Alomar, Best 2B ever?
ryan baker
be the best 2nd baseman of all time. I spoken to my father about
this, the only knowledgable baseball fan that is from another
generation, but what does everyone else think. Alomar can just take
over a game, and change the outcome anytime during the game, whether
it be in the field, where he is amazing, or stealing a base, hitting a
double, or just the little things like making it first to third on
almost every basehit. You Baltimore fans should be happy, I admit
that I am envious, but you guys still are not going to win- go sox!
Clemens at least 20 wins this year.
ryan j baker
skidmore college
--
-------------------
End of network mail
Gary Huckabay
ryan baker <ryan...@saims.skidmore.edu> wrote:
>I'm only 19 years old, but from what I am seeing, Roberto Alomar might
>be the best 2nd baseman of all time.
Well, he's got a very long way to go to get there, but he's certainly
off to a good start.
>I spoken to my father about
>this, the only knowledgable baseball fan that is from another
>generation, but what does everyone else think.
I think he's the second baseman I'd most like to have over the next
five years, edging out Knoblauch and Baerga.
>Alomar can just take
>over a game, and change the outcome anytime during the game, whether
>it be in the field, where he is amazing, or stealing a base, hitting a
>double, or just the little things like making it first to third on
>almost every basehit.
You make a good point here. Alomar's defense is probably overrated,
at least slightly, but he's probably the best baserunner in the American
League. If not him, then perhaps Brady Anderson? Tim Raines?
>You Baltimore fans should be happy, I admit
>that I am envious, but you guys still are not going to win- go sox!
Baltimore looks pretty strong to me, but that's a tough division. The
Red Sox need two pitchers to have above expectation years, and that's
not a great thing to bet on. Will Boston get the same sort of years
out of Canseco, Valentin, Naehring, Vaughn, and the role players?
>Clemens at least 20 wins this year.
If I were you, I'd be hoping for 32 starts, and then hope for the best.
--
* Gary Huckabay * "I finally met a guy who's half as smart as Roger Maynard *
* "Rhymes with * thinks he is. He's roughly a quarter as smart as you *
* Huckabay." * think you are, and about an eighth as smart as David Tate *
* * thinks he is. He's a ^&*#ing genius." -- email. *
Jim_...@transarc.com
> I'm only 19 years old, but from what I am seeing, Roberto Alomar might
> this, the only knowledgable baseball fan that is from another
> over a game, and change the outcome anytime during the game, whether
> it be in the field, where he is amazing, or stealing a base, hitting a
> double, or just the little things like making it first to third on
> that I am envious, but you guys still are not going to win- go sox!
>
I don't think so. No matter how you define "best 2B," you can find
better. If you mean "overall player -- hitting, fielding, running --
playing secondbase, you have several, including Nap Lajoie and Joe
Morgan. And if you just want to talk fielding, Alomar is nowhere close
to Mazeroski.
******************************************************************
Jim Mann jm...@transarc.com
Transarc Corporation
The Gulf Tower, 707 Grant Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 338-4442
WWW Homepage: http://www.transarc.com/~jmann/Home.html
Mitchell Plitnick
: In article <4ej4v2$5...@saims.skidmore.edu>,
: ryan baker <ryan...@saims.skidmore.edu> wrote:
: >I'm only 19 years old, but from what I am seeing, Roberto Alomar might
: >be the best 2nd baseman of all time.
: Well, he's got a very long way to go to get there, but he's certainly
: off to a good start.
I don't see it. His OBP and SLG have declined the past two years, fairly
surprising at the ages of 26 and 27 respectively. He needs a massive
upsurge in power to reach the kind of peak Joe Morgan had, and he'll have
a much longer way to go to get to Rogers Hornsby. If he has a really
spectacular 96, I'll change my tune, but with the new strike zone coming
into effect I suspect we won't see many hitters improving on their 95
numbers.
: >I spoken to my father about
: >this, the only knowledgable baseball fan that is from another
: >generation, but what does everyone else think.
: I think he's the second baseman I'd most like to have over the next
: five years, edging out Knoblauch and Baerga.
Have you got something against Craig Biggio? I'd certainly take him over
Baerga.
: >Alomar can just take
: >over a game, and change the outcome anytime during the game, whether
: >it be in the field, where he is amazing, or stealing a base, hitting a
: >double, or just the little things like making it first to third on
: >almost every basehit.
: You make a good point here. Alomar's defense is probably overrated,
: at least slightly, but he's probably the best baserunner in the American
: League. If not him, then perhaps Brady Anderson? Tim Raines?
Funny how, in light of the SportsCenter/Gammons raving about his defense
that this area, where he truly excels pretty much goes unnoticed.
: >You Baltimore fans should be happy, I admit
: >that I am envious, but you guys still are not going to win- go sox!
: Baltimore looks pretty strong to me, but that's a tough division. The
: Red Sox need two pitchers to have above expectation years, and that's
: not a great thing to bet on. Will Boston get the same sort of years
: out of Canseco, Valentin, Naehring, Vaughn, and the role players?
Maybe not, but they've added Slocumb in the pen (who is far from a great
reliever, but he is definitely an improvement over Ken Ryan last year)
and Cordero. I'd say that, as compared to league average, it's not
unreasonable to expect similar years out of all the people you named
above, especially Vaughn and Valentin, both of whom had 95 seasons that
were pretty comparable to their 94 years. Canseco will hit if he's
healthy, and the same goes for Naehring, though even if healthy, he's one
guy who might show decline this year from his 95 stats. Still, with the
additions of Stanley and Cordero, I think it's a pretty good bet that the
Sox lineup will be at least as good as the 95 version, very possibly even
better. Pitching is another matter. That's where the Sox real question
marks are. If Clemens is healthy and if Sele is healthy and effective,
they should be in good shape. If not, they'll have serious problems.
--
---Mitchell---
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This msg was sent to | "Democracy don't rule the world, you'd better get
you free of charge | that through your head. This world is ruled by
from Mitchell | Violence, but I guess that's better left unsaid."
Plitnick of the famed| ---Bob Dylan
Berkeley Plitnicks |
_____________________| "Let me bring you love from the fields; poppies red
| and roses filled with summer rain"
| ---Ian Anderson
|_______________________________________________________
Steve
HA HA! (wipe away tears) HA HA HA HEE HEE HEE! OH YA! HA HA HA HE HE HEE
HO HA HA!
Listen, I am a long time Jays fan and have had the opportunity to see
Alomar in large quantities over the last 5 years. I am not bitter over
the loss of him, I still believe he is a great player, possibly the best
in all of present day baseball. However is he the best 2B ever? I
highly doubt it. You must have seen Ryne Sandberg play in his prime. Is
Alomar even better than Ryno was? Tough call. I'm not saying that Ryne
is the best 2B ever, I haven't seen every second baseman to ever play the
game, but before you can be the best ever, you have to be the best in your
own lifetime, which Alomar is not. Even today, his position at the top
of the upper echelon of second basemen is being threatened by Chuck
Knoblauch. Alomar could possibly become the best ever, but only time will
tell. As of now though, he is not.
Sorry I laughed at that.
Steve
David Pease
Mitchell Plitnick <mjpc...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Gary Huckabay (ez02...@bullwinkle.ucdavis.edu) wrote:
[deletia...]
>: Well, he's got a very long way to go to get there, but he's certainly
>: off to a good start.
>
>I don't see it.
[reasoning deleted]
Neither do I.
>: I think he's the second baseman I'd most like to have over the next
>: five years, edging out Knoblauch and Baerga.
>
>Have you got something against Craig Biggio? I'd certainly take him over
>Baerga.
Over the next five years? I certainly wouldn't. There isn't much doubt
Biggio is better right now, but in five years he'll be 36--and he may or
may not be producing better than Baerga, who is about three years younger.
I don't think there's any reason to project Biggio as anything but the
worst of these four players to have over the next five years. (Though
he's certainly good, of course, and may be the best of the four next
year.)
Thank you for your time
dp
--
Q: "When he went, had you gone and had she, if she wanted to and were able,
for the time being excluding all the restraints on her not to go, gone also,
would he have brought you, meaning you and she, with him to the station?"
MR. BROOKS: "Objection. That question should be taken out and shot."
David Pease
Craig <CR...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>nkc...@fas.harvard.edu (nathaniel clark) writes:
[deletia...]
>> In general, Alomar is below average defensively.
>>
>I just have to say that I find it incredible that anyone
>can believe that.
Why?
nathaniel clark
ryan baker <ryan...@saims.skidmore.edu> wrote:
>I'm only 19 years old, but from what I am seeing, Roberto Alomar might
>this, the only knowledgable baseball fan that is from another
>over a game, and change the outcome anytime during the game, whether
>it be in the field, where he is amazing, or stealing a base, hitting a
>ryan j baker
>skidmore college
>
In general, Alomar is below average defensively.
Rui WICUS-WICUS
> In article <4ej4v2$5...@saims.skidmore.edu>,
> ryan baker <ryan...@saims.skidmore.edu> wrote:
> >I'm only 19 years old, but from what I am seeing, Roberto Alomar might
> >be the best 2nd baseman of all time. I spoken to my father about
> >this, the only knowledgable baseball fan that is from another
> >generation, but what does everyone else think. Alomar can just take
> >over a game, and change the outcome anytime during the game, whether
> >it be in the field, where he is amazing, or stealing a base, hitting a
Come on, you are not to old to remember even a recent HOFer, Ryne
Sandberg, he was a better hitter and a better fielder, only not as fast
as Alomar. Otherwise Sandberg kills Alomar.
> >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >ryan j baker
> >skidmore college
> >
>
> In general, Alomar is below average defensively.
I don't know about that, he's not a Sandberg defensively but he's one of
the better ones out there
>
--RR
>
> nkc...@fas.harvard.edu
>
>
>
Craig
> In article <4ej4v2$5...@saims.skidmore.edu>,
> ryan baker <ryan...@saims.skidmore.edu> wrote:
> >I'm only 19 years old, but from what I am seeing, Roberto Alomar might
> >be the best 2nd baseman of all time. I spoken to my father about
> >this, the only knowledgable baseball fan that is from another
> >generation, but what does everyone else think. Alomar can just take
> >over a game, and change the outcome anytime during the game, whether
> >it be in the field, where he is amazing, or stealing a base, hitting a
> >ryan j baker
> >skidmore college
> >
>
> In general, Alomar is below average defensively.
>
can believe that.
Craig
Scott Blaha
>
> ryan...@saims.skidmore.edu (ryan baker) writes:
> > I'm only 19 years old, but from what I am seeing, Roberto Alomar might
> > be the best 2nd baseman of all time. I spoken to my father about
> > this, the only knowledgable baseball fan that is from another
> > generation, but what does everyone else think. Alomar can just take
> > over a game, and change the outcome anytime during the game, whether
> > it be in the field, where he is amazing, or stealing a base, hitting a
> > that I am envious, but you guys still are not going to win- go sox!
> >
>
> I don't think so. No matter how you define "best 2B," you can find
> better. If you mean "overall player -- hitting, fielding, running --
> playing secondbase, you have several, including Nap Lajoie and Joe
> Morgan. And if you just want to talk fielding, Alomar is nowhere close
> to Mazeroski.
>
> ******************************************************************
> Jim Mann jm...@transarc.com
currently playing? Sure.
Scott
Chloe Carter
baker) writes:
>I'm only 19 years old, but from what I am seeing, Roberto Alomar might
>be the best 2nd baseman of all time. I spoken to my father about
>this, the only knowledgable baseball fan that is from another
>generation, but what does everyone else think.
>
>ryan j baker
>skidmore college
The r.s.bb consensus seems to be that Alomar is an average defensive
2B, possibly a little below average. Offensively, he's better than
that, but not enough to make him even the best 2B in the American
League, let alone 'of all time'.
- chloe
Ted Frank
Craig <CR...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>The clarity and lack of equivocation indicates a level of certainty
>that the speaker would feel comfortable instructing Cal Ripken Jr
>that Cal, the Gold Glove voters, and the vast majority of
>observers are not just mistaken, but grossly mistaken in their
>perception of Alomar's defensive value.
Question: when was the last time you saw someone affiliated with
MLB proclaim publicly that someone else was overrated or not that
good?
Note that an obvious example such as Dante Bichette stirred a heck
of a hornet's nest when some players noted that Bichette couldn't
hit a lick outside of Coors. Or the fuss when an A's official noted
that Ruben Sierra refused to take a base on balls.
Simple fact is, baseball etiquette will not let you belittle players.
If you belittle a teammate, you're being disruptive. If you belittle
an opponent, it goes up on the bulletin board as motivational fodder.
This results in a huge feedback loop for good players. Once a player has
the stellar defensive reputation, he has to age out of it before he loses
it: it'd be a huge insult for a manager to publicly say "Alomar is
average" or even "Alomar is slightly above average", especially in a world
where everyone is considered above average, at least publicly. So, anyone
asked about Alomar's defense has to say, whether or not he believes the
king has clothes, "Alomar is the greatest." If enough people say it,
someone who sees the guy a dozen times a year, and is paying attention
to him maybe a ninth of that time at most, is going to believe it, and
parrot it. Perhaps even sincerely.
Note that this is not a conspiracy theory; this is a bunch of individuals
acting in their self-interest. And the self-interest is to follow the
conventional wisdom.
Frankly, I have no idea whether Alomar is a great player. The Gold Glove
is circumstantial evidence in that favor, though it would be more so if
he weren't such a great hitter. The fact that he never turns the deuce
works against him. I'm more inclined to weigh the objective evidence
more heavily than the subjective evidence, but that's just me, and my
experience in the law, and my personal views about the value of eyewitness
evidence. People see what they're looking for when they judge a player's
defense.
I agree that one must look at the objective evidence objectively, one
reason why I'm skeptical of DA. But so many of the objective numbers
point to the same conclusion, it's hard to know why I should completely
disregard all of them. If the objective numbers had no value whatsoever,
one would think that either (a) they'd be random, rather than consistent,
or (b) there'd be an identifiable factor causing the bias. I don't see
either happening with Alomar or Griffey.
--
m...@radix.net See also Will Wheeler's Siamese twin sister
PAL...@sscl.uwo.ca
>nkc...@fas.harvard.edu (nathaniel clark) writes:
>> In article <4ej4v2$5...@saims.skidmore.edu>,
>> ryan baker <ryan...@saims.skidmore.edu> wrote:
>> >generation, but what does everyone else think. Alomar can just take
>> >over a game, and change the outcome anytime during the game, whether
>> >it be in the field, where he is amazing, or stealing a base, hitting a
>> >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> In general, Alomar is below average defensively.
>>
>I just have to say that I find it incredible that anyone
>can believe that.
Craig,
Why do you find this so incredible? I know you have misgivings about DAs and
ZRs as measures of defensive ability, misgivings that I might even share, but
my recollection is that for the past four years or so, Alomar's DAs have been
at or below the AL average. Even with these misgivings, there is a strong
prima facie case here that his performance has been below average.
In the past, when this topic has come up for discussion both here and on the
Blue Jays mailing list, people have pointed out that Alomar often positions
himself closer to 1B than many other 2Bmen. Hence he doesn't get to as many of
the balls that are hit back up the middle, and those he does get to lead to
either spectacular stops (with no outs), or to dive-slide-fire plays that look
really terrific. In addition, he has consistently looked subpar, both to the
eye and in the stats, at turning the double play.
Note that even though/if he does position himself more toward 1B, he does not
compensate for the plays not made up the middle by making more plays
on balls that are hit through the 1B zone of responsibility; Toronto 1B DAs
are well above average.
Overall, he's still damned good and could play on my
team. But the evidence I've seen certainly provides a credible, not
incredible, case that Alomar's defence has been at or below
average. It will be interesting to see how he does on grass in Baltimore. Once
again, I can't wait to see the home/road splits for DA.
John Palmer London, Ontario Voice: (519) 679-2111 ext 5484 FAX: 661-3666
reply to pal...@sscl.uwo.ca Former Radio Voice of the Former London Tigers
============================================================================
The New Economics: Overlapping Generalizations & Rationalized Expectorations
Michael Wynblatt
Michael Wynblatt <wynb...@cs.sunysb.edu> wrote:
>Well, you see, if you count all the balls hit second base, Alomar turns
>fewer of them into outs then most other second basemen.
Sorry, I meant balls hit "to" second base :)
I don't know how many Alomar gets that actually hit second base...
Michael
Michael Wynblatt
Craig <CR...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>nkc...@fas.harvard.edu (nathaniel clark) writes:
>> In general, Alomar is below average defensively.
>I just have to say that I find it incredible that anyone
>can believe that.
I sense the return of a well-worn thread :)
Well, you see, if you count all the balls hit second base, Alomar turns
fewer of them into outs then most other second basemen.
Michael
David Pease
Steve <ste...@server.uwindsor.ca> wrote:
[deletia...]
>DOAT! Maybe if SANDY Alomar was playing second base. Have you actually
>been watching him?
No, probably not. He probably just pulled that comment out of the air.
Good question.
>80some consectutive games without an error last year
Who cares? Errors are next to useless as a serious evaluation of a
player's defense.
Or do you think Steve Garvey was one of the best defensive 1B of all
time?
>as well as amazing range and accuracy make him as far above average as
>one can be!
No they don't. Do you have anything except personal testimony to
support that?
Thank you for your time
dp
--
EL, DDfL & J dave pease, RDFC dpe...@qualcomm.com
--- Great Moments in American Sports Journalism, Volume I ---
Mediot: "So, son, how are you liking your freshman year at-"
Barry Bonds: "If you ever write anything bad about me, I'll kick your ass."
Gary Huckabay
>>
>I just have to say that I find it incredible that anyone
>can believe that.
>
You've been on the inside too long. I can understand people believing
just about anything, and there is some reasonable evidence to support the
contention that Alomar isn't particularly great with the glove.
Alomar's range factor in 1995 was 5.10. Granted, range factor is flawed
in significant ways, but that's below league average by .07. Furthermore,
he turned only .67 DP per defensive nine innings.
I will certainly grant you that Range Factor is easily distorted by
pitching staff and park effects, but are you willing to just dismiss
such data?
I don't have the defensive average numbers handy. Oh wait. Maybe I do.
88 Alomar,Roberto DA 0.706 NHS -5 NEB 1 NDP -3 FR -4.38
89 Alomar,Roberto DA 0.705 NHS 2 NEB 2 NDP 0 FR 1.75
90 Alomar,Roberto DA 0.706 NHS 11 NEB 0 NDP -2 FR 7.59
91 Alomar,Roberto DA 0.719 NHS 16 NEB -3 NDP -4 FR 8.54
92 Alomar,Roberto DA 0.708 NHS 4 NEB -2 NDP -9 FR -2.24
93 Alomar,Roberto DA 0.658 NHS -9 NEB 1 NDP -3 FR -7.47
94 Alomar,Roberto DA 0.610 NHS -21 NEB 0 NDP -1 FR -15.28
95 Alomar,Roberto DA 0.661 NHS -4 NEB -2 NDP 0 FR -3.55
** Alomar,Roberto DA 0.687 NHS -6 NEB -3 NDP -22 FR -15
Thanks to Sherri Nichols and Dale Stephenson, who are both worthy of
an extremely friendly noogy for their efforts. But anyway... Defensive
Average is calculated as (Balls in zone converted to outs/Total Balls
in zone). Zones are taxonomous, and demarcation is done by scorers for
the Baseball Workshop.
Dale Stephenson has used Linear Weights to convert DA to Fielding Runs.
Over his career, Alomar has been right around average in terms of
converting batted balls into outs.
Getting away from numbers and into technique... Alomar can't go to
his right particularly well and make a throw, as best I can tell, and
he's not particularly slick at turning the deuce.
In an earlier discussion, you accused me of throwing out data because it
didn't support my hypothesis. I will not make such an accusation.
And, since I'm on the topics, here are the same numbers for Griffey.
89 Griffey,Ken_Jr DA 0.545 NHS -11 NEB -26 FR -16.04
90 Griffey,Ken_Jr DA 0.524 NHS -27 NEB -19 FR -25.06
91 Griffey,Ken_Jr DA 0.547 NHS -17 NEB -7 FR -14.45
92 Griffey,Ken_Jr DA 0.578 NHS -9 NEB -11 FR -9.97
93 Griffey,Ken_Jr DA 0.572 NHS -0 NEB -3 FR -1.24
94 Griffey,Ken_Jr DA 0.516 NHS -25 NEB -23 FR -25.56
95 Griffey,Ken_Jr DA 0.602 NHS 7 NEB -16 FR 0.02
** Griffey,Ken_Jr DA 0.554 NHS -82 NEB -105 FR -92
His best year ever was in 95.
