PDA

View Full Version : Defensive metric that has Dunn as the fifth-best left fielder in the NL?



muethibp
07-13-2007, 01:55 PM
I believe I read here the other day that a defensive metric had Dunn as the fifth best left fielder in the NL. I can't put my finger on that or maybe I made it up. Anyone know what the reference is?

DTCromer
07-13-2007, 01:57 PM
I'd love to see this stat that says Dunn as the 5th best OF in the NL. I really would. I'm laughing as I type this suggesting someone uses "STATS" to suggest someone is a good OF. You don't have to look at "STATS" to anyone to say Dunn is an abortion in LF.

durl
07-13-2007, 03:12 PM
Maybe it's a stat that figures in Runs, RBIs or HR to offset errors and range. :)

jimbo
07-13-2007, 03:16 PM
I'd love to see this stat that says Dunn as the 5th best OF in the NL. I really would. I'm laughing as I type this suggesting someone uses "STATS" to suggest someone is a good OF. You don't have to look at "STATS" to anyone to say Dunn is an abortion in LF.

You are missing the entire point. Nobody is claiming that these stats show he is a good left fielder, but only how he compares to his peers. Dunn isn't a very good outfielder, but is average when compared to the rest of the league. There just aren't very many good left fielders in the game today.

Based on Dunn's Zone Rating, which is defined as "The percentage of balls fielded by a player in his typical defensive "zone," as measured by STATS, Inc.," he currently ranks 6th in the NL and 11th in the majors. He ranks ahead of such players as Matsui, Bay, Willingham, Bonds, Burrell, Lee, Ibanez, and Manny.

I'm not a real big fan of these "stats" because they are subjective, but it's at least something to go on when trying to judge a player's defense. I do remember someone posting just recently (I think in ORG) that Dunn ranked 5th, but he may have dropped a spot since that post.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlbhist/stats/fielding?groupId=9&sortColumn=zoneRating&sortOrder=true&split=83&qualified=null&season=2007&seasonType=2

Degenerate39
07-13-2007, 03:41 PM
How many errors does Dunn have this season? 4?

Mitri
07-13-2007, 04:15 PM
I think if you actually watch all the games you begin to realize that Dunn is an average or better left-fielder. I've caught about 85% of the innings on tv and you see how much better he's doing this year than the last three. He seems to just have better step instincts, especially going back on balls, than ever before. I think it has a lot to do with him being in better shape and having more confidence in the field, which probably all goes back to his efforts in the offseason and spring training to bring more to his defensive game.

Adam is having such a great all-around season doing a lot of little things (not flubbing balls, taking good angles, being smart on the basepaths) and some big things, it's so unfortunate that a majority of the public must focus on his few imperfections. I've had to vocally defend Adam at the games I've attended, to the point where I've shouted "I love you Adam" everytime he bats just to contrast the filthy stuff coming out of people's mouths. He deserves better.

I(heart)Freel
07-13-2007, 04:38 PM
I must be watching the other 15 percent of those games.

I see bad routes. I see terrible "wall awareness." I see poor throws to the infield. And just last week I was reminded that simple little grounders can sometimes jump over his glove.

Any metric that says Dunn is an above average left fielder leads me to reason that defensive metrics have a long way to go.

jimbo
07-13-2007, 05:09 PM
Any metric that says Dunn is an above average left fielder leads me to reason that defensive metrics have a long way to go.

Again, average only when compared to his peers.

nate
07-13-2007, 05:14 PM
Again, average only when compared to his peers.

Who should he be compared to then?

jimbo
07-13-2007, 06:17 PM
Who should he be compared to then?

Other starting left fielders in the majors, hence his peers.

George Foster
07-13-2007, 07:52 PM
I must be watching the other 15 percent of those games.

I see bad routes. I see terrible "wall awareness." I see poor throws to the infield. And just last week I was reminded that simple little grounders can sometimes jump over his glove.

Any metric that says Dunn is an above average left fielder leads me to reason that defensive metrics have a long way to go.

