PDA

View Full Version : -36



Will M
05-04-2010, 06:52 AM
We've all seen it with our own eyes night after night. This is Cabrera's actual UZR/150 number.

For comparison in 2008 Keppinger was at -15. He was bad. Cabrera is unbelievably bad. I'd say inconceivably bad but its the Reds.

How long will this go on?

lollipopcurve
05-04-2010, 07:28 AM
It will go on. He hasn't been brought in to sit.

I agree that he's really struggling out there. Doesn't look major league any more. I'm hoping that Baker will at least give Janish a start every 5 days -- preferably when groundballer Leake pitches.

buckeyenut
05-04-2010, 07:46 AM
But he has a better bat than Janish and is a savvy veteran so he will play on a team that needs offense as badly as this one.

HokieRed
05-04-2010, 08:58 AM
Can he play LF?

westofyou
05-04-2010, 08:59 AM
Good to see the whipping boy trophy land in OC's locker.

Good times...

membengal
05-04-2010, 09:09 AM
Yeah, stupid stats being unfair to Orlando Cabrera.

westofyou
05-04-2010, 09:15 AM
Yeah, stupid stats being unfair to Orlando Cabrera.

He's a moving target (albeit he moves so slow compared to the past)

membengal
05-04-2010, 09:23 AM
Stupid reds fans for wondering if there is a better way, particularly on a team that has sold itself as being built on defense to its fanbase.

OnBaseMachine
05-04-2010, 09:30 AM
The 2009 Reds finished with a team DER of .705, 4th best in all of baseball. The 2010 Reds have a team DER of .673, 26th in baseball. That's a huge difference. Left field and shortstop have really killed the defense, and even Stubbs has made a couple bad plays in CF, but he'll be fine, IMO. His range in CF is incredible.

westofyou
05-04-2010, 09:32 AM
Stupid reds fans for wondering if there is a better way, particularly on a team that has sold itself as being built on defense to its fanbase.

Yes silly monkeys aren't they?

We can't seem to find a SS since Barry left, and IMO the ones we have now ain't the replacement.

Hardest position on the field to fill and the Reds keep failing. My take is any metric can tell you what we all see, Janish is a better fielder than OC. I also know that it likely is going to stay the way it is, -36 or not.

nate
05-04-2010, 09:32 AM
Maybe it's just me but it seems like Cabrera rarely gets a good first step. Hard to tell on TV but he looks painfully slow to the ball when moving laterally. He's seems OK going in though.

westofyou
05-04-2010, 09:34 AM
Maybe it's just me but it seems like Cabrera rarely gets a good first step. Hard to tell on TV but he looks painfully slow to the ball when moving laterally. He's seems OK going in though.

TV for scouting baseball defense is what Guitar Hero is to making music

lollipopcurve
05-04-2010, 09:34 AM
He's a moving target (albeit he moves so slow compared to the past)

The criticism of his defense is not undeserved. I had no preconceptions re: his glove coming into the season -- I thought maybe he'd been a victim of poor field conditions in Oakland or the fast turf in Minnesota. But I have to say he has looked very limited out there. Poor range, old-guy athleticism. He's made 1 challenging play that I've seen. The rest have been simply routine. And so many grounders have gone by just out of his reach. The arm looks below average too, though accurate. He's really going to have to hit to be an asset over the course of the season. I like his intangibles, for sure, but that only goes so far, especially if the player is not playing well.

Still early, and he may be able to get his sea legs under him yet. Or, if Dusty runs him out there every day like a 25 year old, it could get worse.

Defense at SS is not an insignificant thing. And so far this team has been lacking in that department.

westofyou
05-04-2010, 09:38 AM
The criticism of his defense is not undeserved. I had no preconceptions re: his glove coming into the season -- I thought maybe he'd been a victim of poor field conditions in Oakland or the fast turf in Minnesota. But I have to say he has looked very limited out there. Poor range, old-guy athleticism. He's made 1 challenging play that I've seen. The rest have been simply routine. And so many grounders have gone by just out of his reach. The arm looks below average too, though accurate. He's really going to have to hit to be an asset over the course of the season. I like his intangibles, for sure, but that only goes so far, especially if the player is not playing well.

Still early, and he may be able to get his sea legs under him yet. Or, if Dusty runs him out there every day like a 25 year old, it could get worse.

Defense at SS is not an insignificant thing. And so far this team has been lacking in that department.

Or he could get hurt, which is probably more likely than he being benched for his limited range. I see some egos involved in this decision, OC's, Walts and Dusty, any resolution will be slow as molasses.

Sea Ray
05-04-2010, 09:39 AM
We've all seen it with our own eyes night after night. This is Cabrera's actual UZR/150 number.

For comparison in 2008 Keppinger was at -15. He was bad. Cabrera is unbelievably bad. I'd say inconceivably bad but its the Reds.

How long will this go on?

I take two points from that.

1) I'd like to see Janish get more starts, especially while he's "hitting"

2) Keppinger wasn't as bad as RZ made him out to be. He didn't deserve the mountains of criticism he got around here because actually, we could have done a lot worse, as we now see

Chip R
05-04-2010, 09:39 AM
Or he could get hurt, which is probably more likely than he being benched for his limited range. I see some egos involved in this decision, OC's, Walts and Dusty, any resolution will be slow as Cabrera.

Fixed that.

WMR
05-04-2010, 09:43 AM
How can a team be built on pitching and defense when their worst defender plays in the most important defensive position?

WMR
05-04-2010, 09:46 AM
Although when your offense is as bad as the Reds, maybe you just get labeled with the 'pitching and defense' moniker/hope/prayer by default.

Chip R
05-04-2010, 09:53 AM
Although when your offense is as bad as the Reds, maybe you just get labeled with the 'pitching and defense' moniker/hope/prayer by default.


This.

wolfboy
05-04-2010, 09:54 AM
Maybe it's just me but it seems like Cabrera rarely gets a good first step. Hard to tell on TV but he looks painfully slow to the ball when moving laterally. He's seems OK going in though.

I think that's pretty accurate. I was at the game last night and he looked like he had lead in his shoes when he moved laterally.

Chip R
05-04-2010, 09:58 AM
I think that's pretty accurate. I was at the game last night and he looked like he had lead in his shoes when he moved laterally.


I think his arm's still pretty solid. I don't recall him bouncing too many throws or throwing wild but his range is definitely very limited. If the ball isn't one and a half steps to his right or left, it's in the outfield.

membengal
05-04-2010, 10:14 AM
I would be pleased if the Reds would simply make Janish Leake's personal SS. As many groundballs as Leake induces when he is pitching right, that simple step would go a long way toward hiding Cabrera's defense while letting him play the other games in whatever nod to his being a "winner" they are currently hung up on.

Frankly, even with Stubbs' awful error in the second last night, the run would not have scored had Janish been in the game, because he at the very least knocks down the single that followed.

With Leake, it would be nice to maximize the gloves on the field given the way he pitches and the groundballs he induces.

Those are the kinds of simple steps the Reds/Dusty could take that would not be wholesale changes but would signify that they "get" it in some fashion or another.

nate
05-04-2010, 10:24 AM
TV for scouting baseball defense is what Guitar Hero is to making music

I'm not "scouting defense," I'm just saying what I see from my lovely green couch. The dude looks slow in the field and waves at a lot of balls. I mean, is that really something in question because I'm not sitting on the field with the scouts?

The defensive stats at this point of the season are all but meaningless unless coupled with the downward trend that's been occurring over the past couple years; there isn't a metric that rates him as good.

TRF
05-04-2010, 10:48 AM
Or he could get hurt, which is probably more likely than he being benched for his limited range. I see some egos involved in this decision, OC's, Walts and Dusty, any resolution will be slow as molasses.

appropriate metaphor. And likely spot on in why he's still out there.

westofyou
05-04-2010, 10:49 AM
I'm not "scouting defense," I'm just saying what I see from my lovely green couch. The dude looks slow in the field and waves at a lot of balls. I mean, is that really something in question because I'm not sitting on the field with the scouts?

The defensive stats at this point of the season are all but meaningless unless coupled with the downward trend that's been occurring over the past couple years; there isn't a metric that rates him as good.

I wasn't referring to you, nor anyone here.. just making a general statement.

Scrap Irony
05-04-2010, 10:54 AM
Cabrera is s l o w, but UZR is a poor way to measure it. You'd need at least half a season to gauge how bad he is.

To my eyes, he's just as bad as Keppinger, but not much worse. I'd prefer Janish, at this point. That said, I'm hoping he limbers up as the season grows warmer.

RedsManRick
05-04-2010, 10:56 AM
Using a /150 number for UZR after a month might be illustrative, but let's remember that it's a very small sample. Compared to offensive stats, it's akin to 50 PA. He's at -2.4 runs.

If you trust UZR as a measure of performance, Cabrera has clearly struggled. But let's not get caught up in confirmation bias. Drew Stubbs is at -4.2 (-62.8/150!!). Rolen is at -1.8 (-20.6/150). Should we similiarly conclude that they are horrible defenders?

Don't get me wrong. I think Cabrera is a poor defensive SS based on what I see everyday and his performance last year. But a very small sample size is a small sample size and has no more (or less) validity based on how well it aligns with our expectations.

Cedric
05-04-2010, 10:58 AM
Orlando Cabrera right now is the worst SS I have ever seen play regularly at the MLB level.

I'm not saying that lightly. He just truly is the worst I have ever seen.

Sea Ray
05-04-2010, 11:04 AM
Orlando Cabrera right now is the worst SS I have ever seen play regularly at the MLB level.

I'm not saying that lightly. He just truly is the worst I have ever seen.

I wouldn't say he's worse that Felipe Lopez was in a Reds' uniform. He really pounded that wall behind 1B.

forfreelin04
05-04-2010, 11:04 AM
Orlando Cabrera right now is the worst SS I have ever seen play regularly at the MLB level.

I'm not saying that lightly. He just truly is the worst I have ever seen.

He is bad, but like I said in the Game Thread. Until you get yourself an ACTUAL Major League Leftfielder, his offense is needed.

Right now this team has two minor league invites (pretty much) platooning in left.

nate
05-04-2010, 11:09 AM
I wasn't referring to you, nor anyone here.. just making a general statement.

I agree that it's difficult to gauge defense on TV even while sitting on a green couch. I'm just saying what it seems like to me, he doesn't get a good first step or he's slow or both.

Or maybe he needs glasses. I've seen him dive OVER a couple balls.

Chip R
05-04-2010, 11:11 AM
I agree that it's difficult to gauge defense on TV even while sitting on a green couch.


Perhaps you need a different colored couch.

nate
05-04-2010, 11:30 AM
Perhaps you need a different colored couch.

Maybe that's why the Reds haven't been good in a decade.

Although the couch is only a couple years old.

lollipopcurve
05-04-2010, 11:34 AM
I'm not saying that lightly. He just truly is the worst I have ever seen.

I wouldn't go that far. Tejada last year is the worst I can remember. Lopez had a very inaccurate arm. Keppinger was similar -- limited range, weakish arm.

VR
05-04-2010, 11:39 AM
I wouldn't go that far. Tejada last year is the worst I can remember. Lopez had a very inaccurate arm. Keppinger was similar -- limited range, weakish arm.

Yes, Tejada has no range left.

Cabrera just looks like he has old legs and reflexes...reminds me a bit of Griff's escapades in centerfield a few years ago.

Kc61
05-04-2010, 11:41 AM
OC is sure handed, makes accurate throws. Upgrade offensively. Obviously lacks range.

All winter long it was obvious that there were several spots where the team had holes. SS. LF. Weathers spot in the pen. TOR starter.

Reds didn't go for any big, or even medium, contract type players for the major league team. The only major player contract acquired was Chapman.

If Cabrera still had all his defensive skills, he would have been out of the Reds' price range this winter.

If the Reds want good players in their prime, they will have to pay for them. Even if home grown, they tend to cost money. Reds didn't spend this off-season.

TRF
05-04-2010, 11:46 AM
Cabrera at the plate last night was why Cabrera was in there instead of Janish. Dusty probably believes in the past performance indicates future success. Of course Cabrera was never THAT successful at the plate, but he does have a better track record than Janish. But in a game as close as that one was, Cabrera had no business playing 11 innings.

flyer85
05-04-2010, 11:48 AM
Watching him play it is rather obvious he gets to very little. The shocking contrast was in the Pittsburgh series when Cedeno for the Rats was getting to everything, he easily had 10 feet more range in either direction that Cabrera. Cabrera moves so slowly to start it leads me to believe he is afraid of getting hurt by starting quickly.

