Will White Sox fans also boo BA if he goes 0/8?

[caulfield12]

Well, people are already starting to get on Fields for not hitting any homers (although one or maybe both of his triples so far would have been out of Comiskey on any summer day without a gale force wind blowing in or across).

 

The thing is, everyone was "hopefully optimistic" Anderson could get up to a 300 OBP. Now we're talking 350?

 

The biggest problem with this approach is that he will start to get a reputation for NOT swinging early in counts...he will get down 0-1 and 0-2, and then his K rate will dramatically escalate.

 

Anderson has been making decent contact...Fields is the one whose swing is getting bigger and he's looking more like a slugger in terms of his K numbers without any homers to back it up. As long as Josh has his share of doubles and triples, it would be okay if he only hit 15-18 homers...but I think many were expecting 25-30-35 homers, a .230-.240 average and 300 OBP.

 

I think May will be a good test for Anderson, Ramirez and Fields. To see what kind of hitters they're really going to evolve into...April is too difficult, with the inconsistent weather, domes, rain, sleet....Chicago and Detroit weather.

[knightni]

I'm perfectly happy with BA getting on base and scoring runs. Who needs power on this team?

[Harry Chappas]

Well, people are already starting to get on Fields for not hitting any homers (although one or maybe both of his triples so far would have been out of Comiskey on any summer day without a gale force wind blowing in or across).

 

The thing is, everyone was "hopefully optimistic" Anderson could get up to a 300 OBP. Now we're talking 350?

 

The biggest problem with this approach is that he will start to get a reputation for NOT swinging early in counts...he will get down 0-1 and 0-2, and then his K rate will dramatically escalate.

 

Anderson has been making decent contact...Fields is the one whose swing is getting bigger and he's looking more like a slugger in terms of his K numbers without any homers to back it up. As long as Josh has his share of doubles and triples, it would be okay if he only hit 15-18 homers...but I think many were expecting 25-30-35 homers, a .230-.240 average and 300 OBP.

 

I think May will be a good test for Anderson, Ramirez and Fields. To see what kind of hitters they're really going to evolve into...April is too difficult, with the inconsistent weather, domes, rain, sleet....Chicago and Detroit weather.

 

He is taking pitches that all balls. The word was he swings at bad pitches so throw him junk he is not doing that now and seems ot have made that adjustment. So if there is a first pitch strike he may swing at it no???

 

As for his OBP if you are going to point out what he is not doing, why can't it be pointed out what he is doing.

 

He may suck and be released by May 15th but as of right now I like what I am seeing. I'll take this approach over the approach that gets him home runs, we can get those elsewhere.

[Dick Allen]

Well, people are already starting to get on Fields for not hitting any homers (although one or maybe both of his triples so far would have been out of Comiskey on any summer day without a gale force wind blowing in or across).

 

The thing is, everyone was "hopefully optimistic" Anderson could get up to a 300 OBP. Now we're talking 350?

 

The biggest problem with this approach is that he will start to get a reputation for NOT swinging early in counts...he will get down 0-1 and 0-2, and then his K rate will dramatically escalate.

 

Anderson has been making decent contact...Fields is the one whose swing is getting bigger and he's looking more like a slugger in terms of his K numbers without any homers to back it up. As long as Josh has his share of doubles and triples, it would be okay if he only hit 15-18 homers...but I think many were expecting 25-30-35 homers, a .230-.240 average and 300 OBP.

 

I think May will be a good test for Anderson, Ramirez and Fields. To see what kind of hitters they're really going to evolve into...April is too difficult, with the inconsistent weather, domes, rain, sleet....Chicago and Detroit weather.

 

I fail to see how not swinging at pitches out of the strike zone will increase your strikeout rate. BA is working on shortening his stroke. Supposedly in batting practice its short but when gametime comes along, its back to long. Adjustments are easier said than done. I think he'll be able to do it, especially with regular playing time. His heart and mind are probably racing when he gets to the plate. He'll be much better when he can put his mind to rest that an 0 for 4 doesn't mean the end of his playing time.

