Re: Game Thread: July 14th Reds vs Rockies (You guessed it, no EE!!)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cedric
No offense, but the objective data is pure bull****.
Any defense metric is not proven enough to be thrown around on this site like gospel. Trust me, I've researched it a ton.
I hate ZR with a deep passion. It's incredibly volatile and based on many factors that can't be conditioned for equally across all boards.
I agree that there is no great way to judge fielding a 100%, but one metric I do like is fielding win shares.
They judge fielding differently for each position since different skills are needed to play each position. For example, when considering how good defensively a catcher is caught stealing is weighed more heavily than passed balls to give a true measure of fielding talent for the player.
It also equalizes opportunities for the fielders like for example, if a team uses left-handed pitchers more often and as a result certain fielders don't get as many chances, that is accounted for.
It's not perfect, but it's pretty good.
Re: Game Thread: July 14th Reds vs Rockies (You guessed it, no EE!!)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cedric
No offense, but the objective data is pure bull****.
ah, all three are wrong and there is no way to evaluate defense outside of subjective evaluation?
Each metric has it's shortcoming but dismissing them out of hand instead of understanding what each is telling and while taking into account what they do not. Using the three of them together can present a picture of what an indivuals defense looks like in comparison to others.
FLD% tells nothing about balls a fielder cant get to
RF does not take into account what type of pitchers a team has (do they tend FB or GB )
ZR really can't adjust for how hard a ball was hit(even though ot accounts for flys vs liners) or where a fielder may have been positioned in a zone at the time of the AB.
These shortcomings do not invalidate the data, one just has to understand what they say and what they do not say. However, dismissing them out of hand instead of using them to try to create a picture of defensive ability is a bit hasty.
Re: Game Thread: July 14th Reds vs Rockies (You guessed it, no EE!!)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Austin Kearns
I agree that there is no great way to judge fielding a 100%, but one metric I do like is fielding win shares.
FRAA/FRAR are pretty good as well, I like the attempt to actually translate into runs. UZR was good when available.
The last three years Clayton has been -10, -3, -6 in FRAA. WIth the minus 6 this year his is on pace to set his career worst(which the -10 is). Until 2004 he only had 2 season of a negative FRAA. A quite natural progession for an aging SS at a postion where few have ever it played it well past age 35.
Re: Game Thread: July 14th Reds vs Rockies (You guessed it, no EE!!)
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyer85
ah, all three are wrong and there is no way to evaluate defense outside of subjective evaluation?
Each metric has it's shortcoming but dismissing them out of hand instead of understanding what each is telling and while taking into account what they do not. Using the three of them together can present a picture of what an indivuals defense looks like in comparison to others.
FLD% tells nothing about balls a fielder cant get to
RF does not take into account what type of pitchers a team has (do they tend FB or GB )
ZR really can't adjust for how hard a ball was hit(even though ot accounts for flys vs liners) or where a fielder may have been positioned in a zone at the time of the AB.
These shortcomings do invalidate the data, one just has to understand what they say and what they do not say. However, dismissing them out of hand instead of using them to try to create a picture of defensive ability is a bit hasty.
I never once said any defense metric is not a good source of information. I just said you using it like it's a 100% objective way of debating players is wrong in my view.
ZR is pretty much crap in my view though. I know some here love it, just my opinion.
Re: Game Thread: July 14th Reds vs Rockies (You guessed it, no EE!!)
Fun Fact of the Night:
Aaron Harang took over the NL strikeout from Carlos Zambrano lead by fanning his 127th batter tonight.
Harang is now on pace to throw 237IP this year, and strike out 226 batters. Jake Peavy led the NL in Ks last year with 216.
Re: Game Thread: July 14th Reds vs Rockies (You guessed it, no EE!!)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoydsOfSummer
Keep in mind that Bruce,if he keeps it up,will be knocking on the door in 2 years.He's doing good things in the Midwest League.
just in time for Junior's swan song.