"metrics assume that a hit to left would be a hit no matter who was playing left. How many times has Dunn had a bad route, or a late jump that was ruled a "hit" that should of been cought? It's bogus.

Gunner44
07-13-2007, 10:42 PM
guess theres no just no way to prove to some that dunn is a great hitter and decent fielder......its pretty sad

mroby85
07-13-2007, 11:33 PM
I must be watching the other 15 percent of those games.

I see bad routes. I see terrible "wall awareness." I see poor throws to the infield. And just last week I was reminded that simple little grounders can sometimes jump over his glove.


Any metric that says Dunn is an above average left fielder leads me to reason that defensive metrics have a long way to go.

if it makes you feel better, i watch all the games, and i have seen what you did in those 15% for most of the season, lol.

TC81190
07-14-2007, 01:53 AM
Dunn looks awkward out in left, he's definitely lost a step. His arm has mysteriously gotten weaker. He takes bad routes. He gets "Wily Mo Pena'd", i.e. the slice of the ball throws him causing a misplay.

Screwball
07-14-2007, 03:57 PM
"metrics assume that a hit to left would be a hit no matter who was playing left. How many times has Dunn had a bad route, or a late jump that was ruled a "hit" that should of been cought? It's bogus.

That's why they've now come up with a stat called zone rating, tracking how well a player gets to balls in his zones, i.e., balls he should catch. In 2007, Adam Dunn has gotten to 86.2% (.862) of balls hit in his zones - good for 8th best of all LFers, and 4th best in the NL.

While Zone Rating has its flaws (what stat doesn't?), it's a pretty good indicator of how well a player gets to the balls he should, and despite popular belief AD does get to them as well as - or better than - most LFers.

Blue
07-14-2007, 04:07 PM
That's why they've now come up with a stat called zone rating, tracking how well a player gets to balls in his zones, i.e., balls he should catch. In 2007, Adam Dunn has gotten to 86.2% (.862) of balls hit in his zones - good for 8th best of all LFers, and 4th best in the NL.

While Zone Rating has its flaws (what stat doesn't?), it's a pretty good indicator of how well a player gets to the balls he should, and despite popular belief AD does get to them as well as - or better than - most LFers.

Yeah, but he's SO selfish. He should be a team player and let some other guys get to those balls.

T7-niner
07-14-2007, 04:23 PM
When Dunn is gone, and replaced by Hopper or Freel (heaven forbid). We'll see how much he brings/brought to the table.

Come on guys and gals, Dunn is 6'6" - 275 lbs. How can he not look terrible out there? He's going to appear to be doggin' it even if he's busting it at full speed. Guys that size don't appear graceful in any sense of the word.

I would consider Dunn about average, maybe a touch above for LF's.

Some people will never be happy unless we have 8 Ryan Freel's or Pete Rose's out there...

DTCromer
07-15-2007, 12:33 AM
That's why they've now come up with a stat called zone rating, tracking how well a player gets to balls in his zones, i.e., balls he should catch. In 2007, Adam Dunn has gotten to 86.2% (.862) of balls hit in his zones - good for 8th best of all LFers, and 4th best in the NL.

While Zone Rating has its flaws (what stat doesn't?), it's a pretty good indicator of how well a player gets to the balls he should, and despite popular belief AD does get to them as well as - or better than - most LFers.


Like I said, any stats that say he's "decent" compared to his peers is laughable. Don't tell me he's good because of a "zone rating." Either you aren't watching the games or you really, really, really want this guy to continue to NOT improve here in Cincinnati.

He's exactly the same player he was when he started here. THAT'S my biggest problem with Adam.

TC81190
07-15-2007, 12:55 AM
Like I said, any stats that say he's "decent" compared to his peers is laughable. Don't tell me he's good because of a "zone rating." Either you aren't watching the games or you really, really, really want this guy to continue to NOT improve here in Cincinnati.

He's exactly the same player he was when he started here. THAT'S my biggest problem with Adam.

Except slightly worse, bar this year.

jimbo
07-15-2007, 12:59 AM
Like I said, any stats that say he's "decent" compared to his peers is laughable.