 

[CanOfCorn]

I know a majority of this board will be all over me for this but maybe Greg Walker is having an influence on young guys. He is not going to change the likes of Konerko, Dye, A.J., Thome and even Ramirez as he could not do anything for Uribe as some hitters are what they are.

 

Did he help Quentin...maybe refined him a little.

 

The thing is, Anderson and Fields seem to simply want to make contact rather than hit for power (i.e. lift and pull). With this, comes lower power numbers. As these guys cut down on their strikeouts and become more selective the power will return.

 

As for Anderson's RBI's and OPS, I rather he have an OBP of >.350 and let the other guys drive in the runs or be on base for the top of the order.

 

Walker said as much on the radio a short time back. Basically, he helps the "kids" and plays psychologist to the vets. He said he doesn't have to tell players like Thome what they are doing wrong, they know it, and have to work out of it themselves.

 

As for Anderson...small steps lead to bigger steps. Let him get comfortable in the 9 spot getting on however he can, walk, single, whatever. I would rather have a consistent Anderson with less power and more walks than an inconsistent Uribe who's on fire for two weeks, and then hits the occasional homer, but strikes out or grounds weakly to the left side all the rest of the time.

 

It doesn't matter if you hit 20 homers for a season if 14 of them are in a month-and-a-half time period.

[The Ginger Kid]

BA is a solid 4 tool player - I've never seen anything to make me think he can hit for average. But as long as he has good AB's, sacrifices, takes some walks, hits somewhere around .250 and chips in the occasional long one, I'll be content. I've resigned myself to this. His glove and arm make him special.

[caulfield12]

I'll wait for the sacrifices and great throws, although I might be waiting a while on Anderson to produce those.

 

Some people thought Rowand was a good thrower, when he was a really average arm. Anderson is above average, but he's far from Larry Walker or Roberto Clemente.

[NorthSideSox72]

I'll wait for the sacrifices and great throws, although I might be waiting a while on Anderson to produce those.

 

Some people thought Rowand was a good thrower, when he was a really average arm. Anderson is above average, but he's far from Larry Walker or Roberto Clemente.

Dude, what? Anderson had an OF assist just the other day, had a bunch in ST, he has a plus arm. You want him to be Clemente to be acceptable?

 

[qwerty]

I'll wait for the sacrifices and great throws, although I might be waiting a while on Anderson to produce those.

 

Some people thought Rowand was a good thrower, when he was a really average arm. Anderson is above average, but he's far from Larry Walker or Roberto Clemente.

 

I

 

Doubt

 

It

 

 

[Kalapse]

Dude, what? Anderson had an OF assist just the other day, had a bunch in ST, he has a plus arm. You want him to be Clemente to be acceptable?

Anderson led both the Cactus and Grapefruit leagues with SIX outfield assists (2nd: 4 assists by 2 guys). No other Sox outfielder had more than 1, Brian has an very good arm.

[Kalapse]

I

 

Doubt

 

It

Um, no. Runs/200 is OBVIOUSLY flawed, how could they have the canon that is Jermaine Dye's right arm rated as below average over the past 3 years? Blasphemy.

[kapkomet]

I'll wait for the sacrifices and great throws, although I might be waiting a while on Anderson to produce those.

 

Some people thought Rowand was a good thrower, when he was a really average arm. Anderson is above average, but he's far from Larry Walker or Roberto Clemente.

You spew some incredibly ignorant stuff.

[qwerty]

Um, no. Runs/200 is OBVIOUSLY flawed, how could they have the canon that is Jermaine Dye's right arm rated as below average over the past 3 years? Blasphemy.

 

I don't think it is obviously flawed because you do not agree with it. Fangraphs ''arm'' would be in agreement that his arm has never been particullary good.

 

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/...n_2003-03-21_0/

 

Jim (jimmuscomp) Posted: March 20, 2003 at 09:48 PM (#609841)

All these numbers - isn't this the same system that said Mo Vaughn was better then JT Snow last year?

 

If it is - then just save it.

