- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 10 Best Defensive Baseball Players of All-Time-
Posted on 2/23/12 at 3:55 pm to Lester Earl
Posted on 2/23/12 at 3:55 pm to Lester Earl
quote:
Sure i might get ragged on for not being a believer in defensive metrics, but I watch enough baseball to tell me with my naked eye who is a good fielder and who isnt. It may sound cocky, oh well. Im just not one to throw out things like "Roberto Clemente was the best fielder in history".... ok, I didnt see him. He may have been. By all accounts he was great. But I'm not going to say he "shits on so and so" because defensive metrics say so. Or "Andruw Jones shits on Griffey". Come on. THat's your reasoning? This board just makes me mad some times. Everyone leaning on stats that other people compute. Many that are just plain silly. I miss the days when you can just talk baseball, man on man.
/end rant. Thats not directed at you, Baloo. Just general thoughts.
It's directed at me, god dammit!
Kidding, I didn't say he shits on Griffey. I don't think Griffey was quite the CF everyone makes him out to be, but he did have a flair for some sensational catches (like Jim Edmonds). I watched Andruw played a lot and people always say he jogged and shite, but that dude was just never out of position... he jogged under fly balls other dudes sprinted and dove for. It was remarkable. But Griffey was obviously the superior all around player (and a future HoFer).
As for the eyeball thing, I think a lot of staunch SABR people would butt heads with you mostly on that (with it comes to analysis, I mean). Because their take is "The eyes lie." So trust the numbers. THat's their perspective. But I don't think it means they don't watch baseball (not that you said that).
I look at a lot of numbers and from my perspective from everything I've read there's certain numbers that point to success/quality, and I try to be mindful of those, but I can watch and admire plenty of guys, even if I don't think the numbers say they are the best.
I guess from my perspective, I try to use to support or tear down what I see with my eyes.
2
Posted on 2/23/12 at 4:05 pm to Lester Earl
I'm just saying that if you have two players that have played around the same amount of years, I seriously doubt one of them has gone up against 500 more ground balls from slower players than the other.
Posted on 2/23/12 at 4:06 pm to OBUDan
quote:
Because their take is "The eyes lie." So trust the numbers
And i would say the numbers lie too.
This is what I feel they are trying to tell me; Lets take Andruw and Griffey. That they could go into the CF during batting practice, with no fielders out there, and they could tell me with every ball that is hit, if Andruw Jones could catch that specific ball. If Ken Griffey could catch that specific ball.
And to me, there is no way of knowing. Because of the variables i mentioned in my long post. Where are they going to be positioned on any given pitch? No ball is hit the same....What is the trajectory of the ball? What's the weather like? Is the ball slicing?
I simply can't believe that 'sample size' makes it all accurate in the long run. Every pitch is different. Every batted ball is different. Every fielder is positioned differently.
Posted on 2/23/12 at 4:06 pm to OBUDan
Some of those variables I simply don’t care about. I’ll take weather, For example. We don’t rip apart the validity of OBP because some of it was compiled during cloudy days. I mean, that’s just something where it balances out in the wash (even the best stats are pretty worthless unless you have a full season of data – day to day stats are worthless). Though I do agree with things like who the ball is hit, or simple groundball/flyball ratios of different pitchers.
I will say that watching a guy field is more illuminating than watching him hit. Even the best hitters go 0-4 and even the worst hitters smack the occasional two-out homer. But fielding is pretty consistent. Not errors, which are random events, but just how a guy fields. You do not appreciate how awful Nellie Cruz is until you watch him take his Family Circus style routes on a ball. It is painful to watch him.
I cannot think of a stat more worthless than fielding percentage. It means less than nothing.
I will say that watching a guy field is more illuminating than watching him hit. Even the best hitters go 0-4 and even the worst hitters smack the occasional two-out homer. But fielding is pretty consistent. Not errors, which are random events, but just how a guy fields. You do not appreciate how awful Nellie Cruz is until you watch him take his Family Circus style routes on a ball. It is painful to watch him.
I cannot think of a stat more worthless than fielding percentage. It means less than nothing.
Posted on 2/23/12 at 4:10 pm to Jcorye1
quote:
I seriously doubt one of them has gone up against 500 more ground balls from slower players than the other.
That was the last variable i posted, prob the least important too.
What is the best defensive metric, in your eyes?
Posted on 2/23/12 at 4:13 pm to Baloo
quote:
Some of those variables I simply don’t care about. I
Yeah, I agree. A lot of them are variables that affect every facet of the game, it's just the facts of life.
quote:
I will say that watching a guy field is more illuminating than watching him hit. Even the best hitters go 0-4 and even the worst hitters smack the occasional two-out homer. But fielding is pretty consistent. Not errors, which are random events, but just how a guy fields. You do not appreciate how awful Nellie Cruz is until you watch him take his Family Circus style routes on a ball. It is painful to watch him.
I cannot think of a stat more worthless than fielding percentage. It means less than nothing.
Agreed. It's certainly the most difficult thing to evaluate from a statistics standpoint IMO.