What is so "laughable" about it? The fact is that there are not many good defensive left fielders in the game today so that makes Dunn average when compared against them.

Screwball
07-15-2007, 10:56 AM
Like I said, any stats that say he's "decent" compared to his peers is laughable. Don't tell me he's good because of a "zone rating." Either you aren't watching the games or you really, really, really want this guy to continue to NOT improve here in Cincinnati.


You're just being obstinate here. I give you accurate evidence that, indeed, Dunn is average to above average defensively relative to his peers in LF, and you somehow stick to your preconceived notion that it's "laughable". Just because you've either never heard of Zone Rating or don't like to see it rank Dunn so high doesn't make it inaccurate. It also ranks Soriano first and Chris Duncan last in the NL, which I think most everyone can agree on. Like I said, it may not be perfect, but it's a very good tool to see how a defender gets to (and puts out) balls that he should.

Just because the numerical eveidence shows Dunn's actually pretty good at this doesn't mean I "really really really want this guy to NOT improve" or that I haven't been watching the games (I've missed about 3 all year). A statement like that is just flat out false.

Lockdwn11
07-15-2007, 11:21 AM
You're just being obstinate here. I give you accurate evidence that, indeed, Dunn is average to above average defensively relative to his peers in LF, and you somehow stick to your preconceived notion that it's "laughable". Just because you've either never heard of Zone Rating or don't like to see it rank Dunn so high doesn't make it inaccurate. It also ranks Soriano first and Chris Duncan last in the NL, which I think most everyone can agree on. Like I said, it may not be perfect, but it's a very good tool to see how a defender gets to (and puts out) balls that he should.

Just because the numerical eveidence shows Dunn's actually pretty good at this doesn't mean I "really really really want this guy to NOT improve" or that I haven't been watching the games (I've missed about 3 all year). A statement like that is just flat out false.

Screwball, you call it "accurate evidence" but you admit in your earlier post that your Zone rating stat is flawed so how is it accurate evidence? I watch the games and see Dunn play defense and in my opinion he is well, BAD and there is no flawed stat you can show me that will change that and I'm not saying you care what I think or that I think I am right and you are wrong it's just my opinion.

Screwball
07-15-2007, 11:33 AM
Screwball, you call it "accurate evidence" but you admit in your earlier post that your Zone rating stat is flawed so how is it accurate evidence? I watch the games and see Dunn play defense and in my opinion he is well, BAD and there is no flawed stat you can show me that will change that and I'm not saying you care what I think or that I think I am right and you are wrong it's just my opinion.

It doesn't need to be perfect to be accurate. Just like OBP doesn't tell us about a player's power numbers or how he runs the bases, etc., (and hence it has its flaws), it does give us a pretty good idea about how well he handles himself at the plate and how good of a hitter he is. ZR isn't perfect but, like I said, it is a very good tool to see how well a defender gets to balls in his zones (i.e. balls that he should).

Whether you want to accept it or not is your prerogative. I realize he looks downright awkward out there when trying to run down fly balls/line drives. But without any bias, the numbers show that in 2007, AD has gotten to 86.2% of balls in his zones that he should catch, and that's better than most other LFers in the league.

Blue
07-15-2007, 11:46 AM
It doesn't need to be perfect to be accurate. Just like OBP doesn't tell us about a player's power numbers or how he runs the bases, etc., (and hence it has its flaws), it does give us a pretty good idea about how well he handles himself at the plate and how good of a hitter he is. ZR isn't perfect but, like I said, it is a very good tool to see how well a defender gets to balls in his zones (i.e. balls that he should).

Whether you want to accept it or not is your prerogative. I realize he looks downright awkward out there when trying to run down fly balls/line drives. But without any bias, the numbers show that in 2007, AD has gotten to 86.2% of balls in his zones that he should catch, and that's better than most other LFers in the league.

Those numbers don't take into account that the guy is selfish and lazy.