DA is fantastic for infielders, and probably the best tool we have
for outfielders, but I am concerned about park and pitching staff
effects. Or, more simply, "Sherri Nichols is God." - Nietzsche.
Defense is not about looking good. It's about turning batted balls into
outs. DA is the best measure of that skill that we currently have,
and given the amount of data here, what I know about DA, and my
own personal observations, I'm perfectly comfortable stating that
they're both mammothly overrated with the leather, and Griffey just
isn't very good at all. Icky, in fact.
That being said, Alomar is the 2B I'd most want on my team, I think.
And Griffey is certainly the CF I'd want. So what if Jose Gnat is
30 runs better with the glove? I'll take the extra 70 runs on O,
thanks.
Gary, who's giddy due to lack of oxygen to the brain and writing the
player comments for the Colorado Rockies "prospects."
--
* Gary Huckabay * "In real life, one must always look out the window." *
* _On_Really_Thin_ * -Eugene Ionesco. *
* _Ice_and_near_ * "Yeah. There could be babes." *
* _Going_Postal._ * -Jose Canseco. *
Steve
>
DOAT! Maybe if SANDY Alomar was playing second base. Have you actually
one can be!
Steve
Craig
> In article <4emi8m$e...@reader2.ix.netcom.com> Craig <CR...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
> >> In article <4ej4v2$5...@saims.skidmore.edu>,
> >> ryan baker <ryan...@saims.skidmore.edu> wrote:
> >> >generation, but what does everyone else think. Alomar can just take
> >> >over a game, and change the outcome anytime during the game, whether
> >> >it be in the field, where he is amazing, or stealing a base, hitting a
> >> >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >>
> >>
> >can believe that.
>
> Why do you find this so incredible?
[Deleted is a very respectable case for Alomar's defense
being overrated.]
> Overall, he's still damned good and could play on my
> team. But the evidence I've seen certainly provides a credible, not
> incredible, case that Alomar's defence has been at or below
> average. It will be interesting to see how he does on grass in
> Baltimore. Once again, I can't wait to see the home/road splits
> for DA.
>
Sorry, John, I already made my reply to the other fellow who
asked why. If you look there you'll see more meat than is
here.
A large part of what you will read there details my problem
with someone feeling that certain while resting their case
-- I believe -- solely on statistical measures, which in
the area of defense don't strike me as being able to offer
that level of reliable support.
Note that after your thoughtful analysis, that when you came
to your conclusion, you chose to equivocate in a manner that
Nathaniel did not.
While it is not relevant to the original point of this
discussion, I would offer my observation of the scouting
community that while you can find some scouts who question
Griffey's defensive excellence -- you'd have a very hard
time getting any of them to put any kind of hard knock on
Alomar's defense.
But given your note on concerns of Alomar overswinging to
the right, you would be interested to know, that several years ago
there were some scouts who were critical of Alomar being too
willing to set up so far away from the bag in DP situations,
that they felt it was keeping the team from getting some DPs
that they should. If I remember right, the gossip was that
Gaston and his staff were concerned as well and were going
to work with him on it. I have no evidence for this, but it
has been my impression that he does not play as wide or deep
in DP situations as he did in those earlier seasons.
Respectfully,
Craig
Mad Beast
>
>ryan...@saims.skidmore.edu (ryan baker) writes:
>> I'm only 19 years old, but from what I am seeing, Roberto Alomar
might
>> be the best 2nd baseman of all time.
Perhaps the best nsecond baseman playing today, but I wouldn't put him
in the top ten of all time. Mine would be:
1. Rogers Hornsby
2. Jackie Robinson
3. Eddie Collins
4. Napolean Lajoie
5. Frank Frisch
6. Ryne Sandberg
7. Charlie Gehringer
8. Rod Carew (hitting goes a long way)
9. Joe Morgan
10. Nellie Fox
Honorable mention: Bill Mazeroski (fielding doesn't go quite as far as
hitting.)
Mitchell Plitnick
: > In general, Alomar is below average defensively.
: >
: > nkc...@fas.harvard.edu
:
: DOAT! Maybe if SANDY Alomar was playing second base. Have you actually
: been watching him? 80some consectutive games without an error last year
: as well as amazing range and accuracy make him as far above average as
: one can be!
: Steve
Ecept his range is below average. He is a very accurate thrower, and
makes few errors, but he also doesn't get to a whole lot of balls. Before
Craig asks if I base this solely on statistical observation I will say--
yes the stats are a big part of this, but, since this issue has come up
so often, I have taken great pains to watch Alomar and based on my
observations, here's what I see: a sure-handed fielder who is an
excellent athlete, but consistently remains over-shaded toward first, and
does not get a good jump off the bat. This results in more hits, and
fewer double-plays. This is, of course, a subjective assessment, and my
view on this is no better than anyone else's, but, for me, between the
stats and what I see with my own eyes, Alomar is a classic case of a guy
who makes lots of great plays that come as a result of the fact that
various factors come together to make a lot more balls a lot harder for
him to field in the first place than for many other 2Bmen. Hence, fewer
plays in all, more highlight film plays than anyone.
Craig
> Craig <CR...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >dpe...@qualcomm.com (David Pease) writes:
(Actually it was Nathaniel Clark who made the stand-alone
statement below. Pease is the guy who asked me [Craig],
why I was so surprised by this statement.)
> >> >>In general, Alomar is below average defensively.
>
>>The clarity and lack of equivocation indicates a level of certainty
>>that the speaker would feel comfortable instructing Cal Ripken Jr
>>that Cal, the Gold Glove voters, and the vast majority of
>>observers are not just mistaken, but grossly mistaken in their
>>perception of Alomar's defensive value.
>That's a lot of text to find hidden in a 7-word sentence, especially
>for someone who prides himself publicly on his charitable interpretations
>of public comments and willingness to give the benefit of the doubt.
I would take what I wrote not as a characterization of something hidden
in the sentence but as an example of the element in that statement
that was the central cause of my reaction.
In being asked to explain why that statement bothered me, I chose
to lead off with that paragraph to make the point that it is the
certainty of that statement that I found so incredible. And you know,
while you think I may have put too much effort in trying to make that
point, if you will look at the posts responding to what I wrote, has
there been one yet that recognizes that this was and is my point,
that what I find incredible is that one could reason there way to
feeling certain that Alomar is below average defensively?
As for a more charitable interpretation of the statement, I'm not
sure what you expect of me. It does mean something to me that
conspiculously absent is any form of qualifier such as, "According to
many statistical measures Alomar is ...," or even a simple "It is
my opinion ..." Heck there was no "I" there at all to even suggest
there is a human element. It came across to me that he felt so
certain that this is a fact, that he presented it solely as a fact.
>>I cannot imagine that anyone would gain that sense of certainty
>>from their own observations of Alomar's defensive play.
>How should they go about gaining that sense of certainty?
I would hope by considering all the evidence that they could
muster and weighing whether it was worthy of such certainty.
>> If the certainty of that statement is based on the statistical
>> measures of Alomar's defense -- as I suspect it is -- I find it
>> difficult to believe that kind of reliance would be attached to
>> such measures in the face of all other evidence.
>"All other evidence"? What evidence is there to suggest that Alomar
>*isn't* a below-average fielder these days? Direct evidence, I mean;
>not "lots of people think he's great".
If "lots of people think he's great" is the same as "lots of people
who understand what the purpose of a second baseman is, and they
watch Alomar play, and conclude that he is not a below average
fielder," that right there is direct evidence. It is taken directly
from what we are trying to assess. It does have a subjective
quality, but then so do the very best of the defensive measures.
Some are necessarily subjective in that they require an opinion
about whether a ball was hit in area A or area B and/or how hard it
was hit. And some are subjective in design as to how they will try
to adjust for a specific influence, and even in regard to the
decision to try and adjust for this influence but not that one.
Understand that I am not knocking those measures for that subjectivity
or in any possible way trying to deny that they have value because
they have such subjectivity. I'm simply saying it is there, and that
it does have a diminishing quality to the certainty of those measures
in much the same way that it does to a consensus opinion of even the
most qualified visual evaluators.
>I can't imagine that you'd seriously argue that conclusions drawn
>from the systematic observation of what Alomar *achieves* on defense
>are less convincing than conclusions drawn from how he looks while
>achieving it ...
If you mean the concern should be with substance, not style, I'm
pleased to confirm that your imagination is right on target. I
would, however, argue that measuring with great accuracy what Alomar
actually achieves of value on defense is a tricky beast to track even
with our tremendous efforts to systematically observe and catalog that
performance. I believe based on logic and experience that the
capacity for significant error in individual cases with these measures
is far, far higher than many of the folks in this newsgroup seem to
believe.
Look, I use these measures in my work, and they do convince me
of a lot of things that fly in the face of this other perspective
that drives 90% of the professional baseball world. Most folks would
put be squarely in that other 10%. As one who helped pioneer and
develop some of these measures, I don't think I have a bias against
them.
>>Some things are simply better suited to analysis -- which is
>>in a nutshell definition "attempting to learn by studying small
>>parts of the whole." To the extent that what we are measuring
>>lacks singularity and individuality from the whole, than the
>>tougher it is to get a handle on it through analysis.
> Of course. But that doesn't explain where *you* come by enough certainty
> in your own beliefs about Alomar to label someone else's beliefs
> "incredible".
What are the certainty of my beliefs?
Am I certain that Alomar is not a below average defensive second baseman?
No I am not, and you know why? Because there is some evidence that suggests
Alomar is a below average defensive second baseman. Am I certain that he is
not an above average defensive second baseman? No I am not, because there is
some evidence that suggests he is not only above average but excellent. I
know quite intimately the flaws of both these types of measurements, and
their capacity to go awry.
My reading of the margin by which Alomar would be statistically analyzed
as below average is within a "normal" margin of error where he could easily
be average. My estimation of the "normal" margin of error for the visual
forms of evidence -- which are nothing like they are for Griffey -- would
not cover a stretch down to "below average." My personal conclusion is
a likelihood that Alomar is probably a wee bit above average, and I suspect
that much could be done to improve his defensive value.
I don't find it incredible that someone would suspect Alomar is below
average defensively. I am incredulous that someone could reason their
way to believing that this is simply a cold, flat fact. That is what
I have tried to say since that Peace asked me "Why?"
>> There is a correlation between the best statistical measures of
>> defense and the best visual evidence of defense.
> ... the proper response to this is "so what?". There is a correlation
> between sunspot activity and stock market behaviour, too, but that doesn't
> mean arguments about one from the other are reasonable.
Let's see, we have two very different forms of evaluation that
logically relate to and try to measure the same thing, and in
general there has been a continuous correlation between the two,
and I would argue a correlation that has grown stronger with the
refinements made to one of those forms.
Yeah, now I look at it again, it does strike me that it is analogous
to sunspot activity and stock market behavior, and that there is
nothing to be learned here.
>> To be so certain based on measures that are very capable of
>> misleading in an individual case, and when the indication from those
>> measures is so badly out of synch with the best and most qualified
>> visual impressions of Alomar's work ...
[ Note: I restored that last line which was missing from Tate's
quote of what I wrote, and seems necessary to this next point.]
>Whoa. Flag. "Best and most qualified"? Let's start naming names here;
>I can't argue against nameless authorities and their pronouncements.
>Who are these best and most qualified observers, what are their methods,
>and what makes you think those methods are better than David Pease's?
My contention would be that those who are trained and selected for
jobs where one of the primary duties is to evaluate performance
from the perspective of visual impressions would be well qualified.
The best of these would usually be those with the most experience
and who have been through the evolutionary process of hirings and
firings related to the ability to evaluate performance from this
perspective.
As to names, there is a certain protocol that denies me the right
to quote or associate directly such information to specific scouts,
particularly in cases where they work for clients of mine.
In regard to how any of this relates to David Pease's visual
impressions, I would not say they are better or more qualified as I
don't have a clue about his ability or qualifications in this area.
For what it is worth, I do suspect that he is not as qualified or as
good in this area as, say, a Jerry Terrell or a Bill Earnhart.
Craig
PS: And with this, I must say "Good-bye." I have been on a bit
of a semi-holiday that allowed me the time to take part in this
newsgroup, and with the return to my normal schedule it is
unlikely that I will be able to stop by very often, if at all
for the rest of the year.
I want to thank the group as a whole for an intensely interesting
experience, and for the most part an enjoyable one. Certainly it
is stimulating to deal with so many points of views.
Respectfully,
Craig
Mitchell Plitnick
: Yes, of course I would revise my opinion, and of course statistics do
: influence my opinions on player ability. As I wrote above, "IMO both sides
: have a certain amount of merit". You're right, it's unfair to assume stat
: types don't watch as much baseball, and I apologize
Accepted.
--but I wasn't implying
: that stat types are wrong about Alomar or any of the other players that
: have been discussed lately on the group. I can't form an informed opinion
: on Alomar for a number of reasons, including the fact that I have no idea
: how "range factor" is calculated.
Before I get to your specific questions, let me give you an overview:
What we're dealing with here is three different statistgics: Range
Factor, Zone rating and Defensive Average. RF is simply the number of
putouts and assists per 9 innings. Since it is so raw, and tells us
nothing about the number of plays the player in question DIDN'T make, it
has some obvious problems. ZR and DA are similar stats. Both of them
divide the field up into zones of responsibility for each position, then
add up the number of balls hit to said position and give a percentage of
how many of them were converted into outs. I'll leave it at that, though
both these stats need much more explanation than this, and address your
specific questions. (feel free to e-mail me if you want a more detailed
explanation of ZR and DA--it's been posted here so many times lately that
I don't want to waste everyone's time here).
: Does it take into account the fact that
: certain players don't need to cover as much ground because they play next
: to someone with great range?
No, and it shouldn't. If a SS with great range fields a ball that should
have gone to the 2Bman, the SS, no matter how great a fielder he is, is
forced to make a very difficult play that, presumably, would have been
easier if the 2Bman could have gotten there. This point has been raised,
but I don't see it as having much weight. How many balls can legitimately
be fielded by two different players? Outside of lazy popups, there are
very few.
: If a ball is hit in the hole between short
: and third, is this charged against the range factor statistics for both
: fielders?
Depends. As you can see, it doesn't affect range factor at all. Nor would
it affect Zone Rating, as it would likely fall into a zone where no
fielder is responsible for it. It would affect DA. For both.
: I think hitting statistics are more widely accepted by non-stat
: types, perhaps because they have been around longer and are used more often
: in the media, on the back of baseball cards, etc., and perhaps because
: non-stat types don't understand how fielding stats are calculated.
Fair enough. But the arrogant dismissal of many of these stats is no
different from the debates that went on 40 years ago over the
"new-fangled" hitting stats, on-base percentage and slugging percentage.
: Is
: there a statistic that measures double-play efficiency for second basemen
: and shortstops, and if so how?
: How can they account for how one player
: affects another (e.g. would Baerga turn as many double plays if he was
: playing next to a poor defensive shortstop?).
Good question. I'll address it privately if you like, but
DA does address this. there are people here who are better equipped to
answer this question than I am.
: Also I'm curious about "park
: effects". If these are not measured in some sort of statistical way (I
: can't imagine how, particularly when it comes to fielding--subtract 10% of
: the fielding percentage for LFers playing in Fenway?), don't they make the
: other statistics suspect to some degree?
Well, hitting and pitching are measured statistically when it comes to
park effects. And it's actually quite a simple measurement, too. Simply
compare the team and it's opponents at home and the same team and
opponents on the road. Do this for a few seasons (to account for weather
fluctuations and the like) and you generally get a pretty good idea of
what effect the park has on hitters and pitchers. Park effects clearly
must enter into defensive ratings, but, as these stats are all new and
still, to some extent "under construction" there is not, as yet, a
definitive method for applying park effects to them. I am aware, however,
that this issue is being worked on by several in this group. Even with
that point, it must still be acknowledged that ZR and DA are far better
than the evaluative tools we have now, which are limited to raw totals of
errors, putouts and assists (meaningless if you don't know the relative
amounts of time played) and fielding percentage, which frequently rewards
poor fielders who get to few balls and, partially as a result of this,
make few errors.
Billy
>better. If you mean "overall player -- hitting, fielding, running --
>playing secondbase, you have several, including Nap Lajoie and Joe
or cover much ground to his right or left.
Billy
Craig
> In article <4emi8m$e...@reader2.ix.netcom.com>,
> Craig <CR...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >>
> >can believe that.
>
>
> Thank you for your time
>
> dp
that the speaker would feel comfortable instructing Cal Ripken Jr
that Cal, the Gold Glove voters, and the vast majority of
observers are not just mistaken, but grossly mistaken in their
perception of Alomar's defensive value.
I cannot imagine that anyone would gain that sense of certainty
from their own observations of Alomar's defensive play.
If the certainty of that statement is based on the statistical
measures of Alomar's defense -- as I suspect it is -- I find it
difficult to believe that kind of reliance would be attached to
such measures in the face of all other evidence.
The bulk of my bewilderment comes from my illogical yet almost
automatic assumption that someone who would use such measures
would also sufficiently understand the methodology behind them
-- that he would recognize that while they are vast improvements
over the statistical tools of the past for dealing with defensive
play, they are not as reliable as the standard we apply in our
mind to other statistics and particularly to other common baseball
statistics.
This is not the fault of the efforts put into these measures
-- which is truly admirable and does produce real and legitimate
value -- and it is not that we haven't yet discovered the holy
grail of defensive measures. The problem lies with the nature of
the beast, what it is that we are trying to measure.
In the foreword to the 1985 Baseball Abstract, I wrote:
"[In science] Everything has two frames of reference: what
it seems to be as a single entity, and what it is in the
reality that knows no such separations. In the back of every
true scientific mind is a circus juggler seeking the whole.
It is in these spaces that we touch the mystery, that we
are taught humility and a respect for our own ignorance."
I wasn't thinking specifically of the difficulties in studing
fielding when I wrote that, but I will say few areas of baseball
research are more humbling than trying to get a firm hold on
the value of a defensive player.
Some things are simply better suited to analysis -- which is
in a nutshell definition "attempting to learn by studying small
parts of the whole." To the extent that what we are measuring
lacks singularity and individuality from the whole, than the
tougher it is to get a handle on it through analysis.
Learning from synthesis is harder than learning from analysis,
but that is the challenge we face far more with fielding events
than we do with most pitching and hitting events.
There is a correlation between the best statistical measures of
defense and the best visual evidence of defense. When they differ,
I cannot see the logic of siding so totally with one over the
other. They both have a relevance, and we should gladly take
advantage of the fact that they have different kinds of weaknesses,
and thus have a capacity to correct for one another.
To be so certain based on measures that are very capable of
misleading in an individual case, and when the indication from those
measures is so badly out of synch with the best and most qualified
visual impressions of Alomar's defensive work -- well, that would
and does surprise me.
Craig
Jonathan Bernstein
: Question: when was the last time you saw someone affiliated with
: MLB proclaim publicly that someone else was overrated or not that
: good?
Exactly.
[...]
: This results in a huge feedback loop for good players. Once a player has
: the stellar defensive reputation, he has to age out of it before he loses
: it: it'd be a huge insult for a manager to publicly say "Alomar is
: average" or even "Alomar is slightly above average", especially in a world
: where everyone is considered above average, at least publicly. So, anyone
: asked about Alomar's defense has to say, whether or not he believes the
: king has clothes, "Alomar is the greatest." If enough people say it,
: someone who sees the guy a dozen times a year, and is paying attention
: to him maybe a ninth of that time at most, is going to believe it, and
: parrot it. Perhaps even sincerely.
Yes; it's not really likely, for example, that Cal Ripken has really
spent a lot of time seriously evaluating Alomar's defense. That won't be
true this time next year, but then again he's even less likely to be
critical then.
One thing that seems to distinguish Alomar from Griffey in this
discussion is that Alomar did have good (not outstanding, but solidly
good) fielding stats once upon a time. His GGs now may be as much of a
Brooks Robinson effect (getting a no-longer-deserved GG based on previous
fielding ability) as a Garvey effect (getting a never-deserved GG based
on hype and hitting).
JHB
Craig
> In article <4ej4v2$5...@saims.skidmore.edu>, ryan...@saims.skidmore.edu (ryan
>
> >I'm only 19 years old, but from what I am seeing, Roberto Alomar might
> >this, the only knowledgable baseball fan that is from another
> >
> >skidmore college
>
> The r.s.bb consensus seems to be that Alomar is an average defensive
> 2B, possibly a little below average. Offensively, he's better than
> that, but not enough to make him even the best 2B in the American
> League, let alone 'of all time'.
>
> - chloe
I'm not saying you are wrong, but I would challenge the
ability to make the statement that the consensus of r.s.bb
to be that Alomar is average defensively, possibly a little
below average.