Posted on 2/23/12 at 4:17 pm to Lester Earl
quote:
This is what I feel they are trying to tell me; Lets take Andruw and Griffey. That they could go into the CF during batting practice, with no fielders out there, and they could tell me with every ball that is hit, if Andruw Jones could catch that specific ball. If Ken Griffey could catch that specific ball.
I'm not sure what you are arguing.
It's not a predictive tool, it's a measurement tool. It measured an outcome that has already happened.
I'm not following you.
Posted on 2/23/12 at 4:19 pm to Lester Earl
quote:
This is what I feel they are trying to tell me; Lets take Andruw and Griffey. That they could go into the CF during batting practice, with no fielders out there, and they could tell me with every ball that is hit, if Andruw Jones could catch that specific ball. If Ken Griffey could catch that specific ball.
No stat can do that. Period. Anyone who says so is a liar. Anyone who says scouting can tell you that is also a liar. On one specific ball, even Dr. Strangeglove himself, Dick Stuart, could make that catch and Andruw wouldn’t. You never know.
It’s like saying because a guy has a higher OBP, he is going to draw a walk on this specific at bat. Or a player with a higher batting average will hit a ball that a guy with a lower average won’t hit. That on a specific pitch from a specific pitcher on a specific day will result in X. We cannot know this.
you aren’t asking for perfection from stats, which is a ridiculous standard anyway, you are asking for clairvoyance. Which is also impossible. Throwing out useful data because the stat isn’t 100% perfect is a bad idea, but throwing it out because it can’t meet a truly impossible standard is even more ridiculous.
Fielding stats are worthwhile if you accept their limitations. But saying “this stat isn’t perfect so therefore it is invalid” is just coming up with an excuse to ignore stats. No stat is perfect. This just in.
Posted on 2/23/12 at 4:20 pm to Lester Earl
I think UZR over the course of a career is pretty telling. I don't like it with less than 3 years, and I'm still not one hundred percent sold on UZR 150.
Honestly, I think going by the numbers and backing it up with the eyeball test is the way to go. If UZR pumped out crappy fielders, I'd be critical of it.
Hell, top 3 in UZR for the 00s were Andruw Jones, Adrian Beltre, and Carl Crawford. I think most people would agree they were some incredibly good defenders for that time period, though CC's arm kind of sucks.
Honestly, I think going by the numbers and backing it up with the eyeball test is the way to go. If UZR pumped out crappy fielders, I'd be critical of it.
Hell, top 3 in UZR for the 00s were Andruw Jones, Adrian Beltre, and Carl Crawford. I think most people would agree they were some incredibly good defenders for that time period, though CC's arm kind of sucks.
Posted on 2/23/12 at 4:22 pm to Baloo
quote:
We don’t rip apart the validity of OBP because some of it was compiled during cloudy days.
It's not exactly the same.
the wind at old Candlestick is going to affect the outfielder more than it is the hitter.
playing a bunch of sunny day games at Wrigley is going to be tougher on the fielder than the hitter.
throwing a wet ball is harder on the fielder than hitting a wet ball.
hitting is stationary compared to fielding. you are swinging and hitting. You are not being positioned to chase down balls, or throw balls, or anything of that nature. To me it is easy to see how the weather can affect fielders more than hitters. So many moving parts.
quote:
I cannot think of a stat more worthless than fielding percentage. It means less than nothing.
I wouldnt say it means less than nothing. But it's not overly important.
I know you have said it in the past that guys that get to more balls tend to commit more errors. Well, there are also really bad fielders that commit a lot of errors. That has to count for something.
Let's face it, it is a pretty general way to gauge defensive ability and sure handedness. If you are playing in the infield, you are usually a pretty good athlete. Yes, there are some amazing athletes that can get to balls others cant, but its not like Prince Fielder is playing SS and just racking up putouts on balls that are rolled right to him.
Shoot, take Ripken for example. You have lauded his defense in this very thread, and he routinely was a great FLD% SS. As was Belanger. As were a ton of what sabermetrics consider great defensive SS. So to say it means less than nothing, im not really sure.
Im sure you'll bring up the old favorite Jeter. But he seems like an outlier more than anything. Sure handed, limited range. A lot of teams would take that.
This post was edited on 2/23/12 at 4:35 pm
Posted on 2/23/12 at 4:30 pm to OBUDan
quote:
I'm not sure what you are arguing.
It's not a predictive tool, it's a measurement tool. It measured an outcome that has already happened.
I'm not following you.
They are telling me, by their measurements, that one player is better than the other at catching a ball, that, before the pitch is even thrown through the action of the ball leaving the bat, has numerous unmeasurable variables involved.
If they can tell me that above with strong conviction and 'accuracy', then they should be able to tell me who can catch the same balls hit off the bat in batting practice, without any fielders. And they simply cannot.
Posted on 2/23/12 at 4:33 pm to Baloo
quote:
. Throwing out useful data because the stat isn’t 100% perfect is a bad idea, but throwing it out because it can’t meet a truly impossible standard is even more ridiculous.
Im not throwing it out nor am I saying it is invalid.. Don't get it confused.
