The Alex Rios Mystery

[YonderLaroche]

Hmmm... so I guess Thornton somehow died last year, but somehow is relevant this year eh?

 

Damn... knew I was missing somebody.

[bmags]

Hmmm... so I guess Thornton somehow died last year, but somehow is relevant this year eh?

 

Thornton is so brave and kind to come back from the dead.

[southsider2k5]

Thornton is so brave and kind to come back from the dead.

 

twas merely a fleshwound...

[knightni]

twas merely a fleshwound...

Your arm's off!

 

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7577/1975/1600/Coop.jpg

 

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7577/19.../bmaccheese.jpg

[SouthsideDon48]

Your arm's off!

 

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7577/1975/1600/Coop.jpg

 

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7577/19.../bmaccheese.jpg

His arm is off? ...Coop can fix him.

[bmags]

Rios a PED-head... huh. Typically I don't pick out slender sub-25 HR hitting players as PED-heads.

[EvilJester99]

Rios a PED-head... huh. Typically I don't pick out slender sub-25 HR hitting players as PED-heads.

I think I would put that one on Jones b4 Rios....

[bmags]

I did respond to someone, didn't I?

[macsandz]

Really, the only downgrade is Carrasco to Torres, and that spot shouldn't be needed a lot with this staff.

 

Torres is not the long man. He's living in AAA this year and forever. Hudson is long relief and he's not gonna be much of a fall off this year from DJ.

[BaseballNick]

Rios a PED-head... huh. Typically I don't pick out slender sub-25 HR hitting players as PED-heads.

 

Neifi Perez and Pablo Ozuna both PED'd. Nobody should surprise you anymore.

[bmags]

yeah but that also doesn't give any reason to just ignorantly throw it out as your best insult at a player you don't like.

[southsider2k5]

I did respond to someone, didn't I?

 

Yeah, some stuff got deleted.

[SoxAce]

Yeah, some stuff got deleted.

 

Yeah.. I hate you.

Edited December 26, 2009 by SoxAce

[Ranger]

Uh.. what? I believe it was Kalapse who had a statistic saying we were, defensively, the worst defensive OF in the entire league or something to that extent. Our defensive OF was a definite problem. And as far as the infield, other than Josh Fields, our infield defense was not nearly as bad as the OF defense. (Getz was serviceable, Alexei besides the ADD, has alot of range and had a good UZR, and Konerko is Konerko) The sox team last year had alot of problems entirely. I will agree that KW has address that well with Pierre in LF (despite the arm) Quentin moving back to his natural position in RF, Rios (defensive stud) in CF, Alexei taking another step at SS and we will see how Teahan and Beckham do in a full year at their positions.

 

 

 

Agreed, and your not even counting Wise (despite "the catch") Kotsay (some games) Lillibridge, etc.. we ran out there. Dye is one of the worst defensive RFs in the game. We even had Pods in RF in some games which was pretty embarrassing to watch. No doubt, our defensive OF has greatly improved from last year. We'll see how the defensive IF (mainly Teahan and Beckham) do.

 

 

I think our OF defense cost us around 30-35 runs according to UZR. Dye was like a -20, Quentin was a -5, and Pods was like a -2 or 3. Anderson was positive, as was Wise. Kotsay was slightly negative. So yeah, around a -30 UZR in the outfield truly sucks.

 

 

The sox were -25.6... tied with the red sox for third worst in baseball...ahead of the blue jays (-28.8) and twins (-30.6). But remember, the outfield defense wasn't really a problem anyway.

 

Oh, well since the UZR says so, it must be true. Do you guys even know how UZR, RF, and defensive stats of the like are even measured? You realize none of them accurately measure the speed of the ball off the bat (actually they don't even try to) or the defensive positioning prior to the pitch? These statistics should be looked at and considered, but if you're going to use them as your sole proof of a defensive player's worth, you're going to be misguided much of the time.

 

Companies like Stats Inc. are working on a system using cameras and computers (not people watching on monitors) to precisely measure stuff like this. Baseball has been moving forward with collecting data from this software from Sportsvision that does basically the same thing. Eventually it will be used in every ballpark, and after it is perfected and utilized, we'll have a considerably more accurate measure of defensive abilities.

 

For the time being, UZR is flawed and it's a mistake to use it as a bible of some kind. It should be considered but shouldn't be everything.