Craig
Craig
Mitchell Plitnick
: The r.s.bb consensus seems to be that Alomar is an average defensive
: 2B, possibly a little below average. Offensively, he's better than
: that, but not enough to make him even the best 2B in the American
: League, let alone 'of all time'.
I disagree. Only two second basemen in the AL are in Alomar's class as a
hitter, Carlos Baerga and Chuck Knoblauch. KNoblauch seems to be around
Alomar in defense, and has only had one year where he was a better hitter
(last year). Baerga's a better fielder, but not as good a hitter. It may
be debatable, but for my money, I'll take Alomar over just about anyone
right now.
Mcallister Brian Francis
Craig <CR...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>PAL...@sscl.uwo.ca writes:
>> In article <4emi8m$e...@reader2.ix.netcom.com> Craig <CR...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>>
>> >> In article <4ej4v2$5...@saims.skidmore.edu>,
>> >> >generation, but what does everyone else think. Alomar can just take
>> >> >over a game, and change the outcome anytime during the game, whether
>> >> >it be in the field, where he is amazing, or stealing a base, hitting a
>> >> >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >>
>> >>
>> >I just have to say that I find it incredible that anyone
>> >can believe that.
>>
>> Why do you find this so incredible?
>
>[Deleted is a very respectable case for Alomar's defense
>being overrated.]
>
>> Overall, he's still damned good and could play on my
>> team. But the evidence I've seen certainly provides a credible, not
>> incredible, case that Alomar's defence has been at or below
>> average. It will be interesting to see how he does on grass in
>> Baltimore. Once again, I can't wait to see the home/road splits
>> for DA.
>>
>Sorry, John, I already made my reply to the other fellow who
>asked why. If you look there you'll see more meat than is
>here.
>
>A large part of what you will read there details my problem
>with someone feeling that certain while resting their case
>-- I believe -- solely on statistical measures, which in
>the area of defense don't strike me as being able to offer
>that level of reliable support.
I wouldn't be so sure about the reliance on solely statistical measures.
When that evidence first came to my attention I was truly stunned. In
retrospect, it has helped me watch Alomar more critically, or
objectively. I think Ted Frank's comment is germane - we look for what
we want to see. Until then, I'd always watched Alomar for his
highlights.
One thing we can do, in the face of this data, is to inquire as to why it
might conflict with our visual observations of Alomar's play. Numerous
reasons have been bandied about on this ng: he plays to deep; too far to
one side; he dives unnecessarily; he gets a late jump; he has a weak arm.
With those theories in mind, I've paid closer attention to how he plays.
Granted, personal observation is difficult, especially from tv. However,
I made a point of watching him play in a series last summer at Tiger
Stadium. He was consistently positioned several paces behind where Lou
Whitaker would station himself (who has fared well in DA in recent years,
quite quietly). Such positioning might allow him more time to get to
ground balls, but it also creates more area to cover.
I have also noted that he is rather uncourageous at the pivot. Indeed,
I've even seen him step back outside the baseline in some instances.
I've also taken a second look at his highlight-type plays. My feeling is
that he does make things look harder than they really are - that's not to
say that it's a conscious thing on his part. In fact, there was one play
that really stuck with me, where he fielded a bounding ball in shallow
right, going to his right, and flipped the ball behind his back to the
SS. On second glance, the ball was hit exactly where you'd expect the 2b
to be positioned, and they only got the force on what should have been a
dp ball. It was seen on CNN for 2 days.
Of course, my observations are not necessarily any more valid than anyone
else's. I think I can at least recognize the shortcomings in personal
observation. Alomar is perfectly suited to be well remembered for his
defense. He dives - a lot, he's athletic and quick, and he likes to make
fancy plays. His athleticism and quickness must certainly be an asset
defensively. However, the other elements do not a good fielder make.
Those factors don't produce results, necessarily, although they do
produce memorable moments. It's easy to be caught up in the hype and
highlights he creates. However, his diving stab doesn't count any more
than a routine grounder for which someone else is better positioned.
Basically, I can appreciate Alomar's flashiness as highly entertaining -
but I won't give him credit for it if it doesn't produce greater
results.
I think the data helped expose his flashiness as, irrelevant,
unproductive. In causing me to question his play, it helped expose some
of his shortcomings as real.
Ted Frank's words on this are fitting. Don't look to the baseball
community (other players, managers) for a critical word, or objectivism.
Reputations are the product of many things, completely unrelated to that
actual element of his play. I found it highly amusing how quickly
Toronto soured on him when it became known he wasn't going to sign with
them. Indeed, the game after he sat out (after the Cone trade) the
writeup was quite critical of his play, accusing him of "diving when he
didn't have to...making plays look harder than they were". I had to
smile because many in this ng had been saying the same things for months;
it was only when he developed an "attitude" that the media came around.
>Note that after your thoughtful analysis, that when you came
>to your conclusion, you chose to equivocate in a manner that
>Nathaniel did not.
>
>While it is not relevant to the original point of this
>discussion, I would offer my observation of the scouting
>community that while you can find some scouts who question
>Griffey's defensive excellence -- you'd have a very hard
>time getting any of them to put any kind of hard knock on
>Alomar's defense.
I don't have access to scouts, but I've even heard media commentators
knock him for his arm and faint heart at the pivot. That's pretty strong
stuff, if the media's saying it, given his rep.
--
Brian McAllister | "There's Lies...
mca...@uwindsor.ca | Damn Lies...
Windsor, Ontario | and Separatists."
David M. Tate
Craig <CR...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>dpe...@qualcomm.com (David Pease) writes:
>> >> In general, Alomar is below average defensively.
>The clarity and lack of equivocation indicates a level of certainty
>that the speaker would feel comfortable instructing Cal Ripken Jr
>that Cal, the Gold Glove voters, and the vast majority of
>observers are not just mistaken, but grossly mistaken in their
>perception of Alomar's defensive value.
That's a lot of text to find hidden in a 7-word sentence, especially
for someone who prides himself publicly on his charitable interpretations
of public comments and willingness to give the benefit of the doubt.
>I cannot imagine that anyone would gain that sense of certainty
>from their own observations of Alomar's defensive play.
How should they go about gaining that sense of certainty?
>If the certainty of that statement is based on the statistical
>measures of Alomar's defense -- as I suspect it is -- I find it
>difficult to believe that kind of reliance would be attached to
>such measures in the face of all other evidence.
"All other evidence"? What evidence is there to suggest that Alomar
*isn't* a below-average fielder these days? Direct evidence, I mean;
not "lots of people think he's great".
>The bulk of my bewilderment comes from my illogical yet almost
>automatic assumption that someone who would use such measures
>would also sufficiently understand the methodology behind them
>-- that he would recognize that while they are vast improvements
>over the statistical tools of the past for dealing with defensive
>play, they are not as reliable as the standard we apply in our
>mind to other statistics and particularly to other common baseball
>statistics.
But that's a red herring. How reliable are they when compared to the
way other people form judgements about defensive ability? I can't
imagine that you'd seriously argue that conclusions drawn from the
systematic observation of what Alomar *achieves* on defense are less
convincing than conclusions drawn from how he looks while achieving
it, but that seems to be the standard operating procedure these days.
If we evaluated offense and pitching the same way, Brad Pennington
would be considered a star, and Willie McGee would never have made it
out of the minor leagues.
>Some things are simply better suited to analysis -- which is
>in a nutshell definition "attempting to learn by studying small
>parts of the whole." To the extent that what we are measuring
>lacks singularity and individuality from the whole, than the
>tougher it is to get a handle on it through analysis.
Of course. But that doesn't explain where *you* come by enough certainty
in your own beliefs about Alomar to label someone else's beliefs
"incredible". You didn't say "I find it incredible that anyone could
think they know how good a player's defense is", and I certainly didn't
get the impression that that's what you were intending to say.
>There is a correlation between the best statistical measures of
>defense and the best visual evidence of defense.
Setting aside for a moment the question of just what is "the best visual
evidence of defense", the proper response to this is "so what?". There
is a correlation between sunspot activity and stock market behaviour, too,
but that doesn't mean arguments about one from the other are reasonable.
>When they differ,
>I cannot see the logic of siding so totally with one over the
>other. They both have a relevance, and we should gladly take
>advantage of the fact that they have different kinds of weaknesses,
>and thus have a capacity to correct for one another.
How do you know they both have relevance? What *is* the best visual
evidence of defense, and how do you know it's the best? The analyst
who looks only at what Alomar has achieved (using DA or ZR or what
have you) at least knows he's studying the proper set of events; the
step from performance data to conclusions about ability to perform is
still a tricky one, but not nearly as tricky as trying to get from
style to ability without reference to performance.
>To be so certain based on measures that are very capable of
>misleading in an individual case, and when the indication from those
>measures is so badly out of synch with the best and most qualified
Whoa. Flag. "Best and most qualified"? Let's start naming names here;
I can't argue against nameless authorities and their pronouncements.
Who are these best and most qualified observers, what are their methods,
and what makes you think those methods are better than David Pease's?
--
David M. Tate, Senior Operations Research Analyst (dt...@dsava.com)
Decision-Science Applications, Arlington, Virginia. (703) 243-2500
Founding Member, Archdruid, and Cantor: Rob Deer Fan Club
For membership application, send SASE to RDFC, PO BoX1$_Tr=\ %^`<oM#)4Yv,|@tz
Craig
> In article <4emi8m$e...@reader2.ix.netcom.com>,
> Craig <CR...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>
>> can believe that.
>>
>>Craig
> You've been on the inside too long. I can understand people believing
> just about anything, and there is some reasonable evidence to support the
> contention that Alomar isn't particularly great with the glove.
That first part is quite unfair, and you have no basis for having
any knowledge in that regard. I not only reconize that there is
"reasonable evidence to support the contention that Alomar isn't
particularly great with the glove," in other avenues I use that very
evidence to argue exactly that point. In the course of my work, I have
more than once offered my conclusion that Alomar's defensive value
is overrated, even though in that particular circle it is a minority
opinion much scoffed at -- very much as people here scoff at my arguing
that the jury should remain out on extreme conclusions such as Griffey
being so poor defensively that he should be moved out of center, or
that Roberto Alomar is a below average defensively.
> Over his career, Alomar has been right around average in terms of
> converting batted balls into outs.
And if that is how you see it from the standpoint of statistical
analysis, then when you add in the possibility to be misled by other
influences in the data, and when you add in assessments of folks
who are trained and hired and fired on the basis of evaluating
this from a different perspective, why would you not find disturbing
a willingness to make a flat declaration that Alomar is "below average"
defensively?
> In an earlier discussion, you accused me of throwing out data because
> it didn't support my hypothesis. I will not make such an accusation.
Then what exactly are you trying to do in those two sentences? It seems
to me you are making exactly that accusation. If so, my response is that
it is my intent and practice to consider very carefully any evidence that
does not support a hypothesis that I am exploring.
> ... I'm perfectly comfortable stating that [Alomar is] mammothly
> overrated with the leather ...
I would certainly not argue the "overrated" part. The adjective
"mammothly" disturbs me, but from your earlier statements, I have to
assume it does not go as far as to offer a conviction that he is a
below average defensive second baseman.
Craig
Joshua Rosenberg
What we have here is the standard r.s.bb. argument between people who form
their opinions of players based on elaborate statistics and those who form
their opinions based on actually watching the players perform on a regular
basis. IMO both sides have a certain amount of merit. But the issue
involving players who dive after a lot of balls and thus show up on the
highlight films is an interesting one. Of course some of the time a dive
is necessary because of a bad jump on the ball or lack of quickness in
general, but sometimes a dive means a player has made an extraordinary
effort after getting a good jump.
John M. Perkins
: While it is not relevant to the original point of this
: community that while you can find some scouts who question
: Griffey's defensive excellence -- you'd have a very hard
: time getting any of them to put any kind of hard knock on
: Alomar's defense.
This makes sense. If Alomar is a slighty below average defensive major
league 2B, then he is almost what a scout should expect, since average major
leaguer is the standard.
To paraphrase somebody in this thread about Carew and Mazerwoski, offense
carries more weight. There may be 8 Carolina League 2Bers with adequate
ML defense, whose bats aren't there.
----------
John M. Perkins
Camel City Swine, Cobb Division, CSBL
Piedmont Hackers, Southern League, OBFLB
Stuck Pigs, Hacking Mass
Will Yellow Pig Sioux?, Worrelled Baseball League
Winston-Salem Dromedaries, MAX
perkijm@.wfu.edu
Mitchell Plitnick
: (Various discussions of Alomar's defensive ability deleted).
: What we have here is the standard r.s.bb. argument between people who form
: their opinions of players based on elaborate statistics and those who form
: their opinions based on actually watching the players perform on a regular
: basis.
No, that's not it at all. What we have is TWO sets of people who watch
players perform on a regular basis. One group looks deeply at the
"elaborate statistics" and one does not, or at least does not give those
"elaborate statistics" much weight. I am quite frankly fed up with
statements like this one. The assumption that because an individual
believes that stats are valid, concrete measures of performance that
individual doesn't watch as much baseball as someone who doesn't hold
that belief is so stupid and baseless that I'm amazed at how many people
parrot it. It is utter nonsense. Neither the use of statistics nor the
lack thereof tells anyone anything about how much an individual watches
the game. Interesting, is it not, that such an accusation always goes one
way-- from a non-stat user to one who does use stats. Of course, that is
because, when facts interfere with SOME non-stat users' views, they
retreat into "Ah, but I know better because I watch more than you do"
fallacies.
: IMO both sides have a certain amount of merit. But the issue
: involving players who dive after a lot of balls and thus show up on the
: highlight films is an interesting one. Of course some of the time a dive
: is necessary because of a bad jump on the ball or lack of quickness in
: general, but sometimes a dive means a player has made an extraordinary
: effort after getting a good jump.
Simple question. If you watch a guy and decide he's a great hitter, then
look at his stats at the end of the season and see he's hit .220 with 8
HRs and 45 RBI, would you not revise your opinion?
Gary Huckabay
>I cannot imagine that anyone would gain that sense of certainty
>from their own observations of Alomar's defensive play.
I did. Why is it so difficult to imagine? I really don't understand
why you're having such difficulty. Because my view is different from
others, it must necessarily be wrong?
>If the certainty of that statement is based on the statistical
>measures of Alomar's defense -- as I suspect it is -- I find it
>difficult to believe that kind of reliance would be attached to
>such measures in the face of all other evidence.
Craig, it's getting tough to remain civil when you continue to
be so condescending.
I'll ask the question: WHAT other evidence? Is there any reasonable
data that supports the notion that Alomar is excellent with the glove?
Do we judge *hitting* on appearance? If so, would you believe that
Willie McGee has two batting titles, or that Doug Jennings is a
marginal major leaguer?
>The bulk of my bewilderment comes from my illogical yet almost
>automatic assumption that someone who would use such measures
>would also sufficiently understand the methodology behind them
>-- that he would recognize that while they are vast improvements
>over the statistical tools of the past for dealing with defensive
>play, they are not as reliable as the standard we apply in our
>mind to other statistics and particularly to other common baseball
>statistics.
There's a sentence. But correct if me I'm wrong -- you're the one
who hasn't had exposure to DA, right? I do understand the methodology
behind DA, and I understand its limitations.
The limitations of DA are far less severe than those on personal observation.
>This is not the fault of the efforts put into these measures
>-- which is truly admirable and does produce real and legitimate
>value -- and it is not that we haven't yet discovered the holy
>grail of defensive measures. The problem lies with the nature of
>the beast, what it is that we are trying to measure.
Do you really think that personal observation can give you a better
idea of a player's defensive value than a systematic set of recorded
observations? You criticize me for being too quick to dismiss observation,
yet you never even bother to consider the preponderence of evidence I
bring forward, choosing instead to argue from authority.
I'm sorry, but I know enough about management and organizations to know
that arguments from authority just aren't worth very much. In order to
make this the thread from Hell, should I mention Joe Carter's stellar
reputation and contract of two or three years ago?
>In the foreword to the 1985 Baseball Abstract, I wrote:
>
> "[In science] Everything has two frames of reference: what
> it seems to be as a single entity, and what it is in the
> reality that knows no such separations. In the back of every
> true scientific mind is a circus juggler seeking the whole.
> It is in these spaces that we touch the mystery, that we
> are taught humility and a respect for our own ignorance."
>
>I wasn't thinking specifically of the difficulties in studing
>fielding when I wrote that, but I will say few areas of baseball
>research are more humbling than trying to get a firm hold on
>the value of a defensive player.
Given that, why would you use subjective personal observation as a starting
point? If you're arguing from a scientific pointof view, I have news
for you: that's real bad protocol.
>Some things are simply better suited to analysis -- which is
>in a nutshell definition "attempting to learn by studying small
>parts of the whole." To the extent that what we are measuring
>lacks singularity and individuality from the whole, than the
>tougher it is to get a handle on it through analysis.
Everyone understands the limitations and error bars involved.
We'll never separate pitching from defense, for example.
>Learning from synthesis is harder than learning from analysis,
>but that is the challenge we face far more with fielding events
>than we do with most pitching and hitting events.
Sure. But you need something of substance to synthesize.
Personal observation isn't up to that task.
>There is a correlation between the best statistical measures of
>defense and the best visual evidence of defense.
C'mon. How can you make that claim? Can you prove it? I'm not willing
to accept that at all. Carney Lansford was considered a great defensive
3B. He was, in reality, vile.
>When they differ,
>I cannot see the logic of siding so totally with one over the
>other.
But that's exactly what you're doing, all your equivocating to the
contrary.
>They both have a relevance, and we should gladly take
>advantage of the fact that they have different kinds of weaknesses,
>and thus have a capacity to correct for one another.
Do you really believe this? If so, why? You're making a lot of claims
here without any evidence, or even logic, to back it up. Does observation
have a capacity to correct for batting average?
>To be so certain based on measures that are very capable of
>misleading in an individual case, and when the indication from those
>measures is so badly out of synch with the best and most qualified
>visual impressions of Alomar's defensive work -- well, that would
>and does surprise me.
How are we supposed to get any idea of the best and most qualified visual
impressions of Alomar's defensive work? To most people in baseball,
using "average" as an adjective is an insult. If anyone actually said
things like "Shlabotnik's about the 9th or 10th best 3B in the league with
the leather", they'd be crucified. If they're a team member or in the
organization, they're bashing their own. If they're on another team,
that's locker room material.
You also haven't addressed the issue that the various measures of defense
tend to agree about Alomar's defensive weakness.
Joshua Rosenberg
Plitnick) wrote:
Yes, of course I would revise my opinion, and of course statistics do
influence my opinions on player ability. As I wrote above, "IMO both sides
have a certain amount of merit". You're right, it's unfair to assume stat
types don't watch as much baseball, and I apologize--but I wasn't implying
that stat types are wrong about Alomar or any of the other players that
have been discussed lately on the group. I can't form an informed opinion
on Alomar for a number of reasons, including the fact that I have no idea
how "range factor" is calculated. Does it take into account the fact that
certain players don't need to cover as much ground because they play next
to someone with great range? If a ball is hit in the hole between short
and third, is this charged against the range factor statistics for both
fielders? I think hitting statistics are more widely accepted by non-stat
types, perhaps because they have been around longer and are used more often
in the media, on the back of baseball cards, etc., and perhaps because
non-stat types don't understand how fielding stats are calculated. Is
there a statistic that measures double-play efficiency for second basemen
and shortstops, and if so how? How can they account for how one player
affects another (e.g. would Baerga turn as many double plays if he was
playing next to a poor defensive shortstop?). Also I'm curious about "park
effects". If these are not measured in some sort of statistical way (I
can't imagine how, particularly when it comes to fielding--subtract 10% of
the fielding percentage for LFers playing in Fenway?), don't they make the
other statistics suspect to some degree?
Josh
Billy
>>And what about Rogers Hornsby? Best ever? Nahhhh! One of the best
>currently playing? Sure.
>
Rogers Hornsby is currently playing? ;>
Billy
Brian Stromblad
The real question is would you pay 2x,3x,4x more in salary for that
differantial? :)
Later,
Brian
Scott Blaha
playing. Not to say that Hornsby is currently playing, just that Hornsby
is IMO the best 2B ever. (hope you bunch of goofballs end this thread
soon )-:
Scott
Kathy Wagner
>(Various discussions of Alomar's defensive ability deleted).