Re: Game Thread: July 14th Reds vs Rockies (You guessed it, no EE!!)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsmith421
Anyone want to wager on how many hits go "past a diving Clayton/Aurilia" tonight that actual mobile infielders would have fielded? I guess as long as the ones hit straight at them get thrown successfully to first, no one cares.
I think it was 3, plus the 2 errors ;)
Re: Game Thread: July 14th Reds vs Rockies (You guessed it, no EE!!)
Just finished reading the game thread. Good win! Harang had another great start! The bullpen was much better--Majewski had some jitters, but only allowed one run with a three-run lead. Mercker and Guardado were lights out! :thumbup:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor
I don't know how I feel about Royce Clayton just taking #2 right out of the gate.
Seems a little soon -- I feel like I'm getting over a breakup or something.
The only thing is that the Reds don't have very many numbers that aren't already issued. After Thursday's trade, but prior to the three newest Reds joining the club, only the following numbers in the range from 1 to 59 were available:
#2, #16, #28, #38, #45, #51.
Middle infielders generally prefer to wear lower numbers--usually single-digits, teens, or twenties. I can think of only four Reds middle-infielders (not including short-timers and September callups wearing numbers in the 50's and 60's) who have worn a number higher than #29:
Gary Green (#40) -- a seldom-used SS who played eight games for the Reds in 1992.
Mariano Duncan (#77) -- In his second stint with the Reds in 1995, Duncan couldn't wear his old #7 since it was already being worn by OF Darren Lewis. So he went with #77.
Rich Aurilia (#33) -- Rich had worn #35 in his days at San Francisco and Seattle, but that number was worn by pitching coach and Big Red Machine legend Don Gullett. So he went with another number in the 30's.
Ray Olmedo (#62) -- Used to be #4, but lost his number to Brandon Phillips this year, and was inexplicably issued #62. Doesn't bode well for his long-term future with the club. Could now actually be considered a short-timer.
The only numbers in that traditional "middle-infielder" range that the Reds currently have available are #2, #16, and #28. Throughout his career, Royce Clayton has worn either #10 or #11, and he isn't going to wear either of those in Cincinnati, for obvious reasons. So he had to choose another number. (Personally, I thought he would go with #16, but I'm not surprised that he has #2. It was likely to be one of those two numbers.)
Re: Game Thread: July 14th Reds vs Rockies (You guessed it, no EE!!)
Also, congratulations to Adam Dunn, who moved into sole possession of eighth place on the Reds career HR list, passing Vada Pinson!
Updated Reds HR list (players in italics are active):
Reds All-Time Home Run Leaders
1. Johnny Bench - 389
2. Frank Robinson - 324
3. Tony Perez - 287
4. Ted Kluszewski - 251
5. George Foster - 244
6. Eric Davis - 203
7. Barry Larkin - 198
8. Adam Dunn - 187
9. Vada Pinson - 186
10. Wally Post - 172
11. Gus Bell - 160
12. Ken Griffey, Jr. - 157
13. Joe Morgan - 152
13. Pete Rose - 152
15. Lee May - 147
16. Dan Driessen - 133
17. Reggie Sanders - 125
18. Ernie Lombardi - 120
19. Sean Casey - 118
20. Frank McCormick - 110
21. Dave Parker - 107
22. Chris Sabo - 104
23. Dave Concepcion - 101
24. Gordy Coleman - 98
25. Paul O'Neill - 96
Re: Game Thread: July 14th Reds vs Rockies (You guessed it, no EE!!)
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyer85
ah, all three are wrong and there is no way to evaluate defense outside of subjective evaluation?
I don't think that is what the others are saying flyer. But that simply on the defensive-side of statistical analysis, as compared to the offensive, they still have a ways to go to be as comprehensive/complete. It lags behind somewhat.
But totally dismissing them? No.
And I don't say that in defense of Clayton either. I could never stand this guy - even before he got rid of the locks. :lol:
But this guy was not even close to being the focus of this deal. He was thrown in as fodder just for the remainder of the season. I don't think they want to move BP (jerk him around when he has become comfortable at 2B) until next year. Simply my opinion.
The trade was made for pitching - not for Clayton.