Lockdwn11
07-15-2007, 11:52 AM
It doesn't need to be perfect to be accurate. Just like OBP doesn't tell us about a player's power numbers or how he runs the bases, etc., (and hence it has its flaws), it does give us a pretty good idea about how well he handles himself at the plate and how good of a hitter he is. ZR isn't perfect but, like I said, it is a very good tool to see how well a defender gets to balls in his zones (i.e. balls that he should).

Whether you want to accept it or not is your prerogative. I realize he looks downright awkward out there when trying to run down fly balls/line drives. But without any bias, the numbers show that in 2007, AD has gotten to 86.2% of balls in his zones that he should catch, and that's better than most other LFers in the league.

It doesn't have to be perfect to be accurate? You see that is why I don't like to use stats as the end all be all that some of you do.I mean you know that your stats are flawed but you still state it as fact because the flawed numbers say so. Don't get me wrong stats have thier place but they don't give you the whole story.

Screwball
07-15-2007, 12:12 PM
It doesn't have to be perfect to be accurate? It doesn't have to be perfect to be accurate? You see that is why I don't like to use stats as the end all be all that some of you do.I mean you know that your stats are flawed but you still state it as fact because the #s say so. Don't get me wrong stats have thier place but they don't give you the whole story.

:bang:

I don't really see how this is so difficult. I stated the numbers as evidence that Dunn does get to balls in his zones as well or better than most LFers. It is not perfect - it's subjective (although as long as the subjectivity is consistent -which it is - it doesn't matter), it doesn't account for defensive shifts (although not as big a deal with outfielders), it doesn't show how good (bad) Dunn's arm is, how well he gets to balls outside his zone, or whether he makes errors on basehits to him. However, it is accurate to the extent that it does tell us how he stacks up range-wise against other LFers, which was my whole point in the first place.

I don't really know how to explain it any better than that. If you don't want to accept it because it isn't perfect, then that's on you. However, to get a very good idea of how well Dunn gets to balls he should (like I've said for the 100th time now), ZR is a very useful tool.

Lockdwn11
07-15-2007, 12:28 PM
:bang:

I don't really see how this is so difficult. I stated the numbers as evidence that Dunn does get to balls in his zones as well or better than most LFers. It is not perfect - it's subjective (although as long as the subjectivity is consistent -which it is - it doesn't matter), it doesn't account for defensive shifts (although not as big a deal with outfielders), it doesn't show how good (bad) Dunn's arm is, how well he gets to balls outside his zone, or whether he makes errors on basehits to him. However, it is accurate to the extent that it does tell us how he stacks up range-wise against other LFers, which was my whole point in the first place.

I don't really know how to explain it any better than that. If you don't want to accept it because it isn't perfect, then that's on you. However, to get a very good idea of how well Dunn gets to balls he should (like I've said for the 100th time now), ZR is a very useful tool.

OK so all that zone rating really tells us is how good Dunns range is in left It doesn't tell you what kind of LFer he is so why are you trying to use it to tell people he is a good LFer .It's not that hard, it's easy in fact. That stat does take into account enought info to accurately tell us what kind of LFer he is but my eyes do I watch ever game and I see that Dunn is a sub-par OFer.He is slow misplays balls to the outfield and has a weak arm but hey that do i know.




P.S. I agree Zone Rating is a useful tool but it doesn't tell us the whole story of what kind of LFer Dunn really is and that is all I'm trying to say.

Screwball
07-15-2007, 12:38 PM
OK so all that zone rating really tells us is how good Dunns range is in left It doesn't tell you what kind of LFer he is so why are you trying to use it to tell people he is a good LFer.


If you go back and read what I responded to, you'll know why I used Zone Rating as my evidence.

And be careful about putting words in my mouth. I was never out to tell people he is a good overall LFer. I simply wanted to show that he isn't as bad as many on here believe and say he is, especially when it comes to getting to and catching balls LFers should.

Lockdwn11
07-15-2007, 12:43 PM
If you go back and read what I responded to, you'll know why I used Zone Rating as my evidence.

And be careful about putting words in my mouth. I was never out to tell people he is a good overall LFer. I simply wanted to show that he isn't as bad as many on here believe and say he is, especially when it comes to getting to and catching balls LFers should.