 

MGL Posted: March 20, 2003 at 09:48 PM (#609845)

Jim wrote:

 

"All these numbers - isn't this the same system that said Mo Vaughn was better then JT Snow last year? If it is - then just save it."

 

Yes it is! Jim, what would the point of an objective "system" be if it only reinforced what it is you think you already know? I think it was Tango who said that a good system (offense, defense, whatever) should coincide with what you think you know 80% of the time and you should be surprised 20% of the time. I don't know if I am doing justice to his statement and obviously no one knows what the numbers are (80/20, 85/15, etc.), but I agree with the general concept. On the flip side, just because a system follows that patter, doesn't make it a good one of course. That is just a quick and dirty "check" on the sytem right off the bat. Implicit in that 20% (or whatever percentage), is that some smaller percentage will be REALLY surprising (like Snow, T. Hunter, maybe N. Perez). Whether that means that the system is "wrong" with regards to those players, I have no idea. I doubt it. I think it either means that these players' true defensive abilitites are somewhere in between (the objective rating and the subjective consensus), or that these players are the ones, for whatever reasons, LOOK good but really aren't. I suspect it is a little of both, but I lean towards the latter theory (since it's my objective rating!). Seriously, I lean towards the latter, since after all, that is the whole point (or one of them) of these objective ratings - to identify those players whose defenewive abilitites we CAN'T, again, for whatever reason, nail down by observation.

 

For the record, when the smoke cleared, Snow's 02 adjusted UZR runs was -9 (-11 per 162 "games"). Mo Vaughn's was -15, or -25 per 162 "games". So for you Snow fans, while Snow's performance was bad (hey, I don't make up these numbers - I just report them - that's how many ground balls Snow did or didn't catch in the various zones, etc.) in 02, Vaughn was over twice as bad! Vaughn is indeed a statue at first and was the worst first baseman in the NL last year (McGriff, who used to be good, was second at -22 per 162), and should, of course, be a DH (like F. Thomas, who has -27 UZR runs per 162 at first in 59 games since 1999).

 

As far as Snow, someone suggested that he was hurt last year which could easily have affetced his range, although he has no great UZR years going back to 1999 (he was a +3 in 01, -123 in 00, and a -1 in 99. The subjective consensus also seems to be that he is a wizard at catching bad throws. The low number of errors by the SF infield supports this view. UZR does not measure that skill at all.

 

BTW, the numbers in the article are absolute runs and not runs per 162, so they have to be taken in the context of the number of games or the number of chances. Also, the "games played" column in the article is the actual number of games played which I took off of the ESPN defensive stats website (the same place I got the range factor (RF) and the STATS ZR from in Part I). Normally, I put down in the "games" column the number of a player's chances divided by the league average chances per game at that position. So for example, Izturis' 9 UZR runs in 290 chances is a much better performance (rate-wise) then Hernandez' 10 runs in 469 chances.

 

As far as Bordick being "better" than A-Rod, apparently last year he was (again, I don't make up the numbers - just report them), at least in terms of fielding ground balls in the various zones and not making errors, which is what UZR measures. Keep in mind that we have fairly large sample error especially in those one-year samples. For example, if I were to use a (full-time) one-year sample to estimate a player's "ability" I would probably regress on the order of 50% (at least). So Bordick's one year UZR runs of 19 might correspond to a "true" UZR runs (ability) of 9 or 10 (in 116 "games), which is around 12-14 per 162. Of course, if you want to know more about who is "better" in terms of ability or projection for this year, you would look at multiple years to increase sample size. In 01, Bordick was +5 per 162 and A-Rod was +6. In 00, Bordick was +8 and A-Rod was +14. Finally, in 99, Bordick was +21 and A-Rod was +1. So it looks like Bordick is indeed a great defensive shortstop, which is amazing for someone at that age (although good hands will remain more stable with age than good range, I assume). A-Rod looks (from his UZR runs) like a great defensive SS as well, or at least a very good one. As far as who would be better this year (I think Bordick retired, did he not?), it's probably a toss-up. Given Bordick's and A-Rod's age, I'd probably give the edge to A-Rod.

