Old school stats vs. new school stats

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedSoxKimmi. Show RedSoxKimmi's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    Not helping the opps make outs that other SSs do, keeps the inning going. My guess is that if he allows 80-120 more hits than the best SSs, it make a much bigger difference than 1.5 games (which is maybe how he compares to the avg SS).

    Yes, the 1.5 games that Jeter costs his team is in comparison to the average SS.  If you compare him to the best SS, the difference is more like 4.5 games, on average.

     

    Jeter makes up for much of this with his bat and leadership, but it does not take away from the fact, yes fact, that he is one of the worst fielding SSs of the past decade.

    I'm with you all the way on this one Moon.  Despite the fact that his fielding % is usually good, it does not make up for his lack of range.  Jeter is an icon, a great SS due to his offense and leadership.  But as you said, he is one of the worst SSs defensively over the past decade.

     

    There are 23 qualifying SSs over the last 10 years.

    Jeter ranks (out of 23):

    T6 in Fldg% (.978)

    2nd ErrR  (+32.6) Proof he makes the plays he gets to.

    21st DPR (-5.0)

    23rd in RngR (-92.5) That's worse than the next bottom 2 combined!!! 

       (S Drew -35.1 and Betancourt -43.6) That closes the case for me. He's not just horrible in range, he is beyond horrible.

    21st in UZR/150 (-7.2) Betancourt is -8.2 and Hanram is -9.1.

    As I said, I would not argue with anyone who says he is only the 3rd worst fielding SS the past decade, but to me, his exponentially horrible range makes him the absolute worst of the decade.

    I'd say the same thing if he was on the Sox.


    It's hard to dispute the numbers.  To add to that, over the past 10 years, Jeter is at -142 in DRS and -136 in Plus/Minus runs, by far the worst.  Granted, Jeter has played more innings than most of the others, but if you project the others to the same number of innings Jeter has played, Jeter is still about 30 runs worse than the next worst SS.

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:

    Not helping the opps make outs that other SSs do, keeps the inning going. My guess is that if he allows 80-120 more hits than the best SSs, it make a much bigger difference than 1.5 games (which is maybe how he compares to the avg SS).

    Yes, the 1.5 games that Jeter costs his team is in comparison to the average SS.  If you compare him to the best SS, the difference is more like 4.5 games, on average.

     

    Jeter makes up for much of this with his bat and leadership, but it does not take away from the fact, yes fact, that he is one of the worst fielding SSs of the past decade.

    I'm with you all the way on this one Moon.  Despite the fact that his fielding % is usually good, it does not make up for his lack of range.  Jeter is an icon, a great SS due to his offense and leadership.  But as you said, he is one of the worst SSs defensively over the past decade.

     

    There are 23 qualifying SSs over the last 10 years.

    Jeter ranks (out of 23):

    T6 in Fldg% (.978)

    2nd ErrR  (+32.6) Proof he makes the plays he gets to.

    21st DPR (-5.0)

    23rd in RngR (-92.5) That's worse than the next bottom 2 combined!!! 

       (S Drew -35.1 and Betancourt -43.6) That closes the case for me. He's not just horrible in range, he is beyond horrible.

    21st in UZR/150 (-7.2) Betancourt is -8.2 and Hanram is -9.1.

    As I said, I would not argue with anyone who says he is only the 3rd worst fielding SS the past decade, but to me, his exponentially horrible range makes him the absolute worst of the decade.

    I'd say the same thing if he was on the Sox.


    It's hard to dispute the numbers.  To add to that, over the past 10 years, Jeter is at -142 in DRS and -136 in Plus/Minus runs, by far the worst.  Granted, Jeter has played more innings than most of the others, but if you project the others to the same number of innings Jeter has played, Jeter is still about 30 runs worse than the next worst SS.

     



    Yes.

    The UZR/150 does reduce everyone to the same inning total, and it is not pretty for Jeter.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    Bad 1st innings often render a team out of the game.

     



    It does have an impact for sure, but does a team really have less of a chance of winning if a pitcher let's up 4 runs in the first then shuts out the team for 5 innings (4 ERs in 6IP for an ERA or 6.00) or lets up 4 in the 6th after a shutout for 5 innings (4 Ers in 6IP and a 6.00 ERA)?

     

     

     



    I think the 1st case is worse, because the team is much more likely to be behind 4; once you play behind, like other sports and in life in general, it's harder; you can't steal, you get impatient at the plate, you burn out your bull pen, the opposing pitcher is more aggressive/comfortable, and so on. Case in point: The 2012 Red Sox. And. this particular facet of the team for the most part cannot be blamed on BV.

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Beantowne. Show Beantowne's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    In response to Beantowne's comment:

     

    did you also factor into the math that Jeter plays in Yankee stadium...where as a rule players try to go the other way, and most teams try to stack thier lineups with left handed bats...which could also account for the amount of chances.

     



    It'd be interesting to see the number of chances for other positions for the Yankees, especially third base and second base, compared to other teams.

     

    Also the Yankees have been consistently near the top in pitching numbers, so they should have less fielding chances overall than other teams. 

     



    It would be useful and it also would'nt hurt to the opponents numbers at Yankee stadium too. Data I'm sure exist just not sure where to find it...

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from SinceYaz. Show SinceYaz's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    I love baseball stats but man, do they create a lot of confusion and controversy.  The old school vs. new school battle rages on.  Some people think stats like a pitcher's won-lost record and a hitter's RBI total are meaningless.  New school stats like WAR and UZR, of course, are mocked viciously by the old school people.

