Miguel TejadaQuote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Printable View
Miguel TejadaQuote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Ozzie Smith. He is a Hall of famer. i don't think Tejada is their yet.
Ozzie Smith has a cooler nickname and I evaluate all players on "coolest nicknames".
Currently, O-Dawg is the best player in the league.
you like to draw it as someone either values defense or doesn't. i don't think thats the case for many. the issue is how much value is placed upon it and how much offense with OK defense offsets superb defense and an OK bat. Now i give statiticians alot of cred for devising methods to evaluate it. I'm not a fool though to believe they are perfect, the end all, and without fault.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Now you're talking careers...thus far the discussion has been based upon one season and one season alone. Last year, IMO there is no way Cameron was worth as much, let alone 20-25% more than Bay. Over the course of their careers...maybe. Dunno, i haven't looked.
Regarding Ozzie & Fernandez its Ozzie IMO easily. Fernandez wasn't a much better hitter than Oz who IMO gets a bad wrap offensively. I don't think he was a major liability at the plate, and had great speed on the basepaths. I dont remember fernandez as a major defensive liability though either, at least not early in his career?? As for Tejada, its very close. Some years I'd take Tejada, other years Oz. If forced to choose for a whole career I'd take Tejada. His consistent top offense at a position where offense is a premium over about a decade long period offsets his obviously worse defense than Ozzie. Its not a "slam dunk by a long shot type decision" because SS defense is very very important and Oz was great, but its Tejada.
I don't get this at all. If it's possible for a career, how is it so crazy for a single season?Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
Ozzie had a career OPS+ of 87. Fernandez's career OPS+ was 101. It's a fairly significant difference. Fernandez wasn't a defensive liability at all. He was a fine player. But, yes, it's Ozzie, easily, even though Fernandez was clearly the better offensive player.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
Really? So, would you support Tejada for the Hall of Fame?Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
Honestly, I'm a bit shocked at that answer. I was expecting you to answer Ozzie, as that is what I would expect from practically any baseball fan - the average fan actually overrates Ozzie. Anyway, I don't see how it's Tejada. Yes, he's very clearly the better offensive player, but Ozzie was the best defensive shortstop to ever play the game, and that's at perhaps the most important defensive position. I think it is a "slam dunk by a long shot type decision" in favor of Ozzie.
But I guess there are some people that will always underrate the importance of defense.
Using WAR from baseballprojection.com (a stat that you may be pleased to hear has Jason Bay at 5.2 wins and Mike Cameron at 3.6 last year, because TotalZone shows Bay as being a slightly above average defender in 2009 despite being poor in both 2007 and 2008, where Cameron beats him both years in WAR), Ozzie comes out with 64.7 WAR for his career. Tejada is at 40.4 so far. Of course, since Tejada is still playing, you can't straight compare career totals like that. Smith averaged 3.4 WAR per year, compared to 3.1 for Tejada. Smith's five best seasons total 29.9 WAR, as he surpassed the 5 WAR threshold 5 times. Tejada surpassed that just twice and his five peak seasons total 25.6 WAR.
People misuse the fangraph monetary values all the time.
It's not a suggestion that that's how much that player should get in their next contract. One year's dollar value isn't an absolute indicator of that player's overall value, in the same way that one year of performance doesn't equal overall performance.
All the dollar value says is that in this specific time frame, this player's production (defined by WAR) was worth X amount of dollars compared to the average cost of wins by free agency. It's really just an easier way to visualize a player's WAR, because the dollar value is calculated by just multiplying WAR by the average cost of a win. It also is a handy way to judge a team's return on investment when you compare it to the player's salary. But that's all it is, a handy visualization.
If you're complaining that Cameron is too close to Jason Bay in one season (I don't know what there really is to complain about, given the obvious defensive differences between the two), then you should be taking issue with the WAR calculation, not the assigned dollar value.
Houston, I definitely agree that people underrate the importance of defense, do you think that is why when you have a Ozzie Smith type defensive player...they get voted in the HoF on first ballot with a rather impressive 91.7 instead of waiting even a few years ala Gary Carter (not saying Carter was that type of defensive player, but Carter was a more valuable offensive player and had to wait 6 years and even then only with a 78.0 pct vote to get inducted).
It seems usually players like Ozzie would have be voted in later than 1st year and sometimes not till the Veterans Committee ala Bill Mazeroski.
On a sidenote anyone check out Ozzie's career OPS? it's eerie. Of course it's a bit more eerie that Mazeroski's was one point higher.
Ozzie had 96 wRC+ for his career
Maz had 89. Amazing the difference when you add in sb & cs. Still doesn't take into account the rest of his baserunning.
Tony Fernandez 105
Miguel Tejada 113
Cal Ripken, Jr 115
I cannot believe this Mike Cameron vs Jason Bay crap is still reverberating around the blogosphere. Here are their 2007, 2008, and 2009 WAR, followed by their three year totals, courtesy CHONE's baseball projection website thingy:
Bay: -1.0, 1.9, 5.2, 6.1
Cameron: 2.1, 3.3, 3.6, 9.0
If you want a low risk, low reward, steady, consistent, even dare I say, conservative option, choose Cammy. If you'd rather opt for the guy who could perform like a superstar, or like a superdud and appears to be the more mercurial of the two, take Bay. You might hit a HR with him and you might strike out, much like him. Never have I seen two very good, but obviously second tier players generate so much freakin controversy. It's bizarre.