 

That brings up Tango's question about error range. I have no idea (am I supposed to?). I guess we can take the UZR rate and assume that we have a binomila distribution and go from there. For example, Bordick had 347 chances in 02 with a UZR rate of .815. Using the binomial formula for standard deviation (SD), we get a SD of 21 points on the UZR rate, which is around 7 balls (.021 * 347), which is around 5.6 runs. Since UZR is essentially the sum of the individual ZR's, in the various zones, and becuase of all the adjustments, we probably have a SD which is higher than that, maybe 7 or 8 runs (in those 347 chances). So at 2 SD's (95% confidence interval), that's an "error range" of around 15 runs! That's another reason for not "worrying" about unusual looking numbers like Snow's. It is entirely plausible that Snow's 02 numbers or even his 99-02 numbers make him look bad entirely by chance. Becuase of this, it is completely acceptable to "narrow" that error range by using other independent measures, like observation and scouting.

 

While I have always insisted that objective measures for offense and defense are MUCH more accurate than scouting and observation, your objective measures are always "handcuffed" by error range (random variation). Observation and scoutng can help to narrow that range. In fact, the larger your sample (for your objective measure), the less important scouting and observation are (and, the more dangerous they can be - I'm actually with Mike Gimble on this - for a veteran player, on whom I have lots of data - I don't even want to look at him - case in point is Tex - they have to LOOK at him in Spring Training to see if they want him to be their everyday player (according to GM Hart)? - God help the Rangers if he happens to get lucky or "look good" during the Spring). Most of us know this intuitively, but it is a very important concept nonethesless - in fact, it is one of MGL's rules!

 

BTW, I changed my UZR program to use 4 years worth of data, both leagues, for the baseline (league) numbers in the various zones to see how that would change each player's ratings. The idea was to increase the sample size for each zone, since remember I am splitting the data in each zone into 6 pieces (and no one complained about that?)!

 

IOW, the way the program works right now, Bordick's 02 "outs/BIP" in the "56" zone is compared to the league (for the AL in 02) average "outs/BIP" for all SS's in zone "56". The other method is to compare Bordick's "outs/BIP" to 4 years' and both league's worth of SS "outs/BIP" in zone "56". At the end, I do an across the board adjustment to make sure that all SS's UZR runs add up to 0. USing the old method this happens automatically. Using the new method it does not. For some reason I am afraid to "rock the boat" and use the new method even though it should be much more accurate (basically it should reduce that "error range" for each player's UZR runs, by reducing the range of sample league ZR's in each zone, by using more (8 times more) league data).

 

BTW, I appreciate that Tango and the other "ratio adjustment guys" didn't scream at me for the way I applied the adjustments. Doing it the "right" way woulkd have been a programming nightmare. ALso, yes I really fudged the pitcher G/F adjustments. At the very least, as Tango suggested, GB/(GB+FB) is better than using G/F ratios...

 

Tangotiger Posted: March 20, 2003 at 09:48 PM (#609848)

Jim: your skepticism is noted. Rather than dismissing the results, why not try to explain them. Do you think there is a bias in how the calculations are done, or do you think that there is too much noise in fielding stats, even after accounting for all the variables MGL considered?

 

On the other hand, if you do have a high year-to-year correlation, do you think that means anything?

 

There's a reason that Bordick converted all those plays into outs. MGL has considered where the ball was hit (close to him or not), whether the batter was lefty/righty, whether the pitcher was gb or fb, the base/out situations, and the speed of the ball. Is there something else that we should look at? If the results are that far out of whack from our perceptions, then either our perceptions are wrong, or there's alot of noise in the data. Then again, if there is alot of noise, we'd expect low year-to-year correlation. Let's wait for the results of that.

 

***

Shorty: I suspect that the low out-conversion rates for those short soft flyballs is because they are low flyballs. What we really want, more than anything, is hang time. Not sure why only football keeps track of this.

