means nothing. It's just a popularity contest on who is the flashiest and in the case of MOY, who gets the most wins or the biggest turn around.

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.

Yeah you can bring in Fuld, Colvin, and Fukudome for better defense.... but they don't play LF, so that's like putting Byrd there. We're talking about LFers. Plus, if you bring either of those 3 in, you're going to lose out on offense.

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.

I'm going to take a stab in the dark and say it is from a lack of understanding.

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.

Just wondering, where do you get this Bill James rating at? What is it's official name? Or is this like his form of UZR?

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.

Dude, seriously? You can look in my posts in this thread and the other positional rating thread. I've said that he is a good LFer the whole time.

Do you really expect managers to put a fielder with a .996 fielding % the past two years at the bottom of their list?

QFT

I am not saying that the Sox should not play Pierre. And I am not saying is at the bottom of the list either. I am saying he is not an elite outfielder and it is mainly because of his arm. That's all. I am not saying either that I don't want him on the team. Sorry for the confusion.

Who said he was an elite defender? Really, the only elite defender in LF, is Carl Crawford.

 

[Captain Obvious]

They're not, you are just horrendously over-stating what they (the stats) are telling us. I'll just give you bullet-point formula from the top-down, just to keep it easier on you:

1) No, you have to use 3-years woth of UZR data when computing UZR. It's not enough to just look at three individual UZR numbers and take their average because it is based on a sliding average for each and every season, meaning the numbers fluctuate violently. So, just simply averaging a bunch of UZR numbers won't accomplish much because they were all based on their own average. Now, I know for a fact you didn't go through and re-compute UZR with this goal in mind, so how about you just drop it.

2) Nobody was saying Soriano has a crappy arm, his is actually pretty good, but one's arm is just one small sub-set of fielding, particularly so for a position in the OF. Just because the numbers indicate he has a great arm from the OF doesn't make him a great fielder overall.

3) Funny here how you force yourself to defend Soriano's obvious sub-optimum grade in an overall fielding category. Look, like I said with UZR: it doesn't matter, at least for our purposes, what the average is for that stat, it really doesn't, because it is all based off of one year of data or a few years of wildly-fluctuating averages. All we need to know is what the stat puts right in front of our faces: Soriano is pretty shitty at saving runs from his OF spot. End of story.

4) The rest of this is just the same kind of crap: you list a stat, and even though the stat shows Soriano to be pretty bad, you somehow twist the perspective in such a manner so as to make Soriano look to be the victim of the calculations, usually by listing where he sits in relation to the rest of the MLB. I'm only going to say this once more: that shit doesn't matter. Where Soriano is relative to everyone else is an irrelevant discussion, because what we are talking about here does not include everyone else, and what's more Soriano's position relative to those people is more than likely the result of some random fluctuation of the aforementioned volatile averages.

So, nice try, but no dice. Soriano blows, end of story.

1) Okay, I can understand that... but, really, how far off is the average going to be? Totally guessing here, but I'm guessing that it wouldn't be that far off.

2) Never have I ever said he is good defender overall. However, he is a pretty good defender for a LFer.

3) Again, this for a LFer... so he is compared to other LFers.

4) Where Soriano is relative to where the others are most certainly is relevant. We're talking about LFers here. I don't think anyone is trying to say he is a good defender. However, for LF, he is pretty good. So we should rightly compare him to other LFers.

So yeah, Soriano doesn't blow... for a LFer. Which is the point I have been trying to make for about a week now. He's just simply not that bad of a LFer.

 

[DewsSox79]

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.

yeah he had a bad career managing.

 

[tbo41fan]

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.

I will take any MLB manager over a 16 year old kid on a message board anyday

 

[DewsSox79]

They're not, you are just horrendously over-stating what they (the stats) are telling us. I'll just give you bullet-point formula from the top-down, just to keep it easier on you:

1) No, you have to use 3-years woth of UZR data when computing UZR. It's not enough to just look at three individual UZR numbers and take their average because it is based on a sliding average for each and every season, meaning the numbers fluctuate violently. So, just simply averaging a bunch of UZR numbers won't accomplish much because they were all based on their own average. Now, I know for a fact you didn't go through and re-compute UZR with this goal in mind, so how about you just drop it.