Having said that he is the SS and will continue to be until he is traded or gets hurt, no way he will be benched.

membengal
05-04-2010, 11:50 AM
Again, a compromise. Why can the Reds not make Janish Leake's personal SS? That gets Janish a start every five days, and makes maximum use of his glove behind a pitcher that actually has plus ground ball tendencies.

That way Cabrera isn't made sad, Jocketty doesn't have to admit a mistake, and the Reds give themselves a slightly better chance to win on days Leake pitches.

Cedric
05-04-2010, 11:52 AM
I think Felipe was better than this. Felipe could at least get to some balls. Cabrera right now reminds me of a slow Royce Clayton out there :)

I have watched Kep this year and with the eye he looks clearly better than Cabrera. It's not just range that bothers me. He plays a deep SS and still can't get to any balls.

OnBaseMachine
05-04-2010, 12:19 PM
I would be pleased if the Reds would simply make Janish Leake's personal SS. As many groundballs as Leake induces when he is pitching right, that simple step would go a long way toward hiding Cabrera's defense while letting him play the other games in whatever nod to his being a "winner" they are currently hung up on.


Agreed. AT LEAST play Janish at SS on days when Mike Leake pitches. He's a groundball pitcher, so why not put your best defensive infield out there?

TheNext44
05-04-2010, 12:30 PM
Using a /150 number for UZR after a month might be illustrative, but let's remember that it's a very small sample. Compared to offensive stats, it's akin to 50 PA. He's at -2.4 runs.

If you trust UZR as a measure of performance, Cabrera has clearly struggled. But let's not get caught up in confirmation bias. Drew Stubbs is at -4.2 (-62.8/150!!). Rolen is at -1.8 (-20.6/150). Should we similiarly conclude that they are horrible defenders?

Don't get me wrong. I think Cabrera is a poor defensive SS based on what I see everyday and his performance last year. But a very small sample size is a small sample size and has no more (or less) validity based on how well it aligns with our expectations.

I agree that using UZR after one month is pretty meaningless, as you point out with Rolen and Stubbs.

But by combining what everyone is seeing everyday from these guys, their past performance, and their UZR, I think a clear picture evolves.

Rolen probably has lost a step and isn't the Gold Glover he used to be, but he still makes outstanding plays on a regular basis. Watching him play makes me confident that at the end of the season, he will still be above average defensively. I could be wrong, only time will tell, but the fact that his UZR isn't matching up with what I see, makes me at least have hope that he will be fine.

Stubbs has made a few dumb mistakes, which being a rookie is understandable, but he too is making outstanding plays on a regular basis. I feel even stronger about his defense that I do about Rolen's.

But Cabrara, looks so slow, is not making any tough plays, is missing many easy ones, and watching him, it seems very unlikely that he will get quicker or more sure handed. It's really hard to see him being even an average SS over the course of the season. When UZR matches up with what we all see, it easier to draw conclusions.

And as to the argument that the team needs his offense...

Can Janish really be much worse offensively than this:

250 .288 .348 .636?

pedro
05-04-2010, 12:30 PM
I think Felipe was better than this. Felipe could at least get to some balls. Cabrera right now reminds me of a slow Royce Clayton out there :)

I have watched Kep this year and with the eye he looks clearly better than Cabrera. It's not just range that bothers me. He plays a deep SS and still can't get to any balls.

But Felipe made bad throws, played out of position, forgot to back up bases, didn't get in position to take cut offs. I'm not defending Cabrera's range but there is a lot more to playing SS than just range.

Lopez was a way worse SS than Cabrera.

Cedric
05-04-2010, 12:31 PM
I agree that using UZR after one month is pretty meaningless, as you point out with Rolen and Stubbs.

But by combining what everyone is seeing everyday from these guys, their past performance, and their UZR, I think a clear picture evolves.

Rolen probably has lost a step and isn't the Gold Glover he used to be, but he still makes outstanding plays on a regular basis. Watching him play makes me confident that at the end of the season, he will still be above average defensively. I could be wrong, only time will tell, but the fact that his UZR isn't matching up with what I see, makes me at least have hope that he will be fine.

Stubbs has made a few dumb mistakes, which being a rookie is understandable, but he too is making outstanding plays on a regular basis. I feel even stronger about his defense that I do about Rolen's.

But Cabrara, looks so slow, is not making any tough plays, is missing many easy ones, and watching him, it seems very unlikely that he will get quicker or more sure handed. It's really hard to see him being even an average SS over the course of the season. When UZR matches up with what we all see, it easier to draw conclusions.

And as to the argument that the team needs his offense...

Can Janish really be much worse offensively than this:

250 .288 .348 .636?

Good post. The eyes and the UZR tell the story on this one. It's really going to be hard for someone to convince me of anything different.

edabbs44
05-04-2010, 12:32 PM
And as to the argument that the team needs his offense...

Can Janish really be much worse offensively than this:

250 .288 .348 .636?

Sure.

And I think it is safe to assume that his numbers will get better from here on out. His OPS went up .036 yesterday.

OnBaseMachine
05-04-2010, 12:34 PM
And as to the argument that the team needs his offense...

Can Janish really be much worse offensively than this:

250 .288 .348 .636?

Nope. I'd rather have a .600 OPS and plus defense from Janish than a .650ish OPS and horrible defense from Cabrera.

dougdirt
05-04-2010, 12:45 PM
He is bad, but like I said in the Game Thread. Until you get yourself an ACTUAL Major League Leftfielder, his offense is needed.

Right now this team has two minor league invites (pretty much) platooning in left.

I just don't get this ideology. Runs are runs. Scoring more runs doesn't matter if you are just giving them all back with the glove.

forfreelin04
05-04-2010, 01:47 PM
I just don't get this ideology. Runs are runs. Scoring more runs doesn't matter if you are just giving them all back with the glove.

It's not ideology Doug.

It's the assumption that Janish will prevent more runs with his stick then he will prevent them with his glove.

The last thing this offense needs is another black hole.

I'm all for Leake having a caddying shortstop since he's a sinker ball pitcher. But your losing alot with Janish, Stubbs, and whoever is in LF in your batting order at the same time. Even more so if Janish and Stubbs are 1-2 in the lineup.

I'm all for preventing runs but this team will struggle to score runs all year. Sure, Janish will get to more balls than OCAB at SS. But these Reds pitchers have shown they have the inability to get the ball over the plate at times and have trouble keeping it in the ballpark. Both of these have little to nothing to do with whose playing SS.

reds44
05-04-2010, 02:01 PM
The 2009 Reds finished with a team DER of .705, 4th best in all of baseball. The 2010 Reds have a team DER of .673, 26th in baseball. That's a huge difference. Left field and shortstop have really killed the defense, and even Stubbs has made a couple bad plays in CF, but he'll be fine, IMO. His range in CF is incredible.
Stubbs, to me, has been an overrated defender. I'm not saying he's not better than average, but he came in with the reputation of "gold glove good right now", and he just hasn't lvied up to that.

And yes, Janish could be worse than Cabrera offensively. It's possible. Cabrera was horrible early on in the season the last two years as well, and he ended up improving his number by the end of the season.

forfreelin04
05-04-2010, 02:25 PM
Nope. I'd rather have a .600 OPS and plus defense from Janish than a .650ish OPS and horrible defense from Cabrera.

Except its not a .650ish OPS. It's .705 (09), .705 (08) and .742 (08).

If he's at .650 at the end of the year, you were all 100% correct about Janish being the better option at SS all year.

dougdirt
05-04-2010, 02:29 PM
Except its not a .650ish OPS. It's .705 (09), .705 (08) and .742 (08).

If he's at .650 at the end of the year, you were all 100% correct about Janish being the better option at SS all year.

How many runs is .700 worth compared to .650 over 500 at bats? It is about 8 runs.

Bumstead
05-04-2010, 02:39 PM
I read all this, I look at the Cardinals and well...the Cardinals aren't playing better defenders ahead of better hitters...Skip Schumaker is not a 2B...I don't know, I have seen pitching win championships and I've seen hitting win championships, can't say that I've seen defense win championships in MLB. Again, prove that the defensive metrics aren't weighted too heavily toward defense when compared to offense; they are.

Bum

nate
05-04-2010, 02:40 PM
How many runs is .700 worth compared to .650 over 500 at bats? It is about 8 runs.

Right and there's about .100-ish OPS difference in their career numbers (and almost exactly the same if you compare Janish's career to Cabrera's last three years.)

So, the real question is if .100-ish points of OPS is worth, say 16 runs (a win and a half), what's the difference in gloves? Is it more than 16 runs?

forfreelin04
05-04-2010, 03:20 PM
Right and there's about .100-ish OPS difference in their career numbers (and almost exactly the same if you compare Janish's career to Cabrera's last three years.)

So, the real question is if .100-ish points of OPS is worth, say 16 runs (a win and a half), what's the difference in gloves? Is it more than 16 runs?

I guess that's the million dollar question that will be answered at the end of the year.

I hate to say it but OCAB's made some fantastic plays. The pickoff at second in the first game against the Cards may have arguably been the play of the game. There was also his awareness on the double play ball back to Cueto.

Like WOY said, Redszone needs a whipping boy. Might as well be OCAB.

Cedric
05-04-2010, 03:24 PM
I guess that's the million dollar question that will be answered at the end of the year.

I hate to say it but OCAB's made some fantastic plays. The pickoff at second in the first game against the Cards may have arguably been the play of the game. There was also his awareness on the double play ball back to Cueto.

Like WOY said, Redszone needs a whipping boy. Might as well be OCAB.

Or the guy is a terrible defender at this point in his career. Just stating that people are bashing OCAB because we want a whipping boy doesn't make it true.

forfreelin04
05-04-2010, 03:29 PM
Or the guy is a terrible defender at this point in his career. Just stating that people are bashing OCAB because we want a whipping boy doesn't make it true.

Didn't say he wasn't.

Just saying its the Redzone way to take a veteran and break down his faults while overvaluing homegrown talent.

OnBaseMachine
05-04-2010, 03:32 PM
Stubbs, to me, has been an overrated defender. I'm not saying he's not better than average, but he came in with the reputation of "gold glove good right now", and he just hasn't lvied up to that.


To me, Stubbs is an elite defensive center fielder. I watch a lot of major league games, and the only current CFer I've seen with the range to match Stubbs is Franklin Gutierrez. He's misplayed a couple of flyballs this season for some reason, but he's been very impressive most of the time he's been in the majors. JMO.

nate
05-04-2010, 03:33 PM
I guess that's the million dollar question that will be answered at the end of the year.

I hate to say it but OCAB's made some fantastic plays. The pickoff at second in the first game against the Cards may have arguably been the play of the game. There was also his awareness on the double play ball back to Cueto.

Then there was the ball the bounced off his glove and allowed a runner to go to third. Or several balls he's waved "bon voyage" at.


Like WOY said, Redszone needs a whipping boy. Might as well be OCAB.

I think the "whipping boy" term is overplayed. "Whipping boys" will go away when the team puts together a believable stretch of winning baseball.

That's all there is to it.

membengal
05-04-2010, 03:34 PM
Gotta say, the need to accuse people when discussing a player of feeding an alleged board need for a "whipping boy" that has developed over the years as a somewhat accepted concept on this forum is not a real boon to discussion. All that does is make people defensive, and squelch discussion in the end, as near as I can tell.

So, awesome, any discussion of Cabrera will now be put into the category of "whipping boy" and, at that point, reflexively dismissed. That's unfortunate.

OnBaseMachine
05-04-2010, 03:34 PM
I hate to say it but OCAB's made some fantastic plays.


I've yet to see one.

membengal
05-04-2010, 03:37 PM
Didn't say he wasn't.

Just saying its the Redzone way to take a veteran and break down his faults while overvaluing homegrown talent.

The way Stubbs has been overvalued? Or Bailey? Or even Bruce?

Each of those players has been the subject of thread after thread of discussion and pointed criticism over their games. All homegrown talent. Fans will discuss players, and when the players are not performing well, will especially discuss them. I reject the broad generalizations as to how the alleged monolith that is "Redszone" approaches discussion of "veterans" vs. discussion of "homegrown talent".

_Sir_Charles_
05-04-2010, 03:42 PM
I hate to say it but OCAB's made some fantastic plays. The pickoff at second in the first game against the Cards may have arguably been the play of the game. There was also his awareness on the double play ball back to Cueto.

I agree that he's made some outstanding plays on occasion. But here's the rub....wouldn't Janish had made those plays too? I think yes....plus many of the other one's he waved "ole" at.

forfreelin04
05-04-2010, 03:44 PM
I've yet to see one.

Did you watch the Friday night game against St. Louis? There's a couple there that are pretty impressive.