I'm not out to put words in your mouth. Just answer me this, do you think Dunn is a above average defensive LFer?

SMcGavin
07-15-2007, 12:51 PM
I'd love to see this stat that says Dunn as the 5th best OF in the NL. I really would. I'm laughing as I type this suggesting someone uses "STATS" to suggest someone is a good OF. You don't have to look at "STATS" to anyone to say Dunn is an abortion in LF.

You're right, stats are so overrated. In fact we should just not keep score, then at the end of the game we can judge with our eyes who seemed to play better and award the victory based on that. That is the only true way to see which players and teams are "abortions".

To answer the more reasonable Dunn critics, I don't think anybody is arguing that Dunn is a good defender, only that he is roughly average for ML left-fielders (because most teams stick a big bat who is a poor fielder out in left).

Screwball
07-15-2007, 12:54 PM
I'm not out to put words in your mouth. Just answer me this, do you think Dunn is a above average defensive LFer?

Nope, IMO he's about an average LFer, which is to say, he's equally bad as most LFers.

Lockdwn11
07-15-2007, 12:59 PM
Nope, IMO he's about an average LFer, which is to say, he's equally bad as most LFers.

Ok then we will agree to disagree because I don't take into account how bad other players are when evaluating a player and I see him as a below-average OFer.

SMcGavin
07-15-2007, 01:05 PM
Ok then we will agree to disagree because I don't take into account how bad other players are when evaluating a player and I see him as a below-average OFer.

If you don't take other players into account, how do you determine what "average" is?

Lockdwn11
07-15-2007, 01:07 PM
If you don't take other players into account, how do you determine what "average" is?

By watching the games,Watching the player I'm evaluating,watching him run, catch and throw maybe you should try it sometime it's alot of fun but on the other hand maybe you can just look at the box scores i mean the numbers tell you everything that happened and why right?

SMcGavin
07-15-2007, 01:13 PM
So you determine what "average" is by watching one player, that makes all the sense in the world.

Lockdwn11
07-15-2007, 01:18 PM
So you determine what "average" is by watching one player, that makes all the sense in the world.

So are you saying that when a pro scout go out to evaluate player A he goes ok I have seen enough of player A now let me go watch player B so I know how good of a player player A is ? Interesting,I mean that you have to know what another players arm or speed is like to tell if another player has a good arm or can run.WOW!!!

SMcGavin
07-15-2007, 01:26 PM
Yes, that's basically how it works. If you want to know if a player is above or below average, you need to know how good all of the other players at his position are. I'm sure if you just watched a bunch of LFs play you would think wow, these guys all suck at defense. But only 15 of them can be below average, the other 15 are above average. And because I don't have the time to watch every single baseball game of every team in MLB, the best way for me to establish the "average" LF is to use defensive metrics. Some metrics say Dunn is a bad LF (like UZR i believe) and some say he is an above average LF (like Zone Rating). That's why I think he is an average defensive LF in relation to the other LFs in MLB.

Lockdwn11
07-15-2007, 01:31 PM
Yes, that's basically how it works. If you want to know if a player is above or below average, you need to know how good all of the other players at his position are. I'm sure if you just watched a bunch of LFs play you would think wow, these guys all suck at defense. But only 15 of them can be below average, the other 15 are above average. And because I don't have the time to watch every single baseball game of every team in MLB, the best way for me to establish the "average" LF is to use defensive metrics. Some metrics say Dunn is a bad LF (like UZR i believe) and some say he is an above average LF (like Zone Rating). That's why I think he is an average defensive LF in relation to the other LFs in MLB.

Let me get this right,so you (yourself) need to see another guy run to be able to tell that Jose Reyes is fast or another guy hit to see that Adam Dunn has great power at the plate because I don't and I don't think most people would.

nate
07-15-2007, 01:41 PM
Ok then we will agree to disagree because I don't take into account how bad other players are when evaluating a player and I see him as a below-average OFer.

LF and 1B are places you stick guys that don't field so well. So its entirely possible that compared to all the other LF'ers in the league, Dunn is 5th best. Its faint praise at best.

