i GUARENTEE the 1st team to offer him 3 years guarenteed will get him. they over paid for Beltran and Pedro... why not give that extra year to get Manny. Nots not like NY has no money.Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
Printable View
i GUARENTEE the 1st team to offer him 3 years guarenteed will get him. they over paid for Beltran and Pedro... why not give that extra year to get Manny. Nots not like NY has no money.Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
Depends on how much $$$... :DQuote:
Originally Posted by haveacigar
In the case of a 4 year deal, or 3 guaranteed years, I would. I'd take my chances with...Quote:
I'd have no problem if the Dodgers gambled on years 3 and 4 if it was the difference between having him or not at all.
1) Furcal
2) Kemp
3) Ethier
4) Loney
5) Martin
6) Blake
7) DeWitt
8) Pierre/Young
... (in a pretty bad division) before I'd sign Manny to 3 or more guaranteed years. I'm all about a third year based on second year incentives, but not 3 guaranteed. No... way...
There are two massive holes. But considering how good their infield is, how good their CF is (well above average), and that they do have quite a bit of depth in the OF, they're not really in a precarious situation the way some other teams are. When I say "other teams," I really mean the Giants. I hate the Giants (of course), and I want Manny back in blue, but if I were Sabean, I'd pull the trigger on Manny yesterday.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Interesting thing about Manny... if ANY decent team in all of baseball picked him up, they'd be instant favorites, or at least extremely legit contenders, for their division. Red Sox, Yankees, Indians, White Sox, Angels, Dodgers, Giants, Cardinals, Mets...
Hahahaha...Quote:
Originally Posted by haveacigar
I'd say their CF is the best in baseball, head and shoulders, right now.
Grady Sizemore says "Hi!"Quote:
Originally Posted by YEAH DAAAAWG
Bulletin board material for my mancrush, Matt Kemp!Quote:
Originally Posted by YEAH DAAAAWG
Haha... seriously.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
He's the one guy on the same planet as Beltran, but I've even seen Cleveland fans concede that Beltran is better than Sizemore right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Honestly, neither is better than the other, in my opinion. They're 1a and 1b when it comes to center fielders.Quote:
Originally Posted by YEAH DAAAAWG
From 2005-2008:
Sizemore: .281/.372/.496, 107 HR, 115 SB, 31 CS, 37.3 WARP, 25.7 Value Wins
Beltran: .275/.362/.505, 117 HR, 83 SB, 14 CS, 40.5 WARP, 20.1 Value Wins
No argument from me, like I said, Sizemore is the only one in the conversation. Just elaborating on the "well above average" comment, in regards to Beltran.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
It's a tough call. If I wanted a CF for the '09 season ONLY, I'd be torn. Sizemore could only get better, and could actually "break out" this season (a very scary thought) where Beltran is into his 30s. Grady Sizemore could become the best all around player in all of baseball in his peak (which hasn't yet hit). If I wanted a guy for even as few as 2 seasons, I'd take Sizemore hands down.Quote:
Originally Posted by YEAH DAAAAWG
I like Sizemore's defense more than Beltran's, outside of offensive production.
Really, it's a total push at this moment. But there's definitely no "head and shoulders" top guy.
There are two guys that are "head and shoulders" above the rest, though ;):)Quote:
Originally Posted by justanewguy
Eh. Beltran is a great defensive outfielder in his own right, but Sizemore has more of a penchant for the flashy, "SportsCenter" plays. I'd use stats, but I wouldn't know where to look for advanced defensive metrics.Quote:
Originally Posted by justanewguy
UZR can be found at FanGraphs. It's in terms of runs above average:Quote:
Originally Posted by YEAH DAAAAWG
Sizemore/Beltran
2005: +3.6/-8.6
2006: +11.3/+7.1
2007: +4.8/+1.6
2008: +11.5/+6.2
Fielding Runs Above Average from Baseball Prospectus:
Sizemore/Beltran
2005: -7/+8
2006: 0/+25
2007: -5/+19
2008: -8/+2
John Dewan's +/- numbers, plays above average:
Sizemore/Beltran
2005: +10/+7
2006: +10/+16
2007: ??/+25
2008: ??/+24
I don't have 2007/2008 numbers for him because fieldingbible.com only shows the top 10 and bottom 5 at each position, and in those years, Sizemore was somewhere in between.
FRAA is the least advanced of these systems. UZR and +/- disagree on the players, but both score well.
So, again, more or less equal.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Pretty much. This kind of thing (Beltran vs. Sizemore, defensively) is really a matter of what whoever is talking about it has seen.Quote:
Originally Posted by YEAH DAAAAWG
I'd basically default to the notion that Sizemore could only get better, where Beltran probably (and most likely) can't, so for '09 I'd want Sizemore manning CF.