The only reason people view them differently is because Bay had two gaudy HR/RBI years in Boston on the big stage. Cameron doesn't get those kind of numbers and he doesn't play in a big market.
They're both in the second tier of outfielders, but Bay has a 1st tier reputation.
Chone's WAR isn't the "cause" of this. It's FanGraph's WAR. The difference is pretty much entirely in the defensive metric. TotalZone has a fine view of Bay's 2009 (and has him as very poor in 2007 and 2008), while UZR has Bay as very poor every year. Here are their respective WAR's from FanGraphs:Quote:
Originally Posted by actionjackson
Bay: 0, 2.9, 3.5 (6.4)
Cameron: 2.2, 4.1, 4.3 (10.6)
People have a hard time accepting that Cameron could have very well been more valuable than Bay in 2009. If you think Bay is an average or better fielder (as TotalZone has him as in 2009), Bay is clearly better. If you think Bay is a poor defensive left fielder (as UZR has him as), than Cameron is ahead. It's apparently hard for people to accept that their could be a 2 win difference in defensive value when it's actually relatively commonplace. The best defenders generally are about 2-3 wins better than the worst defenders, and UZR (and TotalZone in 2007 and 2008) generally views Cameron as an elite defender and Bay as a very poor defender. That Cameron is very good in center and Bay is very bad in left isn't hard for people to grasp. What's hard for them to come to terms with is that this difference could be to the order of 2 wins or so.
I never said its crazy that a defensive player could be rated higher than another in a single season, I said merely that its crazy for a system to rate Camerons 09 performance as equivalent to Bays 09 performance, let alone 20-25% better as some of the values have been posted.Quote:
I don't get this at all. If it's possible for a career, how is it so crazy for a single season?
I honestly don't know. Its an entirely different subject that i haven't researched at all. I can see how you can say, "well Ozzie is a HOF so if you say Tejadas career was better than you have to say Tejada is a HOF". Well, to that I say Tejada's career isn't over, and Ozzies career was much longer than Tejada's. But....i'll say judging just upon what I've known of Tejadas career i'd say he has potential to be HOF but needs a few more solid years. I will also say that I don't value defense as high as you obviously, though I do value it especially at these premium positions. I'm not certain IMO Oz should be a HOF'er. I am confident others such as Puckett IMO shouldn't be. But again, i'm not lookin to derail this into a HOF discussion.Quote:
Really? So, would you support Tejada for the Hall of Fame?
And maybe, just maybe there are those that will overrate it?Quote:
But I guess there are some people that will always underrate the importance of defense.
agreed. i hope you're not suggesting I am misusing it though. I fully understand it doesn't evaluate how much future contracts should be. My issue is with some (and I say some because apparently HGM just provided one that says Bay was better???) that claim Cameron was more valuable a player last year than Bay was...significantly better in fact. IMHO there is no way that is accurate and;Quote:
It's not a suggestion that that's how much that player should get in their next contract. One year's dollar value isn't an absolute indicator of that player's overall value, in the same way that one year of performance doesn't equal overall performance.
that is my issue! I don't know the calculation, but based upon its claim that Cameron was 20-25% better than Bay last year, I strongly feel the calculation overvalues defense.Quote:
If you're complaining that Cameron is too close to Jason Bay in one season (I don't know what there really is to complain about, given the obvious defensive differences between the two), then you should be taking issue with the WAR calculation, not the assigned dollar value.
So what does this mean? Does this mean that this system claims Ripken, Tejada and Fernandez were all better than Oz over their career?Quote:
Ozzie had 96 wRC+ for his career
Maz had 89. Amazing the difference when you add in sb & cs. Still doesn't take into account the rest of his baserunning.
Tony Fernandez 105
Miguel Tejada 113
Cal Ripken, Jr 115
And maybe some view Cammy and Bay differently because they listen to stat algorithms that place too heavy an emphasis on defense?Quote:
The only reason people view them differently is because Bay had two gaudy HR/RBI years in Boston on the big stage. Cameron doesn't get those kind of numbers and he doesn't play in a big market.
They're both in the second tier of outfielders, but Bay has a 1st tier reputation.
Sounds logical.Quote:
That Cameron is very good in center and Bay is very bad in left isn't hard for people to grasp. What's hard for them to come to terms with is that this difference could be to the order of 2 wins or so.
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/what-is-wrc/Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
Also, for anyone who thinks defense is overvalued :
http://www.lookoutlanding.com/2009/1...endly-reminder
Unless you don't believe in pythag either, in which case your arguments are going to be based off every 'basic' stat.Quote:
would like to take this opportunity to remind everyone that, for all intents and purposes, a run saved is equal to a run scored. There are small differences, but they're essentially negligible. It's really quite simple to understand. Using the standard Pythagorean W/L equation:
A team that scores 700 runs and allows 700 runs will be expected to win 50% of its games
A team that scores 710 runs and allows 700 runs will be expected to win 50.6% of its games
A team that scores 700 runs and allows 690 runs will be expected to win 50.7% of its games
Or for the Coles notes version, it means that according to this metric Ripken, Tejada, and Fernandez were better hitters than Ozzie. Once defense is factored in, only Ripken was more valuable than Ozzie over the course of his career. Hope that helps. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by 200tang