There was another off the top of my head on a jumping throw to nab a runner at 1st, but who it was against escapes me.

forfreelin04
05-04-2010, 03:46 PM
The way Stubbs has been overvalued? Or Bailey? Or even Bruce?

Each of those players has been the subject of thread after thread of discussion and pointed criticism over their games. All homegrown talent. Fans will discuss players, and when the players are not performing well, will especially discuss them. I reject the broad generalizations as to how the alleged monolith that is "Redszone" approaches discussion of "veterans" vs. discussion of "homegrown talent".

Well, as Nate pointed out. This "may" be because of the constant losing.

However, they are "winning" and have been for a week now.

No need to derail the thread about my generalization. Mucho apologies

OnBaseMachine
05-04-2010, 03:48 PM
Did you watch the Friday night game against St. Louis? There's a couple there that are pretty impressive.

There was another off the top of my head on a jumping throw to nab a runner at 1st, but who it was against escapes me.

Yeah, I watched the game and I didn't see him do anything that a normal major league shortstop wouldn't do.

forfreelin04
05-04-2010, 03:49 PM
I agree that he's made some outstanding plays on occasion. But here's the rub....wouldn't Janish had made those plays too? I think yes....plus many of the other one's he waved "ole" at.

I think, that I think I know Janish would make those plays too.

But I think, that I think I know he wouldn't have as many hits or RBI's as OCAB with the same amount of PA's.

Janish has hit well when he's started though.

forfreelin04
05-04-2010, 03:54 PM
Yeah, I watched the game and I didn't see him do anything that a normal major league shortstop wouldn't do.

Fair enough. Your assumption is that a normal ML SS would stick his body in front of a runner and prevent him from getting back to the bag.

You also assume that every ML SS would catch a ball in stride from the pitcher on a bang-bang play. A play where he not only had to be postion but catch a ball thrown like a bullet from close range.

Fair enough. Remind me not to invite you to the circus. :cool:

RED VAN HOT
05-04-2010, 03:56 PM
It seems to me that we started the season with two assumptions (hopes). The first was that Gomes's offense would be sufficient to overcome his defensive shortcomings. The second was that Cabrera's relatively poor defensive year was an aberration and that any real slowing down would be small and offset by superior offensive production. After four weeks neither of these assumptions have been validated.

Janish has looked to be a stronger, improved hitter this year both in spring training and in limited regular season action. He is making much better contact, a claim that cannot be made by many Reds players. After a terrible start in AAA, Heisey seemed to be recovering. With Dickerson out 4-6 weeks and no other outfield candidates tearing up AAA, this seems to be the right time to see if Heisey can be more than a fourth/fifth outfielder. Is there really a risk in starting both for a couple of weeks? Wouldn't it be better to do this now rather than wait until the Reds are 10 games under .500? Are Cabrera and Gomes likely to improve defensively with additional playing time? If we are serious about winning with pitching/defense why not give it a try?

Tell Heisey his job is to get on base, not hit home runs, and bat him second. Slip Phillips to third in the order and attempt run the opposition out of the park.

Will M
05-04-2010, 05:12 PM
I just want to comment on the 'whipping boy' issue. I didn't start the thread to pick on Orlando. He seems like a nice guy and seems to play with effort.
Its not his fault that he can't play major league SS anymore. I'm confident he is doing his best.

The issue is the Reds management (Walt/Dusty/the coaches).
Why in the world do they continue to run Orlando out there day after day after day? Any fairly knowledgable fan can see that his range is unacceptable. The UZR number simply comfirms what our eyes tell us.

There is not a doubt in my mind that the team would be better if Janish played SS everyday & Cabrera was the utility infielder.

TheNext44
05-04-2010, 05:40 PM
Right and there's about .100-ish OPS difference in their career numbers (and almost exactly the same if you compare Janish's career to Cabrera's last three years.)

So, the real question is if .100-ish points of OPS is worth, say 16 runs (a win and a half), what's the difference in gloves? Is it more than 16 runs?

I think that the difference would be around 50 OPS at best, and I actually think Janish could out perform Cabrera offensively if given the chance to play every day.

First, you need to look at how Cabrera has regressed over the last three years.

2007 - .345 OBP
2008 - .334 OBP
2009 - .316 OBP
2010 - .286 OBP

I really think that Cabrera will put up numbers very similar to what he's put up so far over the whole season. Maybe in between .650- .675 OPS, but I think his days of reaching .700 OPS are over.

Janish last year, when he started every day, put up these numbers:

.217 .304 .349 .653

Not very good, but really right around what Cabrera is doing now. When you factor in the hot streak that he has been on since spring training, I think there is enough evidence to believe that he could reach .700 OPS if he was playing every day.

Combine this with his defensive advantage, and it's really a no brainer.

Spring~Fields
05-04-2010, 05:40 PM
Why in the world do they continue to run Orlando out there day after day after day? Any fairly knowledgable fan can see that his range is unacceptable.

Escalation of commitment

Tendency to invest additional resources in an apparently losing proposition, influenced by effort, money, and time already invested.

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/escalation-of-commitment.html


Escalation of commitment was first described by Barry M. Staw in his 1976 paper, "Knee deep in the big muddy: A study of escalating commitment to a chosen course of action".[1]. More recently the term sunk cost fallacy has been used to describe the phenomenon where people justify increased investment in a decision, based on the cumulative prior investment, despite new evidence suggesting that the decision was probably wrong. Such investment may include money, time, or — in the case of military strategy — human lives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escalation_of_commitment


This very common pattern is called irrational escalation and describes situations in which people make seemingly irrational decisions in order to justify the decisions they’ve already made or the actions they’ve already taken.


http://customerinnovations.wordpress.com/2008/02/04/influential-experiences-and-the-psychology-of-escalating-commitment/

It is not just with Orlando, we have seen that with other teams, besides Reds teams, and especially some memorable under achievers that the current ownership group with their think tank in the gm and manager, in their low budget world, that they have brought in.

nate
05-04-2010, 05:46 PM
I think that the difference would be around 50 OPS at best, and I actually think Janish could out perform Cabrera offensively if given the chance to play every day.

Maybe. I was just going on what their career numbers are at right now.


First, you need to look at how Cabrera has regressed over the last three years.

2007 - .345 OBP
2008 - .334 OBP
2009 - .316 OBP
2010 - .286 OBP

I really think that Cabrera will put up numbers very similar to what he's put up so far over the whole season. Maybe in between .650- .675 OPS, but I think his days of reaching .700 OPS are over.

Janish last year, when he started every day, put up these numbers:

.217 .304 .349 .653

Not very good, but really right around what Cabrera is doing now. When you factor in the hot streak that he has been on since spring training, I think there is enough evidence to believe that he could reach .700 OPS if he was playing every day.

Combine this with his defensive advantage, and it's really a no brainer.

Yep. I don't think it's unrealistic to think the glove spans that chasm.

pedro
05-04-2010, 05:54 PM
I have a feeling that as the season goes on if the other starters start to hit better then Janish will get more playing time. I just get the feeling that with some of the other guys struggling Dusty feels he needs Cabrera's bat in there.

CesarGeronimo
05-04-2010, 06:02 PM
Gotta say, the need to accuse people when discussing a player of feeding an alleged board need for a "whipping boy" that has developed over the years as a somewhat accepted concept on this forum is not a real boon to discussion. All that does is make people defensive, and squelch discussion in the end, as near as I can tell.

So, awesome, any discussion of Cabrera will now be put into the category of "whipping boy" and, at that point, reflexively dismissed. That's unfortunate.

I agree with this and I don't think people are even using the term correctly. A whipping boy, by definition, is a scapegoat or a fall guy, someone who is blamed for the misdeeds or shortcomings of others.

But here, the term whipping boy seems to get used pretty quickly relating to any player who is criticized for his own shortcomings. The criticism here about Cabrera, for instance, has seemed to me to focus more on the possibility that the Reds have a better player on the bench, not on whether he is the reason for whatever struggles the team as a whole has had this season.

TheNext44
05-04-2010, 06:54 PM
Escalation of commitment

Tendency to invest additional resources in an apparently losing proposition, influenced by effort, money, and time already invested.

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/escalation-of-commitment.html



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escalation_of_commitment


http://customerinnovations.wordpress.com/2008/02/04/influential-experiences-and-the-psychology-of-escalating-commitment/

It is not just with Orlando, we have seen that with other teams, besides Reds teams, and especially some memorable under achievers that the current ownership group with their think tank in the gm and manager, in their low budget world, that they have brought in.

Nice observation and reasoning.

Back in 1982, John McNamera got fired for refusing to play Alex Trevino, and Clint Hurdle, players that GM Dick Wagner acquired in trades and wanted to be proven right about.

Dave Miley suffered a similar fate for not wanting to play D'Angelo Jimenez and not wanting to run Ramon Ortiz and Eric Milton out every 5th day.

I really hope that Jocketty doesn't suffer from the same problem.

Will M
05-04-2010, 07:43 PM
Escalation of commitment

Tendency to invest additional resources in an apparently losing proposition, influenced by effort, money, and time already invested.

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/escalation-of-commitment.html



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escalation_of_commitment




http://customerinnovations.wordpress.com/2008/02/04/influential-experiences-and-the-psychology-of-escalating-commitment/

It is not just with Orlando, we have seen that with other teams, besides Reds teams, and especially some memorable under achievers that the current ownership group with their think tank in the gm and manager, in their low budget world, that they have brought in.


Nice observation and reasoning.

Back in 1982, John McNamera got fired for refusing to play Alex Trevino, and Clint Hurdle, players that GM Dick Wagner acquired in trades and wanted to be proven right about.

Dave Miley suffered a similar fate for not wanting to play D'Angelo Jimenez and not wanting to run Ramon Ortiz and Eric Milton out every 5th day.

I really hope that Jocketty doesn't suffer from the same problem.

interesting.

Once upon a time I bought about 20 individual stocks in various emerging markets. Once was a telecommunications company in Venezuela. Literally 19 out of my 20 stocks did well. Except for that pesky Venezuelan stock. I kept the faith. However every time I saw Venezuela in the news my attention perked up. I started to read more & more about a certain dictator who was starting to nationalize companies. I cut bait on the stock & invested the money elsewhere. Good thing as about a year later the company was nationalized. I didn't get married to my investment. Once I realized that a mistake may have been made I paid very close attention. Once I was sure a mistake had been made I fixed it. Walt/Dusty should do the same.

edabbs44
05-04-2010, 08:26 PM
interesting.

Once upon a time I bought about 20 individual stocks in various emerging markets. Once was a telecommunications company in Venezuela. Literally 19 out of my 20 stocks did well. Except for that pesky Venezuelan stock. I kept the faith. However every time I saw Venezuela in the news my attention perked up. I started to read more & more about a certain dictator who was starting to nationalize companies. I cut bait on the stock & invested the money elsewhere. Good thing as about a year later the company was nationalized. I didn't get married to my investment. Once I realized that a mistake may have been made I paid very close attention. Once I was sure a mistake had been made I fixed it. Walt/Dusty should do the same.

Ace Greenberg mentality.

Ltlabner
05-05-2010, 07:17 AM
Gotta say, the need to accuse people when discussing a player of feeding an alleged board need for a "whipping boy" that has developed over the years as a somewhat accepted concept on this forum is not a real boon to discussion. All that does is make people defensive, and squelch discussion in the end, as near as I can tell.

So, awesome, any discussion of Cabrera will now be put into the category of "whipping boy" and, at that point, reflexively dismissed. That's unfortunate.

100%.

Despite some peoples unwillingness to be negative about their team the fact remains the defense at SS isn't cutting the mustard. For a team allegedly built around pitching and defense (or any team really) that's a bit of a problem that should be at least considered, if not addressed (and I dare say on an internet sports forum, discussed).

thatcoolguy_22
05-05-2010, 07:36 AM
I skimmed through the first 50 or so posts so forgive me if someone has already given the gist of this but:

Why are we using career numbers to justify Cabrera's .650ish OPS and to keep downplay Janish's bat?


Typical athletes follow a career arc. When they are young the path trends upwards, prime years the skill set is flattened, and when they age decline inevitably happens.

OCAB is a bottom feeder of MLB SS defense with replacement level bat at this point in his career. If everyone could still play ball well regardless of age Hammerin Hank would still be hammering.

The biggest question is where does Janish's arc take him from here? Has he reached max potential with the bat? Will he begin to regress? hover around .600 OPS? UZR +10 or better?

Instead of comparing what Janish and Cabrera have done in the past (which does nothing for the 2010 Reds btw) debate who has the higher upside for THIS season?

My opinion: Janish could OPS .670 with a little BABIP luck this year while giving a +12 (or better) defensive performance. I justify that with my superior eye (a la Drew Stubbs, see sig) his ability to stroke a double, and the arm/range of a cannon on a B52.