You definitely couldn't go wrong, though, with either of them, and you couldn't say with complete confidence that one is better than the other.
Back to the initial purpose of the thread.
The title is a little misleading. It makes it sound like Ramirez is heading to Saint Louis(or atleast that there is a legit rumor linking him to Saint Louis). However all the link links to is Pujols stating that he would like Ramirez on the team.
So...according to one system, Sizemore is much better. According to another, Beltran is way better and Sizemore is below average, and according to the last one, Beltran is really good and they haven't bothered to rate Sizemore for the last couple years.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Defensive metrics suck. Long way to go in that field before I start relying on them totally.
No...As I said, I only have access to the top 10 and bottom 5 of the players at each position because I'm not subscribed to billjamesonline.com, which is where I think the numbers for every player are available. They'll be available in the Fielding Bible 2 book that comes out this month, though. In 2007 and 2008, Sizemore wasn't in the top 10 or the bottom 5 of center fielders. He was somewhere in between.Quote:
Originally Posted by KowboyKoop
They don't "suck." They're just not as reliable as offensive/pitching metrics. Obviously, relying on them totally isn't a good idea, but looking at a mix of advanced defensive metrics will give you a much better idea of a player's defense than looking at how many Gold Gloves he has. On the whole, they do tend to relatively agree with each other.Quote:
Defensive metrics suck. Long way to go in that field before I start relying on them totally.
How good their IF is? I agree 3rd is set, but at SS they have a guy who has a proven track record of falling apart in September, at 1st is another aging veteran who the Met fans were begging to be released midseason last year, nothing spectacular behind the plate and nobody likes their 2nd basemen. In fact, every day I hear met fans on the radio begging for orlando hudson.Quote:
There are two massive holes. But considering how good their infield is, how good their CF is (well above average), and that they do have quite a bit of depth in the OF, they're not really in a precarious situation the way some other teams are. When I say "other teams," I really mean the Giants. I hate the Giants (of course), and I want Manny back in blue, but if I were Sabean, I'd pull the trigger on Manny yesterday.
As far as depth in the OF....if winning could be obtained by having alot of bums instead of a few bums, the KC Royals would be consecutive title winners :D:rolleyes:
Manny should be a Met today. They f'ed up "royally" last year not aquiring him for the song the Dodgers got him for. They very likely would be world champions right now, and definetly would have made the playoffs.
They do still suck. Of course they are better than GG's, but they have a long long long long way to go before being on the level of offensive stats. Defensive metrics aren't to be relied on..there just seems to be way too much fluctuation from system to sytem and from year to year for players within the same system..all of which can't be explained. Until there is actual data on the path of every ball hit, how hard/the speed, the angle, the spin of all balls hit and judged accordingly.....defensive metrics are going nowhere. As it is now..a lot of the metrics are based on people watching video and putting every ball into a few general categories. That is way too impercise and prone to human bias.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
They "suck" compared to offensive metrics. Doesn't mean they are a complete waste of time, but I just can't rely on them very much.
With the invention of hit f(x) (or something like that..there was an article on this on fangraphs) that tracks the batted ball with much more percision, there is hope for defensive metrics. But Hit f/x is apparently going to take a long time to be complete...I think that it what it will take for us to truly measure defensive ability.
Of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by KowboyKoop
There isn't as much fluctuation from system to system as you seem to think. It does exist for some players, and yes there's more fluctuation than offensive stats, but for most players, the advanced systems do peg the players at roughly the same level. And from year to year? Yeah, offensive stats do that too...Quote:
Defensive metrics aren't to be relied on..there just seems to be way too much fluctuation from system to sytem and from year to year for players within the same system all of which can't be explained.
The +/- system does judge every ball on it's path, how hard it was it, speed, etc. That data, plus the video analysts, is used.Quote:
Until there is actual data on the path of every ball hit, how hard/the speed, the angle, the spin of all balls hit and judged accordingly.....defensive metrics are going nowhere. As it is now..a lot of the metrics are based on people watching video and putting every ball into a few general categories. That is way too impercise and prone to human bias.
FRAA is based off the basic stats - putouts, assists, errors, etc.
And here's an introduction to UZR, from 2003. The system's been updated since.
I'm not really sure exactly what your point is. Is it to not look at the stats? We definitely should look at them. Is it to not trust them as much as we trust offensive stats? Yeah, of course. I'm just not sure what you're objecting to. It seems every time somebody mentions advanced defensive stats, you make it a point to post and say this same stuff you're saying now, if I recall correctly. I'm not sure why.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I've seen and read all that. I'm not saying we shouldn't look at any of it. I'm saying the data and methods they use aren't even close to complete enough for defensive metrics to be a reliably accurate judge of defense.