>
>What we have here is the standard r.s.bb. argument between people who form
>their opinions of players based
>on elaborate statistics
as well as on watching the players perform
>and those who form
>their opinions based
>on actually watching the players perform on
[insert] an occasional basis
...
hardly anyone sees more than about one third of the games
in person. I bet most of the SDCNs watch more games than
those who argue that Joe Carter is a great player do.
why do you make the assumption that the sabermetricians
don't watch the players perform? I mean, 20 years
of Padre season tickets should be punishment enough
--
Dave DeMers or Kathy Wagner dem...@predict.com
Santa Fe, New Mexico From there to here, from here to there
Funny things are everywhere.
Glenn A Tanner
Joshua Rosenberg <j-rose...@uchicago.edu> wrote:
>
>What we have here is the standard r.s.bb. argument between people who form
>their opinions based on actually watching the players perform on a regular
>basis.
And the elaborate statistic in question is formed by people watching the
player perform on an *everyday* (not merely "regular") basis.
GT
K. M. Bose
Oh, yeah, the most vicious man in baseball, the leader of the Naps'
biggest rival in the AL, the man who lost (depending on your POV) a
batting title to Lajoie because the Browns let Lajoie lay down 6 bunt
singles on the last day of the season, has a few unkind words to say
about a man who from all other accounts had "exceptional gracefulness"
afield.
It would be surprising if Cobb had a few GOOD things to say about him.
--
Kurt Bose (as in Daisy, not Rose) * kb...@unm.edu * Official SDCN * Net.Hermit
Get your head out of a Peter Gammons column and watch a game for once!
Gary Huckabay
Craig <CR...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Two ">" indicates the words of Dave "Trilateral" Tate. "Zinc Prices!"
{Name the reference, anyone?}
>>"All other evidence"? What evidence is there to suggest that Alomar
>>*isn't* a below-average fielder these days? Direct evidence, I mean;
>>not "lots of people think he's great".
>
>If "lots of people think he's great" is the same as "lots of people
>who understand what the purpose of a second baseman is, and they
>watch Alomar play, and conclude that he is not a below average
>fielder," that right there is direct evidence.
No, actually, it's nothing of the sort. It is hearsay of the opinion
of a vaguely defined group of people with varying credentials.
>It is taken directly
>from what we are trying to assess. It does have a subjective
>quality, but then so do the very best of the defensive measures.
Again, if you have a criticism of DA, I'd really love to hear it.
I think we need to start over at the beginning.
Craig, what definition do you want to use for the purpose of a player
on defense? What's their main goal? I'm not trying to be condescending
or facetious -- I think there's going to be problems from the get go,
and laying out some definitions can help prevent people from talking
past one another.
For me, I think the best goal for a defensive player is to do everything
possible to minimize the opponent's run scoring.
Is that agreeable?
>Some are necessarily subjective in that they require an opinion
>about whether a ball was hit in area A or area B and/or how hard it
>was hit.
Again, if you have a stone to throw at a particular measure, then
throw it. Let's not be nebulous. If you're not sure of the
methodology of each measure, let's address that first.
>If you mean the concern should be with substance, not style, I'm
>pleased to confirm that your imagination is right on target. I
>would, however, argue that measuring with great accuracy what Alomar
>actually achieves of value on defense is a tricky beast to track even
>with our tremendous efforts to systematically observe and catalog that
>performance. I believe based on logic and experience that the
>capacity for significant error in individual cases with these measures
>is far, far higher than many of the folks in this newsgroup seem to
>believe.
Then let's hear the specific criticisms. I'm not willing to just grant
a vague point like that. What do you think is the source of this potential
error? I believe the error bar of DA is likely around .012 (2-sided) in the
infield. Unfortunately, the data I used to reach that conclusion, along
with my various statistical monkey-spankings were lost in the fire.
I'd like to know why you think DA isn't that reliable. You could be
right.
>Look, I use these measures in my work, and they do convince me
>of a lot of things that fly in the face of this other perspective
>that drives 90% of the professional baseball world.
Do you really use DA?
>Most folks would
>put be squarely in that other 10%. As one who helped pioneer and
>develop some of these measures, I don't think I have a bias against
>them.
I'm pretty sure we're talking about different things now. Do you have
a good understanding of DA? If not, we need to address that so we can
have some common ground to start with.
>My personal conclusion is
>a likelihood that Alomar is probably a wee bit above average, and I suspect
>that much could be done to improve his defensive value.
That's a different question. Can we come back to it later? I'm not
comfortable with remedial measures. I watched Rick Burleson try to be
a hitting coach one year. And Merv Rettenmund, too.
I'm certainly not comfortable enough with my perceptive abilities to
talk about nonsense like 'coachability' with major leaguers.
>I don't find it incredible that someone would suspect Alomar is below
>average defensively. I am incredulous that someone could reason their
>way to believing that this is simply a cold, flat fact. That is what
>I have tried to say since that Peace asked me "Why?"
If he'd been playing anywhere except SkyDom for the past several years,
I'd accept his defensive shortcomings as fact at this point, although
it wouldn't be a big factor. I'd still ship off anyone not named Grieve,
Spiezio, or Wasdin for him, and you could probably talk me out of Wasdin.
>Let's see, we have two very different forms of evaluation that
>logically relate to and try to measure the same thing, and in
>general there has been a continuous correlation between the two,
>and I would argue a correlation that has grown stronger with the
>refinements made to one of those forms.
Again, we need to do something basic first: identify what you're
comparing what I'll call "informed subjectivity" with. If you're using
ZR as an opponent, I won't defend it. It's not worth the time. DA,
on the other hand, is, in my opinion, a step away from the "biles and
humours" method of understanding defense.
>Yeah, now I look at it again, it does strike me that it is analogous
>to sunspot activity and stock market behavior, and that there is
>nothing to be learned here.
Sarcasm. I knew you'd assimilate quickly. Be careful, though.
>>Whoa. Flag. "Best and most qualified"? Let's start naming names here;
>>I can't argue against nameless authorities and their pronouncements.
>>Who are these best and most qualified observers, what are their methods,
>>and what makes you think those methods are better than David Pease's?
>
>My contention would be that those who are trained and selected for
>jobs where one of the primary duties is to evaluate performance
>from the perspective of visual impressions would be well qualified.
Craig: Dr. Dave and I both spend a lot of time observing real life
versions of Dilbert's World. Arguments from authority will carry
little weight with most people -- almost everyone's seen the
human equivalent of ear wax advance to "expert" status.
>The best of these would usually be those with the most experience
>and who have been through the evolutionary process of hirings and
>firings related to the ability to evaluate performance from this
>perspective.
Like Jim Frey? (Hey, this sarcasm stuff is fun.)
>In regard to how any of this relates to David Pease's visual
>impressions, I would not say they are better or more qualified as I
>don't have a clue about his ability or qualifications in this area.
>For what it is worth, I do suspect that he is not as qualified or as
>good in this area as, say, a Jerry Terrell or a Bill Earnhart.
No sleight intended against them, but the accountability of scouts
is a strange system.
>I want to thank the group as a whole for an intensely interesting
>experience, and for the most part an enjoyable one. Certainly it
>is stimulating to deal with so many points of views.
Masswise, I make up approximately 2.2% of rec.sport.baseball, so I'll
take 2.2% of that, and wish you well on behalf of 2.2% of r.s.b.
Scott Fischthal
>In being asked to explain why that statement bothered me, I chose
>to lead off with that paragraph to make the point that it is the
>certainty of that statement that I found so incredible. And you know,
You know, I really do understand what Craig is saying here, and I've started
to feel the same way. Not that I'm not guilty of exactly the same thing -- we
all are.
>sure what you expect of me. It does mean something to me that
>conspiculously absent is any form of qualifier such as, "According to
>many statistical measures Alomar is ...," or even a simple "It is
Guilty of, of course, being imprecise and, above all, absurdly glib. And
that's a hazard of USENET, to which anyone who's read, say, a newsgroup in one
of the politics hierarchies :-) can attest.
> I
>would, however, argue that measuring with great accuracy what Alomar
>actually achieves of value on defense is a tricky beast to track even
>with our tremendous efforts to systematically observe and catalog that
>performance. I believe based on logic and experience that the
>capacity for significant error in individual cases with these measures
>is far, far higher than many of the folks in this newsgroup seem to
>believe.
BTW, sorry I'm hacking up this posting so much, but it'll never get past my
newsserver if I don't.
I think this is a concern voiced by quite a few of us who most people in this
newsgroup would describe as "statheads" or "SCDNs" or what have you. I've
been looking rather closely for ways to crack this nut; what effects are we
really seeing DA (or ZR)? How do DAs correlate with other measures? Can we
find problems that could seriously call into question the extent to which we
can understand individual cases? I posted last summer a note about our
independence (among positions) assumptions about DA being unwarranted, due to
some rather noticable correlations among DAs at various adjacent positions (2B
DAs tend to show a moderate positive correlation with 1B DAs, for example).
Dave Tate is looking into park effects, I believe. Clay Davenport discussed a
fascinating study comparing the DAs of some of the net.whipping.boys (e.g.
Griffey) to their backups (can you repost this when you get a chance, Clay? I
forgot to save it and it's long since scrolled off my server) -- and finding
them to be favorable, which may indicate that the distribution of "difficult"
plays is more variable than we expected (or maybe it merely indicates that the
reason the Mariners persist in playing Griffey in CF is that the alternatives
are even worse :-).
There's a whole lot to think about here; SLG has been thought about, on and
off, for what, 110 years? DA has been around for less than a decade, even if
it's a decade where there's been 100 years worth of scrutinization of baseball
statistics.
>PS: And with this, I must say "Good-bye." I have been on a bit
>of a semi-holiday that allowed me the time to take part in this
>newsgroup, and with the return to my normal schedule it is
>unlikely that I will be able to stop by very often, if at all
>for the rest of the year.
I really hope you can drop in on occasion, or at least lurk some. I've really
enjoyed reading your posts the last couple of weeks; I'm kind of kicking
myself for not making the time to engage in some of the threads you've been
active in. But thanks for coming by for awhile, anyway.
Scott Fischthal
Jeff Joseph
j-rose...@uchicago.edu (Joshua Rosenberg) wrote:
>(Various discussions of Alomar's defensive ability deleted).
>What we have here is the standard r.s.bb. argument between people who form
>their opinions of players based on elaborate statistics and those who form
>their opinions based on actually watching the players perform on a regular
>basis.
Than I guess I'm a anomaly. I have had the opportunity to watch Alomar
on a regular basis and *without* the stats I can tell he is one of the
poorer defensive 2B in the AL. He plays WAY out of position (and his
pivot is pretty lousy too come to think of it.) A lot of his "brilliant"
defensive plays are usually because he plays out of position and had to
compensate. People might say "but at least he does it" but I don't see
those people giving up the blackjack table for a cozy game of Russian
Roulette either.
--
("`-''-/") Jeff Joseph
`o_ o' ) E-mail:jjo...@interlog.com
(_Y_.)'
`--'
K. M. Bose
Joshua Rosenberg <j-rose...@uchicago.edu> wrote:
>(Various discussions of Alomar's defensive ability deleted).
>
>What we have here is the standard r.s.bb. argument between people who form
>their opinions of players based on elaborate statistics and those who form
>their opinions based on actually watching the players perform on a regular
No, what we have here is the standard argument between people who use
those "elaborate" statistics to supplement what they watch on the field
and those who blindly and STUPIDLY assert that the first group doesn't
watch baseball games at all.
Let's see...72 AAA games, an additional 20 Division I collegiate games,
another 18 Cactus League games, some dozen Arizona Fall league games, and
maybe 10-15 Natinal League contests. That was in person, in 1995. On
television? Maybe another 60-70, not counting games I just turned on for
noise in the background. Possibly only 50; I don't keep much track.
Let's say 2 a week. This isn't counting the half a dozen games I saw in
the Venezuelan Winter League last year, because those were technically in
1994.
Now, that said, I haven't seen Roberto Alomar play in person since he was
a Padre. At that time, I could verify in person that he was substandard
at turning the double play and that his positioning before the play
wasn't intuitive. However, he had enough athleticism that he could cover
a fair amount of ground. He was stylish and graceful, however. I don't
have my McWeeklies from the time period to refer to, but I seem to recall
that at some point in his Toronto career, he suffered an injury to the
foot or knee, and that these "obscure" statistics showed a marked drop in
his performance after that injury. Since then, I've heard people who
HAVE seen Alomar play say that he has a little trouble going to his
right, which I never noticed in his San Diego days. If these
observations are true, then I draw the following conclusion: that
Alomar's injury might have had an effect on his ability to cover a great
range around second base, but because he has always been able to count on
that range, that he's been slow to compensate for that before the play.
He still retains the flair he's always had, and he keeps winning those
Gold Gloves. He DOES have fairly sure hands, although I'm suspicious of
outliers in either direction when it comes to subjective judgments. It
does not, therefore, shock me to consider the idea that he could have a
fielding flaw, and a major one, and remain unaware of it because the
perception is that he is a wonderful fielder.
Speaking of obscure statistics, though, it would be interesting to see a
breakdown of Alomar's DA performance and see if the subjective charges
that people have made (doesn't anticipate well, bad on the DP, problems
going to the right) are borne out in terms of how he performs in his area
of responsibility.
Nevertheless, I disagree that he is "definitely below average". I think
he's probably middle of the pack; he always could go to his left as well
as anyone, and he's cool out there. Toss in the offense, and he's
someone I'd be happy with at second.
Craig
> In article <4ep1ad$m...@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>,
> Craig <CR...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> If the certainty of that statement is based on the statistical
>> measures of Alomar's defense -- as I suspect it is -- I find it
>> difficult to believe that kind of reliance would be attached to
>> such measures in the face of all other evidence.
> Craig, it's getting tough to remain civil when you continue to
> be so condescending.
Gary, in context, I cannot imagine why that statement should test
your civility. What you are quoting is from my answer to a question
of "Why?" I feel the way that I do. To meet what seems to be your
expectation of civility, you would bar me from answering the question.
And really, I suspect that you are taking a meaning out of that quote
that is not intended and not shown in the full context of my post.
That is, I suspect you are not giving sufficient weight to "that kind
of reliance," which is one of my major themes in explaining my views
on this.
=======================================================================
> You criticize me for being too quick to dismiss
> observation, yet you never even bother to consider the preponderence
> of evidence I bring forward, choosing instead to argue from authority.
Gary, the evidence you bring forth is not what are differences
are about. It is obvious we rely on nearly identical data and
some similar methodologies in dealing with statistical measurements
of defensive value. Certainly we tend to get similar conclusions and
that they are greatly factored into my personal and professional
conclusions on a player's defensive value.
Our difference is in the weight we choose to give this evidence in
drawing our OVERALL conclusion. I feel I give considerable weight to
statistical measures of defensive value, but I certainly recognize that
you give them more than me. You have far fewer doubts about how close
we can get to the truth from this approach alone. I have more confidence
in visual evidence than you do, and while understanding that it has its
own grave weaknesses, I believe that it can correct for some of the
potential influences that can corrupt the meaning we assign to certain
data.
It is interesting to explore why we and others make our choices along
these lines, and I have listened with great interest to many of the
posters on this subject, both on their view of what is logical and
their picking at my own logic.
I have gained from the experience and valued it. What I could do
without is having to deal with constantly being painted in the darkest
colors to fit somebody's ideal opponent.
Craig
"Can't believe this is how I'm spending my Saturday afternoon."
Craig
In regard to Nathaniel Clark's statement of:
"In general, Alomar is below average defensively."
I wrote:
>> I cannot imagine that anyone would gain that sense of certainty
>> from their own observations of Alomar's defensive play.
Gary Huckabay responds:
> I did. Why is it so difficult to imagine? I really don't understand
> why you're having such difficulty. Because my view is different from
> others, it must necessarily be wrong?
I assume you understand from the context of my whole post that it is
clear to you that by "observations" I mean visual impressions, and
that by "certainty" I mean to the degree that in your mind it is
without a doubt a fact?
if that is your claim about your visual impressions of Alomar's
defense, my imagination is so weak that I cannot even bring myself
to believe you. Instead I would suspect that you are carelessly
exaggerating to favor your point and/or to make me look bad. My
logic goes this way:
In a recent post (1/31/96) you wrote this in regard to your assessment
of statistical analysis of Alomar:
"Over his career, Alomar has been right around average in terms of
converting batted balls into outs."
I thought that was quite reasonable. There seem to be several
who suspect their were injury factors in one or both of his 1993-94
defensive performances, and conclude that he is average.
But for you to feel that way and then say that your visual impressions
have convinced you to a certainty that Alomar is below average, that
would mean that you place a greater certainty on your visual
impressions than your statistical analysis. That is far harder for me
to believe than the fact that -- if I got your meaning correctly --
that you are exaggerating to a point of inaccuracy about how certain
and how negative you truly are in your purely visual assessment of
Alomar.
======================================================================
>> There is a correlation between the best statistical measures of
>> defense and the best visual evidence of defense. When they differ,
>> I cannot see the logic of siding so totally with one over the
>> other.
> But that's exactly what you're doing, all your equivocating to the
> contrary.
Oh bosh, that's absolute nonsense unless you are trying to say I
am weighing in heaviest AGAINST the visual evidence, and I doubt
anyone takes that to be your meaning.
1) Gary, your assessment of the statistical analysis is that Alomar
is average.
2) Tate agrees with my statement that:
"My reading of the margin by which Alomar would be statistically
analyzed as below average is within a 'normal' margin of error
where he could easily be average."
3) Just visually, my impression is that Alomar is very good, perhaps
even excellent.
4) Alomar has won the last five Gold Gloves for defensive excellence.
5) People who do not vote for the GG but whose opinions I have
come to respect on visual evaluation of defense, there visual
evaluation is that he is excellent.
6) I have offered in public my overall opinion on Alomar's defense
to be this:
"My personal conclusion is a likelihood that Alomar is probably a
wee bit above average, and I suspect that much could be done to
improve his defensive value."
Now weighing all that together, how the heck could anyone conclude
I am totally siding with the visual evalution?!?!
Perhaps it would help if I put it this way. If I could know only
one, either the consensus opinion of quality visual observation
or a good statistical analysis of Alomar's defensive value, I'd
go with the statistical analysis every time.
=======================================================================
>> Some things are simply better suited to analysis -- which is
>> in a nutshell definition "attempting to learn by studying small
>> parts of the whole." To the extent that what we are measuring
>> lacks singularity and individuality from the whole, than the
>> tougher it is to get a handle on it through analysis.
> Everyone understands the limitations and error bars involved.
> We'll never separate pitching from defense, for example.
EXACTLY! And with that being the case, is it wrong to ask that
certainty be suspended and that qualifiers be attached?
And when it seems logical that some of these factors -- including the
one you cite -- could influence the statistical measure while having
little or no impact on a visual assessment, would it not be wise
then to consider the visual assessments, and allow for some movement
toward what folks see -- particularly those whose judgement in this
area that we trust the most?
That's my approach. Obviously we have some who disagree with it.
So it goes,
Jonathan Bernstein
: In article <4ep1ad$m...@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>,
: Craig <CR...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
: >There is a correlation between the best statistical measures of
: >defense and the best visual evidence of defense.
: Setting aside for a moment the question of just what is "the best visual
: evidence of defense", the proper response to this is "so what?". There
: is a correlation between sunspot activity and stock market behaviour, too,
: but that doesn't mean arguments about one from the other are reasonable.
I don't think that's entirely fair.
IMO, the correlation is a meaningful anchor. The way I think about this
is position inversions; instances where managers play one guy at 2B and
another at SS (or CF/corner OF) when the defensive stats clearly indicate
that the guy at 2B or corner OF is the better fielder.
How many such inversions are there, really? Very few, I would say. How
often, for example, does an AL manager put his best defensive LF at DH
and play an inferior (by the stats) guy in LF? I haven't noticed too many.
If there *were* lots of these, I'd really question the defensive stats a
lot more. I strongly suspect that in this ideal situation: same team,
direct comparison, skilled observers with an incentive to take it
seriously and get it right -- that visual inspection of fielding is quite
doable. Not perfect, but very likely to be correct.
So I don't agree that we're talking sunspots and stock markets here.
OTOH, I agree completely with David T. and disagree with Criag about the
usefulness of reputation in ranking fielders. There's clearly a world of
difference between an organization choosing between two fielders, with
access to drills and grading, and league-wide reputations.
The problem IMO is that, once one accepts the idea that reputation is
highly but imperfectly correlated with performance, then it becomes very
difficult to defend a good-reputation, bad-stats guy by refering to his
reputation. Unless, that is, it's possible to systematically identify
the biases built in to fielding reputation, and I do not believe such a
study has been done.