I don't think he's very good out there but his offense outweighs that...to me.

Screwball
07-15-2007, 02:28 PM
Yes, that's basically how it works. If you want to know if a player is above or below average, you need to know how good all of the other players at his position are. I'm sure if you just watched a bunch of LFs play you would think wow, these guys all suck at defense. But only 15 of them can be below average, the other 15 are above average. And because I don't have the time to watch every single baseball game of every team in MLB, the best way for me to establish the "average" LF is to use defensive metrics. Some metrics say Dunn is a bad LF (like UZR i believe) and some say he is an above average LF (like Zone Rating). That's why I think he is an average defensive LF in relation to the other LFs in MLB.

Very well put SM. I think this is spot on, and I agree completely.

Lockdwn11
07-15-2007, 02:39 PM
Very well put SM. I think this is spot on, and I agree completely.

I myself don't need to see another player play to tell if Adam Dunn sucks in the OF. I guess we are different in that way.

muethibp
07-15-2007, 02:46 PM
If you don't take other players into account, how do you determine what "average" is?

How do you measure yourself with other golfers?

Blue
07-15-2007, 03:03 PM
Ok then we will agree to disagree because I don't take into account how bad other players are when evaluating a player and I see him as a below-average OFer.

:laugh:

When scouts evaluate these guys, the don't say "He's good." or "He's bad." They rate their tools on a 20-80 scale where 60 (I think) is major league average. They're compared against major league players.

This "just my opinion" stuff is bogus. The guy is only as good or bad a defender as he is, and that doesn't change based on who is watching. Its not a subjective matter.

Lockdwn11
07-15-2007, 03:13 PM
:laugh:

When scouts evaluate these guys, the don't say "He's good." or "He's bad." They rate their tools on a 20-80 scale where 60 (I think) is major league average. They're compared against major league players.

This "just my opinion" stuff is bogus. The guy is only as good or bad a defender as he is, and that doesn't change based on who is watching. Its not a subjective matter.

Believe it or not I know how things work and I know that scouts use the scale but what I am trying to say is if the guy has a GUN for a right or left arm he has a GUN no matter how good the next guys arm is if a guy can really pick it in the field he has a good glove no matter what the next guy does.I could care less who other teams have playing LF it doesn't make Dunn a better player.I see what you guys are saying but I just disagree I don't think you can say well all LFers suck Dunn sucks the least so that makes him a good LFer.I guess we are talking about two different things maybe you are saying Dunn is average compaired to the rest of the LFers, ok I will give you that but that doesn't make him a good LFer if your saying most LFers suck..

Blue
07-15-2007, 03:20 PM
Believe it or not I know how things work and I know that scouts use the scale but what I am trying to say is if the guy has a GUN for a right or left arm he has a GUN no matter how good the next guys arm is if a guy can really pick it in the field he has a good glove no matter what the next guy does.I could care less who other teams have playing LF it doesn't make Dunn a better player.

But, the next guy might have a better arm than the first, making the first guy's arm "not as good". Keep moving down the line through all 30 MLB teams, and you can rank the guy's arm among major leaguers. If he's around the middle, he doesn't really have a gun. He's just average.

Screwball
07-15-2007, 03:20 PM
I could care less who other teams have playing LF it doesn't make Dunn a better player.I see what you guys are saying but I just disagree I don't think you can say well all LFers suck Dunn sucks the least so that makes him a good LFer.

But it has a very big bearing on what his market value is. Therefore, since he's about average defensively and a monster offensively compared to his peers, the $13 million he's getting can actually be considered a bargain compared to what he would get if and when he tests free agency.

muethibp
07-15-2007, 03:21 PM
Believe it or not I know how things work and I know that scouts use the scale but what I am trying to say is if the guy has a GUN for a right or left arm he has a GUN no matter how good the next guys arm is if a guy can really pick it in the field he has a good glove no matter what the next guy does.I could care less who other teams have playing LF it doesn't make Dunn a better player.I see what you guys are saying but I just disagree I don't think you can say well all LFers suck Dunn sucks the least so that makes him a good LFer.