 

(Oh, and a happy holiday to everyone.)

Edited December 26, 2009 by Ranger

[SoxAce]

Oh, well since the UZR says so, it must be true. Do you guys even know how UZR, RF, and defensive stats of the like are even measured? You realize none of them accurately measure the speed of the ball off the bat (actually they don't even try to) or the defensive positioning prior to the pitch? These statistics should be looked at and considered, but if you're going to use them as your sole proof of a defensive player's worth, you're going to be misguided much of the time.

 

Companies like Stats Inc. are working on a system using cameras and computers (not people watching on monitors) to precisely measure stuff like this. Baseball has been moving forward with collecting data from this software from Sportsvision that does basically the same thing. Eventually it will be used in every ballpark, and after it is perfected and utilized, we'll have a considerably more accurate measure of defensive abilities.

 

For the time being, UZR is flawed and it's a mistake to use it as a bible of some kind. It should be considered but shouldn't be everything.

 

(Oh, and a happy holiday to everyone.)

 

Alright since the other guys aren't on from who you quoted I'll speak for me. Yes alot of us already know about UZR's flaws and other aspects (alot of posters bring the Fielding Bible to the equation which is probably the best measure of defense measure out there) and other ares as well (there are some insane symmetric fans on this board), not just UZR. Hell there was a couple of threads a few months back on it before you registered here. I've been on a few boards from the old days way back when, and this is by far the smartest posters I've ever come across. Guys like qwerty, Kalapse, Cheat (when he was here) etc.. are just outstanding posters and not to mention guys like witesoxfn, fathom, iamshack, DickAllen, ptatc, Rowand44, bmags, chw42, lostfan, scenario, Ozzie Ball etc.. etc.. I mean the list goes on and on, on this board. Alot of these guys you'll realize if you haven't already will definitely bring up interesting post, and at times.. can be very stubborn. You just fit the list already ranger, but at times I notice (and I believe a poster brought this up) is at times, when a poster quotes you, and they are right, or bring up an interesting question/answer/post/whatever, you play the "I am always right or there's always a point with me" card (you might not mean to, or might not necessarily think so) and you'll find out that'll get old very quick here. (some posters still do it here) Now me personally, I'm not big on UZR, but I won't completely ignore it as well. I'll just say I've learned alot from some of these guys and alot of people I didn't mention (the "etc.." guys) on this board, and not just in baseball.

Edited December 26, 2009 by SoxAce

[southsider2k5]

Yeah.. I hate you.

 

No you don't...

[SoxAce]

No you don't...

 

[SI1020]

Oh, well since the UZR says so, it must be true. Do you guys even know how UZR, RF, and defensive stats of the like are even measured? You realize none of them accurately measure the speed of the ball off the bat (actually they don't even try to) or the defensive positioning prior to the pitch? These statistics should be looked at and considered, but if you're going to use them as your sole proof of a defensive player's worth, you're going to be misguided much of the time.

 

Companies like Stats Inc. are working on a system using cameras and computers (not people watching on monitors) to precisely measure stuff like this. Baseball has been moving forward with collecting data from this software from Sportsvision that does basically the same thing. Eventually it will be used in every ballpark, and after it is perfected and utilized, we'll have a considerably more accurate measure of defensive abilities.

 

For the time being, UZR is flawed and it's a mistake to use it as a bible of some kind. It should be considered but shouldn't be everything.

 

(Oh, and a happy holiday to everyone.)

I agree.

[Eminor3rd]

Oh, well since the UZR says so, it must be true. Do you guys even know how UZR, RF, and defensive stats of the like are even measured? You realize none of them accurately measure the speed of the ball off the bat (actually they don't even try to) or the defensive positioning prior to the pitch? These statistics should be looked at and considered, but if you're going to use them as your sole proof of a defensive player's worth, you're going to be misguided much of the time.

 

Companies like Stats Inc. are working on a system using cameras and computers (not people watching on monitors) to precisely measure stuff like this. Baseball has been moving forward with collecting data from this software from Sportsvision that does basically the same thing. Eventually it will be used in every ballpark, and after it is perfected and utilized, we'll have a considerably more accurate measure of defensive abilities.

 

For the time being, UZR is flawed and it's a mistake to use it as a bible of some kind. It should be considered but shouldn't be everything.