JHB
Billy
>Oh, yeah, the most vicious man in baseball, the leader of the Naps'
>biggest rival in the AL, the man who lost (depending on your POV) a
>batting title to Lajoie because the Browns let Lajoie lay down 6 bunt
>singles on the last day of the season, has a few unkind words to say
>about a man who from all other accounts had "exceptional gracefulness"
>afield.
Actually he did not lose the batting title to Lajoie, in spite of
the fact that some losers gave Lajoie eight (not six) fake singles
out of jealousy and hate for Cobb. I never heard anything about
exceptional gracefulness afield from anyone, but I've heard from
a few sources about Lajoie's "slowness afoot." Certainly he was
not in the same league (no pun intended) with Cobb. Not as a
batter nor as an overall player.
Just because you don't *like* Cobb doesn't make him wrong.
>It would be surprising if Cobb had a few GOOD things to say about him.
was not one of them.
Billy
>--
John M. Perkins
: Simple question. If you watch a guy and decide he's a great hitter, then
: HRs and 45 RBI, would you not revise your opinion?
Some times. As a SDCN wannabe, I buy into to stats of players I haven't
seen regularly. OTOH, every now and then I run into a Ricky Magdaleno
who statistically sucks offensively and defensively (though if we had A
DAs?...). Having seen 130 games of his, I know analysis of his Mendoza
line BA has to be tempered by the observation of an unusually high
quantity of ropes atem. And that his high error count is almost always failed
showmanship. Of course, I am adding ropes and showmanship as stats to be
factored in the analysis. The "prospect" in him looks alot better than the
stats, with a different batting coach and a manager who kicks the showmanship
out of him, Ricky is near Pokey Reese level.
Mark Jareb
> In regard to Nathaniel Clark's statement of:
> "In general, Alomar is below average defensively."
> I wrote:
> >> I cannot imagine that anyone would gain that sense of certainty
> >> from their own observations of Alomar's defensive play.
>
> Gary Huckabay responds:
>
> > I did. Why is it so difficult to imagine? I really don't understand
> > why you're having such difficulty. Because my view is different from
> > others, it must necessarily be wrong?
>
>
> "Over his career, Alomar has been right around average in terms of
>
> have convinced you to a certainty that Alomar is below average, that
> would mean that you place a greater certainty on your visual
> impressions than your statistical analysis. That is far harder for me
> to believe than the fact that -- if I got your meaning correctly --
> that you are exaggerating to a point of inaccuracy about how certain
> and how negative you truly are in your purely visual assessment of
> Alomar.
A little nitpick but the two statements actually aren't
contradictory -- if you based your opinion solely on DA, you
would say exactly that -- for his career Alomar was average,
but that right now Alomar is below average defensively (and
actually I will try and make that argument as I continue in
this post).
======================================================================
> 1) Gary, your assessment of the statistical analysis is that Alomar
> is average.
>
> 2) Tate agrees with my statement that:
>
> "My reading of the margin by which Alomar would be statistically
> analyzed as below average is within a 'normal' margin of error
> where he could easily be average."
OK, when looking at Alomar's DA compared to other 2B in his
league, for Dave Tate's statement to be true concerning the
normal error for DA, the direction of the error was
consistently one direction pre-injury and then switched
direction consistently post-injury (not out of the realm of
possibility but much less likely). Here's Alomar's DA
rank ordered:
Pre-Injury Post-Injury
'88- 8/13 '93- 11/15
'89- 5/12 '94- 9/9
'90- 4/12 '95- 9/13
'91- 4/16
'92- 4/14
Looking strictly at DA it seems the injury really turned him into a below
average defensive player.
Now on to the visual observations, to see how they match up
with the numbers.
> 3) Just visually, my impression is that Alomar is very good, perhaps
> even excellent.
>
> 4) Alomar has won the last five Gold Gloves for defensive excellence.
About #3, I think anyone who hasn't specifically watched at
least a few Jays games in the last couple of years with the
intent to evaluate Alomar's defense would agree with your
impression -- however, I also think this kind of visual
observation is the most spurious kind of observation (perhaps
in Alomar's case especially so).
About the Gold Gloves, I think it's very easy to see how he got
the rep. In '91, it was his first year in the AL and strictly
based on DA, one can easily make the case that he deserved it
(from a voter's viewpoint) -- DA wise he was 4th, but the top 5
guys were in a range of .011 (I think Gary said the error bar
in one direction was .012). With his batting and the Jays
making the playoffs, you'd figure he was pretty much a
shoo-in. Second year his performance was pretty much the same.
Next year DA says he was bad -- however it's in '92 or '93 that
he makes a great looking play in short RF in a crucial
situation in the playoffs (I think that play alone proabbly
gets him the GG for the next couple of years running). Anyhow,
he was good enough to establish the reputation and now that his
performance has declined his rep (plus the errorless streak) are
enough to keep him winning GG's until he's in his mid 30's.
> 5) People who do not vote for the GG but whose opinions I have
> come to respect on visual evaluation of defense, there visual
> evaluation is that he is excellent.
Now this is an observation I would (and do) take seriously but
I do have some questions. Obviously the main question is when
during his career did they really evaluate him and to what
extent have they evaluated his play recently. An additional
question is what criteria are they actually evaluating. The
reason for the second question is that I'm assuming the people
in question are scouts and I would guess that positioning is
not a highly important criteria relative to a player's athletic
abilities for a scout -- yet based on observations from people
whose opinion I respect, his positioning may play a large
factor in his poor DA of late.
Basically, Gary and a several Jays fans (Jeff Joseph, Doc
Palmer, etc.) from what I've read have all independently
observed that Alomar plays deep and toward 1st base relative to
other 2B. In my few limited observations of Alomar (which is
just highlight films from the few days around when he got the
errorless streak), he gets to a lot of balls toward 1B that
seem out of most 2B's range, but the only highlight I saw to
his right was a difficult appearing play which seemed to
actually be 10-15 feet away from 2B (i.e. when looking where
the ball actually was when he caught it, I think most 2B would
have been there).
My question now is whether he's always positioned himself like
that or has the injury (for whatever reason) affected his
positioning.
My opinion based on DA, subjective observations of poeple whose
opinion I respect, and what I've seen myself is that Alomar at
this point is below average defensively, but if positioned
properly could be a little above average.
As a last note, I actually disagree that the main point of
contention between Gary and Craig is the extent to which
subjective evaluation should weight your opinion versus
objective measures of defense. I think the main point is that
Gary's and some other r.s.bb. posters' observations are
opposite that of people whom Craig knows and respects. I think
the question there that needs to asked is whether these poeple
are trying to observe the same kinds of things.
From what I've seen on r.s.bb., when an objective measure of
defense disgrees with typical perception, people try to see
what might be wrong with the objective measure.
David M. Tate
Jonathan Bernstein <j...@uclink2.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>David M. Tate (dta...@pitt.edu) wrote:
[Craig wrote:]
>: >There is a correlation between the best statistical measures of
>: >defense and the best visual evidence of defense.
>: Setting aside for a moment the question of just what is "the best visual
>: evidence of defense", the proper response to this is "so what?". There
>: is a correlation between sunspot activity and stock market behaviour, too,
>: but that doesn't mean arguments about one from the other are reasonable.
>I don't think that's entirely fair.
I think you overestimate the information content of simple correlation.
Let me explain why.
>IMO, the correlation is a meaningful anchor.
Anchor for what? Decisions? Judgements? When you form an opinion of
the defensive performance of a given player, how would that opinion differ
if there were *not* a positive correlation between (say) DA and reputation
based on scouting?
>The way I think about this
>is position inversions; instances where managers play one guy at 2B and
>another at SS (or CF/corner OF) when the defensive stats clearly indicate
>that the guy at 2B or corner OF is the better fielder.
I don't see what this has to do with the usefulness of overall correlations
in drawing conclusions about individuals.
>How many such inversions are there, really? Very few, I would say.
How many would you *expect* to see, if visual observation weren't all
it's cracked up to be? Half the time, the team will choose correctly
just by dumb luck, and there aren't many head-to-head competitions like
that to begin with. For every one you can name where the team went
with the player with the better DA/ZR/whatever at the tougher position,
I can point to one where they didn't, or explain the decision without
reference to actual defense (either by reference to offense, or by reference
to past experience at the position).
I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm just saying I don't see that there are
fewer instances than we would expect to see. I'd need to see a more
systematic investigation.
>So I don't agree that we're talking sunspots and stock markets here.
You missed the point, Jon. The point is about how much mileage you can
get out of a general correlation when evaluating a single player. Here's
maybe a better analogy: in general, stocks that have just declared their
first-ever dividend tend to go up in value over the next month. If you buy
*every* such stock, consistently, you will tend to outperform the market.
There is a correlation between declaring a first dividend and increasing
in value over the next month, and that correlation is positive.
Now, BizCo Systems LTD has just declared its first dividend ever. Is it
a good investment? If you're not going to buy lots and lots of first-time
dividend payers, knowledge of the correlation doesn't add *any* significant
information about how good a buy this stock is.
Even if there is a positive correlation between actual defensive ability
and perceived defensive ability based on careful (but isolated) visual
observation, that doesn't buy you anything when you go to evaluate an
individual player. The trend is irrelevant; you need to know whether this
is one of the instances or one of the exceptions. As with the stock, you're
better off checking the same numbers you'd check if you didn't know about
the correlation, and basing your decision on those, than you are if you try
to generalize the trend without understanding the underlying causal factors
that create the correlation in the first place.
I'll say it again: correlation is an extremely weak relationship. Two
measures could be correlated because they both measure approximately the
same things, or because one measures a subset of what the other measures,
or because developmental factors that lead to good scores in one also tend
to lead to good scores in the other, or because one is based in part on
observed values of the other, or for any number of more tenuous reasons.
Another example: there's a positive correlation between eating gefilte fish
and suffering from coronary disease. What should you conclude from this?
(Answer: ethnic jews, the only group of people who eat gefilte fish in any
quantity, have a higher incidence of coronary disease than most other ethnic
groups. The fish has nothing to do with it.)
>OTOH, I agree completely with David T. and disagree with Criag about the
>usefulness of reputation in ranking fielders. There's clearly a world of
>difference between an organization choosing between two fielders, with
>access to drills and grading, and league-wide reputations.
OK, we agree here.
>The problem IMO is that, once one accepts the idea that reputation is
>highly but imperfectly correlated with performance, then it becomes very
>difficult to defend a good-reputation, bad-stats guy by refering to his
>reputation.
The word "highly" has crept silently into the above sentence, but I don't
know where it came from. Has anyone argued for a *high* correlation between
reputation and performance? (I'm assuming that by performance you mean DA
and ZR; we certainly have no idea how reputation correlates with actual
value of performance, since we're still arguing over how one might measure
that value...)
>Unless, that is, it's possible to systematically identify
>the biases built in to fielding reputation, and I do not believe such a
>study has been done.
Some of them are the same biases that are built into most reputations;
those we can at least be alert for.
Dale J Stephenson
>K. M. Bose <kb...@unm.edu> writes:
>
[Cobb on Lajoie -- lousy]
>>Oh, yeah, the most vicious man in baseball, the leader of the Naps'
>>biggest rival in the AL, the man who lost (depending on your POV) a
>>batting title to Lajoie because the Browns let Lajoie lay down 6 bunt
>>singles on the last day of the season, has a few unkind words to say
>>about a man who from all other accounts had "exceptional gracefulness"
>>afield.
>
>So he wasn't a little ray of sunshine. Sue him. ;>
>Actually he did not lose the batting title to Lajoie, in spite of
>the fact that some losers gave Lajoie eight (not six) fake singles
>out of jealousy and hate for Cobb.
Oficially he didn't lose the title, thanks to a hit credited to Cobb
that never existed. Lajoie had the higher real batting average in
1910.
I never heard anything about
>exceptional gracefulness afield from anyone,
"One of the best second basemen of all time and, by all accounts,
the most graceful..." Holway & Caroll's "Lives of the Players" in
Total Baseball. There's one, and I'm sure their "all acounts" must
have come from somewhere.
> but I've heard from
>a few sources about Lajoie's "slowness afoot."
Seems odd for a man with 163 career triples and 380 stolen bases to
be all that slow afoot -- though I'm sure he ran more than he should,
the times being what they were. He also led his league in putouts
four times, in assists three times, and double plays six times.
Certainly he was
>not in the same league (no pun intended) with Cobb. Not as a
>batter nor as an overall player.
>Just because you don't *like* Cobb doesn't make him wrong.
>
No, but the facts are:
A) Cobb had good reason to dislike Lajoie.
B) Cobb was known to be bitter about players he didn't like.
C) Lajoie did *extremely well* in available measures of fielding.
So why should we give Cobb any credence here?
--
Dale J. Stephenson |*| (st...@cs.uiuc.edu) |*| Baseball fanatic
Matthew Stephenson for the HOF! b. Aug 20, 1995, 10 lbs 12 oz
Future centerfielder for the World Champion Atlanta Braves
rick_jones
> <Jim_...@transarc.com> writes:
>
> >better. If you mean "overall player -- hitting, fielding, running --
> >playing secondbase, you have several, including Nap Lajoie and Joe
>
> Hmmm. Ty Cobb said Lajoie was slow and could not come in, go out,
> or cover much ground to his right or left.
Of course, he hated everybody.
Blair Power
World Series when Toronto played Philly and then see what you say.
On 31 Jan 1996, David Pease wrote:
> Date: 31 JAN 1996 13:19:07 -0800
> From: David Pease <dpe...@qualcomm.com>
> Newgroups: rec.sport.baseball
> Subject: Re: Alomar, Best 2B ever?
>
> In article <Pine.SGI.3.91.960131...@server.uwindsor.ca>,
> Steve <ste...@server.uwindsor.ca> wrote:
>
> [deletia...]
>
> >DOAT! Maybe if SANDY Alomar was playing second base. Have you actually
> >been watching him?
>
> No, probably not. He probably just pulled that comment out of the air.
> Good question.
>
> >80some consectutive games without an error last year
>
> Who cares? Errors are next to useless as a serious evaluation of a
> player's defense.
>
> Or do you think Steve Garvey was one of the best defensive 1B of all
> time?
>
> >as well as amazing range and accuracy make him as far above average as
> >one can be!
>
> No they don't. Do you have anything except personal testimony to
> support that?
>
> Thank you for your time
>
> dp
>
> --
> EL, DDfL & J dave pease, RDFC dpe...@qualcomm.com
> --- Great Moments in American Sports Journalism, Volume I ---
> Mediot: "So, son, how are you liking your freshman year at-"
> Barry Bonds: "If you ever write anything bad about me, I'll kick your ass."
>
>
David M. Tate
John M. Perkins <per...@wfu.edu> wrote:
>Mitchell Plitnick (mjpc...@netcom.com) wrote:
>: Simple question. If you watch a guy and decide he's a great hitter, then
>: look at his stats at the end of the season and see he's hit .220 with 8
>: HRs and 45 RBI, would you not revise your opinion?
>Some times. As a SDCN wannabe, I buy into to stats of players I haven't
>seen regularly. OTOH, every now and then I run into a Ricky Magdaleno
>who statistically sucks offensively and defensively (though if we had A
>DAs?...). Having seen 130 games of his, I know analysis of his Mendoza
>line BA has to be tempered by the observation of an unusually high
>quantity of ropes atem.
Over how many seasons?
Mitchell probably should have phrased his question more carefully; are
there any circumstances where you might look at his final stat line, see
BA/OBP/SLG of .220/.295/.380, but still believe that he was more *valuable*
than those stats would seem to indicate? That's the sort of claim that is
being made in the threads on evaluating defense; that the numbers not only
don't tell you the player's potential or current ability, they don't even
tell you how useful he was when putting up those numbers.
Michael Wynblatt
Mark Jareb <mi...@avery.med.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
>As a last note, I actually disagree that the main point of
>contention between Gary and Craig is the extent to which
>subjective evaluation should weight your opinion versus
>objective measures of defense. I think the main point is that
>Gary's and some other r.s.bb. posters' observations are
>opposite that of people whom Craig knows and respects. I think
>the question there that needs to asked is whether these poeple
>are trying to observe the same kinds of things.
I thought I'd repost this comment for emphasis before Gary and
Craig beat each other senseless with the wrong sticks.
I think Mark's got it right here.
Michael
Mcallister Brian Francis
Jonathan Bernstein <j...@uclink2.berkeley.edu> wrote:
[...]
>One thing that seems to distinguish Alomar from Griffey in this
>discussion is that Alomar did have good (not outstanding, but solidly
>good) fielding stats once upon a time. His GGs now may be as much of a
>Brooks Robinson effect (getting a no-longer-deserved GG based on previous
>fielding ability) as a Garvey effect (getting a never-deserved GG based
>on hype and hitting).
I wonder about the former. If we concede that Alomar is no longer
deserving of GG honours, we are giving weight to ZR and DA stats - stats
unrecongized by the vast majority of GG voters. Therefore, by GG voting
standards, he would never be recognized for that type of defensive
performance. OTOH, the only defensive stats consistently used by voters
are FA - and for Alomar, those have changed little. So in the minds of
GG voters, it isn't a question of recognizing past performance, since his
performance would appear constant.
Therefore, I think it's clear his GGs are the product of his flashiness -
which has remained constant. That is, if his past performance *was*
deserving, it wasn't the kind of performance that would ever be
recognized by the voters (ie. DA stats). Consequently, there is little
in the way of inconsistency with regards to Alomar's GG votes.
--
Brian McAllister | "There's Lies...
mca...@uwindsor.ca | Damn Lies...
Windsor, Ontario | and Separatists."
Billy
In the same letter in which he trashed Lajoie, he had praise
for guys he felt were better suited. He also once said that
Joe Jackson was the greatest natural hitter he ever met.
Billy
Dale J Stephenson
>Dale J Stephenson <st...@glibm17.cen.uiuc.edu> writes:
>
>>Oficially he didn't lose the title, thanks to a hit credited to Cobb
>>that never existed. Lajoie had the higher real batting average in
>>1910.
>
>I don't know about that, but as far as I'm concerned, Lajoie got
>credited with *eight* hits that never existed.
I can see that, though I don't agree. It's not like Lajoie bribed
them to do what they did.
>>> but I've heard from
>>>a few sources about Lajoie's "slowness afoot."
>>
>>Seems odd for a man with 163 career triples and 380 stolen bases to
>>be all that slow afoot -- though I'm sure he ran more than he should,
>>the times being what they were. He also led his league in putouts
>>four times, in assists three times, and double plays six times.
>
>I think that was referring to 1910 - when Lajoie was what, 36?
>and Cobb 24.
Lajoie was 35. 7 triples and 26 stolen bases that year -- but again,
the times being what they were...
Wherever I read that seemed to mean that Lajoie
>was now slow compared to Cobb (probably always was slow
>compared to Cobb, but now Lajoie was slow in general due to
>age).
Everyone in the league was slow compared to Cobb. There's a huge
gulf between 'slow compared to Cobb' and 'slowness afoot'. Now,
I don't expect that a 35-year old is going to be as fast they used
to be, even a Rickey Henderson or Ty Cobb. But I certainly don't
see any statistical indication that Lajoie was slow for an average
major leaguer -- or average second basemen.
>Never claimed Lajoie was not a good 2nd baseman, certainly a
>2b than Cobb.
>
But that's precisely what *Cobb* claimed. Remember the can't go
back, forward, or to either side? Those refer to fielding, and
even this late Lajoie's fielding was still good. (No longer incredible,
but still above average).
>>A) Cobb had good reason to dislike Lajoie.
>>B) Cobb was known to be bitter about players he didn't like.
>>C) Lajoie did *extremely well* in available measures of fielding.
>
>A) He had good reasons to dislike most people he knew.
Psychotic and paranoid. What were they other reasons?
>B) He was bitter about everyone he didn't like.
Yes.
>C) Yes, he did. Better 2b than Cobb, just as Cobb was a better
>hitter and CF than Lajoie.
Lajoie wasn't just a better 2b than Cobb. As near as we can tell,
he was a better (defensive) second baseman than anyone in the
early days of the American League.
>What Cobb was saying was that IHHO
>Lajoie was not the best of all time. I forget who Cobb named
>but can look it up.
>
Well, it's certainly a reasonable proposition that Lajoie's not
the best of all time. Fellow by the name of Rogers Hornsby could
hit a ton better, especially since Lajoie had his biggest year in
the 1901 AL. But the idea that Lajoie was a *poor* defensive
second basemen (which Cobb claimed) I find impossible to give
credence to.
>>So why should we give Cobb any credence here?
>
>Cuz he knows more about baseball than any of us here ever will. ;>
>
Babe Ruth named Hal Chase as the first basemen on his all-time team.
Obviously, the ability to play the game better than anyone else
does not endow the player with any supernatural knowledge about it.