Other players, and Dunn's skills compared to them, are vital for determining whether someone else is an upgrade.

Lockdwn11
07-15-2007, 03:30 PM
But, the next guy might have a better arm than the first, making the first guy's arm "not as good". Keep moving down the line through all 30 MLB teams, and you can rank the guy's arm among major leaguers. If he's around the middle, he doesn't really have a gun. He's just average.

Lets use Jose Reyes do you really need to see someone else run to know if he is fast or not ?

Lockdwn11
07-15-2007, 03:37 PM
This is what I am trying to say if Adam Dunn is as good as most LFers then Most Lfers suck because Adam Dunn sucks in the OF.Thats all.

Blue
07-15-2007, 03:47 PM
Lets use Jose Reyes do you really need to see someone else run to know if he is fast or not ?

I would probably time him from home to 1B and from 1B to 3B to find out exactly how fast he is on the basepaths and how usable his speed is. Also just a flat 60-yard dash to determine his raw speed. Then, I'd compare those times against the times of other players, and I'd know whether he ranks among major leaguers.

Granted, I'm not pulling out my stopwatch, but I could also observe his speed and compare it to other major leaguers. The only difference between what you're saying and what I'm saying is that I think you have to compare guys to other major leaguers to figure out whether they're average or above average, and you think that you can make that judgment just looking at one guy.

If he's fast and everyone else is faster, it doesn't really matter that he's fast.

I'll give you a team of great players, and I'll take a team of better players and win. It won't matter that your players were great.

Lockdwn11
07-15-2007, 03:59 PM
I would probably time him from home to 1B and from 1B to 3B to find out exactly how fast he is on the basepaths and how usable his speed is. Also just a flat 60-yard dash to determine his raw speed. Then, I'd compare those times against the times of other players, and I'd know whether he ranks among major leaguers.

Granted, I'm not pulling out my stopwatch, but I could also observe his speed and compare it to other major leaguers. The only difference between what you're saying and what I'm saying is that I think you have to compare guys to other major leaguers to figure out whether they're average or above average, and you think that you can make that judgment just looking at one guy.

If he's fast and everyone else is faster, it doesn't really matter that he's fast.

I'll give you a team of great players, and I'll take a team of better players and win. It won't matter that your players were great.

See your putting works in my mouth I didn't ask you to rate if he was the fastest guy in the league I just asked you if you need to see another player to tell me if he's fast because I can see the guy run and can tell you if he's fast or not.

Blue
07-15-2007, 04:12 PM
See your putting works in my mouth I didn't ask you to rate if he was the fastest guy in the league I just asked you if you need to see another player to tell me if he's fast because I can see the guy run and can tell you if he's fast or not.

And I'm saying that when you are considering a player's skill or tool, such as speed or power, you have to compare them to other players, otherwise, the word "fast" is meaningless.

Fast compared to average Joes? Yes.

Fast compared to other major leaguers? Yes.

Faster than Carl Crawford? Faster than Chone Figgins? Its pretty close.

Fast? Compared to who or what?

Lockdwn11
07-15-2007, 04:13 PM
And I'm saying that when you are considering a player's skill or tool, such as speed or power, you have to compare them to other players, otherwise, the word "fast" is meaningless.

Fast compared to average Joes? Yes.

Fast compared to other major leaguers? Yes.

Faster than Carl Crawford? Faster than Chone Figgins? Its pretty close.

Fast? Compared to who or what?

How about fast as compared to slow?

Blue
07-15-2007, 04:24 PM
How about fast as compared to slow?

I don't know because you also haven't told me slow as compared to what.

How in the world could you rank players, say for the MLB draft, by this system?

Q: "What do you think of this guy?"

A: "Well, he's fast and he's got power."

Q: "How about this other guy?"

A: "Fast. Has power."

Q: "And this third fellow?"

A: "He's got wheels and a whooping stick."

Q: "Which one of those guys do we pick first?"

A: "I don't know, probably whoever is faster and has more power, but I don't think its necessary to compare players, so I have no idea which one is faster or has more power. They're just quick little dudes with some pop. What more do you need to know?"