 

(Oh, and a happy holiday to everyone.)

 

Yeah, well unfortunately it's the best statistic we have right now so it's going to keep coming up. The alternative is relying solely on our subjective memory, which we know is almost completely inaccurate from decades of psychological research. I agree that we need better statistical measures for defense than UZR, but at the moment, I'd much rather rely completely on UZR than on our own unsupported opinions.

 

Happy holidays to you as well.

[scenario]

Yeah, well unfortunately it's the best statistic we have right now so it's going to keep coming up.

 

The alternative is relying solely on our subjective memory, which we know is almost completely inaccurate from decades of psychological research.

 

I agree that we need better statistical measures for defense than UZR, but at the moment, I'd much rather rely completely on UZR than on our own unsupported opinions.

 

But the choice isn't "UZR" vs. "subjective memory and unsupported opinions".

 

UZR is a very valuable concept... when used properly.

 

But small-samples of UZR data (for example single-year player or team UZR figures) don't provide the basis for a meaningful analysis. (ex. comparing two players, or teams, etc.)

 

In fact, one-year figures are often misleading, and may lead to conclusions less accurate than 'good ol' subjective opinions'.

Edited December 26, 2009 by scenario

[Buehrle>Wood]

Regardless of UZR, does anyone really believe our outfield D was even remotely decent last year?

Edited December 26, 2009 by Buehrle>Wood

[Ranger]

Alright since the other guys aren't on from who you quoted I'll speak for me. Yes alot of us already know about UZR's flaws and other aspects (alot of posters bring the Fielding Bible to the equation which is probably the best measure of defense measure out there) and other ares as well (there are some insane symmetric fans on this board), not just UZR. Hell there was a couple of threads a few months back on it before you registered here. I've been on a few boards from the old days way back when, and this is by far the smartest posters I've ever come across. Guys like qwerty, Kalapse, Cheat (when he was here) etc.. are just outstanding posters and not to mention guys like witesoxfn, fathom, iamshack, DickAllen, ptatc, Rowand44, bmags, chw42, lostfan, scenario etc.. etc.. I mean the list goes on and on, on this board. Alot of these guys you'll realize if you haven't already will definitely bring up interesting post, and at times.. can be very stubborn. You just fit the list already ranger, but at times I notice (and I believe a poster brought this up) is at times, when a poster quotes you, and they are right, or bring up an interesting question/answer/post/whatever, you play the "I am always right or there's always a point with me" card (you might not mean to, or might not necessarily think so) and you'll find out that'll get old very quick here. (some posters still do it here) Now me personally, I'm not big on UZR, but I won't completely ignore it as well. I'll just say I've learned alot from some of these guys and alot of people I didn't mention (the "etc.." guys) on this board, and not just in baseball.

 

Should I apologize for always having a point? Why would I post if I didn't have one? If I'm wrong about something, I'll admit I'm wrong. On the other hand, if somebody else is wrong, it's ok for me or anyone else here to tell them such. Also, if somebody has an interesting question/answer/post/whatever, I'll respond. And if they weren't quite following what I was getting at or I didn't explain myself clearly enough the first time, I'll clarify.

 

And as you will read if you go back to my post, I don't think UZR should be ignored. But I also don't think people should be married to it, which seems to be a prevailing thought with people like qwerty (who, I believe, had the intent of being a smartass toward me in his last post...if not, I hope he'll accept my apology) People shouldn't look at a player's UZR and then say, "oh, well he's a terrible defender because of this number." That number can be misleading and it isn't proof of anything. It's really a suggestion and doesn't take everything into account. However, I'm thrilled about the new data that will become more available in the near future when defense can be more accurately measured. That is going to change things.

 

I also think it's absurd that because we have access to SABRmetrics, some of us think they have a better idea of how to put together a team than the people who are paid to put together a team. This isn't fantasy baseball, and a real team doesn't work like that.

 

I think it's great when people have thought their ideas through and try to support them with facts the best they can. It's better than foaming at the mouth. I just think that some people should be aware that numbers aren't everything and that because you're able to cite zone ratings, doesn't mean you have definitive answers.

Regardless of UZR, does anyone really believe our outfield D was even remotely decent last year?