RedsManRick
05-05-2010, 09:30 AM
great post tcg. Past performance doesn't matter, future performance does. SS in their mid-late 30's simply don't hold up very well. Cabrera has been declining in the field and the dish and there's little reason to expect him to turn it around. Looking forward, Janish is the better bet.

reds1869
05-05-2010, 09:36 AM
TCG is dead on. Janish is the clear option at SS on this 25 man, but I fear we will continue to see OCab penciled into the lineup spot on a regular basis. Cabrera is a great guy to have on the bench but should be filling Miguel Cairo's role while Janish takes the starts at short.

kpresidente
05-05-2010, 09:38 AM
There is no "we need offense." There's no formula for winning baseball except score more than the other guy. If the combo of Janish's bat and glove nets you more runs than the combo of OC's bat and glove, then Janish should be playing.

And I'm still convinced we could have had JJ Hardy if WJ had offered up Stubbs.

lollipopcurve
05-05-2010, 09:46 AM
And I'm still convinced we could have had JJ Hardy if WJ had offered up Stubbs.

One year of JJ Hardy, to be exact.

jojo
05-05-2010, 09:51 AM
One year of JJ Hardy, to be exact.

2 years.

But I wouldn't have done it for Stubbs personally.

lollipopcurve
05-05-2010, 09:57 AM
2 years.

But I wouldn't have done it for Stubbs personally.

Oh right. I forgot about that sudden demotion he received last year.

Agree on holding onto Stubbs in this scenario anyway.

flyer85
05-05-2010, 10:44 AM
Combine this with his defensive advantage, and it's really a no brainer.describes the Reds quite well

IslandRed
05-05-2010, 10:47 AM
Instead of comparing what Janish and Cabrera have done in the past (which does nothing for the 2010 Reds btw) debate who has the higher upside for THIS season?

My opinion: Janish could OPS .670 with a little BABIP luck this year while giving a +12 (or better) defensive performance. I justify that with my superior eye (a la Drew Stubbs, see sig) his ability to stroke a double, and the arm/range of a cannon on a B52.

Over a full season, I'd still bet on Cabrera's bat among the two, and the advantage of being a veteran is being given the opportunity to work through slow starts. But at this point I don't think it's enough of a difference to cancel the defensive advantage of Janish. As I've said before, I don't believe Janish is good enough and I don't blame the Reds for signing Cabrera and giving themselves a chance to do better, but if Cabrera's not going to be better, then they'll need to adjust accordingly.

flyer85
05-05-2010, 10:49 AM
IMO the Reds problem is with Cabrera is that you either have to play him or release him. He came here with the expectation of being the everyday SS and I don't believe he would accept a backup role. So currently the Reds are in a bind and my guess is they will do nothing for the time being.

westofyou
05-05-2010, 11:11 AM
IMO the Reds problem is with Cabrera is that you either have to play him or release him. He came here with the expectation of being the everyday SS and I don't believe he would accept a backup role. So currently the Reds are in a bind and my guess is they will do nothing for the time being.

Exactly, and 1 month into the season you would poison the teams approach for vet FA help in the future, it's a rock and a hard place situation, accented by Janishe's lack of a MLB quality stick.

pedro
05-05-2010, 11:24 AM
Exactly, and 1 month into the season you would poison the teams approach for vet FA help in the future, it's a rock and a hard place situation, accented by Janishe's lack of a MLB quality stick.

Accentuated by the fact that it's likely nothing but a lateral move.

I think the Reds gave Janish enough AB's last year to know what they have.

Scrap Irony
05-05-2010, 11:29 AM
Cabrera is now at a -11.5 UZR/150. Boy, he's gotten so much better in the past five days! Must have really limbered up! Well, that or his sample size is getting a bit larger and he's not as bad as some insist. (Nor as good as others think.)

bucksfan2
05-05-2010, 11:37 AM
Cabrera is now at a -11.5 UZR/150. Boy, he's gotten so much better in the past five days! Must have really limbered up! Well, that or his sample size is getting a bit larger and he's not as bad as some insist. (Nor as good as others think.)

The one thing that does bother me about Cabrera's defense isn't his inabilities to get to certain balls. Its his inability to keep certain balls in the infield when he has a chance. I realize that Cabrera's range is limited but I also think that he needs to keep balls in the infield that he can't turn into an out. This is especially key with runners on base.

Blitz Dorsey
05-05-2010, 11:43 AM
We're screwed either way at SS this year. If Janish was playing everyday, everyone would be complaining about his awful stick. Since Cabrera is playing everyday, everyone is complaining about his D.

We don't have a good shortstop and we're screwed either way. And since the offense is already pretty bad, it's easy to see why they wanted Cabrera even though his D is not nearly what it used to be.

edabbs44
05-05-2010, 11:58 AM
We're screwed either way at SS this year. If Janish was playing everyday, everyone would be complaining about his awful stick. Since Cabrera is playing everyday, everyone is complaining about his D.

We don't have a good shortstop and we're screwed either way. And since the offense is already pretty bad, it's easy to see why they wanted Cabrera even though his D is not nearly what it used to be.

True dat.

If Janish was given the job, the complaint would be that Walt didn't go out and get a SS. Like how Yuniel Escobar's name gets tossed around, he of the .215/.295/.266 line this year.

Cabrera has been less than stellar this year, without a doubt. But legit SS's aren't usually available in the bargain bin at Walmart. I'm glad that the Cabrera contract was a one year deal.

flyer85
05-05-2010, 12:02 PM
But legit SS's aren't usually available in the bargain bin at Walmart. which is why you have to develop your own. because next offseason the Reds are going to be right back to where they were this season, although maybe they will be willing to turn it over to Janish/Cozart.

edabbs44
05-05-2010, 12:20 PM
which is why you have to develop your own. because next offseason the Reds are going to be right back to where they were this season, although maybe they will be willing to turn it over to Janish/Cozart.

I am with you.

fearofpopvol1
05-05-2010, 01:08 PM
The one thing that does bother me about Cabrera's defense isn't his inabilities to get to certain balls. Its his inability to keep certain balls in the infield when he has a chance. I realize that Cabrera's range is limited but I also think that he needs to keep balls in the infield that he can't turn into an out. This is especially key with runners on base.

This.

I've been watching the Mets' telecasts here in NYC and every time he misses the ball, they say something along the lines of "Once a gold glover, but he just doesn't have that range anymore."

Spring~Fields
05-06-2010, 11:19 PM
which is why you have to develop your own. because next offseason the Reds are going to be right back to where they were this season, although maybe they will be willing to turn it over to Janish/Cozart.

I don't think that will happen. Janish and Cozart won't have enough major leauge experience, and at this rate there will be no evidence that Janish has improved with the bat, even if he had, who will know.

Captain Hook
05-06-2010, 11:50 PM
which is why you have to develop your own. because next offseason the Reds are going to be right back to where they were this season, although maybe they will be willing to turn it over to Janish/Cozart.

I think Dusty is falling in Love with Cabrera.I can't see it any other way considering that Janish has completely disappeared despite playing well when given a chance and it's unlikely he starts a game anytime soon(just the feeling I get).It's possible that we will see Ocab manning SS next year as well, especially if the Reds have a decent season and decide to bring Baker back.

While I would never hope for the Reds to have a bad season I can see why some would just to avoid these kind of scenarios.

As long as OC is getting some timely hits and the Reds can continue to play well as a team we are going to have to live with terrible D from the SS position.

OUReds
05-20-2010, 10:38 AM
Cabrera is now at a -11.5 UZR/150. Boy, he's gotten so much better in the past five days! Must have really limbered up! Well, that or his sample size is getting a bit larger and he's not as bad as some insist. (Nor as good as others think.)

He's up to -2.3 now. Having improved 9 runs in two weeks, he's on a pace to end the year at +70 UZR/150!

I am excited at the prospect of having the best defensive SS in the history of the game! ;)

Jpup
05-20-2010, 10:49 AM
I think Cabrera has been pretty darn good lately. I have no problems with him.

BRM
05-20-2010, 10:50 AM
I think Cabrera has been pretty darn good lately. I have no problems with him.

Defensively?

Will M
05-20-2010, 02:08 PM
He's up to -2.3 now. Having improved 9 runs in two weeks, he's on a pace to end the year at +70 UZR/150!

I am excited at the prospect of having the best defensive SS in the history of the game! ;)

there was talk about this a few days ago. from my unscientific observation he seems a lot better in the field now than the first 3 weeks of the season. not sure why.

Homer Bailey
07-26-2010, 03:38 PM
OC's UZR/150 is now up to 8.9. Say what you want about his bat, but I think his defense has been above average at this point in the season, and WAY better than many on this board have made it out to be.

BRM
07-26-2010, 03:41 PM
OC's UZR/150 is now up to 8.9. Say what you want about his bat, but I think his defense has been above average at this point in the season, and WAY better than many on this board have made it out to be.

Maybe he's actually been the opposite of what was expected? Most of us figured he would bring average to above average offense and below average defense. If the defensive metrics are to be believed, he's been above average defensively. However, his OPS ranks dead last among qualified NL shortstops.

OnBaseMachine
07-26-2010, 03:46 PM
I'm not impressed with his range at this point in his career. When he was younger he was a great defender. Now? Not so much, IMO. I still see way too many routine groundballs make it past Cabrera. According to the current UZR numbers, Jay Bruce and Orlando Cabrera have been similar defenders this season while Cabrera has been way better than Drew Stubbs. Sorry, not buying it.

kaldaniels
07-26-2010, 03:49 PM
No objective data to back this up, but I think the chemistry between BP and OC is great on double play balls.

lollipopcurve
07-26-2010, 03:56 PM
Cabrera has made a couple plays to his right lately that really surprised me. And I have to say that I cannot remember seeing him make a bad throw. Probably a bit below average in terms of arm strength, but just super accurate. I was very down on his defense early in the year, but it has definitely stabilized. He's not great out there, but, all things considered, he's been OK.

Bottom line, you see a SS who's been on winning teams consistently, and that tells you something about that player.

jojo
07-26-2010, 04:13 PM
If the season ended today, the Reds basically have a more expensive version of Janish that provides what they might describe as veteran leadership.

If they want to pay $1.5M extra for intangibles, they've spent more, more foolishly, so its a quibble I wouldn't beat into the ground.

Also, Cabrera's bat should offer a little more than it has. It would appear the Reds are probably getting what they'd hoped for...

BRM
07-26-2010, 04:17 PM
Also, Cabrera's bat should offer a little more than it has. It would appear the Reds are probably getting what they'd hoped for...

His bat has been pretty good since the break. Small sample for sure but hopefully it's a sign he's about to get turned around.

lollipopcurve
07-26-2010, 04:20 PM
If the season ended today, the Reds basically have a more expensive version of Janish that provides what they might describe as veteran leadership.

If they want to pay $1.5M extra for intangibles, they've spent more, more foolishly, so its a quibble I wouldn't beat into the ground.

Also, Cabrera's bat should offer a little more than it has. It would appear the Reds are probably getting what they'd hoped for...

If you read or watch interviews with Reds players, you would have already noticed many instances in which Cabrera received praise from a teammate for his influence/leadership/whatever you want to call it.

Look down your nose at "veteran leadership" all you want, but I believe the evidence is there that says Cabrera has brought something positive to the team that Janish could not have.

dougdirt
07-26-2010, 04:25 PM
Cabrera has made a couple plays to his right lately that really surprised me.

Agree with this. His range has been anywhere from poor to above average at different points in this season. The play he made in the hole two nights ago was very nice range to his right.

jojo
07-26-2010, 04:43 PM
If you read or watch interviews with Reds players, you would have already noticed many instances in which Cabrera received praise from a teammate for his influence/leadership/whatever you want to call it.

Look down your nose at "veteran leadership" all you want, but I believe the evidence is there that says Cabrera has brought something positive to the team that Janish could not have.

I've never argued that it isn't cool to have a cool guy around. I'v e argued about the value placed upon it.


“It’s not what Pudge brings into the clubhouse,” Leyland said. “It’s what Pudge brings on to the field. He’s hitting .336! That’s the kind of production you want. [Shucks], I can find a nice bunch of guys you want in the clubhouse. I can find that. He’s producing. That’s what’s good. That’s how I look at.”

“They didn’t bring Strasburg up because he’s a nice guy,” Leyland said. “They brought him up because he’s a big talent. He has a chance to be an unbelievable pitcher and he’s won two games already.

