Jump to content

Keppinger to Sox 3 yr deal


dmbjeff

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 310
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

I saw your post and I'm not buying it. Being bad for several years at positions he isn't going to play is not more significant than being good for one year at the position he is going to play. If you think his sample size at 3B is too small, that's fine, but then don't quote UZR at all.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Dec 5, 2012 -> 02:33 PM)
I would rely more on one season's worth of numbers at the position he's going to play over career numbers at positions he isn't going to play.

 

 

QUOTE (chw42 @ Dec 5, 2012 -> 02:33 PM)
I get that, but I'm not sure it's fair to say he's a bad defensive 3B just because he's a bad defensive SS and 2B. There's a huge difference in the demands of the positions, specifically range.

It's that his ratings are consistently so low (at least -10 defense runs per year at SS/2B/1B), not just slightly below average, everywhere else that it would be unlikely he's significantly better at one position. Plus, the aging curve for fielding starts to decline earlier than for batting. We'll see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's that his ratings are consistently so low (at least -10 defense runs per year at SS/2B/1B), not just slightly below average, everywhere else that it would be unlikely he's significantly better at one position. Plus, the aging curve for fielding starts to decline earlier than for batting. We'll see.

 

What data supports that claim? Lots of players are much better at one position than others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Dec 5, 2012 -> 01:55 PM)
I saw your post and I'm not buying it. Being bad for several years at positions he isn't going to play is not more significant than being good for one year at the position he is going to play. If you think his sample size at 3B is too small, that's fine, but then don't quote UZR at all.

 

His career UZR numbers suggest a guy who has below average range, arm, and hands. I agree with you that third is easier and you can't expect a direct correlation, but there is no reason to believe he will be a plus defender.

 

When I originally made the post "-17.7 career UZR," it was in response to the question, "where is this notion that he's a sub-par defender coming from?" And, his career UZR is where the notion of him being a sub-par defender comes from. I stand by that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His career UZR numbers suggest a guy who has below average range, arm, and hands. I agree with you that third is easier and you can't expect a direct correlation, but there is no reason to believe he will be a plus defender.

 

When I originally made the post "-17.7 career UZR," it was in response to the question, "where is this notion that he's a sub-par defender coming from?" And, his career UZR is where the notion of him being a sub-par defender comes from. I stand by that.

 

He has a season's worth of being a plus defender at 3B, so there is some reason to believe that he might be.

 

He was signed to play 3B, so that is the context of the question but apparently not your answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Dec 5, 2012 -> 02:01 PM)
He has a season's worth of being a plus defender at 3B, so there is some reason to believe that he might be.

 

He was signed to play 3B, so that is the context of the question but apparently not your answer.

 

Right, there is some reason to believe he MIGHT be, but UZR historically doesn't become a reliable indicator of true talent until about three seasons of data. So pick your poison -- small sample of numbers not nearly enough to show the whole picture, or larger sample of numbers that can show a related picture but isn't exactly what you want to see. Again, the truth is somewhere in between. My point on the UZR data from third is that that number doesn't do much for us. I'm more confident that he'll be better at third because I believe it is an easier position, not because of small sample UZR data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Dec 5, 2012 -> 02:58 PM)
What data supports that claim? Lots of players are much better at one position than others.

They are, but not typically when the positions in question are 2B/3B. The positions share many of the same skills needed to be successful. There are differences, more range helpful at 2B, better arm helpful at 3B, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are, but not typically when the positions in question are 2B/3B. The positions share many of the same skills needed to be successful. There are differences, more range helpful at 2B, better arm helpful at 3B, etc.

 

There are plenty of good 3B who weren't or likely would not have been good 2B.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (3E8 @ Dec 5, 2012 -> 02:21 PM)
They are, but not typically when the positions in question are 2B/3B. The positions share many of the same skills needed to be successful. There are differences, more range helpful at 2B, better arm helpful at 3B, etc.