 

 

I don't think it killed them and, regardless of numbers, I don't think it isn't what led to the unacceptable number of unearned runs. I think what killed them is the booting of routine grounders and DP balls. Times they should've been out of an inning and weren't because the guys on the left side of the infield couldn't handle a two-hopper.

Edited December 26, 2009 by Ranger

[SoxAce]

Should I apologize for always having a point? Why would I post if I didn't have one? If I'm wrong about something, I'll admit I'm wrong. On the other hand, if somebody else is wrong, it's ok for me or anyone else here to tell them such. Also, if somebody has an interesting question/answer/post/whatever, I'll respond. And if they weren't quite following what I was getting at or I didn't explain myself clearly enough the first time, I'll clarify.

 

And as you will read if you go back to my post, I don't think UZR should be ignored. But I also don't think people should be married to it, which seems to be a prevailing thought with people like qwerty (who, I believe, had the intent of being a smartass toward me in his last post...if not, I hope he'll accept my apology) People shouldn't look at a player's UZR and then say, "oh, well he's a terrible defender because of this number." That number can be misleading and it isn't proof of anything. It's really a suggestion and doesn't take everything into account. However, I'm thrilled about the new data that will become more available in the near future when defense can be more accurately measured. That is going to change things.

 

The constant contradictions here is cute, but basically what I was saying was in regards to this. This team had a ton of problems not just in one area, but to completely eliminate the OF defense as even people's eyes watching the games all year is completely foolish. That was one of the many problems that team last season had. That is what some posters here wanted to mere merit and they have excellent points and pretty much what KW and company certainally addressed from the additions.

 

I also think it's absurd that because we have access to SABRmetrics, some of us think they have a better idea of how to put together a team than the people who are paid to put together a team. This isn't fantasy baseball, and a real team doesn't work like that.

 

I think it's great when people have thought their ideas through and try to support them with facts the best they can. It's better than foaming at the mouth. I just think that some people should be aware that numbers aren't everything and that because you're able to cite zone ratings, doesn't mean you have definitive answers.

 

I agree 100% with this BTW. There are some things here people can see with eyes instead of the stats. But what I saw added more of with what the sox did was in the OF FYI. Hope you had a good X-Mas Chris.

Edited December 26, 2009 by SoxAce

[Ranger]

The constant contradictions here is cute, but basically what I was saying was in regards to this. This team had a ton of problems not just in one area, but to completely eliminate the OF defense as even people's eyes watching the games all year is completely foolish. That was one of the many problems that team last season had. That is what some posters here wanted to mere merit and they have excellent points and pretty much what KW and company certainally addressed from the additions.

 

 

 

I agree 100% with this BTW. There are some things here people can see with eyes instead of the stats. But what I saw added more of with what the sox did was in the OF FYI. Hope you had a good X-Mas Chris.

 

 

Speaking of always having a point...

 

What contradictions? I seriously don't believe I've contradicted myself.

 

But, yes, I had a nice Christmas, hope you did too. Just getting some late-night prep for Sox Weekly tomorrow (well, technically today). Good night, friends.

[gatnom]

I also think it's absurd that because we have access to SABRmetrics, some of us think they have a better idea of how to put together a team than the people who are paid to put together a team. This isn't fantasy baseball, and a real team doesn't work like that.

I think it's great when people have thought their ideas through and try to support them with facts the best they can. It's better than foaming at the mouth. I just think that some people should be aware that numbers aren't everything and that because you're able to cite zone ratings, doesn't mean you have definitive answers.

 

I think the bold part above is exactly what SoxAce was getting at with the "I'm always right" thing a few posts back. Now, even though he and I pretty much agree with you, I don't know that the stat people around here would exactly put together worse teams. Just because people are paid to do something does not mean they do it well. There are plenty of coaches and GM's out there are quite frankly terrible. Does it mean that because they are paid their opinions are worth more than a well-informed fan? I don't think so. I'm not saying that specifically Kenny is a bad GM because I think he's one of the best in the business, but just because he is the one paid to make the decisions does not mean that his decisions are necessarily the best ones.

 

Also, regardless of UZR etc. it is pretty obvious to the eye that Dye and Podsednik aren't very good in the field. Quentin with his injured foot looked pretty terrible out there as well. Was it the biggest problem with the team? That's debatable, but it was definitely up there.