Offensive stats do fluctuate from year to year, but you can identify the reason why. Increased BABIP, walk rates, HR/FB rates, LD%, things of that nature. You can't do that for defensive metrics. The data for tracking every single batted ball, and the position of the fielder on every single play, the effects of the situation on the fielder's anticipation/instincts/first-step, arm strength, skill at turning the double play...there are so, so many more factors that go into fielding than hitting..at least in terms of measuring a player's ability. It's just far too incomplete right now. Again, that doesn't mean they are a waste of time...it just means that they are in the early stages of development or being perfected.
I talk about why defensive metrics are somewhat inaccurate/incomplete b/c so many people just throw out a number from one system and conclude "thus, player X is a bad fielder." That is generally inaccurate, thus I say it. That's why we're all here. Nowhere am I insulting anyone or offending anyone. The same topics get discussed over and over..so you're gonna get repeat replies/thoughts. Just the way it goes.
Right. I just don't see why you have to chime in with that every time a defensive metric is mentioned.
I don't see why you have to worry about why I talk about what I talk about. You "chime in" in lots of threads and have generally the same viewpoint in one thread as you do in another when talking about similar topics. If someone talks about defensive metrics, I'll give my thoughts on defensive metrics. If someone talks about BABIP, I'll talk about that. If someone brings up the KC Royals, I'll talk about that. If someone talks about Keith Law wanting to move a 19 year old 3B prospect to catcher because of a strong arm, I'll talk about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Honestly I doubt defensive metrics will ever be as good as offensive, but I agree with HGM. They still peg players close to how well they really field. And really if you're going to talk about defense with players, what else do you have to look at besides your own personal bias? Still not saying you should rely on defensive metrics, but I'm stumped as to what else you can look at and show other people why you think player a is better than player b.
If you think that defensive metrics aren't as good as offensive metrics, then how can you say they peg players close to how well they do on the field? One system saying a player has a good UZR doesn't make him a good fielder, it means that according to UZR he has done well in what that calculates.Quote:
Originally Posted by 200tang
I think you should be able to completely eliminate personal bias. Offensive numbers have nothing to do with personal bias..a hit is a hit, a HR is a HR. The numbers are the numbers. Fielding is completely different. The data just isn't as complete right now.
As for what else to look at, I think we just need to wait until we can have more complete data on every batted ball and everything else on the field before we have a better picture.
This is the first step in that process.
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index...tart-of-hit-fx
If defensive metrics had a lot of merit, then why would this be such a breakthrough? The development of hit f/x technology, which apparently will take a lot of time (5-10 years??) is what will truly lead to a breakthrough in defensive metrics. Until then, I don't put much merit in what the current numbers say.
Again, that doesn't mean all the work done up to this point is worthless.
Defensive metrics, when taken in conjunction with one another, do give a decent picture of how well a player is in the field. Are they close to offensive metrics in terms of their accuracy? Not at all. Is there much more work to be done? Absolutely (and Hit f/x is a step towards that, just like Range Factors were in the 80's, and Zone Rating, and Fielding Win Shares, and +/- all were steps as well).
Are you saying that we shouldn't look at the current defensive metrics when trying to evaluate players? I don't think that's what you're saying, but that's what this statement sort of sounds like so I want to clarify.Quote:
Originally Posted by KowboyKoop
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
That's all I've been saying. You may not like that I've used the word "suck," but I clarified that I think they "suck" compared to offensive metrics. I've said like, four times now that I don't think defensive metrics are a waste of time. Of course they can tell you that Grady Sizemore is a better outfielder than Pat Burrell, but I don't think they can be relied on for a whole lot more. Look at them if you want, but you have to put them in context. Just like the best pitchers tend to have better W/L records, W/L record is far from the entire story. Same with defensive metrics. The best fielders are generally going to have better numbers than the worst ones, but they aren't good for a whole lot more than that. Now, for pitching metrics..we have a lot more detailed info we can go to. With defensive metrics, we don't, not right now anyways. Thus, for pitching, you can glance at W totals within the context of all the other numbers. For fielding metrics..you can't do it, so yes, you can look at them, but you should realize that there is a lot more to it that we just don't know yet. They are very shaky.
The statement of mine you quoted was in response to someone asking what else I would look at. There is nothing else to look at right now, so I said we should wait for a lot more data to be compiled. Nowhere did I say that we should ignore the current numbers completely or anything like that.
and before anyone says this, no I am not saying that defensive metrics are equivalent to W/L totals for pitchers..it's just a comparison.
[side note]
I think that hit-fx will do a lot for pitching and hitting stats as well.
Defense is important in those two aspects as well
[/side note]