But im also not saying "so and so shits on so and so" because of these metrics. That, to me, isn't accepting their limitations either.
I read too many blanket statements regarding fielding and such on here. I've accepted the limitations of these stats for a while now. I don't think they are invalid. But i sure don't think they are the 'end all, be all'.
Posted on 2/23/12 at 4:33 pm to Lester Earl
The reason it’s worthless because it doesn’t tell you anything. Yes, Ripken had very high fielding percentages and was a great fielder. Jeter was a pretty bad fielder and he also had really good fielding percentages. On the flip side, Jose “E-6” Offerman was a terrible shortstop and committed lots of errors. Elvis Andrus is a very a good defensive shortstop who also posts fairly low fielding percentages. It’s all over the map. You see a fielding percentage and it tells you nothing.
Know who has the highest fielding percentage for shortstops all-time (not counting active players, who are sure to see their numbers decline)? Mike Bordick. Bordick was good and all, but really? Best ever? #2 is Rey Sanchez. #3 is Larry Bowa. Try and argue Bordick, Sanchez, and Bowa were top 3 defensive players all-time.
Hence, worse than useless. Mainly because when bad fielders have high fielding percentages, it is cited as proof of something. It would be better if the stat simply didn’t exist. Ripken’s not great because he didn’t make errors – Ripken is great because he made lots and lots of outs. That’s a huge difference.
Know who has the highest fielding percentage for shortstops all-time (not counting active players, who are sure to see their numbers decline)? Mike Bordick. Bordick was good and all, but really? Best ever? #2 is Rey Sanchez. #3 is Larry Bowa. Try and argue Bordick, Sanchez, and Bowa were top 3 defensive players all-time.
Hence, worse than useless. Mainly because when bad fielders have high fielding percentages, it is cited as proof of something. It would be better if the stat simply didn’t exist. Ripken’s not great because he didn’t make errors – Ripken is great because he made lots and lots of outs. That’s a huge difference.
Posted on 2/23/12 at 4:38 pm to Lester Earl
Do you not believe in anything you didn't see with your own eyes?
I mean, that sets up a pretty impossible standard.
You can't say Clemente is the best because you never saw him field?
Can you not speak to the ability of Babe Ruth as a hitter then?
I mean, that sets up a pretty impossible standard.
You can't say Clemente is the best because you never saw him field?
Can you not speak to the ability of Babe Ruth as a hitter then?
Posted on 2/23/12 at 4:39 pm to Baloo
quote:
Mike Bordick. Bordick was good and all, but really? Best ever? #2 is Rey Sanchez. #3 is Larry Bowa. Try and argue Bordick, Sanchez, and Bowa were top 3 defensive players all-time.
Were all 3 above average? I would say so.
How can you say it means less than nothing?
and i know you just posted the retired guys but...
Tulo is actually #1
Omar Vizquel is #2
Jimmy Rollins is #3
Cesar Izturis 6
Tony fernandez is 9th
Cal is 10th
Ozzie is 11th
Not like we are talking total swing & misses to where it makes the stat mean less than nothing.
Posted on 2/23/12 at 4:41 pm to Lester Earl
quote:
If they can tell me that above with strong conviction and 'accuracy', then they should be able to tell me who can catch the same balls hit off the bat in batting practice, without any fielders. And they simply cannot.
Why do you think they have to have predictive value to be accurate?
I mean, all baseball stats are measuring events that occurred, not predicting ones that haven't.
Posted on 2/23/12 at 4:43 pm to OBUDan
quote:
Do you not believe in anything you didn't see with your own eyes?
I didn't say that. Sometimes enough creditable people say it and you just have to believe it.
Babe Ruth...sure.
Clemente was great, but some of the things you have to at least think about because he over-glorified by his death. Read this thread. Throwing the ball underhand on a line from the wall of the Astrodome? Come on.
A guy like Mike Belanger... I couldn't pick him out of a lineup. He very well could have been great. But not a guy i would say was the best defensive SS of all time.
Posted on 2/23/12 at 4:46 pm to OBUDan
quote:
Why do you think they have to have predictive value to be accurate?
I mean, all baseball stats are measuring events that occurred, not predicting ones that haven't.
Man thats my whole point about the variables. Im not saying they have to predict it. I am saying if their stats were conclusive and even close to being 100% accurate, they would be able to predict it.
But they cant. They cant because of the variables that happen in baseball, pitch by pitch.
Posted on 2/23/12 at 4:46 pm to Lester Earl
quote:
Read this thread. Throwing the ball underhand on a line from the wall of the Astrodome? Come on.
That was eyewitness testimony..
I'm not saying I believe it, but I think that points to the exact issues you have when talking about eyeball evals.
Posted on 2/23/12 at 4:48 pm to OBUDan
quote:
That was eyewitness testimony..
well yea. The ball bounced 4 times into 2nd base on that day in the 70s. By 1990 the ball bounced twice. 40 years later, it made it on a straight line from the RF wall of the Astrodome without the SS moving his glove.
Clemente was great though. A legend. Im not trying to diminish anything he did. He was a great player and great man.
Page 6 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News