“Take all that clubhouse [stuff] and all that, throw it out the window. Every writer in the country has been writing about that [nonsense] for years. Chemistry don’t mean [anything]. He’s up here because he’s good. That don’t mean [a hill of beans]. They got good chemistry because their team is improved, they got a real good team, they got guys knocking in runs, they got a catcher hitting .336, they got a phenom pitcher they just brought up. That’s why they’re happy.”

lollipopcurve
07-26-2010, 04:48 PM
I've never argued that it isn't cool to have a cool guy around. I'v e argued about the value placed upon it.

No doubt you would disagree with my previous statement....


Bottom line, you see a SS who's been on winning teams consistently, and that tells you something about that player.

The Reds are a youngish team that hasn't won. Guys like Rolen and Cabrera can help turn that around, believe it or not.

BCubb2003
07-26-2010, 04:49 PM
I saw that play he made in the hole and wondered if be was already in the hole when he made it.

edabbs44
07-26-2010, 04:54 PM
I'm not impressed with his range at this point in his career. When he was younger he was a great defender. Now? Not so much, IMO. I still see way too many routine groundballs make it past Cabrera. According to the current UZR numbers, Jay Bruce and Orlando Cabrera have been similar defenders this season while Cabrera has been way better than Drew Stubbs. Sorry, not buying it.

Still see way too many? I find that hard to believe.

lollipopcurve
07-26-2010, 04:54 PM
I saw that play he made in the hole and wondered if be was already in the hole when he made it.

He wasn't. Went about 4 steps to his right to backhand the ball. Replay is on reds.com.

Homer Bailey
07-26-2010, 04:59 PM
I think if Paul Janish wasn't on the Reds, no one would have any problem with OC's defense.

nate
07-26-2010, 05:15 PM
I think if Paul Janish wasn't on the Reds, no one would have any problem with OC's defense.

Many post-Larkin, pre-Janish SS have absorbed the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.

And inrageous fortune as well.

TheNext44
07-26-2010, 05:15 PM
If the season ended today, the Reds basically have a more expensive version of Janish that provides what they might describe as veteran leadership.

If they want to pay $1.5M extra for intangibles, they've spent more, more foolishly, so its a quibble I wouldn't beat into the ground.

Also, Cabrera's bat should offer a little more than it has. It would appear the Reds are probably getting what they'd hoped for...

I don't think that the leadership that Cabrera has brought to the Reds is an "intangible."

I think that this is a common misnomer about leadership and other factors that often get dubbed as being an "intangible," which implies that they don't have any effect on production. To me, they just are factors whose effect on production we cannot accurately attach a number to.

I can't think of any argument that could convince me that Cabrera's presence on this team has not significantly increased the production of Phillips at the very least and probably other Reds this season. The fact that we are unable to know precisely how much doesn't make the effect any less real.

Razor Shines
07-26-2010, 05:15 PM
I think if Paul Janish wasn't on the Reds, no one would have any problem with OC's defense.

I disagree with that. He's not horrible going to the hole, but he misses waaaay too many balls up the middle. He could be shading to the hole to make up for lost quickness.

jojo
07-26-2010, 08:07 PM
No doubt you would disagree with my previous statement....



The Reds are a youngish team that hasn't won. Guys like Rolen and Cabrera can help turn that around, believe it or not.

You know what would help more? A better shortstop.

I doubt you'd disagree with that would you? Jim Leyland wouldn't anyway.

jojo
07-26-2010, 08:12 PM
I don't think that the leadership that Cabrera has brought to the Reds is an "intangible."

I think that this is a common misnomer about leadership and other factors that often get dubbed as being an "intangible," which implies that they don't have any effect on production. To me, they just are factors whose effect on production we cannot accurately attach a number to.

in·tan·gi·ble (n-tnj-bl)
adj.
1. Incapable of being perceived by the senses.
2. Incapable of being realized or defined.
3. Incorporeal.


I can't think of any argument that could convince me that Cabrera's presence on this team has not significantly increased the production of Phillips at the very least and probably other Reds this season. The fact that we are unable to know precisely how much doesn't make the effect any less real.

The argument that we are unable to know precisely how much effect Carbrera has had on the production of others precludes the use of a declarative like "significantly"....

Seriously, if it's impossible to know the effect, one shouldn't assume a substantial proportion... If one must assume a proportion, the more compelling stance is that the effect isn't likely all that great. Others can and certainly do quibble with that stance. But here's one question that no one has yet being able to convincingly answer with a tangible declarative. If you can't measure it, how can you reliably value it (i.e. how do you determine how much to pay for it)?

Isn't it safer and more prudent to treat "it" as icing rather than the cake?

Yachtzee
07-26-2010, 08:23 PM
For Cabrera, sometimes the ball is intangible.

lollipopcurve
07-26-2010, 08:23 PM
Isn't it safer and more prudent to treat "it" as icing rather than the cake?

And in the payroll structure of the Reds, that's pretty much what Cabrera is.

What exactly is your problem with Cabrera being on the ballclub?

lollipopcurve
07-26-2010, 08:24 PM
You know what would help more? A better shortstop.

Gee, incisive.

_Sir_Charles_
07-26-2010, 08:54 PM
From what I've seen, his range has improved dramatically since the first month of the season. It's still well below average IMO though. The key to him defensively though is that if he can get to it...he converts it into an out.

The thing we haven't seen enough of to compare is how Janish would compare. I think he gets to more balls and converts them at an equally high rate. I also think his bat may be better than Cabrera's too at this point.

edabbs44
07-26-2010, 09:09 PM
From what I've seen, his range has improved dramatically since the first month of the season. It's still well below average IMO though. The key to him defensively though is that if he can get to it...he converts it into an out.

The thing we haven't seen enough of to compare is how Janish would compare. I think he gets to more balls and converts them at an equally high rate. I also think his bat may be better than Cabrera's too at this point.

It's probably time to stop worrying about Janish. He won't be seeing the field for any extended period, barring injury.

edabbs44
07-26-2010, 09:12 PM
Milwaukee announcer just called OC an excellent defender.

TheNext44
07-26-2010, 09:33 PM
in·tan·gi·ble (n-tnj-bl)
adj.
1. Incapable of being perceived by the senses.
2. Incapable of being realized or defined.
3. Incorporeal.

The argument that we are unable to know precisely how much effect Carbrera has had on the production of others precludes the use of a declarative like "significantly"....

Seriously, if it's impossible to know the effect, one shouldn't assume a substantial proportion... If one must assume a proportion, the more compelling stance is that the effect isn't likely all that great. Others can and certainly do quibble with that stance. But here's one question that no one has yet being able to convincingly answer with a tangible declarative. If you can't measure it, how can you reliably value it (i.e. how do you determine how much to pay for it)?

Isn't it safer and more prudent to treat "it" as icing rather than the cake?

First, I only eat cake for the icing.

Second, the highlighted part is a logical fallacy, a very common one, especially in the sabermetric world these days.

Just a few years ago, it was impossible to define the effect that defense had on run production. Before that, it was impossible to define how many runs an individual player was responsible for on his team. Before that it was impossible to define how many wins a team should have based on their run production and prevention. And so on...

Assuming that just because we are unable to properly define something, that it therefore is not significant is not just a common logical fallacy, it's a dangerous one. If humanity really believed that, then there would have been no scientific discovery or technological advances, nor would there be any in the future.

There is far more about this world, and about this game that we don't understand than that we do. Regulating that which we are less certain about to insignificance, simply because we are less certain about it, really is counter to what sabermetrics is all about.

jojo
07-26-2010, 10:40 PM
Gee, incisive.

In other words, yes you agree.

jojo
07-26-2010, 10:41 PM
And in the payroll structure of the Reds, that's pretty much what Cabrera is.

What exactly is your problem with Cabrera being on the ballclub?

It was pretty clear that the value of his non-production contribution was being debated.

jojo
07-26-2010, 10:55 PM
First, I only eat cake for the icing.

Second, the highlighted part is a logical fallacy, a very common one, especially in the sabermetric world these days.

There is a big difference between not having the tools to measure something that obviously exists and not being able to measure intuition despite trying valiantly to verify it... BTW, eating icing is not a heart healthy thing to do.


Just a few years ago, it was impossible to define the effect that defense had on run production. Before that, it was impossible to define how many runs an individual player was responsible for on his team. Before that it was impossible to define how many wins a team should have based on their run production and prevention. And so on...

Assuming that just because we are unable to properly define something, that it therefore is not significant is not just a common logical fallacy, it's a dangerous one. If humanity really believed that, then there would have been no scientific discovery or technological advances, nor would there be any in the future.

There is far more about this world, and about this game that we don't understand than that we do. Regulating that which we are less certain about to insignificance, simply because we are less certain about it, really is counter to what sabermetrics is all about.

Again, James needed data to created pythag and runs created.... Once he got it, the rest was pretty straightforward.

MGL needed data to created UZR. Once he got it, the rest was doable.

Data already exists to measure the effect of intangibles. Such an effect can't be isolated and so they are still called intangibles as a nod to romanticism.

I doubt the world will tilt the wrong way on it's axis by accepting that something has a small effect (if there is even an effect at all) if it is largely undetectable in the face of randomness.

BTW, sabermetrics have looked long and hard. It's not a matter of just waiting for someone to be the first one to ask the question....

TheNext44
07-27-2010, 02:07 AM
There is a big difference between not having the tools to measure something that obviously exists and not being able to measure intuition despite trying valiantly to verify it... BTW, eating icing is not a heart healthy thing to do.



Again, James needed data to created pythag and runs created.... Once he got it, the rest was pretty straightforward.

MGL needed data to created UZR. Once he got it, the rest was doable.

Data already exists to measure the effect of intangibles. Such an effect can't be isolated and so they are still called intangibles as a nod to romanticism.

I doubt the world will tilt the wrong way on it's axis by accepting that something has a small effect (if there is even an effect at all) if it is largely undetectable in the face of randomness.

BTW, sabermetrics have looked long and hard. It's not a matter of just waiting for someone to be the first one to ask the question....

Again, that exact argument was used to claim that defense was not significant to run prevention by many in the stat world, because there was no hard data, just one's eyes. One doesn't need to go back too far to find stat leaning baseball experts arguing that defense is over-rated for that very reason. And to give those same experts credits, almost all have reversed their opinion with the creation of UZR and the data the supports it. And like intangibles, many tried for decades to define it and failed.

I am very confident that there will be data at some point that defines the impact that certain players have on the production of their teammates and team as a whole. It might be in a few years, it might be after we are all dead, but it will exist. It exists somewhere in the numbers. Someone, at some point will be creative, smart and lucky enough to discover a way to isolate it, probably by accident. The fact that no one has to this point does not mean that it is impossible. We're not talking about the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus or a Reds leadoff hitter that can get on base. This actually does exist.

And thanks for worrying about my heart, but to honest, eating cake isn't all that heart healthy either. Besides, so what if eating stuff that tastes good takes away 5 years from my life. It's the last five years, so who cares?

jojo
07-27-2010, 07:58 AM
Again, that exact argument was used to claim that defense was not significant to run prevention by many in the stat world, because there was no hard data, just one's eyes.

I'd like to see those references.



One doesn't need to go back too far to find stat leaning baseball experts arguing that defense is over-rated for that very reason. And to give those same experts credits, almost all have reversed their opinion with the creation of UZR and the data the supports it. And like intangibles, many tried for decades to define it and failed.

I think stat-leaning needs to be precisely defined. But this narrative doesn't jive with the sabermetric movement I've studied. Quantifying defense wasn't considered a useless thing nor was the impact of defense traditionally thought to be trivial because the tools to quantify it were lacking. Quantifying defense was a sabermetric white whale for many years. On the other hand, things like clutch and clubhouse presence are more akin to sabermetric asian carp that are invading the water ways of the midwest...


I am very confident that there will be data at some point that defines the impact that certain players have on the production of their teammates and team as a whole. It might be in a few years, it might be after we are all dead, but it will exist. It exists somewhere in the numbers. Someone, at some point will be creative, smart and lucky enough to discover a way to isolate it, probably by accident. The fact that no one has to this point does not mean that it is impossible. We're not talking about the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus or a Reds leadoff hitter that can get on base. This actually does exist.

Randomness gobbles up the effect, to the extent that there is one, like waves on the Bering Sea gobble up safety suits. Chasing this is chasing ghosts. This isn't a matter of not having the tools. it's a matter of players not having the genetics to overcome mortality.


And thanks for worrying about my heart, but to honest, eating cake isn't all that heart healthy either. Besides, so what if eating stuff that tastes good takes away 5 years from my life. It's the last five years, so who cares?

The point was there are more edifying and fruitful ways to eat away 5 minutes...

Scrap Irony
07-27-2010, 10:44 AM
Wouldn't the Oakland A's of the early aughts (and the scores of fans that team earned as a result of its paradigm shifting moves) be proof enough?