2) Nobody was saying Soriano has a crappy arm, his is actually pretty good, but one's arm is just one small sub-set of fielding, particularly so for a position in the OF. Just because the numbers indicate he has a great arm from the OF doesn't make him a great fielder overall.

3) Funny here how you force yourself to defend Soriano's obvious sub-optimum grade in an overall fielding category. Look, like I said with UZR: it doesn't matter, at least for our purposes, what the average is for that stat, it really doesn't, because it is all based off of one year of data or a few years of wildly-fluctuating averages. All we need to know is what the stat puts right in front of our faces: Soriano is pretty shitty at saving runs from his OF spot. End of story.

4) The rest of this is just the same kind of crap: you list a stat, and even though the stat shows Soriano to be pretty bad, you somehow twist the perspective in such a manner so as to make Soriano look to be the victim of the calculations, usually by listing where he sits in relation to the rest of the MLB. I'm only going to say this once more: that shit doesn't matter. Where Soriano is relative to everyone else is an irrelevant discussion, because what we are talking about here does not include everyone else, and what's more Soriano's position relative to those people is more than likely the result of some random fluctuation of the aforementioned volatile averages.

So, nice try, but no dice. Soriano blows, end of story.

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

 

[Captain Obvious]

yeah he had a bad career managing.

I never said he had a bad career managing. He's just dumb as rocks.

I will take any MLB manager over a 16 year old kid on a message board anyday

Cool. That's your opinion. But the point is managers really don't know shit.

 

[Jntg4]

1) Okay, I can understand that... but, really, how far off is the average going to be? Totally guessing here, but I'm guessing that it wouldn't be that far off.

2) Never have I ever said he is good defender overall. However, he is a pretty good defender for a LFer.

3) Again, this for a LFer... so he is compared to other LFers.

4) Where Soriano is relative to where the others are most certainly is relevant. We're talking about LFers here. I don't think anyone is trying to say he is a good defender. However, for LF, he is pretty good. So we should rightly compare him to other LFers.

So yeah, Soriano doesn't blow... for a LFer. Which is the point I have been trying to make for about a week now. He's just simply not that bad of a LFer.

Wow, you are really saying Lefty is wrong and you are right? lefty know about 1000 times more about saber than you. But sure, you are a genius who is smarter than Lefty or any MLB Manager.

 

[Captain Obvious]

Wow, you are really saying Lefty is wrong and you are right? lefty know about 1000 times more about saber than you. But sure, you are a genius who is smarter than Lefty or any MLB Manager.

No, I'm saying that he misunderstood my point.

Yeah, you're right. We should have kept Pinella because ya know, giving Koyie Hill all those PAs over Soto was sooooo smart. Not saying I should be the manager, what I'm saying is that managers in MLB generally don't know shit. But yes, I would rather have someone from a message board be my manager, as opposed to basically anyone in the MLB right now.

 

[Jntg4]

No, I'm saying that he misunderstood my point.

Yeah, you're right. We should have kept Pinella because ya know, giving Koyie Hill all those PAs over Soto was sooooo smart. Not saying I should be the manager, what I'm saying is that managers in MLB generally don't know shit. But yes, I would rather have someone from a message board be my manager, as opposed to basically anyone in the MLB right now.

The only really good manager from a message board would be Lefty.

 

[Jntg4]

No, I'm saying that he misunderstood my point.

Yeah, you're right. We should have kept Pinella because ya know, giving Koyie Hill all those PAs over Soto was sooooo smart. Not saying I should be the manager, what I'm saying is that managers in MLB generally don't know shit. But yes, I would rather have someone from a message board be my manager, as opposed to basically anyone in the MLB right now.

Piniella retired, he wasn't fired, how could we have kept him?