 

***

MGL: the error range is more than basing it on the binomial distribution. Every time you apply an adjustment factor, that factor itself, based on the sample size, is subject to error as well. As you noted, it's a balancing act. I suspect that the more factors you introduce, the greater the range of error, even if the overall error is reduced. Not sure if I'm saying it right, nor how to figure it out.

 

***

The 80/20 rule belongs to Bill James, but I subscribe to it

Edited April 20, 2009 by qwerty

[Kalapse]

I don't think it is obviously flawed because you do not agree with it. Fangraphs ''arm'' would be in agreement that his arm has never been particullary good.

 

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/...n_2003-03-21_0/

You don't read nearly enough of my posts, you need to brush up damn it. Hell I posted those same Runs/200 numbers a few months back and probably more than a few times since '06. I've always found it annoying that Jermaine has a reputation for being a good defender with very strong arm when neither is even remotely true. He has some of the worst mechanics of any outfielder in the game and it leads to one of the least effective arms in Major League Baseball yet Hawks and blind Sox fans will continue to sing his praises.

 

http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?s=...t&p=1820977

[lostfan]

I don't think it is obviously flawed because you do not agree with it. Fangraphs ''arm'' would be in agreement that his arm has never been particullary good.

 

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/...n_2003-03-21_0/

I read that as sarcasm, Kalapse regularly rips Dye's perceived arm strength.

[qwerty]

You don't read nearly enough of my posts, you need to brush up damn it. Hell I posted those same Runs/200 numbers a few months back and probably more than a few times since '06. I've always found it annoying that Jermaine has a reputation for being a good defender with very strong arm when neither is even remotely true. He has some of the worst mechanics of any outfielder in the game and it leads to one of the least effective arms in Major League Baseball yet Hawks and blind Sox fans will continue to sing his praises.

 

http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?s=...t&p=1820977

 

Been way too occupied with other thing this past year- year and a half to memorize everything that is said. I thought it was odd since i recalled you noting that dye is brutal defensively, i will admit i figured you could have possibly flipped.

 

 

I read that as sarcasm, Kalapse regularly rips Dye's perceived arm strength.

 

I am so used to people just using that obnoxious green and living by it to distinguish a joke that i almost forgot people still knew how to say something sarcastically without it.

 

Down with the green.

[Kalapse]

I read that as sarcasm, Kalapse regularly rips Dye's perceived arm strength.

During Friday night's game I heard Darrin Jackson praising Dye's arm in right field. He admitted that Jermaine catches everything flat footed but that his quick transfer from glove to hand, quick release and strong arm make up for it. How he could watch runners take base after base on Jermaine Dye over the past 4 seasons and continue to defend him is beyond me. I know he likes to get creative and throw behind the runner at 1B in an attempt to keep them honest but that s*** (which I don't remember ever actually working) doesn't make up for his 4 hopping throws into 2B on hard hit should-be singles into the gap or rolling the ball 6 feet up the 3B line on plays at the plate.

 

"Jeramaine's got a shot with a good throooooow . . . no!"

[Kalapse]

Been way too occupied with other thing this past year- year and a half to memorize everything that is said. I thought it was odd since i recalled you noting that dye is brutal defensively, i will admit i figured you could have possibly flipped.

Eh, I'll give you a pass this time. I'm not sure if I've ever even used the green.

[lostfan]

During Friday night's game I heard Darrin Jackson praising Dye's arm in right field. He admitted that Jermaine catches everything flat footed but that his quick transfer from glove to hand, quick release and strong arm make up for it. How he could watch runners take base after base on Jermaine Dye over the past 4 seasons and continue to defend him is beyond me. I know he likes to get creative and throw behind the runner at 1B in an attempt to keep them honest but that s*** (which I don't remember ever actually working) doesn't make up for his 4 hopping throws into 2B on hard hit should-be singles into the gap or rolling the ball 6 feet up the 3B line on plays at the plate.

 

"Jeramaine's got a shot with a good throooooow . . . no!"