That team pretty much eschewed D in favor of bashing bad bodies who loved to hit the long ball but couldn't catch the ball. Individual fielding ratings confirm that only one player had a postive number, and he was 37 (Randy Velarde).

jojo
07-27-2010, 10:47 AM
Wouldn't the Oakland A's of the early aughts (and the scores of fans that team earned as a result of its paradigm shifting moves) be proof enough?

Proof enough of what?

Scrap Irony
07-27-2010, 11:00 AM
You asked for references on the lack of focus on defense because there was no hard evidence it mattered all that much. Oakland's entire team of that era would "prove" the (now-wrongheaded) idea that D didn't matter. (As many, many sabremetricians held-- and continue to hold-- Oakland up as the poster child for intelligent team construction.)

BRM
07-27-2010, 11:03 AM
You asked for references on the lack of focus on defense because there was no hard evidence it mattered all that much. Oakland's entire team of that era would "prove" the (now-wrongheaded) idea that D didn't matter. (As many, many sabremetricians held-- and continue to hold-- Oakland up as the poster child for intelligent team construction.)

Making the playoffs four straight years is proof of a poorly constructed team? I don't follow.

TheNext44
07-27-2010, 11:14 AM
You asked for references on the lack of focus on defense because there was no hard evidence it mattered all that much. Oakland's entire team of that era would "prove" the (now-wrongheaded) idea that D didn't matter. (As many, many sabremetricians held-- and continue to hold-- Oakland up as the poster child for intelligent team construction.)

It's actually in Moneyball. It's argued in the book that defense is over rated and that it only accounts for 5% of run prevention. One part of the Moneyball philosophy is to use offensive minded players in normally heavily defensively valued positions like middle infield and catcher.

Of course that was in the middle of the Steroid Era, so it might have been more valid back then. Still, it definitely was part of the philosophy of Moneyball.

nate
07-27-2010, 11:33 AM
It's actually in Moneyball. It's argued in the book that defense is over rated and that it only accounts for 5% of run prevention. One part of the Moneyball philosophy is to use offensive minded players in normally heavily defensively valued positions like middle infield and catcher.

Of course that was in the middle of the Steroid Era, so it might have been more valid back then. Still, it definitely was part of the philosophy of Moneyball.

I didn't get that out of it at all, Moneyball's message was much broader than any specific tactic like "on base percentage" or somesuch. It was about taking advantage of market inefficiencies and not doing what everyone else was doing.

TheNext44
07-27-2010, 11:44 AM
I didn't get that out of it at all, Moneyball's message was much broader than any specific tactic like "on base percentage" or somesuch. It was about taking advantage of market inefficiencies and not doing what everyone else was doing.

There is a direct quote about the 5% value of defense in the book. I can't remember who said it, but it is in there.

You are right that the abstract concept of Moneyball is about taking advantage of market inefficiencies and not doing what everyone else was doing. But in the book and elsewhere, specifics about how to impliment that philosophy at that time are spelled out. It's a bit misleading, even if technically true, to say that valuing OBP was not a part of Moneyball. And considering defense to be over valued was definitely one of the specifics spelled out in the book and elsewhere.

Scrap Irony
07-27-2010, 11:48 AM
Making the playoffs four straight years is proof of a poorly constructed team? I don't follow.

Who said it was a poorly constructed team?

Oakland's adherence to an offense-only lineup "proved" (as jojo asked) many sabremetricians' beliefs-- at that time-- that, because defense couldn't be quantified, it should be ignored.

jojo asked for references. That in itself (and some fans still worshiping at the altar of Beane) should be reference enough.

And yeah, nate. Oakland took Warren Buffet's advice about making money-- whenever other investors are buying, sell. When other investors sell, buy. -- and applied it to baseball. That was a large part of Moneyball. But they also talked ad nauseum about the unimportance of D-- relative to offense-- throughout the book.

jojo
07-27-2010, 11:49 AM
You asked for references on the lack of focus on defense because there was no hard evidence it mattered all that much. Oakland's entire team of that era would "prove" the (now-wrongheaded) idea that D didn't matter. (As many, many sabremetricians held-- and continue to hold-- Oakland up as the poster child for intelligent team construction.)

That's not a reference where a notable sabermetrician argued defense doesn't matter.

Thats roster construction demonstrating that there is more than one way to get to the same point--i.e. being well above average in one area can compensate for a deficiency in another...

In fact, in Moneyball there is a description of how Beane did the calculus with offense and defense when he was considering resigning/replacing Johnny Damon. He clearly weighed the estimated impact of a player's glove versus the impact of their bat and decided what compromise he could accept.

One of the reasons OBP was such a central part of the Moneyball story is because Beane had identified an inefficiency where he could buy what he considered alot of offense for cheap which allowed him to take a hit defensively on players...in other words he viewed the compromise getting the As farther ahead.

In other words, it wasn't that Beane thought defense didn't matter. It was that he thought that the hypothetical gain on offense due to OBP was greater than the ding he'd take on defense for many of the players he targeted and going this route was cheaper than buying SLG or defense/speed.

The Oakland example is a completely different argument than "defense can't be measured therefore it isn't important". In fact, Beane used estimates of defensive value in making his decisions...

jojo
07-27-2010, 11:51 AM
jojo asked for references. That in itself (and some fans still worshiping at the altar of Beane) should be reference enough.


Again Moneyball doesn't describe the Beane approach and the Oakland scenario as you're suggesting.

Scrap Irony
07-27-2010, 11:59 AM
In fact, in Moneyball there is a description of how Beane did the calculus with offense and defense when he was considering resigning/replacing Johnny Damon. He clearly weighed the estimated impact of a player's glove versus the impact of their bat and decided what compromise he could accept....

If it's the excerpt I'm thinking of, Damon's D was largely ignored. Beane placed a level of importance on the glove (ie, "intangible" leadership in this discussion) that was later "proven" to be in error by UZR and other defensive metrics.

IIRC, Beane said D had around 5% of the overall impact of offense. That seems like the right number, but I could be wrong. It's been years since I read it.

jojo
07-27-2010, 12:04 PM
If it's the excerpt I'm thinking of, Damon's D was largely ignored. Beane placed a level of importance on the glove (ie, "intangible" leadership in this discussion) that was later "proven" to be in error by UZR and other defensive metrics.

IIRC, Beane said D had around 5% of the overall impact of offense. That seems like the right number, but I could be wrong. It's been years since I read it.

Again, Beane clearly thought defense had an impact and the weighed the cost/benefit of trading OBP for defense by estimating the value of each... Clearly Oakland isn't an example of the sabermetric movement that defense couldn't be quantified and thus should be ignored.

TheNext44
07-27-2010, 12:07 PM
That's not a reference where a notable sabermetrician argued defense doesn't matter.

Thats roster construction demonstrating that there is more than one way to get to the same point--i.e. being well above average in one area can compensate for a deficiency in another...

In other words, it wasn't that Beane thought defense didn't matter. It was that he thought that the hypothetical gain on offense due to OBP was greater than the ding he'd take on defense for many of the players he targeted and going this route was cheaper than buying SLG or defense/speed.

The Oakland example is a completely different argument than "defense can't be measured therefore it isn't important". In fact, Beane used estimates of defensive value in making his decisions...

No one is arguing that Beane thought defense didn't matter, only that it mattered less than what most other people thought at the time, and that currently do. That he did think that is clearly in the book.

The argument that I remember (I don't have the book anymore, so I can't look it up) is that since only 5% of plays end up as errors, defense only has about a 5% effect on run prevention. I can't remember who argued that, but I clearly remember both reading it and discussing that with others who read the book. I even remember a website like BP, it even could have been BP, I just can't remember, using that quote at the beginning of an article about defense.

Scrap Irony
07-27-2010, 12:08 PM
Again Moneyball doesn't describe the Beane approach and the Oakland scenario as you're suggesting.

Moneyball was about Beane and the Oakland team of the era just after that one. How can it not tell his approach/ opinion?

Of course it described Beane's approach.

His approach, in short, is to value what others don't, normally by:

1. Beane bgan by focusing on obp and plate approach over defense and athleticism.
2. He normally ignores HS arms early in drafts because he thinks college arms have already gone through many of those troubles HS arms have not. (Jeremy Bonderman says hi.)
3. Beane focused on power rather than speed, believing speed an extemely overrated commodity.
4. Body types, to Beane, mean less than nothing. They weren't, after all, selling jeans.
5. A mixture of analysis and eyeball scouting is needed, but, when push comes to shove, analysis is more important.

nate
07-27-2010, 12:12 PM
There is a direct quote about the 5% value of defense in the book. I can't remember who said it, but it is in there.

But that's not what the book is about.


You are right that the abstract concept of Moneyball is about taking advantage of market inefficiencies and not doing what everyone else was doing. But in the book and elsewhere, specifics about how to impliment that philosophy at that time are spelled out.

And those were the tactics used to realize that strategy at that time. They weren't the strategy of exploring market inefficiencies. Rather, they were what the team perceived as being the market inefficiencies at that time. I'm sure Beane himself would say he's changed his strategy many times over since then as he finds ideas that do work and ones that don't.


It's a bit misleading, even if technically true, to say that valuing OBP was not a part of Moneyball. And considering defense to be over valued was definitely one of the specifics spelled out in the book and elsewhere.

The strategy of finding value in areas that are undervalued or overlooked was the core meaning of the book.

jojo
07-27-2010, 12:14 PM
Moneyball was about Beane and the Oakland team of the era just after that one. How can it not tell his approach/ opinion?

Of course it described Beane's approach.

His approach, in short, is to value what others don't, normally by:

1. Beane bgan by focusing on obp and plate approach over defense and athleticism.
2. He normally ignores HS arms early in drafts because he thinks college arms have already gone through many of those troubles HS arms have not. (Jeremy Bonderman says hi.)
3. Beane focused on power rather than speed, believing speed an extemely overrated commodity.
4. Body types, to Beane, mean less than nothing. They weren't, after all, selling jeans.
5. A mixture of analysis and eyeball scouting is needed, but, when push comes to shove, analysis is more important.

My argument is that your characterization of Oakland as an example of the belief "that, because defense couldn't be quantified, it should be ignored" is inaccurate.

TheNext44
07-27-2010, 12:15 PM
But that's not what the book is about.

And those were the tactics used to realize that strategy at that time. They weren't the strategy of exploring market inefficiencies. Rather, they were what the team perceived as being the market inefficiencies at that time. I'm sure Beane himself would say he's changed his strategy many times over since then as he finds ideas that do work and ones that don't

The strategy of finding value in areas that are undervalued or overlooked was the core meaning of the book.

Agree with everything you said.

<youravitar>

jojo
07-27-2010, 12:17 PM
No one is arguing that Beane thought defense didn't matter, only that it mattered less than what most other people thought at the time, and that currently do. That he did think that is clearly in the book.

The argument that I remember (I don't have the book anymore, so I can't look it up) is that since only 5% of plays end up as errors, defense only has about a 5% effect on run prevention. I can't remember who argued that, but I clearly remember both reading it and discussing that with others who read the book. I even remember a website like BP, it even could have been BP, I just can't remember, using that quote at the beginning of an article about defense.


You originally argued that sabermetrics held the belief that defense can't be quantified therefore it has no impact to support the notion that intangibles have significant impact. This is a completely different argument now.....

Scrap Irony
07-27-2010, 12:21 PM
But that's not what the book is about.

No, it's not the theme of the book, nate, but it's what he believed and made (some) decisions on. Is it his driving philosophy? No.

Then again, no one is making that argument. At all. Nor is anyone partcularly close to saying that.

The A's of that time (with many sabremetricians in tow) largely ignored defense as overrated or unimportant.

That's a fact

The reasoning behind it is that Beane and his front office found more value in slugging and plate approach than in leather.

Again, that is a fact.

Later on, Beane changed his approach as more information became available. Now, he focuses quite a bit on D, epecially on the corners in the OF. (The new sabremetric fad across the web seems to be corner OF D.)

I don't know how anyone could argue any of this, frankly.

westofyou
07-27-2010, 12:26 PM
Oakland has always had speedy corner guys, the park demands it, Beane could have figured that out by looking at the roster for the since 1967. I'm sure he knew it, but tried some other approach to team building than prior, and that in essence is what the book is about.

Scrap Irony
07-27-2010, 12:30 PM
My argument is that your characterization of Oakland as an example of the belief "that, because defense couldn't be quantified, it should be ignored" is inaccurate.

Did you see the lineups of that team?

Sure, they had gloves on their hands and caught whatever was close to them (mostly), but he certainly didn't focus on defense at all.

He believed that defense was much less important than scoring runs and that the difference between a bad glove and a good glove was less than the difference between a bad bat and a good bat.