K. M. Bose
>
>Actually he did not lose the batting title to Lajoie, in spite of
>the fact that some losers gave Lajoie eight (not six) fake singles
Actually, though Cobb won the title, it was only because they didn't know
how to count in those days. A game of his was double-counted in
the final tally; the title should have gone to Lajoie.
In fact, an article in Total Baseball suggests that even WITH the
double-counted game, the only reason Cobb won the title in the first
place was because a hometown scorer changed a ruling on a ball originally
labelled an error weeks after it happened.
>exceptional gracefulness afield from anyone, but I've heard from
>a few sources about Lajoie's "slowness afoot." Certainly he was
>not in the same league (no pun intended) with Cobb. Not as a
>batter nor as an overall player.
Hmmm...Lajoie made more putouts at second base than all but 4 men in the
history of the game. On a per-game basis, he ranks 10th. Only 7 men in
the history of the game had more assists at second base. Per game, that
puts him somewhere in the top 20. His fielding percentage was .963,
despite a career that ended before 1920. Now, I won't ring in the
fancy-shmancy stats that say things like "Nap Lajoie won more games with
his fielding than any other player in the history of the game, even more
than Mazeroski." I'll just ask this: would John McGraw have brought
Lajoie in as a player/fielding coach in 1915 if Lajoie hadn't amassed
SOME positive defensive reputation? The source I quoted earlier was the
"Biographical History of Major League Baseball" who list several period
sources in their bibliography.
>Just because you don't *like* Cobb doesn't make him wrong.
>
Especially since you don't have any idea whether I like Ty Cobb or not at
all. Saying he was one of the most hateful men ever to play the game is
simply an observation based on historical recording of CONTEMPORARY
reactions to Cobb. My point was that the fact that Cobb had reason to
dislike Lajoie colors his statements. "Consider the source", and all that.
>>It would be surprising if Cobb had a few GOOD things to say about him.
>
>I've read nice things Cobb said about several players. But Lajoie
>was not one of them.
>
Not to rehash the point for oh, the third time, but duh. As
someone who was widely known to hold grudges, and as someone who
predisposed to hate Lajoie as someone who had nearly (and probably should
have) cost him a batting title and a new car in the bargain, and as his
biggest rival for the title of "best player in the AL" for the first
decade of the century, there's no reason to EXPECT that Cobb would
compliment Lajoie, and evey reason to expect that Cobb was expressing a
personal, and not professional opinion. That isn't to say that the man
was INCAPABLE of a compliment; just that any disparaging (or
complimentary) remark has to be considered in its context.
Chloe Carter
(Joshua Rosenberg) writes:
> I think hitting statistics are more widely accepted by non-stat
>types, perhaps because they have been around longer and are used more often
>in the media, on the back of baseball cards, etc., and perhaps because
>non-stat types don't understand how fielding stats are calculated.
It may also be that the difference in fielding performance between the
best 2B and the worst is quite a bit smaller than the difference in
hitting ability between, say, Frank Thomas and Rafael Belliard. Fielding
stats seem to live within a narrower range. The result is that variations
in hitting performance are immediately visible to non-stat types, whereas
defensive performance only becomes known after a period of study.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
>Josh
- chloe
Mitchell Plitnick
: ch...@qpc.com (Chloe Carter) wrote:
: >
: >It may also be that the difference in fielding performance between the
: >best 2B and the worst is quite a bit smaller than the difference in
: >hitting ability between, say, Frank Thomas and Rafael Belliard. Fielding
: >stats seem to live within a narrower range. The result is that variations
: >in hitting performance are immediately visible to non-stat types, whereas
: >defensive performance only becomes known after a period of study.
: >
: >Please correct me if I'm wrong.
: >
: >>Josh
: >
: >- chloe
: I think your phrase "immediatly visible" is the key concept here. That is
: to say, hitting stats may be more easily acceptable to non-stat types not
: primarily because the range is wider but because they reflect the part of
: the game, offense, which is the intiator of action and movement.
: Visually, defense responds to offense in baseball. It takes a fairly
: involved fan to notice or care about positioning or the fact that the
: pitcher may be trying to INDUCE the ground ball or popup or to anticipate
: the pitch-out, etc. Most people IMHO watching the game consider the swing
: to be the start of every play. How often for instance have you heard that
: ball is boring in part because of those long at bats where nothing (!)
: happens? So offensive stats are what the non-stat type and most
: non-serious fans care about because those stats speak about the events
: that person watches the game to see.
: To put it simply, defense is secondary and subtle. Offense is obvious and
: the name of the game. That these things are not true does not deter many
: many people from believing them.
Not that I'm completely disagreeing with you, Jon, in most of what you
said, but I also think Chloe hit the nail on the head when she talked
about the variance. Consider: among regular players at SS for example the
difference between the highest DA and the lowest last year was .118. At
third it's .103, second .144. First had the highest differential at .216.
Now, that's only a worst to first range, meaning that most players are
much more closely bunched together. It's true for ZR as well. This sort
of variance is fairly well in line with BA, less than OBP and much less
than SLG. Part of it is that for hitters, there's no such thing as a
routine hit, nor for pitchers a routine out. But for fielders, there are
plays that are completely routine. One can reasonably expect Frank Thomas
to make more than half of the plays that come his way, and he is the
height of defensive incompetence. So, in judging defense what we're
trying to do is decide how many plays overall the fielder makes, with a
given that the majority should be made. Hitting and pitching have no such
given. That (a) cuts down the variance (b) lessens the importane of any
one fielder, as opposed to hitters and certainly pitchers and (c) makes
the difference between average and great much smaller in the fielding
category. In DAthe biggest gap between average and the best that I find
last year is .083. That's close to BA, but not all that close to OBP and
far from SLG. And said averages are always well over .500 (and very often
over .600)
--
---Mitchell---
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This msg was sent to | "Democracy don't rule the world, you'd better get
you free of charge | that through your head. This world is ruled by
from Mitchell | Violence, but I guess that's better left unsaid."
Plitnick of the famed| ---Bob Dylan
Berkeley Plitnicks |
_____________________| "Let me bring you love from the fields; poppies red
| and roses filled with summer rain"
| ---Ian Anderson
|_______________________________________________________
Jon Avins
>In article <j-rosenberg1...@128.135.248.106>, j-rose...@uchicago.edu
>(Joshua Rosenberg) writes:
>
>> I think hitting statistics are more widely accepted by non-stat
>>types, perhaps because they have been around longer and are used more often
>>in the media, on the back of baseball cards, etc., and perhaps because
>>non-stat types don't understand how fielding stats are calculated.
>
Jon Avins
GO METS!!!!
Mitchell Plitnick
: Sorry if my post was unclear - I don't dispute the empirical fact that
: defensive stats have a narrower range (no pun...) than do their offensive
: brethren. I was commenting on why people (i.e. the uneducated masses
: who are without benefit of the tutelage I have found in rsbb), IMHO,
: prefer and find more meaning in offensive as opposed to defensive stats.
Ah, but there is one point that I think needs clarification. Though I've
made some people's lists as a stat-head (a characterization I do not
dispute at all) I think there is a big empirical difference between
defensive stats and those we use to measure pitching and hitting. That
is, we have much more developed methods to really put the stats of
hitters and pitchers into their proper context; i.e. a decent
understanding of park adjustments, the effects of teammates on individual
stats, and various situational statistics (some carrying more weight of
legitimacy than others). ZR and DA are still in their relative infancy,
and a lot of these effects are still being considered, as are the basic
worth of the stats themselves. In the absence of any measures that even
come close to DA and ZR, I'll look at them pretty closely, but I still
must admit there is a much greater (in my mind) margin for error in them
than there is in, say, ERA, RAT, OBP or SLG once the latter group is looked
at in contexts of league averages, home park and other variables that are
routinely tracked with such stats. So, to my mind, I think it is clear
that, for the moment, statistial measures for defense, while far better
than anything ever used in the past, fall far short of statistical
measures for pitching and hitting. Therefore, there is at least some
basis for people not familiar with sabremetrics in the first place to be
more skeptical of the newer defensive stats than they are of the older
offensive. Not to say, of course, that putting more stock in RBI, or some
other stats that reveal relatively little of a given player's skill than
one would in DA or ZR is not fallacious, but on the more general level, I
do think there is good basis to be more skeptical of fielding stats than
others.
: Also, as a side point, if I understand correctly, you say that there is
: no given as to what proportion of chances a hitter should be expected to
: convert into hits. That's not true. A .200 hitter will sit a lot, maybe
: in the stands if he keeps it up, because he does not convert enough
: chances. The proportion required is just than in fielding. Which, by the
: way, is why I love defense - it's the heart of the game and much less
: forgiving than is offense.
Put it this way, Jon: anyone who has played the game at even the most
rudimentary can field at least some of the more routine popups, lazy fly
balls and even some grounders that every major leaguer routinely converts
into outs. I don't think the same an be said for an ability to get a
pitch in the strike zone past a major league hitter or hit any major
league pitcher's pitch. Just looking at hitting, there are players who
hit much less than .200, even less than .100 and keep their jobs (in the
NL, anyway). In fielding, there are "gimmes". There aren't such in
pitching or hitting. Defense is quite a different animal. This is the
very point that makes Fielding Pct. so useless. Almost everyone is going
to succeed in that category over 95% of the time. Even in ZR and DA, it
is very rare for anyone not to succeed more than half the time. It's
something of a matter of perspective, but that's important when dealing
with the views of a large and varied group of people (like baseball
fans). There is an innate presumption of failure in hitting (as
demonstrated by the fact that only 16 times in the history of baseball
has a hitter been over .500 in OBP for a full season). In pitching,
success is more often presumed , at least in terms of OBP, but each
individual failure counts for relatively little. In fielding, there is a
huge presumption of success (even with DA, which would be the lowest
relative percentage measure, you are rarely going to see even a poor
fielder be sub-.500), but each failure looms much larger. What's even
more difficult is that, where a pitcher's failure (in allowing a batter
to reach base) and a hitter's (in making an out) are clearly visible to
the naked eye, a fielder's is not. That's why it's so much more difficult
to debate fielding. Even if you watch the fielder every day, if he makes
few errors, will you necessarily know, without the use of stats, how many
runners reached base safely (on hits or fielder's choices) that the
league average player at that position would not have allowed? But, if
you watch every one of your team's games, or even the large majority of
them, even without stats, you'll be able to tell much more readily who
hit a lot of HRs, extra base hits and who's gotten on base a lot, and who
has generally pitched well. Add that to the fact that statistical measures
for fielding aren't nearly as sophisticated as those for pitching and
hitting (with apropriate kudos to those who are working very hard to make
them so) and I think you see the problem.
Billy
>>
>>Actually he did not lose the batting title to Lajoie, in spite of
>>the fact that some losers gave Lajoie eight (not six) fake singles
>>out of jealousy and hate for Cobb. I never heard anything about
>
>Actually, though Cobb won the title, it was only because they didn't know
>how to count in those days. A game of his was double-counted in
>the final tally; the title should have gone to Lajoie.
That game ought to have been stricken from the stats and Cobb
should have won by an even wider margin than he did.
>>Just because you don't *like* Cobb doesn't make him wrong.
>>
>Especially since you don't have any idea whether I like Ty Cobb or not at
>all. Saying he was one of the most hateful men ever to play the game is
>simply an observation based on historical recording of CONTEMPORARY
>reactions to Cobb. My point was that the fact that Cobb had reason to
>dislike Lajoie colors his statements. "Consider the source", and all that.
Obviously you don't like him; that, of course, is beside the
point. As to "Cobb had reason to dislike Lajoie and that colors
his statements," Cobb also had reason (more, in fact) to dislike
Babe Ruth, and he put Ruth on his all-time team anyway.
Consider the source? Yeah, a really smart guy who knew a lot about
baseball.
>Not to rehash the point for oh, the third time, but duh. As
>someone who was widely known to hold grudges, and as someone who
>predisposed to hate Lajoie as someone who had nearly (and probably should
>have) cost him a batting title and a new car in the bargain, and as his
>biggest rival for the title of "best player in the AL" for the first
>decade of the century, there's no reason to EXPECT that Cobb would
>compliment Lajoie, and evey reason to expect that Cobb was expressing a
>personal, and not professional opinion. That isn't to say that the man
>was INCAPABLE of a compliment; just that any disparaging (or
>complimentary) remark has to be considered in its context.
Billy
Gary Huckabay
Mitchell Plitnick <mjpc...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Not that I'm completely disagreeing with you, Jon, in most of what you
>said, but I also think Chloe hit the nail on the head when she talked
>about the variance. Consider: among regular players at SS for example the
>difference between the highest DA and the lowest last year was .118. At
>third it's .103, second .144. First had the highest differential at .216.
>Now, that's only a worst to first range, meaning that most players are
>much more closely bunched together. It's true for ZR as well. This sort
>of variance is fairly well in line with BA, less than OBP and much less
>than SLG.
Whoa. Careful there, Mitchell. We don't know what those variances
might mean, and doing a first-to-worst thumbnail doesn't really tell
you anything about variance anyway.
Also: DA ranges from 0 to 1. SLG from 0 to 4. Different scales. You're
making a huge number of very strong assumptions here, so be careful.
--
* Gary Huckabay * Order _Baseball_Prospectus_'96_ Today. Send $23.30 to: *
* "I'll work it * Joe Sheehan, PO Box 4295, Costa Mesa, Ca. 92626. Ca. *
* out somehow." * residents add $1.46 sales tax. International orders, *
******************* email me. Thanks for all your support thus far. *
Ron Johnson
> . But for fielders, there are
>plays that are completely routine. One can reasonably expect Frank Thomas
>to make more than half of the plays that come his way, and he is the
>height of defensive incompetence.
Nope. That honour belongs to Sam Horn. The only player that I've ever heard
a coach call hopeless. When a reporter asked the coach (don't remember who,
sorry) if this wasn't too negative he responded "I've hit him my million
grounders, you want to try?".
--
RNJ
r...@interlog.com
>Sorry if my post was unclear
No need to apologize Jon. The same message comes through in all of
your posts. And it's loud and clear.
- I don't dispute the empirical fact that
>defensive stats have a narrower range (no pun...) than do their offensive
>brethren. I was commenting on why people (i.e. the uneducated masses
"Uneducated masses"?
>who are without benefit of the tutelage I have found in rsbb), IMHO,
The "tutelage" that you have found in rsbb is nothing more than the ramming
of collective heads up collective assholes with the collective expression of
surprise that the collected data is consistent. The world is brown after all.
>prefer and find more meaning in offensive as opposed to defensive stats.
We find more "meaning" in offensive measurements than defensive because
offensive measurements are published in the newspaper everyday you miserable
little moron.
>The evidence you present I think illustrates my point. A range from
>average to best of .083 is not so small that it becomes hard to
>comprehend. It is, granted, smaller than average to best in BA. But if
>one imagines a spread in hitting of .240 to .323, or a sub-Minosa .202 to
>a more than respectable .285,
Why the reference to Minosa, Jon? Minnie Minosa was a .300 hitter. What
the hell are you talking about? Do you mean "Mendoza"? The Mendoza "Line"
is .200 and so you are wrong there as well. (And yes we know that Mendoza
hit .215 - is that what you are really trying to tell us? That you know this
as well?)
You see Jon, your reference to Minosa/Mendoza was an effort to impress. You
want to be thought of as one of the guys. You seek approval from the other
thick-lensed little shits that have been reading the stat books a little longer
than you. We laugh at you, Jon Avins, as we laugh at all the other Tatians
and Tatian wannabe's. And we shit on you Jon Avins, as we shit on all
the other Tatians and their imitators.
I think the average fan would find either
>one meaningful.
What on earth would give you the idea that you could speak for any kind of
sport fan, "average" or otherwise?
The only thing worse than an arrogant Tatian is an arrogant moron. My God,
why don't you simply dispense with these worthless generalizations. "Average
fan..." as if...
Go on. Get the hell out.
cordially, as always,
rm
--
Jon Avins:
"Shows you where the priorities of the sportswriters are: aggresiveness
is just the thing for a ballplayer, but God forbid a black man should show
that side of himself other than silently."
We ask Jon Avins to substantiate his claim, apologize, or leave this
group.
Mitchell Plitnick
: In article <mjpchellD...@netcom.com>,
: Mitchell Plitnick <mjpc...@netcom.com> wrote:
: >Not that I'm completely disagreeing with you, Jon, in most of what you
: >about the variance. Consider: among regular players at SS for example the
: >difference between the highest DA and the lowest last year was .118. At
: >third it's .103, second .144. First had the highest differential at .216.
: >Now, that's only a worst to first range, meaning that most players are
: >much more closely bunched together. It's true for ZR as well. This sort
: >of variance is fairly well in line with BA, less than OBP and much less
: >than SLG.
: Whoa. Careful there, Mitchell. We don't know what those variances
: might mean, and doing a first-to-worst thumbnail doesn't really tell
: you anything about variance anyway.
: Also: DA ranges from 0 to 1. SLG from 0 to 4. Different scales. You're
: making a huge number of very strong assumptions here, so be careful.
I wasn't trying to make any assessment of true variance here, Gary, at
least not in terms of trying to make any conclusions. I was only saying
that the very diffrence in scales causes perception to be different by
those who don't understand the stats. It was an aesthetic, rather than an
actual statistical point. IOW, if a variance in one measure is 10 and,
proportionately the same variance would be represented by 100 with
another measure, the casual observer would put more weight where the
variance is a larger pure number, even if the same real variance is
reflected. The central point was specualtion as to why defensive stats get
more criticism than others, and this was only one reason among several that
I gave for that. I'm therefore not quite sure what assumptions you think
I'm making, in that context. Care to elaborate?
Jon Avins
>Jon Avins (jav...@worldbank.org) wrote:
>
>: Sorry if my post was unclear - I don't dispute the empirical fact that
>: defensive stats have a narrower range (no pun...) than do their offensive
>: brethren. I was commenting on why people (i.e. the uneducated masses
>: who are without benefit of the tutelage I have found in rsbb), IMHO,
>: prefer and find more meaning in offensive as opposed to defensive stats.
>
>Ah, but there is one point that I think needs clarification. Though I've
>made some people's lists as a stat-head (a characterization I do not
>dispute at all)
Well, the original post speculated on the reasons why *non* stat-heads
prefer offensive to defensive stats. My contention is that this is due to
the fact that non stat-heads are casual fans (and no I do not claim the
inverse - that all serious fans are stat-heads) and casual fans enjoy
offense more than defense in the first place, not because of the nature
of the stat, and that they therefore look to the traditional offesive
stats when they look to stats at all.
>I think there is a big empirical difference between
>defensive stats and those we use to measure pitching and hitting.
There is no disagreement on that point but it is irrelevant to the
question of "why people who don't pay much attention to stats in the
first place pay attention to the offensive ones when they pay any
attention at all."
That
>is, we have much more developed methods to really put the stats of
>hitters and pitchers into their proper context; i.e. a decent
>understanding of park adjustments, the effects of teammates on individual
>stats, and various situational statistics (some carrying more weight of
>legitimacy than others). ZR and DA are still in their relative infancy,
>and a lot of these effects are still being considered, as are the basic
>worth of the stats themselves. In the absence of any measures that even
>come close to DA and ZR, I'll look at them pretty closely, but I still
>must admit there is a much greater (in my mind) margin for error in them
>than there is in, say, ERA, RAT, OBP or SLG once the latter group is looked
>at in contexts of league averages, home park and other variables that are
>routinely tracked with such stats. So, to my mind, I think it is clear
>that, for the moment, statistial measures for defense, while far better
>than anything ever used in the past, fall far short of statistical
>measures for pitching and hitting.
None of which means a thing to the casual fan who doesn't think about
these things. I am NOT syaing that waht you so cogently explain is not
true or not reklevantto the consideration of stats. I am syaing tat
people who don't really care about anything more than the most crude
measures of the game in the first place, are not going to care about the
difficultiies in refining measures of an aspect of the game they are not
too interested in - defense. And that was the question to which I was
responding.
Therefore, there is at least some
>basis for people not familiar with sabremetrics in the first place to be
>more skeptical of the newer defensive stats than they are of the older
>offensive.
See above.
Not to say, of course, that putting more stock in RBI, or some
>other stats that reveal relatively little of a given player's skill than
>one would in DA or ZR is not fallacious, but on the more general level, I
>do think there is good basis to be more skeptical of fielding stats than
>others.
Fine, no argument.
>: Also, as a side point, if I understand correctly, you say that there is
>: no given as to what proportion of chances a hitter should be expected to
>: convert into hits. That's not true. A .200 hitter will sit a lot, maybe
>: in the stands if he keeps it up, because he does not convert enough
>: chances. The proportion required is just than in fielding. Which, by the
>: way, is why I love defense - it's the heart of the game and much less
>: forgiving than is offense.