I don't think that Krivsky thinks that guys like Clayton and Castro are the answers, on a long term basis. There is no way he can think that - and that is why I'm not too worried. They came here basically as no-risk "gimmes". I think it simply comes from the fact that defensively we have been giving away alot of games we should/could have won this year.
Kriv is trying to shore up two areas that have been killing us - defense and bullpen. And personally, I commend the guy for not sitting on his hands, and doing what he can to give us a fighting chance this year - without selling off the future. That is the key for me. We held out hope for guys like Lopez and Kearns; but that hope was fading.
That "all-star" label placed on Lopez may have been misplaced.
Other teams do the very same thing (and probably more) that we do on here - analyze players. They look at them every which way. Do we think they didn't see the same "lack" and doubt in these two players that we have all recognized?
That is why I don't think their value or stock was that great. Especially in a pitching-starved market.
But I have to admit that I am starting to get somewhat unsettled in the way Narron is not utilizing EE at 3B. This kid needs to be in there as much as possible, regardless of the errors, if they think he is the 3Bman of the future.
Re: Game Thread: July 14th Reds vs Rockies (You guessed it, no EE!!)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoydsOfSummer
Keep in mind that Bruce,if he keeps it up,will be knocking on the door in 2 years.He's doing good things in the Midwest League.
There was an excellent article in yesterday's DDN on Bruce. I've been following Jay. If he keeps it up, then he is one the fast track.
Reds' trade paves way for Dragons' Bruce, Janish
By Marc Katz
Dayton Daily News
That right field spot is open for Jay Bruce — as soon as he's ready. That shortstop spot is open for Paul Janish (or Ray Olmedo or Adam Rosales) — as soon as he's ready. And the purge of Reds' first-round draft picks continues.
In one afternoon, Reds General Manager Wayne Krivsky addressed some Reds' shortcomings of the present, paved the way for the future and purged the organization of a past mistake.
For the moment, that's a better three-way than any Coney hot dog with chili and cheese.
Bruce, the hot-hitting 19-year-old outfielder with the Class A Midwest League Dayton Dragons, has been used in center and right field, too, just in case. He's not major-league-ready this year, and might not be next year, but by 2008, he ought to be a fixture in Cincinnati.
Janish is a smooth-fielding shortstop who played with the Dragons last year before he injured his arm, and was hitting .398 with the Dragons this year when he was promoted to Class A Sarasota. At his current rate of production, Janish should be ready for the Reds in 2008, too.
This is not to suggest Krivsky is thinking two years ahead of the game. He wants to win now.
But you're not going to trade for 36-year-old shortstop Royce Clayton without knowing there are suitable replacements in the system. You're not going to ship out your best young outfielder without knowing a kid — seven years younger — is off to a fast start in his professional career.
Both Kearns and Bruce were No. 1 draft choices by the Reds, and in their first two seasons (at about the same age), Bruce is off to a better start. Kearns hit 14 homers and had 62 RBIs in his first season-and-a-half. Bruce has 22 homers and 98 RBIs — 60 so far this year — with a month-and-a-half to play. Bruce also has 36 doubles for the Dragons, the same number Kearns hit at Rockford, Ill., in 1999.
Janish is hitting only .238 at Sarasota, but he has a little pop in his bat, has hit better at every level than expected and always makes the right play in the field. Olmedo (at Class AAA Louisville) and Rosales (with the Dragons) are fielding upgrades, too.
That's the key to that position, you know. Lopez put up big offensive numbers, but was erratic in the field. Krivsky — and Reds manager Jerry Narron — are bigger on defense than the Reds have been over the past few years.
As for the purge of No.1s, only this summer's Drew Stubbs, Bruce (2005), 2004's Homer Bailey and Chris Gruler (2002) remain in the Reds' system. And Gruler is on injury rehab deep in the minors. Wagner, by the way, is the third first-round pick dumped by the Reds this year. Pitcher Ty Howington, No. 1 in 1999, was released in spring training, as was third baseman Mark Schramek, a supplemental first-round pick in 2002.