Certainly, he didn't ignore defense, per se. He talked about it. He mentioned it. He even had a philosophy about it. But, when push came to shove, he always chose the good bat over the good glove.

I'd say that's pretty much the definition of ignoring it.

TheNext44
07-27-2010, 12:39 PM
You originally argued that sabermetrics held the belief that defense can't be quantified therefore it has no impact to support the notion that intangibles have significant impact. This is a completely different argument now.....

Well I never said "no impact.". I just said they thought it was overrated at the time.

And yes, I am making a different, yet related argument now, as the thread as taken to a related tangent, which rarely happens on this board. ;)

To be precise, I am actually trying to find a reason not to do the work that is due by the end of the day today, so feel free to make more tangents. :)

nate
07-27-2010, 12:43 PM
Agree with everything you said.

<youravitar>

Word.

jojo
07-27-2010, 12:53 PM
Did you see the lineups of that team?

Sure, they had gloves on their hands and caught whatever was close to them (mostly), but he certainly didn't focus on defense at all.

He believed that defense was much less important than scoring runs and that the difference between a bad glove and a good glove was less than the difference between a bad bat and a good bat.

Certainly, he didn't ignore defense, per se. He talked about it. He mentioned it. He even had a philosophy about it. But, when push came to shove, he always chose the good bat over the good glove.

I'd say that's pretty much the definition of ignoring it.

He chose OBP over speed/defense because he thought he could get more bang for the buck... Again, you're misrepresenting his approach.

Scrap Irony
07-27-2010, 01:12 PM
No, I'm really not misrepresenting anything, jojo.

His overarching focus was, like Buffett, doing something others were not. I get that. It's apparent in the book.

Those early aught A's lineups focused on iron-gloved behemoths who walked a ton, stuck out at a fairly high clip, and mashed the ball or walked. In his estimation, Beane believed they had beter value than did all-glove, no-hit guys.

He believed, at the time, defense had little (re: 5 runs over the course of a season) value. Therefore, he largely ignored defense when choosing players for his team.

He was wrong.

As the metrics improved, defensive studies have shown it to be more important than Beane surmised at the time. He has since changed his approach.

Was ignoring D his overarching concern or focus? Of course not. But, again, no one is saying that.

gonelong
07-27-2010, 01:42 PM
The A's of that time (with many sabremetricians in tow) largely ignored defense as overrated or unimportant.

That's a fact

Moneyball was based on the 2002 A's season and the book stated that the A's were already deeply involved into generating their own defensive measures at that point.

How much do you pay for something you don't know the value of?

They understood that defense was a part of the game but had no way to quantify it and rate players.

They were in the process of putting their own systems together to do this. Hardly sounds like they were largely ignoring defense as overrated or unimportant.

GL

Scrap Irony
07-27-2010, 01:58 PM
How much do you pay for something you don't know the value of?

They understood that defense was a part of the game but had no way to quantify it and rate players.

They were in the process of putting their own systems together to do this. Hardly sounds like they were largely ignoring defense as overrated or unimportant.

GL

Again, Beane's math said defense was worth around 5 runs per player per season.

Therefore, because of his work, he ignored defense when constructing that team, in favor of obp and slugging.

BRM
07-27-2010, 02:08 PM
Again, Beane's math said defense was worth around 5 runs per player per season.

Therefore, because of his work, he ignored defense when constructing that team, in favor of obp and slugging.

Worked pretty well that year too. That team won 103 games.

westofyou
07-27-2010, 02:08 PM
Again, Beane's math said defense was worth around 5 runs per player per season.

Therefore, because of his work, he ignored defense when constructing that team, in favor of obp and slugging.
Where did he ignore defense?

Corner outfield?

When Stairs and Grieve were there before 2002 for sure, even Mabry got a mess of corner OF ab's. But eventually guys like Terrace Long got more playing times and the statues less.

BRM
07-27-2010, 02:17 PM
Where did he ignore defense?

Corner outfield?

When Stairs and Grieve were there before 2002 for sure, even Mabry got a mess of corner OF ab's. But eventually guys like Terrace Long got more playing times and the statues less.

Jermaine Dye and Dave Justice got the bulk of the time in the corners in 2002. Wasn't Dye considered a plus defender back in those days? I don't know, just asking.

gonelong
07-27-2010, 03:04 PM
Again, Beane's math said defense was worth around 5 runs per player per season.

Therefore, because of his work, he ignored defense when constructing that team, in favor of obp and slugging.

It's been a few years since I read the book, but my recollection is that Beane hadn't done the math at all. He had the 5% number in his head initially from something he had read, but Paul DePodesta brought him additional information that they took into account.

IIRC it was in reference to deciding what to do with Johnny Damon, who was a free agent in 2001.

EDIT: Found this, though honestly not sure if this was in the book or not, too long ago.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=2175226 (http://www.redszone.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=2175226)
A couple of option professionals, Ken Mauriello and Jack Armbruster, decided to solve the issue of evaluating defense by quantifying every event that occurs on the baseball field. They sought to determine how much should the players involved be held responsible and therefore debited and credited. These baseball students/analysts decided to base their accounting on runs: runs were the money of baseball. They collected ten years of data from Major League Baseball: every ball that was put into play. Every event that followed a ball being put into play was compared by the system to what had typically happened during the previous ten years. Thus, the performance of the player would be judged against the average. Mauriello and Armbruster began by turning every major league diamond into a mathematical matrix of location points. Each point was marked with a number. Then they reclassified every ball that was hit. There was no such thing in their record as a double: that was too inexact. There were no such things as pop flies, line drives and grounders: the baseball was hit with a certain velocity and trajectory to a certain grid on the field. In the Mauriello/Armbruster form of analysis, a line drive double hit to the gap became a ball hit with a certain force that landed on point number 643. Then the system carved up every baseball play into countless, meaningful fragments: derivatives. For example, take a single being hit to right field with a runner on first. If Raul Mondesi is the right fielder, that runner stops at second base instead of dashing to third because Mondesi threw a lot of people out. It is worth something. Mauriello and Armbruster took James and his co-hort’s analysis one step further. They recorded events on a baseball field without any reference to traditional statistics. They not only ignored RBIs and saves, they ignored all conventional baseball statistics. When Paul DePodesta saw the system in operation, he immediately understood its significance: the system extracts the element of luck. DePodesta liked the system so much, he encouraged Billy to hire these unconventional baseball statisticians. Now, the A’s had a way of valuing Damon’s defense. Let us assume for a moment that a line drive hit at X trajectory and Y speed to point number 965 had 8600 identical hits in the system history. Let us further acknowledge that 92 percent of the time that hit went for a double, 4 percent for a single and 4 percent of the time it was caught. Let us further suppose that the average value of that event is .50 of a run. The system then credits the hitter having generated .50 of a run and the pitcher with having given up .50 of a run. If Johnny Damon happens to get one of his trademark catches on such a hit, he is credited with saving his team .50 of a run. Using this analysis, the A’s were able to estimate how many runs Damon’s likely replacement would cost the team. The cost of losing Damon to his expected replacement was 15 runs or about a run every ten games. The Mauriello/Armbruster system was not perfect. It still could not make perfectly definitive statements about fielding under this system because the system did not measure where a defensive player started from. It does not tell you how far a player had to go to catch a ball. Bill James had rated defense no more than five percent of baseball. Superior defense might have been brilliant defense positioning by the bench coach rather than the talents of the ballplayer. The A’s concluded from this information they could not replace Johnny Damon’s defensive ability: the cost would be too great. Accordingly, to offset the loss of Damon’s defense, they added more offense.


GL

RedsManRick
07-27-2010, 03:36 PM
Thanks for clearing that up, GL.

Jojo, Kentucky Tuna please. Asian Carp sounds so foreign to our sensitive American ears.

We should be very clear that while sabermetricians may have valued defense at just 5% at one point in time, the same people would likely have placed the value of the influence of a player's leadership ability and character on others (what we really mean when we say "intangibles") at much less than that.

Bottom line, however, is that we're not thinking about "intangibles" right if we try to put it as part of that 100% formula of runs. It doesn't belong in that conversation -- it's not part of the model. That 100% is about measuring the contribution of on field actions to the production and prevention of runs -- the direct contributions.

The logic model loosely looks like this:
Beliefs & Attitudes -> Off field preparation (+ talent) -> On field performance

"Intangibles" as we use the term is a players influence on the beliefs & attitudes of others (the value of his own beliefs & attitudes shows up in his own performance and so he's already getting credit). The theory being that as they improve other players beliefs and attitudes, those players will improve their off-field preparation which will result in greater on-field performance.

Believe it or not, I don't doubt that "intangibles" matter. However, they don't belong in the conversation about run production and prevention. If you want to measure them, you need to be measuring them in the right context, as one of the many contributors to beliefs and attitudes.

lollipopcurve
07-27-2010, 03:56 PM
Bottom line, however, is that we're not thinking about "intangibles" right if we try to put it as part of that 100% formula of runs. It doesn't belong in that conversation -- it's not part of the model. That 100% is about measuring the contribution of on field actions to the production and prevention of runs -- the direct contributions.

The logic model loosely looks like this:
Beliefs & Attitudes -> Off field preparation (+ talent) -> On field performance

"Intangibles" as we use the term is a players influence on the beliefs & attitudes of others. The theory being that as they improve other players beliefs and attitudes, those players will improve their off-field preparation which will result in greater on-field performance.

Believe it or not, I don't don't that "intangibles" matter. However, they don't belong in the conversation about run production and prevention. If you want to measure them, you need to be measuring them in the right context, as one of the many contributors to beliefs and attitudes.

I agree with this. Apples and oranges. Yet all fruits!

TheNext44
07-27-2010, 04:32 PM
Thanks for clearing that up, GL.

Jojo, Kentucky Tuna please. Asian Carp sounds so foreign to our sensitive American ears.

We should be very clear that while sabermetricians may have valued defense at just 5% at one point in time, the same people would likely have placed the value of the influence of a player's leadership ability and character on others (what we really mean when we say "intangibles") at much less than that.

Bottom line, however, is that we're not thinking about "intangibles" right if we try to put it as part of that 100% formula of runs. It doesn't belong in that conversation -- it's not part of the model. That 100% is about measuring the contribution of on field actions to the production and prevention of runs -- the direct contributions.

The logic model loosely looks like this:
Beliefs & Attitudes -> Off field preparation (+ talent) -> On field performance

"Intangibles" as we use the term is a players influence on the beliefs & attitudes of others. The theory being that as they improve other players beliefs and attitudes, those players will improve their off-field preparation which will result in greater on-field performance.

Believe it or not, I don't don't that "intangibles" matter. However, they don't belong in the conversation about run production and prevention. If you want to measure them, you need to be measuring them in the right context, as one of the many contributors to beliefs and attitudes.

That is the line of thinking that is being used, and that is the misconception that I was referring to.

We assume, for many reasons, including because it can't be measured precisely at this point, that there is no direct relationship between adding or subtracting a player to a team, and the production of other players or the team's ability to win, and that that relationship is insignificant.

Why are beliefs and attitudes intangible and an indirect effect on production, while practicing, watching videos and learning about the game tangible and direct? Especially when they both show up in the box score?

We can say that players who don't hit the cage, don't take workouts seriously, don't listen to coaches, on average will produce less than those that do. When we measure how much a player produces, we are measuring those things, because they have an effect on his production. I don't see how direct the effect is, being a factor in how we measure his production.

Front offices look at how a player eats, at his home life, at his family health history, and more in determining his value. All those are just as indirect as the effect he has on his teammates and his team's ability to win. Should GM's not look at those factors as well?

jojo
07-27-2010, 04:37 PM
That is the line of thinking that is being used, and that is the misconception that I was referring to.

We assume, for many reasons, including because it can't be measured precisely at this point, that there is no direct relationship between adding or subtracting a player to a team, and the production of other players or the team's ability to win, and that that relationship is insignificant.

Why are beliefs and attitudes intangible and an indirect effect on production, while practicing, watching videos and learning about the game tangible and direct? Especially when they both show up in the box score?

We can say that players who don't hit the cage, don't take workouts seriously, don't listen to coaches, on average will produce less than those that do. When we measure how much a player produces, we are measuring those things, because they have an effect on his production. I don't see how direct the effect is, being a factor in how we measure his production.

Front offices look at how a player eats, at his home life, at his family health history, and more in determining his value. All those are just as indirect as the effect he has on his teammates and his team's ability to win. Should GM's not look at those factors as well?

The further a GM gets away from paying a player for his measurable production the closer he is to making a poor decision.

Scrap Irony
07-27-2010, 04:40 PM
The further a GM gets away from paying a player for his measurable production the closer he is to making a poor decision.