Lockdwn11
07-15-2007, 04:28 PM
I don't know because you also haven't told me slow as compared to what.

How in the world could you rank players, say for the MLB draft, by this system?

Q: "What do you think of this guy?"

A: "Well, he's fast and he's got power."

Q: "How about this other guy?"

A: "Fast. Has power."

Q: "And this third fellow?"

A: "He's got wheels and a whooping stick."

Q: "Which one of those guys do we pick first?"

A: "I don't know, probably whoever is faster and has more power, but I don't think its necessary to compare players, so I have no idea which one is faster or has more power. They're just quick little dudes with some pop. What more do you need to know?"

OK then I can't help you.I mean if you can't tell the differents between fast and slow I don't kown what to tell you.

Blue
07-15-2007, 04:35 PM
OK then I can't help you.I mean if you can't tell the differents between fast and slow I don't kown what to tell you.

I guess your 20-80 scale is more along the lines of a 20 OR 80 scale. You're either fast or you're slow. There are no average runners. There is no difference between players you label as "fast" and no difference between players you label as "slow".

"He's fast!", "He's fast too!"

"Which one is faster?"

"Umm... err..."

Lockdwn11
07-15-2007, 04:35 PM
Maybe this will help you out in the future


Fast:Acting, moving, or capable of acting or moving quickly; swift.

Slow: Not moving or able to move quickly; proceeding at a low speed

Blue
07-15-2007, 04:39 PM
Maybe this will help you out in the future


Fast:Acting, moving, or capable of acting or moving quickly; swift.

Slow: Not moving or able to move quickly; proceeding at a low speed

You better keep your little dictionary out, because you'll be looking for definitions all night.

What is quickly? Quickly compared to what? What exactly is a low speed? How fast is swift?

If Jose Reyes ran at his current speed, and was the slowest player in baseball, his speed would be next to worthless.

Lockdwn11
07-15-2007, 04:55 PM
All I'm saying is I have seen,watched and played enough baseball to tell if a player can play or not. I don't have to go out and watch five other guys play to do it .I think most people on here can and I'm sorry if you can't that not my problem.I have seen enough players play to know what fast is, I guess you haven't but keep watching you will get there.After watching Adam Dunn play for 5 years now I would have to say he's not very good defensively.

Blue
07-15-2007, 05:11 PM
I think it is your problem if you have no concept of what an average fielder is.

Is Dunn average or below average?

You don't know. He's just bad. That's not really all that informative, regardless of how much baseball you've watched or played.

Lockdwn11
07-15-2007, 05:32 PM
I think it is your problem if you have no concept of what an average fielder is.

Is Dunn average or below average?

You don't know. He's just bad. That's not really all that informative, regardless of how much baseball you've watched or played.

This is what I KNOW, Adam Dunn maybe a average LEFT FIELDER compared to other LEFT FIELDERS in the league a position where you put your weakest OUTFIELDER to get his bat in the lineup.That doesn't make him a average OUTFIELDER Defensively if it wasn't for Dunns bat he wouldn't be in left at all because he is a Below average Defensive OUTFIELDER.

Blue
07-15-2007, 05:37 PM
This is what I KNOW, Adam Dunn maybe a average LEFT FIELDER compared to other LEFT FIELDERS in the league a position where you put your weakest OUTFIELDER to get his bat in the lineup.That doesn't make him a average OUTFIELDER Defensively if it wasn't for Dunns bat he wouldn't be in left at all because he is a Below average Defensive OUTFIELDER.

NOW YOU'RE TALKING!!! :clap::clap::clap::clap:

I feel like Ben Matlock having just made someone confess on the witness stand.

Lockdwn11
07-15-2007, 05:45 PM
NOW YOU'RE TALKING!!! :clap::clap::clap::clap:

I feel like Ben Matlock having just made someone confess on the witness stand.

No that is what I have been saying all along I guess I wasn't putting it in terms you could understand.

Lockdwn11
07-15-2007, 05:52 PM
nm