>
>Put it this way, Jon: anyone who has played the game at even the most
>rudimentary can field at least some of the more routine popups, lazy fly
>balls and even some grounders that every major leaguer routinely converts
>into outs. I don't think the same an be said for an ability to get a
>pitch in the strike zone past a major league hitter or hit any major
>league pitcher's pitch.
That's why defense is *less* forgiving than hitting. At any level.
Just looking at hitting, there are players who
>hit much less than .200, even less than .100 and keep their jobs (in the
>NL, anyway).
You usually make a better case than that Mitch: nobody other than a
pitcher who hits under .200 is going to keep his job, and pitchers are
excused from the obligation of hitting decently because they can
effectively carry out other, crucial, duties. (Naming the 2 or 4 position
players who have survived at .189 or sometying would only be the
exception that proves the rule).
In fielding, there are "gimmes". There aren't such in
>pitching or hitting. Defense is quite a different animal. This is the
>very point that makes Fielding Pct. so useless. Almost everyone is going
>to succeed in that category over 95% of the time. Even in ZR and DA, it
>is very rare for anyone not to succeed more than half the time. It's
>something of a matter of perspective, but that's important when dealing
>with the views of a large and varied group of people (like baseball
>fans). There is an innate presumption of failure in hitting (as
>demonstrated by the fact that only 16 times in the history of baseball
>has a hitter been over .500 in OBP for a full season). In pitching,
>success is more often presumed , at least in terms of OBP, but each
>individual failure counts for relatively little. In fielding, there is a
>huge presumption of success (even with DA, which would be the lowest
>relative percentage measure, you are rarely going to see even a poor
>fielder be sub-.500), but each failure looms much larger.
Right: defense is less forgiving.
What's even
>more difficult is that, where a pitcher's failure (in allowing a batter
>to reach base) and a hitter's (in making an out) are clearly visible to
>the naked eye, a fielder's is not. That's why it's so much more difficult
>to debate fielding. Even if you watch the fielder every day, if he makes
>few errors, will you necessarily know, without the use of stats, how many
>runners reached base safely (on hits or fielder's choices) that the
>league average player at that position would not have allowed? But, if
>you watch every one of your team's games, or even the large majority of
>them, even without stats, you'll be able to tell much more readily who
>hit a lot of HRs, extra base hits and who's gotten on base a lot, and who
>has generally pitched well. Add that to the fact that statistical measures
>for fielding aren't nearly as sophisticated as those for pitching and
>hitting (with apropriate kudos to those who are working very hard to make
>them so) and I think you see the problem.
Look, Mitch, if you go back and read what I wrote you'll see that I in no
way even address the question of the relative utility of defensive and
offensive stats as tools to evaluate player contributions or skills. I
simply expressed an opinion on a very limited topic, one that has
*nothing* to do with that question. That opinion was given in response to
Chloe's point on why casual fans don't care so much for defensive stats.
I don't think it's the range. I don't think it's all the perfectly true
observations you have made in your subsequent posts on the topic. I think
it's because the casual fan tends to (a) not like defense too much in
the first place, and (b) not like stats too much in the first place. So
he or she doesn't look to deeply into these matters, as you do. The
casual fan casually glances at BA, RBI, SB and then goes back to watching
the game only for the spectacle of it, and not at all to analyze or
think about it.
Jon Avins
GO METS!!!!
David Joseph Grabiner
> In article <4f5p9d$7...@eis.wfunet.wfu.edu>,
> John M. Perkins <per...@wfu.edu> wrote:
>> Mitchell Plitnick (mjpc...@netcom.com) wrote:
>> : Simple question. If you watch a guy and decide he's a great hitter, then
>> : look at his stats at the end of the season and see he's hit .220 with 8
>> : HRs and 45 RBI, would you not revise your opinion?
>> Some times. As a SDCN wannabe, I buy into to stats of players I haven't
>> seen regularly. OTOH, every now and then I run into a Ricky Magdaleno
>> who statistically sucks offensively and defensively (though if we had A
>> DAs?...). Having seen 130 games of his, I know analysis of his Mendoza
>> line BA has to be tempered by the observation of an unusually high
>> quantity of ropes atem.
> Over how many seasons?
> Mitchell probably should have phrased his question more carefully; are
> there any circumstances where you might look at his final stat line, see
> BA/OBP/SLG of .220/.295/.380, but still believe that he was more *valuable*
> than those stats would seem to indicate? That's the sort of claim that is
> being made in the threads on evaluating defense; that the numbers not only
> don't tell you the player's potential or current ability, they don't even
> tell you how useful he was when putting up those numbers.
I believe this is possible with DA to a greater extent than with most
offensive statistics. The reason is that DA includes plays of varying
difficulty to a much greater extent. If a center fielder with a .650 DA
plays in a league in which an average center fielder would have a .600
DA, he will not have a .600 chance of making every play. He will face
some plays which have a .990 chance of being made (high flies right at
him) and others which have a .100 chance of being made (line drives into
the gap). When he brings his .300 batting average up to the plate in a
league which hits .270, he will face situations in which an average
hitter would hit .320 (against a mop-up man in Boston with the infield
playing in) and .220 (against Roger Clemens in Oakland), but nothing
extreme. As a result, DA's won't be as stable as BA's.
The other problem is that expected BA evens out over time (except for
park effects, which we understand); everyone gets to play about the same
amount of time against all other pitchers. How well does DA even out?
Do some players systematically face tougher chances than others in the
field? I know that STATS looked into this as a possible explanation of
Griffey's poor Zone Rating, and found that it didn't apply to him. But
this is the main question with DA.
--
David Grabiner, grab...@math.huji.ac.il
I speak at the Hebrew University, but not for it.
Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street!
Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc.
Dale J Stephenson
>Dale J Stephenson <st...@glibm4.cen.uiuc.edu> writes:
>
[all-time team]
>>Guess how many of those were active in the 20s? All but Wagner. Guess
>>how many were American Leaguers? All but Wagner. Excluding Wagner
>>[who is so much better than any other shortstops it's ridiculous], it's
>>a pretty good list of the best American Leaguers who were good when
>>Cobb was good.
>
>Cobb: "Note that I do not select anyone that I have not played with
>or against, or seen much of." I guess he wanted to make sure he
>knew what he was talking about. Imagine that.
It *does* lessen its value as an all-time team, and introduces a bias
when comparing Hornsby, Collins, and Lajoie. Cobb didn't see Lajoie's
prime, and didn't see Hornsby at all, except barnstorming.
>In any event he did not place himself on this team - the selections
>were:
>P - Walsh, Johnson, Mathews, Alexander, Plank
Alexander and Mathewson were career National Leaguers. Cobb did meet
Christie in France during WWI, but I wonder how much he could have
seen of either of those two.
>C - COchrane and Dickey
Cochrane was a star by the time Cobb left the majors -- Dickey had
a grand total of 15 ABs at this point. Certainly Dickey doesn't
embarrass an all-time team, but "played with or against, or seen much of"?
>1b - Sisler
A curious choice. Cobb's career did last long enough for him to see
Gehrig (Lou's first four regular seasons). Gehrig had done things by
then that Sisler never did.
>2b - Collins
A defensible choice, though having his career be a near-exact overlap
of Cobb's doesn't hurt.
>ss - Wagner
Cobb did play against Wagner in the '09 World Series. Wagner was a
career NLer.
>3b - Weaver
My source has Traynor at this spot, but it may be from a different
list. Wonder why Cobb didn't pick Home Run Baker, the only really
good third basemen he probably ever played against. Weaver played
more short than third.
>lf - Jackson
Another career ALer.
>cf - Speaker
Cobb's game-fixing buddy :-> [cheap shot -- I don't believe it]
>rf - Ruth
Who else *could* he put here, hate him or not? Harry Heilmann?
>
>Note he placed two Black Sox, saying that he was "only judging them
>on their ability.:
>
Three members of the 1919 White Sox, one that took the money.
>>Cobb had the ability to hit, and hit well. I'm not prepared to accept
>>that someone who claimed Lajoie couldn't field (and picked Sisler over
>>Gehrig on his all-time team -- he was in the league with both)
>>necessarily KNEW more about baseball than any of us.
>
>Well, I sure am...lol!
Do you believe that Sisler was better than Gehrig? If not, why are
you doubting Ty Cobb? He *did* see a fair amount of both.
>>We have no evidence that Cobb know anything about second base defense,
>>given that the only statement on the subject I know of (his comments
>>on Lajoie and Hornsby) don't fit well with the record of what Lajoie
>>did.
>
>Perhaps he did not see Lajoie at his prime. He did say that he didn't
>pick anyone he hadn't played with or against, or seen much of.
He didn't see Lajoie at his prime, given that Lajoie was 30 when Cobb
came up. He did see a lot of Lajoie, since they were both in the AL
until 1916. Cobb did pick 3 career NLers, and a catcher who had
neglible playing time while Cobb was active.
Ron Johnson
Dale J Stephenson <st...@glibm5.cen.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>Billy <just...@delphi.com> writes:
>
(Re Cobb's all-time team)
>
>Alexander and Mathewson were career National Leaguers. Cobb did meet
>Christie in France during WWI, but I wonder how much he could have
>seen of either of those two.
He saw Mathewson in at least one World Series. There's a picture of
the two talking in the Historical Abstract.
>
>>1b - Sisler
>A curious choice. Cobb's career did last long enough for him to see
>Gehrig (Lou's first four regular seasons). Gehrig had done things by
>then that Sisler never did.
Not really. Sisler was a hell of a player prior to his injury and
was a Cobb type of player. Speed, very high average, good power but
primarily from doubles.
I suspect that a whole lot of people in the 20s would rank Sisler's
peak ahead of Gehrig's.
The selection of Sisler over Gehrig is completely consistent with
his picking Collins over Hornsby.
>
>
>>3b - Weaver
>My source has Traynor at this spot, but it may be from a different
>list. Wonder why Cobb didn't pick Home Run Baker, the only really
>good third basemen he probably ever played against. Weaver played
>more short than third.
The only poor player on the list. Makes no sense at all. Larry Gardner is
the obvious #2 guy (if you ignore Groh) and he also played against
Collins (although he was well past his prime). Baker is as you say the
clear #1.
>
>>>Cobb had the ability to hit, and hit well. I'm not prepared to accept
>>>that someone who claimed Lajoie couldn't field (and picked Sisler over
>>>Gehrig on his all-time team -- he was in the league with both)
>>>necessarily KNEW more about baseball than any of us.
>>
>>Well, I sure am...lol!
>
>Do you believe that Sisler was better than Gehrig? If not, why are
>you doubting Ty Cobb? He *did* see a fair amount of both.
>
I don't believe that this is as clear as you make it sound. They were
two very different kinds of players. There's an unspoken "prior to his
injury" when comparing Sisler and Gehrig. What give Gehrig the greatest
part of his edge is the endless string of superb years. Cobb wasn't
giving him credit for that.
In any case it's Weaver who's I'd point to as a reason to doubt Cobb.
To be fair though, Cobb's team is vastly better than Ruth's.
--
RNJ
Billy
>In article <4fdneu$7...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
>Dale J Stephenson <st...@glibm4.cen.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>>
>>Here's Cobb's all-time team
>>
>>C Cochrane
>>1b Sisler
>>2b Collins
>>3b Traynor
>>ss Wagner
>>lf Cobb?
>>cf Speaker
>>rf Ruth
>
>Guess he must have picked more than one. The Historical Abstract lists
>a different team. Buck Weaver (!) at 3B, Joe Jackson in LF. Cochrane or
>Dickey at C.
Yours is the one I read, from a letter to E.J. Lanigan at the HOF
in 1945. If he picked another team at a different time, I don't
know about it.
>Strange that Homerun Baker didn't make any of the lists.
Cobb probably thought he was a wuss for whining about getting spiked.
>>Cobb *did* see Lajoie and Collins play a lot, which I didn't. He probably
>>saw Hornsby play a time or two, as well. We don't know if Cobb knows
>>anything about second base defense, of course.
>
>Cobb and Hornsby played against each other at least once while
>barnstorming. Supposedly nearly ended up fighting.
I read that. I think it was in the California Winter League.
They met, Hornsby said, "Nice to meet you," Cobb said "Glad to
meet you." Later Cobb slid into 2b and crashed into Hornsby.
Hornsby said "Hey you, where do you get that stuff?" Cobb said,
"Watch your step if you don't want to get your legs cut off."
Billy
Billy
>>aware of it beforehand, or that he paid them - although he
>>certainly must have noticed what was going on. IMO Cobb was in
>>a perfect position to make a big stink about those eight hits,
>>but he didn't.
>>
>The manager was fired. What more could Cobb have done?
Whatever he wanted...he usually did. Seriously, he could have tried
to get those eight "hits" stricken from the records.
>3 A, 1 PO, 1 E -- whether that constitutes a 'total fool' I really
>can't say, but I don't see any point in comparing Cobb to Lajoie
>*as second basemen*. Cobb (that one game excluded) *didn't play
>second base*, and no one but you has insisted on comparing the
>two there. Cobb said that Lajoie [at second] couldn't go back, couldn't
>go forward, and couldn't go to either side. The record
>states that despite this assessment, Lajoie managed to produce a lot
>of outs while fielding second -- more than any of his contemporaries.
>In light of that, Cobb's assessment of Lajoie's defense is worthless.
I was trying to compliment Lajoie by saying he was better at 2b
than Cobb. WRT Cobb's HO vs. the stats, well, it was just Cobb's HO.
>>Most people were better 2b than Cobb. ;> Yes, Lajoie was great.
>>That's MY opinion. Cobb thought others were better.
>>
>That's reasonable. I have no quarrel with Cobb picking Eddie Collins
>on his all-time team -- I'd pick Hornsby, but tastes differ. I can
>even accept that Cobb liked Collins better than Lajoie defensively,
>though I have a hard time believing it was true. What I *can't* believe
>was that Lajoie was a rotten defensive second basemen, and *that* is
>what Cobb said, in so many words.
Well, he's entitled to his opinion. He didn't like Hornsby at 2b either.
>Note that Cobb didn't say "compared to Collins" when assessing their
>fielding. He said Hornsby and Lajoie had severe defensive shortcomings,
>and Collins didn't. Of course, Hornsby and Cobb never played in
>the same league, so I wonder how much Hornsby Cobb ever saw. [Not
>that I'm claiming Hornsby was a *good* second basemen defensively.]
Well, I'm just telling you what he said.
>>Also note that Cobb placed Babe Ruth in right field, and there
>>was certainly no love lost between those two. he probably
>>resented Ruth more than Lajoie, since Ruth stole a lot of his
>>thunder and attention. Lajoie never actually did anything to
>>him.
>
>Other than almost stealing "his" car away? You've got to be kidding.
But Lajoie personally didn't have any runins with Cobb. Unlike
Babe Ruth. I think Cobb cared a lot more about the attention he
was getting than some car. Cobb already had a car, and he loved
attention.
>C Cochrane
>1b Sisler
>2b Collins
>3b Traynor
>ss Wagner
>lf Cobb?
>cf Speaker
>rf Ruth
>
>how many were American Leaguers? All but Wagner. Excluding Wagner
>[who is so much better than any other shortstops it's ridiculous], it's
>a pretty good list of the best American Leaguers who were good when
>Cobb was good.
Cobb: "Note that I do not select anyone that I have not played with
or against, or seen much of." I guess he wanted to make sure he
knew what he was talking about. Imagine that.
were:
P - Walsh, Johnson, Mathews, Alexander, Plank
2b - Collins
ss - Wagner
3b - Weaver
lf - Jackson
cf - Speaker
rf - Ruth
Note he placed two Black Sox, saying that he was "only judging them
on their ability.:
>that someone who claimed Lajoie couldn't field (and picked Sisler over
>Gehrig on his all-time team -- he was in the league with both)
>necessarily KNEW more about baseball than any of us.
Well, I sure am...lol!
>given that the only statement on the subject I know of (his comments
>on Lajoie and Hornsby) don't fit well with the record of what Lajoie
>did.
Perhaps he did not see Lajoie at his prime. He did say that he didn't
pick anyone he hadn't played with or against, or seen much of.
Ron Johnson
Dale J Stephenson <st...@glibm4.cen.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>Here's Cobb's all-time team
>
>1b Sisler
>2b Collins
>3b Traynor
>ss Wagner
>lf Cobb?
>cf Speaker
>rf Ruth
Guess he must have picked more than one. The Historical Abstract lists
a different team. Buck Weaver (!) at 3B, Joe Jackson in LF. Cochrane or
Dickey at C.
Ruth's team was
C Schalk (!)
1B Chase (!)
2B Lajoie
SS Wagner
3B Jimmy Collins
OF Cobb, Speaker and X
Strange that Homerun Baker didn't make any of the lists.
>
>Cobb *did* see Lajoie and Collins play a lot, which I didn't. He probably
>saw Hornsby play a time or two, as well. We don't know if Cobb knows
>anything about second base defense, of course.
Cobb and Hornsby played against each other at least once while
barnstorming. Supposedly nearly ended up fighting.
--
RNJ
Mike Murphy
: In <4fau8j$g...@minerva.worldbank.org>, Jon Avins <jav...@worldbank.org> writes:
: >The evidence you present I think illustrates my point. A range from
: >average to best of .083 is not so small that it becomes hard to
: >comprehend. It is, granted, smaller than average to best in BA. But if
: >one imagines a spread in hitting of .240 to .323, or a sub-Minosa .202 to
: >a more than respectable .285,
: Why the reference to Minosa, Jon? Minnie Minosa was a .300 hitter. What
: the hell are you talking about? Do you mean "Mendoza"? The Mendoza "Line"
: is .200 and so you are wrong there as well. (And yes we know that Mendoza
: hit .215 - is that what you are really trying to tell us? That you know this
: as well?)
Well Roger, you caught Jon there. It is certain that he meant to say
Mendoza and instead said "Minosa". However, I find it interesting that,
in looking through my Total Baseball, I couldn't find a single player
named Minnie Minosa, much less one with a lifetime BA of .300. I did
however find a player named Minnie Minoso, who in 17 seasons had a
lifetime BA of .298. Perhaps your typewriter or newsreader made a mistake?
: You see Jon, your reference to Minosa/Mendoza was an effort to impress. You
: want to be thought of as one of the guys. You seek approval from the other
: thick-lensed little shits that have been reading the stat books a little longer
: than you. We laugh at you, Jon Avins, as we laugh at all the other Tatians
: and Tatian wannabe's. And we shit on you Jon Avins, as we shit on all
: the other Tatians and their imitators.
And perhaps your "effort" to correct Jon's error (and in the process
making an error of your own), proves that you are flawed as well?
Peace,
Murph
Billy
>>cf - Speaker
>Cobb's game-fixing buddy :-> [cheap shot -- I don't believe it]
to win - Cobb got one single in five at-bats, Speaker got two triples
and did not even put Wood into the game, even though he was one of
the "fellow accused." That stupid non-scandal was one of the ugliest
things that ever happened in baseball, and they should have shot
Dutch Leonard for blackening the names of Cobb and Speaker for
personal revenge.
>>rf - Ruth
>Who else *could* he put here, hate him or not? Harry Heilmann?
as manager of the Tigers.
>Do you believe that Sisler was better than Gehrig? If not, why are
>you doubting Ty Cobb? He *did* see a fair amount of both.
certainly don't doubt Cobb. These kinds of lists can be debated
forever; they are just everybody's HO.
>
Billy
r...@interlog.com
>r...@interlog.com wrote:
>: In <4fau8j$g...@minerva.worldbank.org>, Jon Avins <jav...@worldbank.org> writes:
>
>: >The evidence you present I think illustrates my point. A range from
>: >average to best of .083 is not so small that it becomes hard to
>: >comprehend. It is, granted, smaller than average to best in BA. But if
>: >one imagines a spread in hitting of .240 to .323, or a sub-Minosa .202 to
>: >a more than respectable .285,
>
>: Why the reference to Minosa, Jon? Minnie Minosa was a .300 hitter. What
>: the hell are you talking about? Do you mean "Mendoza"? The Mendoza "Line"
>: is .200 and so you are wrong there as well. (And yes we know that Mendoza
>: hit .215 - is that what you are really trying to tell us? That you know this
>: as well?)
>
>Well Roger, you caught Jon there. It is certain that he meant to say
>Mendoza and instead said "Minosa". However, I find it interesting that,
Well no. It's certain that he meant to say Mendoza, not Minoso. On the
other hand it's certain that I meant to say Minoso when I said Minosa.