I diagree with that, jojo. GMs like Jocketty have been highly successful largely because they pay attention to things outside of just measurable production.

There is more than one way to win in this game.

westofyou
07-27-2010, 04:52 PM
I diagree with that, jojo. GMs like Jocketty have been highly successful largely because they pay attention to things outside of just measurable production.

There is more than one way to win in this game.
Production is what the terms of the contract should be centered around, all GM's know that.

Other aspects play into offers, especially for guys who won't be starters, but once a team pays a guy for other items he brings to the table over the production than that team generally won't win.

You'd be hard pressed to find a team that doesn't lean on production based pay that was even able to compete, if every Eric Byrnes got a fat contract for flopping all over the field than there'd be more guys cut in the middle of the year when their production didn't meet their pay.

TheNext44
07-27-2010, 04:58 PM
I diagree with that, jojo. GMs like Jocketty have been highly successful largely because they pay attention to things outside of just measurable production.

There is more than one way to win in this game.

I'd go a step further and say that the most successful GM's these days are the ones that have an ability to measure the unmeasurable, to recognize the outliers at a higher rate than other GM's.

If everyone is using only measured talent, then money will always be the deciding factor, as measured talent is what everyone has access to, and which can be easily decoded.

The problem with Moneyball now, is that everyone knows about and uses it, including Cashman and Epstein. At first, Beane was one of the only ones, which is why is was so successful. Now, there are only a handful that don't use it or don't use it well, hence, his lack of success recently. The thing about being ahead of the curve is that sometimes it catches up to you, no matter what you do.

jojo
07-27-2010, 04:59 PM
I diagree with that, jojo. GMs like Jocketty have been highly successful largely because they pay attention to things outside of just measurable production.

There is more than one way to win in this game.

Bill Bavasi says :wave:

TheNext44
07-27-2010, 05:02 PM
Production is what the terms of the contract should be centered around, all GM's know that.

Other aspects play into offers, especially for guys who won't be starters, but once a team pays a guy for other items he brings to the table over the production than that team generally won't win.

You'd be hard pressed to find a team that doesn't lean on production based pay that was even able to compete, if every Eric Byrnes got a fat contract for flopping all over the field than there'd be more guys cut in the middle of the year when their production didn't meet their pay.

I personally am not talking about anything that does not effect production.

Belly flops that don't effect runs produced or prevented are meaningless. But there are factors of character and leadership that do lead to production, they just can't be measured precisely yet. I'm saying that GM's do and should use those factors even if they can't attach a number to them.

TheNext44
07-27-2010, 05:06 PM
Bill Bavasi says :wave:

The fact that some people are bad at it isn't a very strong argument against it. But I can understand a Mariners fan feeling that intangibles are overrated. Kinda like a Reds fan feeling that pitching is underrated.

westofyou
07-27-2010, 05:14 PM
I personally am not talking about anything that does not effect production.

Belly flops that don't effect runs produced or prevented are meaningless. But there are factors of character and leadership that do lead to production, they just can't be measured precisely yet. I'm saying that GM's do and should use those factors even if they can't attach a number to them.

I believe that too, but I also believe the good GM's know when the price for character/player intangibles outweigh the production output, and there is where the wheat gets separated from the chafe, player and executive wise.

RedsManRick
07-27-2010, 05:17 PM
That is the line of thinking that is being used, and that is the misconception that I was referring to.

We assume, for many reasons, including because it can't be measured precisely at this point, that there is no direct relationship between adding or subtracting a player to a team, and the production of other players or the team's ability to win, and that that relationship is insignificant.

Why are beliefs and attitudes intangible and an indirect effect on production, while practicing, watching videos and learning about the game tangible and direct? Especially when they both show up in the box score?

We can say that players who don't hit the cage, don't take workouts seriously, don't listen to coaches, on average will produce less than those that do. When we measure how much a player produces, we are measuring those things, because they have an effect on his production. I don't see how direct the effect is, being a factor in how we measure his production.

Front offices look at how a player eats, at his home life, at his family health history, and more in determining his value. All those are just as indirect as the effect he has on his teammates and his team's ability to win. Should GM's not look at those factors as well?

I may not have been clear. All those things are indirect as well. The only thing which we can currently measure is actual performance on the field. I don't know of anybody who has measured the effect of diet or work ethic or what have you. (Though I would not be surprised to hear that the Red Sox or Indians do) My point is that as difficult as it is to measure those things, attitudes are even further removed as their impact is filtered through those activities.

I agree with you. Just because we can't measure the effect doesn't mean there isn't one. In fact, I do agree with you that there is one. However, we can't even begin to go about teasing out what the scale of the effect is in terms of production.

It does mean is that attempting to account for "intangibles" is a shot in the dark, an educated guess at the very best. In paying a premium for those things, we run the very real risk of wasting precious resources on an affect that is very small, with the upside of that risk being that the effect is very big. In small doses, I think it's a good risk to take. If $1M can buy you a 5% bump in team production, that's a good investment. But, of course, we have no idea what the size of the affect actually is, if there is one.

Personally, while I would make sure that my team had good "character", I would be VERY hesitant to spend good money on that quality at the expense of purchasing production which can be measured and quantified. Rather, I would act more like the Braves and use character as a filter through which a player must pass to be part of the organization rather than as a +/- that can be accounted for in salary. I would pay a player what his on field performance merits and would not pay a premium for a supposed ability to affect the production of others unless I can model the contribution (e.g. Rolen teaches a guy how to field/hit better, resulting in a certain % increase in production). That's what I pay my coaches for.

TheNext44
07-27-2010, 05:19 PM
I may not have been clear. All those things are indirect as well. The only thing which we can currently measure is actual performance on the field. I don't know of anybody who has measured the effect of diet or work ethic or what have you. (Though I would not be surprised to hear that the Red Sox or Indians do) My point is that as difficult as it is to measure those things, attitudes are even further removed as their impact is filtered through those activities.

I agree with you. Just because we can't measure the effect doesn't mean there isn't one. In fact, I do agree with you that there is one. However, we can't even begin to go about teasing out what the affect is in terms of production.

It does mean is that attempting to account for "intangibles" is a shot in the dark, an educated guess at the very best. In paying a premium for those things, we run the very real risk of wasting precious resources on an affect that is very small, with the upside of that risk being that the effect is very big. In small doses, I think it's a good risk to take. If $1M can buy you a 5% bump in team production, that's a good investment. But, of course, we have no idea what the size of the affect actually is, if there is one.

Personally, while I would make sure that my team had good "character", I would be VERY hesitant to spend good money on that quality at the expense of purchasing production which can be measured and quantified. Rather, I would act more like the Braves and use character as a filter through which a player must pass to be part of the organization rather than as a +/- that can be accounted for in salary. I would pay a player what his on field performance merits and would not pay a premium for a supposed ability to affect the production of others unless I can model the contribution (e.g. Rolen teaches a guy how to field/hit better, resulting in a certain % increase in production). That's what I pay my coaches for.

Pretty much complete agreement here. Very well stated. :thumbup:

RedsManRick
07-27-2010, 05:22 PM
Just as a follow up -- I would have no problem at all setting aside some small part of the budget towards "character", assuming that means paying a premium to a guy who provides on field value as well. (I don't want replacement level players on my 25 man roster, period)

However, it needs to be clearly accounted for separately from measurable production. Otherwise, it becomes an extremely slippery slope and you end up talking yourself in to overpaying a half dozen different guys and maxing out your budget before you have enough talent to win. (Cordero anyone?) I do not want to be in a situation where production projections have me at 84 wins, I have no more money, and I'm counting on good juju to result in a net over-achievement of 6-8 wins.

jojo
07-27-2010, 05:22 PM
The fact that some people are bad at it isn't a very strong argument against it.

Can you provide convincing evidence that some people are good at it?

Brutus
07-27-2010, 05:26 PM
The further a GM gets away from paying a player for his measurable production the closer he is to making a poor decision.

Things like diet, work ethic, attitude, health, etc. lead to measurable production. If a GM doesn't take those things into account, the projections of measurable will wind up being way off -- and thus poor decisions.

Ignoring the human factors, just because they aren't measurable, if a fatal flaw at saber-based quantitative analysis. We already know certain body types typically fall off the aging curve faster than others. We should know, then, that it's likely the aforementioned factors could also lead to unsustainable measurable production, even in lieu of talent, because the player is less likely to sustain the habits that are required to sustain such production.

IslandRed
07-27-2010, 05:48 PM
I think "intangibles" boils down to two lines of questioning:

1. Is a baseball team always exactly equal to the sum of its parts?

2. Are the parts static, their performances unaffected by their teammates and management?

I don't believe either of those is wholly true, although they're more true than not. Good luck trying to measure the variances, though.

nate
07-27-2010, 06:01 PM
Personally, while I would make sure that my team had good "character", I would be VERY hesitant to spend good money on that quality at the expense of purchasing production which can be measured and quantified. Rather, I would act more like the Braves and use character as a filter through which a player must pass to be part of the organization rather than as a +/- that can be accounted for in salary. I would pay a player what his on field performance merits and would not pay a premium for a supposed ability to affect the production of others unless I can model the contribution (e.g. Rolen teaches a guy how to field/hit better, resulting in a certain % increase in production). That's what I pay my coaches for.

This is exactly how I feel about the intangibles. I want them on my team but I don't pay extra for them unless I have my talent "core" together.

RedsManRick
07-27-2010, 06:06 PM
Things like diet, work ethic, attitude, health, etc. lead to measurable production. If a GM doesn't take those things into account, the projections of measurable will wind up being way off -- and thus poor decisions.

Only if you think those things aren't already showing up in a player's production. The only place the "leader's" influence would show up is in other player's production. That's what makes it so tricky. Rolen's approach to the game is already reflected in his own production and projections thereof. It's the extent to which it affects your projections for Phillips, Bruce, etc. that matters.

Do you think GMs are making estimates of how much additional team production the leadership will result in and pricing it accordingly? I would be surprised if they did. More likely, I think they look for opportunities to bring leadership aboard. I think smart GMs use it mostly as a filter. Bad ones use it as a justification for overpaying people.

Regarding the Reds, I don't think Cabrera or Rolen are being paid extra for the leadership. I think the Reds recognized that there were no true difference makers available at SS and so targeted the guy who fit their on-field production philosophy (good defender) and brought leadership.

Again, I don't mind brining in somebody like OCab if he's the best available producer we could afford. My concern is if & when we pass up better producers (who aren't clear "cancers") or drastically overpay somebody to play that leadership role.

SMcGavin
07-27-2010, 06:22 PM
This is exactly how I feel about the intangibles. I want them on my team but I don't pay extra for them unless I have my talent "core" together.

I'd pay extra and I think most would too, the disagreement is on how much extra. 5 years $50 million to Joe Role Model, or 5 years $48 million to his sulky, distracting but equally talented twin? I'd pay for the intangibles in that case. If the difference is 5 years $50M vs 5 years $40M? That's dicier.

nate
07-27-2010, 06:32 PM
I'd pay extra and I think most would too, the disagreement is on how much extra. 5 years $50 million to Joe Role Model, or 5 years $48 million to his sulky, distracting but equally talented twin? I'd pay for the intangibles in that case. If the difference is 5 years $50M vs 5 years $40M? That's dicier.

I'd use the evil twin as a bargaining chip against JRM!

:cool:

OnBaseMachine
07-27-2010, 09:01 PM
There's one of the those routine groundballs I was talking about. ;)

Scrap Irony
07-27-2010, 11:48 PM
Can you provide convincing evidence that some people are good at it?

Jocketty won a World Series just three years ago with two great players and a bunch of grinders.

jojo
07-28-2010, 04:26 AM
Jocketty won a World Series just three years ago with two great players and a bunch of grinders.

Again anything other than anecdotal narratives?

TheNext44
07-28-2010, 07:02 AM
Again anything other than anecdotal narratives?

Considering we are talking about, by definition, an unmeasurable effect, anecdotal narratives are about the most one can expect to defend a choice.

But I would say that the Braves, Twins, Cardinals, Marlins, Phillies, Rockies, and Angels, have over many years shown the ability to find players that help their team win in ways that go beyond their own production. They many times have produced teams that are greater than the sum of their parts.

jojo
07-28-2010, 07:56 AM
Considering we are talking about, by definition, an unmeasurable effect, anecdotal narratives are about the most one can expect to defend a choice.

But I would say that the Braves, Twins, Cardinals, Marlins, Phillies, Rockies, and Angels, have over many years shown the ability to find players that help their team win in ways that go beyond their own production. They many times have produced teams that are greater than the sum of their parts.

How do we know this?