Orlando Hudson was a pretty severe drop defensively from 2B to 3B.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, there is some reason to believe he MIGHT be, but UZR historically doesn't become a reliable indicator of true talent until about three seasons of data. So pick your poison -- small sample of numbers not nearly enough to show the whole picture, or larger sample of numbers that can show a related picture but isn't exactly what you want to see. Again, the truth is somewhere in between. My point on the UZR data from third is that that number doesn't do much for us. I'm more confident that he'll be better at third because I believe it is an easier position, not because of small sample UZR data.

 

Fine, then point out the small sample size for UZR, but don't quote overall UZR that covers multiple positions. That's just as if not more misleading than using the UZR for 3B.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Dec 5, 2012 -> 03:09 PM)
Right, there is some reason to believe he MIGHT be, but UZR historically doesn't become a reliable indicator of true talent until about three seasons of data. So pick your poison -- small sample of numbers not nearly enough to show the whole picture, or larger sample of numbers that can show a related picture but isn't exactly what you want to see. Again, the truth is somewhere in between. My point on the UZR data from third is that that number doesn't do much for us. I'm more confident that he'll be better at third because I believe it is an easier position, not because of small sample UZR data.

 

You can't trade one statistical issue for another and say one is ok and the other isn't. A small sample size means that you might not be observing the actual relationship (thus, the combined 'full season' of 3B datapoints might not be accurate until we get more data). However, it is also statistically incorrect to conflate data gathered at other positions as evidence of a true relationship at a different position. Your point is no more statistically correct than those wanting to use the 3B data only.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (chw42 @ Dec 5, 2012 -> 02:20 PM)
He was pretty good during those 50 games though. All he needs to be is average defensively. If he puts up his career offensive #s, he'll be an average 3B, which is very well worth the $4 million we're paying him.

 

He's not an ideal #2, but he's a much better fit for that spot right now than anyone else we have. I like the deal.

 

 

 

If he puts up the numbers he did last year he most certainly is. High obp/good contact, a little more speed would be nice but I think he's a good fit.

 

Speaking of where he's gonna hit, Madden hit him in every spot but leading off.

ABs

Batting #2 13

Batting #3 11

Batting #4 77

Batting #5 124

Batting #6 105

Batting #7 47

Batting #8 6

Batting #9 2

 

Joe Madden is one crazy SoB.

Edited by 2nd_city_saint787
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Disco72 @ Dec 5, 2012 -> 02:27 PM)
You can't trade one statistical issue for another and say one is ok and the other isn't. A small sample size means that you might not be observing the actual relationship (thus, the combined 'full season' of 3B datapoints might not be accurate until we get more data). However, it is also statistically incorrect to conflate data gathered at other positions as evidence of a true relationship at a different position. Your point is no more statistically correct than those wanting to use the 3B data only.

 

I don't understand why you think I'm arguing that. Once again, someone asked why people think he's a sub-par defender, and I said it's because he has a -17.7 career UZR. That's the answer. You're right that we can't transfer that data over to third and know for sure, and I feel like I've said that in every post I've made.

 

But, if an infielder is bad at a blend of 2B/SS/3B, I would argue it's more likely he's bad at 3B than it is that he's good at 3B. If you disagree, that's fine -- we really don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Dec 5, 2012 -> 02:34 PM)
I don't understand why you think I'm arguing that. Once again, someone asked why people think he's a sub-par defender, and I said it's because he has a -17.7 career UZR. That's the answer. You're right that we can't transfer that data over to third and know for sure, and I feel like I've said that in every post I've made.

 

But, if an infielder is bad at a blend of 2B/SS/3B, I would argue it's more likely he's bad at 3B than it is that he's good at 3B. If you disagree, that's fine -- we really don't know.

His metrics at 3B were also pretty bad until last year. I'm sure the Sox will take average.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Knackattack @ Dec 5, 2012 -> 02:38 PM)
Honestly if he is even close to league average offensively and defensively for the amount they're paying him and the other available options, I'll be happy with him.

 

Yeah, for sure. I think that's the key in evaluating this deal. Considering context, it was a significant improvement at a low cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...