>in looking through my Total Baseball, I couldn't find a single player
>named Minnie Minosa, much less one with a lifetime BA of .300. I did
>however find a player named Minnie Minoso, who in 17 seasons had a
>lifetime BA of .298. Perhaps your typewriter or newsreader made a mistake?
Perhaps if I had to look through Total Bullshit in search of the player I would
have spelled his name correctly and I would not have stated that his average
was .002 points higher than it actually was.
But I didn't. What does that say about you?
peace, indeed.
cordially, as always,
rm
---
David Nieporent
>umsm...@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Mike Murphy) writes:
>>in looking through my Total Baseball, I couldn't find a single player
>>named Minnie Minosa, much less one with a lifetime BA of .300. I did
>>however find a player named Minnie Minoso, who in 17 seasons had a
>>lifetime BA of .298. Perhaps your typewriter or newsreader made a mistake?
>Perhaps if I had to look through Total Bullshit in search of the player
>I would have spelled his name correctly and I would not have stated that
>his average was .002 points higher than it actually was.
>But I didn't. What does that say about you?
That he's a hell of a lot more concerned with facts than you are?
That you're only interested in ranting, and not in being right?
That you're functionally illiterate?
All of the above?
--
David M. Nieporent "Granted fighting in two wars is no bed of roses
Niep...@pluto.njcc.com but it had to give [Ted] Williams a chance to
Deer Creek/Plainsboro, NJ rest his body." -- seen in r.s.b, 1/17/96
DAVEY JOHNSON & ORIOLES 1996!!!!!!!!
Mike Murphy
: In <4fgj97$e...@news.ecn.bgu.edu>, umsm...@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Mike Murphy) writes:
: >r...@interlog.com wrote:
: >: In <4fau8j$g...@minerva.worldbank.org>, Jon Avins <jav...@worldbank.org> writes:
: >
: >: >The evidence you present I think illustrates my point. A range from
: >: >average to best of .083 is not so small that it becomes hard to
: >: >comprehend. It is, granted, smaller than average to best in BA. But if
: >: >one imagines a spread in hitting of .240 to .323, or a sub-Minosa .202 to
: >: >a more than respectable .285,
: >
: >: Why the reference to Minosa, Jon? Minnie Minosa was a .300 hitter. What
: >: the hell are you talking about? Do you mean "Mendoza"? The Mendoza "Line"
: >: is .200 and so you are wrong there as well. (And yes we know that Mendoza
: >: hit .215 - is that what you are really trying to tell us? That you know this
: >: as well?)
: >
: >Well Roger, you caught Jon there. It is certain that he meant to say
: >Mendoza and instead said "Minosa". However, I find it interesting that,
: Well no. It's certain (sic) that he meant to say Mendoza, not Minoso.
: On the other hand it's certain that I meant to say Minoso when I said
: Minosa.
Roger, I inserted the "sic" into your follow-up above, because I'm
certain from the context of the full paragraph, that you *meant* to type,
"Well no. It's *not* certain...." But then again, if I'm wrong, then I
apologize, and will say instead that your follow-up makes no sense.
: >in looking through my Total Baseball, I couldn't find a single player
: >named Minnie Minosa, much less one with a lifetime BA of .300. I did
: >however find a player named Minnie Minoso, who in 17 seasons had a
: >lifetime BA of .298. Perhaps your typewriter or newsreader made a mistake?
: Perhaps if I had to look through Total Bullshit in search of the player I would
: have spelled his name correctly and I would not have stated that his average
: was .002 points higher than it actually was.
Well Roger, you'd have no way of knowing that *I knew* of Minnie Minoso's
existence before I went searching through my TB (he's a legendary WSox
outfielder, and I've been living in Chicago and following baseball here
for over 25 years). I looked through my TB in search of this "Minosa"
guy to whom *you* referred. I'd never heard of him, and so I thought
that perhaps you knew something that had escaped me... When I found that
there was no "Minosa" listed in the player (or pitcher) register, I
assumed that you had meant to type Minoso, but used your left little
finger inadvertantly (instead of your right ring finger). Thus the "a"
instead of "o".
Or maybe, I responded to your attack on Jon because in attacking him for
the sin of carelessness/ignorance, you committed similar mistakes, and
thus needed to be corrected, lest people think that this .300 hitter,
"Minnie Minosa" really exists...
: But I didn't. What does that say about you?
What it says about me is that I tried to correct an error and went to an
authoritative source to do so. What it says about you is that you are
quick to attack others, publish inaccurate information in "correcting"
others, and then try to deflect criticism when your carelessness is
brought to light.
: peace, indeed.
And through this all, I still wish you peace.
Peace,
Murph
Jon Avins
>In <4fgj97$e...@news.ecn.bgu.edu>, umsm...@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Mike Murphy) writes:
>>r...@interlog.com wrote:
>>: In <4fau8j$g...@minerva.worldbank.org>, Jon Avins <jav...@worldbank.org> writes:
>>
>>: >The evidence you present I think illustrates my point. A range from
>>: >average to best of .083 is not so small that it becomes hard to
>>: >comprehend. It is, granted, smaller than average to best in BA. But if
>>: >one imagines a spread in hitting of .240 to .323, or a sub-Minosa .202 to
>>: >a more than respectable .285,
>>
>>: Why the reference to Minosa, Jon? Minnie Minosa was a .300 hitter. What
>>: the hell are you talking about? Do you mean "Mendoza"? The Mendoza "Line"
>>: is .200 and so you are wrong there as well. (And yes we know that Mendoza
>>: hit .215 - is that what you are really trying to tell us? That you know this
>>: as well?)
Been away a few days. Holy Moly, Roger, are you ever on a roll. If you
were interested in debating what's written you wouldn't even need to ask
why the reference to "Minosa". Yup, I got the name wrong. Whooeeee-boy,
better sue me. Maybe I was thinking of Minnie the Moocher.
You know, if you wanted to make a fool of me and had any talent for it
you'd try to take my positions apart instead of responding with bullshit
(like saying that you don't need to make a fool of me, I do it myself or
whatever little barb just popped into your head). But then, as you've
amply proved time and again, you've got neither the skill nor the
patience and care needed for debate.
You are the amusement in my day, don't EVER go away.
Jon Avins
>
>Jon Avins writes:
>
>"Shows you where the priorities of the sportswriters are: aggresiveness
>is just the thing for a ballplayer, but God forbid a black man should show
>that side of himself other than silently."
>
>We ask Jon Avins to substantiate his claim, apologize, or leave this
>group.
>
>
>rm
Oh boy, that creativity is bubblin' over today...
Dale J Stephenson
>Dale J Stephenson <st...@glibm5.cen.uiuc.edu> writes:
>
>>>cf - Speaker
>>Cobb's game-fixing buddy :-> [cheap shot -- I don't believe it]
>
>Oh, bullshit. That game was never fixed. Supposedly fixed for Detroit
>to win - Cobb got one single in five at-bats, Speaker got two triples
>and did not even put Wood into the game, even though he was one of
>the "fellow accused." That stupid non-scandal was one of the ugliest
>things that ever happened in baseball, and they should have shot
>Dutch Leonard for blackening the names of Cobb and Speaker for
>personal revenge.
>
Isn't capital punishment a bit extreme as a punishment?
>>>rf - Ruth
>>Who else *could* he put here, hate him or not? Harry Heilmann?
>
>Cobb could have put himself here. Or Heilmann, whom he taught
>as manager of the Tigers.
Cobb could have put himself, though that would have been really petty.
Putting Harry Heilmann would have been worse -- a good player, but
Heilman :: Ruth as D. Snider :: Cobb. It would be a ludicrous pick.
>>Do you believe that Sisler was better than Gehrig? If not, why are
>>you doubting Ty Cobb? He *did* see a fair amount of both.
>
>I don't really know whether Sisler or Gehrig was the best, and I
>certainly don't doubt Cobb. These kinds of lists can be debated
>forever; they are just everybody's HO.
Sure -- and my HO is that I do doubt Cobb. Gehrig was better than Sisler,
and even without Sisler's injury (and ignoring Gehrig's disease) Gehrig
would be much better than Sisler. Cobb was wrong.
r...@interlog.com
Dale J Stephenson
>In article <4ff29s$l...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
>Dale J Stephenson <st...@glibm5.cen.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>>Billy <just...@delphi.com> writes:
>>
>(Re Cobb's all-time team)
>>
>>Alexander and Mathewson were career National Leaguers. Cobb did meet
>>Christie in France during WWI, but I wonder how much he could have
>>seen of either of those two.
>He saw Mathewson in at least one World Series. There's a picture of
>the two talking in the Historical Abstract.
Cobb appeared in the '07-'09 world series, Mathewson was in the '05 and
'11-'13 world series. Cobb didn't play against Mathewson in MLB. He
may have seen Mathewson play in up to four world series -- kind of
stretching the "played with, played against, or seen a good deal of."
>>
>>>1b - Sisler
>>A curious choice. Cobb's career did last long enough for him to see
>>Gehrig (Lou's first four regular seasons). Gehrig had done things by
>>then that Sisler never did.
>Not really. Sisler was a hell of a player prior to his injury and
>was a Cobb type of player. Speed, very high average, good power but
>primarily from doubles.
>I suspect that a whole lot of people in the 20s would rank Sisler's
>peak ahead of Gehrig's.
Certainly -- in 1925, the greatest first basemen of this century was
clearly Sisler. But after 1928, the 25 year old Gehrig had hit:
25 295/365/531
26 313/420/549
27 373/474/765
28 374/467/648
By the time Cobb picked his all star team, it was clear that his first
four years were no fluke -- and that Gehrig was a greater first basemen
I regard as a fact. Cobb saw a good deal of both, and picked Sisler.
Cobb was wrong.
I'm not claiming it's a *weird* pick. Sisler had a great peak, played
good defense, and hit for a very high batting average. If he hadn't
fallen prey to injury, he might be one of the best who ever played at
first. If all you consider is batting average and defense, it's
Sisler who is the no-brainer pick.
So it wasn't a weird pick. It's just a wrong pick.
>The selection of Sisler over Gehrig is completely consistent with
>his picking Collins over Hornsby.
The difference is this -- it's possible to argue that Collins *was*
more valuable than Hornsby, given the defensive difference and the
length of careers. The offensive difference is "only" around 200 runs,
and Collins played in a lower offense time.
The offensive difference between Gehrig and Sisler is close to 700
runs. Sisler was no stiff, but Gehrig was the best ever. And it's
not close.
>>
>>
>>>3b - Weaver
>>My source has Traynor at this spot, but it may be from a different
>>list. Wonder why Cobb didn't pick Home Run Baker, the only really
>>good third basemen he probably ever played against. Weaver played
>>more short than third.
>The only poor player on the list. Makes no sense at all. Larry Gardner is
>the obvious #2 guy (if you ignore Groh) and he also played against
>Collins (although he was well past his prime). Baker is as you say the
>clear #1.
Groh's the clear #2 from the period, although as a NLer Cobb didn't see
him. Gardner as #2 is a strong indication of how weak third base was as
a position -- on my peak lists, Gardner fits between Larry Parish and
Tim Wallach. (Of course, his career is a good match with Pie Traynor...)
>>
>>>>Cobb had the ability to hit, and hit well. I'm not prepared to accept
>>>>that someone who claimed Lajoie couldn't field (and picked Sisler over
>>>>Gehrig on his all-time team -- he was in the league with both)
>>>>necessarily KNEW more about baseball than any of us.
>>>
>>>Well, I sure am...lol!
>>
>>Do you believe that Sisler was better than Gehrig? If not, why are
>>you doubting Ty Cobb? He *did* see a fair amount of both.
>>
>I don't believe that this is as clear as you make it sound. They were
>two very different kinds of players. There's an unspoken "prior to his
>injury" when comparing Sisler and Gehrig. What give Gehrig the greatest
>part of his edge is the endless string of superb years. Cobb wasn't
>giving him credit for that.
They were two very different kinds of player -- but if Cobb KNEW more
about baseball than any of us, he'd know that Gehrig's kind of player
(at least in the person of Gehrig) was a lot more valuable than the
pre-injury Sisler. Sisler was injured after his age 29 season -- even
without the injury, he wasn't going to be anywhere near Gehrig's level.
I think he would have been better than Johnny Mize, though.
>In any case it's Weaver who's I'd point to as a reason to doubt Cobb.
I'd suggest Weaver wouldn't be on the list if he *hadn't* been banned
(and made famous) from baseball.
>To be fair though, Cobb's team is vastly better than Ruth's.
Just putting Hal Chase on a team dooms it.
Billy
>good defense, and hit for a very high batting average. If he hadn't
>fallen prey to injury, he might be one of the best who ever played at
>first. If all you consider is batting average and defense, it's
>Sisler who is the no-brainer pick.
batting average pretty high on the list of important qualities in a
ballplayer.
>
Billy
Billy
>>to win - Cobb got one single in five at-bats, Speaker got two triples
>>and did not even put Wood into the game, even though he was one of
>>the "fellow accused." That stupid non-scandal was one of the ugliest
>>things that ever happened in baseball, and they should have shot
>>Dutch Leonard for blackening the names of Cobb and Speaker for
>>personal revenge.
>>
>Isn't capital punishment a bit extreme as a punishment?
>>>>rf - Ruth
>>>Who else *could* he put here, hate him or not? Harry Heilmann?
>>
>>Cobb could have put himself here. Or Heilmann, whom he taught
>>as manager of the Tigers.
>
>Cobb could have put himself, though that would have been really petty.
good as it would be with him in uniform. Cobb showed an uncharacteristic
flash of modesty here.
>Sure -- and my HO is that I do doubt Cobb. Gehrig was better than Sisler,
>and even without Sisler's injury (and ignoring Gehrig's disease) Gehrig
>would be much better than Sisler. Cobb was wrong.
Billy
David Nieporent
>We ask Jon Avins to substantiate his claim, apologize, or leave this
>group.
And since when did you ever substantiate any of your claims? As opposed
to just making up definitions of words, I mean?
Maybe it's an aesthetic judgment on Jon's part. He used his discretion
to come up with it. So bugger off.
Steven John Gill
: Gary Huckabay (ez02...@bullwinkle.ucdavis.edu) wrote:
: : In article <4ej4v2$5...@saims.skidmore.edu>,
: : ryan baker <ryan...@saims.skidmore.edu> wrote:
: : >I'm only 19 years old, but from what I am seeing, Roberto Alomar might
: : >be the best 2nd baseman of all time.
: : Well, he's got a very long way to go to get there, but he's certainly
: : off to a good start.
Better second basemen than Alomar
Jackie Robinson
Rogers Hornsby
Charlie Gehringer
Probably a few more too
Steve
David M. Tate
>>>>3b - Weaver
>>The only poor player on the list. Makes no sense at all. Larry Gardner is
>>the obvious #2 guy (if you ignore Groh) and he also played against
>>Collins (although he was well past his prime). Baker is as you say the
>>clear #1.
>Groh's the clear #2 from the period, although as a NLer Cobb didn't see
>him. Gardner as #2 is a strong indication of how weak third base was as
>a position -- on my peak lists, Gardner fits between Larry Parish and
>Tim Wallach. (Of course, his career is a good match with Pie Traynor...)
The forgotten man here (which isn't surprising, since his own team didn't
realize what they had) is Tommy Leach. If his fielding was really as good
as the raw statistics would indicate, he might very well have a claim to
being one of the best third basemen before Harlond Clift. Of course, he
didn't spend much time at the position; the Pirates decided they liked him
in the outfield for some reason.
Of course, Cobb wouldn't have seen him, either...
(Harlond Clift... now *there's* a man who should be in the Hall of Fame.
Any player who can reasonably be argued to have been the greatest player
ever at his position when he retired should be a no-brainer...)
--
David M. Tate, Senior Operations Research Analyst (dt...@dsava.com)
Decision-Science Applications, Arlington, Virginia. (703) 243-2500
Founding Member, Archdruid, and Cantor: Rob Deer Fan Club
For membership application, send SASE to RDFC, PO BoX1$_Tr=\ %^`<oM#)4Yv,|@tz
Jonathan C. Enslin
All better hitters, but I don't think they'd be considered better fielders.
As far as a fielding second basemen, he's probably becomming the best ever.
He's not a bad hitter either.
Jon
Doug Huffer
C Kahrl <c-k...@uchicago.edu> wrote:
>Of course, we could mention top-notch contemporaries like Chuck Knoblauch
>and Craig Biggio, two second-sackers that Alomar isn't clearly superior to
>in any way. Their situation isn't like, say, Bill Doran's in the 80s when
>compared to Sandberg: sure, Doran was a fine player, and at his top level
>he was close to Sandberg, but Sandberg was consistently at a level Doran
>struggled to reach, and quickly fell back from. Instead, Knoblauch and
>Biggio are young, extremely talented, and perform at the same level, or
>better, than Alomar.
Remember that Knoblach is the youngest at 27, 5 months younger then
Alomar. Biggio is 30 now, although we'll give him credit for learning a
new position. If I had to take one for the rest of their career, it'd
be a tough choice between Alomar and Knoblach. The major question being
Alomar's defensive abilities. But in concordance with Chris, if you're
not clearly the best among your contemporaries at age 28, it's hard to
claim you're the best of all time. After all, Schmidt clearly headed
the best 20 years of third basemen ever. Even with his popularly
conceived defensive prowess, I don't see Alomar making any similar
claims.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Doug Huffer stdh...@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu
Kansas City Royals
AL West Champs 76,77,78,80,84,85 AL Champs 80,85 WS Champs 85
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Bronx Bombers West
>> >Better second basemen than Alomar
>> >
>> >Jackie Robinson
>> >Rogers Hornsby
>> >Charlie Gehringer
>> >
>>
>Of course, the list above was missing some other greats who deserve mention
>ahead of Alomar: Joe Morgan, Lou Whitaker, Joe Gordon, Eddie Collins, and
>arguably Bobby Grich or Frank White. Mazeroski had to bat too, which is why
>he doesn't get consideration as an all-time great, but instead gets to sit
>on his well-earned laurels as the greatest defensive secondbaseman ever.
>
Many great second basemen mentioned here ....but one huge name
has apparentley gone missing.
One of the greatest all time players and considered by many the
best second sacker was Napolean Lajoie .....Definately miles
ahead of Alomar statistically.
Bronx Bombers West
>individual athlete can only give a partial and distorted view of a player's
>quality and as such are generally turned to as a last resort by knowledgeable
>sport fans. And even then, only a die-hard Tatian, data jonesing, would
>give any kind of credence to statistical comparisons from different eras,
>particularly eras almost 100 years apart.
>
>And we shit on such people in this group. People like this are asked to
>leave. There is a group called rec.sport.baseball.analysis for people that like
>to "think" this way and we are sure that they would enjoy your contribution.
>
>Jon Avins writes:
>
>"Shows you where the priorities of the sportswriters are: aggresiveness
>is just the thing for a ballplayer, but God forbid a black man should show
>that side of himself other than silently."
>
>group.
>
>
>rm
It would appear that a pissant or make that PISS ANT such as
yourself tends to eat the shit you so copiously dole out , and
being the gutless nome you so obviously are your stomach can't
handle it...thus it comes spewing out of you and finds itself
all over this news group.
You waste valuable space with your ranting, and it would be
appreciated if you would take your postings to group for your
type. rec.morons.and Piss Ants
r...@interlog.com
Vinay Kumar
: In article <devensli.16...@amber.indstate.edu>,
: deve...@amber.indstate.edu (Jonathan C. Enslin) wrote:
: > >Better second basemen than Alomar
: > >
: > >Jackie Robinson
: > >Rogers Hornsby
: > >Charlie Gehringer
: Of course, the list above was missing some other greats who deserve mention
: ahead of Alomar: Joe Morgan, Lou Whitaker, Joe Gordon, Eddie Collins, and
: arguably Bobby Grich or Frank White. Mazeroski had to bat too, which is why
: he doesn't get consideration as an all-time great, but instead gets to sit
: on his well-earned laurels as the greatest defensive secondbaseman ever.
Two more no-brainers that must have slipped your mind: Nap Lajoie and
Ryne Sandberg. Lajoie, statistically, is one of the best defensive
players ever at any position; even if you don't believe that much in
defensive statistics, you have to concede that he must have at the
very least been very good (say, in Alomar's range), and he could
outhit Alomar. And does anybody out there honestly believe that
Alomar was better than Sandberg? Sandberg was far and away the better
offensive player, and pretty clearly a better defensive player, too.
--
Vinay Kumar
vi...@baseball.berkeley.edu http://ocf.berkeley.edu/~vinayk
vin...@ocf.berkeley.edu
cs61...@fox.cs.berkeley.edu