I think it was last year when I was watching Joe Morgan (I think) do a Sox broadcast and the outfield was Quentin-Anderson-Dye, and they were talking about how all 3 of those arms are strong. Whoever was the other person in the booth asked who it was, Morgan hesitated and said Jermaine Dye. I guess that's a default answer if you don't know any better. The correct answer is probably Anderson, actually.

[witesoxfan]

If Jermaine Dye actually played good defense all-around, his arm would be good. As it is, he is bad out there though he makes some spectacular plays from time to time that a lot of right fielders make look easy.

[Kalapse]

If Jermaine Dye actually played good defense all-around, his arm would be good. As it is, he is bad out there though he makes some spectacular plays from time to time that a lot of right fielders make look easy.

He really enjoys running into walls.

 

Reckless abandon ≠ range/prowess

[caulfield12]

When is the last time that assists from the outfield measured anything, usually, but the worst outfield arms or defenders that were constantly challenged by opposing 3B coaches like Carlos Lee or Alphonso Soriano?

 

C'mon.

 

I realize Rowand and Anderson are like Immortals to some here, but this is getting ridiculous...above-average arm strength has magically morphed into something more than it is.

 

Brian Anderson has all of 4 outfield assists in 244 games played in his career. Lance Johnson had 11 assists in 1991 and 1992. One Dog had one of the worst arms in the history of the game...rivaling Juan Pierre, Jerry Owens, Scott Podsednik and Johnny Damon.

 

To have a "plus" arm on the traditional scouting scale, you'd have to be at 60+. There is no way that Brian Anderson has a plus arm...maybe 50 or 55, but not a 60 or above for his position.

Edited April 21, 2009 by caulfield12

[Dick Allen]

When is the last time that assists from the outfield measured anything, usually, but the worst outfield arms or defenders that were constantly challenged by opposing 3B coaches like Carlos Lee or Alphonso Soriano?

 

C'mon.

 

I realize Rowand and Anderson are like Immortals to some here, but this is getting ridiculous...above-average arm strength has magically morphed into something more than it is.

 

Brian Anderson has all of 4 outfield assists in 244 games played in his career. Lance Johnson had 11 assists in 1991 and 1992. One Dog had one of the worst arms in the history of the game...rivaling Juan Pierre, Jerry Owens, Scott Podsednik and Johnny Damon.

 

To have a "plus" arm on the traditional scouting scale, you'd have to be at 60+. There is no way that Brian Anderson has a plus arm...maybe 50 or 55, but not a 60 or above for his position.

So you are saying assists don't measure anything then mention the number of assists Anderson has. That coupled with your observation that because he has been taking pitches that are balls is going to cause his strikeout rate to rise makes me wonder if you can really objectively look at Brian Anderson. While Anderson might not have the traditional "gun" in the OF, it is plenty strong enough. He is also very accurate and gets himself in position to make the proper throws. I really don't think his defense is something even his biggest detractors can argue.

[False Alarm]

When is the last time that assists from the outfield measured anything, usually, but the worst outfield arms or defenders that were constantly challenged by opposing 3B coaches like Carlos Lee or Alphonso Soriano?

 

C'mon.

 

I realize Rowand and Anderson are like Immortals to some here, but this is getting ridiculous...above-average arm strength has magically morphed into something more than it is.

 

Brian Anderson has all of 4 outfield assists in 244 games played in his career. Lance Johnson had 11 assists in 1991 and 1992. One Dog had one of the worst arms in the history of the game...rivaling Juan Pierre, Jerry Owens, Scott Podsednik and Johnny Damon.

 

To have a "plus" arm on the traditional scouting scale, you'd have to be at 60+. There is no way that Brian Anderson has a plus arm...maybe 50 or 55, but not a 60 or above for his position.

50 would be by definition an average arm. i ain't read no pro scouting reports on anderson but i'm pretty confident no one's rating him a 50. 55 is unlikely too.

[Balta1701]

Just based on what I've seen, Brian has a solid throwing arm, but had accuracy issues he needed to work on when he first came up, and he's been getting better and better at that.