    I try to take in all the stats and make sense of them.  I grew up with baseball cards and Yaz's Triple Crown in 1967 and Denny McLain's 31 wins and Gibson's 1.12 ERA in 1968.  I thought those numbers were spectacular at the time and I still do.  Nolan Ryan's 383 strikeouts in 1973-insane!

    And I still relate heavily to the standard numbers.  When we signed Manny Ramirez you bet I was juiced to get a guy who had 165 RBI in 147 games in 1999.

    As for the new ones, I sort of understand what numbers like WAR and UZR are trying to measure.  Then there are the ones like FIP % and ones that look like hieroglyphics that I have no clue about.

    Now what I really wanna know is: is Derek Jeter really a terrible shortstop?  That still surprises me and seems to be one of the classic conundrums of old vs. new. 



    Halifax ... I love the old school stats as well.   I don't discount them at all.  I consider the new stats a new layer of info ... and can be useful.  SOme are well beyond the effort I will give them to understand.

      Great post and start

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    Sometimes observations can be deceiving, and also one can become set in one's ways and see what they want to see.

    Case: I was pretty harsh on Salty last winter. I did not like the way he handled the staff, or how he blocked the plate or threw out runners. The poor start the Sox staff had last April only furthered my frustration with Salty. 

    harness pointed out in mid-May that Salty appeared to be doing much better with the staff and behind the plate. I hadn't noticed and might not have all year had he not asked me to watch more closely. I did, and I saw a big change from 2011 and early April of 2012. 

    Then, I went back and looked at the numbers pre-April 23, 2012 and after. The numbers backed up the claim by harness and my new observational perspective. Salty's CERA declined a lot and his PBs and WPs as well (even if you take out the Wake games).

    It would have been easy for me to get lazy and look at just the 2012 numbers and conclude that Salty was not getting better, but in fact he was (post 4/23/12).

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    Sometimes observations can be deceiving, and also one can become set in one's ways and see what they want to see.

    Case: I was pretty harsh on Salty last winter. I did not like the way he handled the staff, or how he blocked the plate or threw out runners. The poor start the Sox staff had last April only furthered my frustration with Salty. 

    harness pointed out in mid-May that Salty appeared to be doing much better with the staff and behind the plate. I hadn't noticed and might not have all year had he not asked me to watch more closely. I did, and I saw a big change from 2011 and early April of 2012. 

    Then, I went back and looked at the numbers pre-April 23, 2012 and after. The numbers backed up the claim by harness and my new observational perspective. Salty's CERA declined a lot and his PBs and WPs as well (even if you take out the Wake games).

    It would have been easy for me to get lazy and look at just the 2012 numbers and conclude that Salty was not getting better, but in fact he was (post 4/23/12).



    I, on the other hand, am still very skeptical about Salty. 

    Moon, have you checked Salty's CERA for August-September of last year?  I suspect it was pretty bad again in those months, and that the good stretch was May, June, and July.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedSoxKimmi. Show RedSoxKimmi's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    It'd be interesting to see the number of chances for other positions for the Yankees, especially third base and second base, compared to other teams.




    Here are the number of chances, by position, for the Yankees in 2012. I've also included the MLB average for each position in 2012. The numbers are courtesy of Baseball Reference.

    1B 1473 chances (21st) , league average 1500

    2B 769 chances (14th) , league average 768

    3B 405 chances (19th) , league average 425

    SS 627 chances (30th) , league average 716

    LF 291 chances (22nd) , league average 307

    CF 371 chances (28th) , league average 411

    RF 315 chances (24th) , league average 327

    P 223 chances (30th) , league average 283

    C 1407 chances (6th) , league average 1325

    Overall 5881 chances (29th) , league average 6062

     

    You are correct in your assumption that the Yankees had less chances overall than the other teams in 2012, and the catchers, who get credit for POs on strikeouts, had better than average chances.

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    The new Stats on offensive production are good.  The Stats about a player's defense are bad.

    Single Vs. a Walk.  Runs scored vs. RBI.  They are all important.  The more information a person has, the better they are able to make an assessment.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    Funny thing:  I'm thinking about moving firms and today had a 2nd interview.  Coincidentally, both interviewers were American.  One of the questions was about MI (Management Information) and I gave (I think) a professional answer about how it should be used, good and bad examples, how I've used it drive change, etc.  As I finished, talking about a key being understanding what it is you want to measure and isolating it from external factors, I thought I'd have some fun and segued into the ongoing debate about traditional vs SABR baseball stats.  The senior guy's response?  "Exactly, you can't drive in runs if someone hasn't got on base in front of you."  LOL

    I'm in, baby! 

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars's comment:

    Funny thing:  I'm thinking about moving firms and today had a 2nd interview.  Coincidentally, both interviewers were American.  One of the questions was about MI (Management Information) and I gave (I think) a professional answer about how it should be used, good and bad examples, how I've used it drive change, etc.  As I finished, talking about a key being understanding what it is you want to measure and isolating it from external factors, I thought I'd have some fun and segued into the ongoing debate about traditional vs SABR baseball stats.  The senior guy's response?  "Exactly, you can't drive in runs if someone hasn't got on base in front of you."  LOL

    I'm in, baby! 



    Cool (need the sunglasses emoticon back).

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    Sometimes observations can be deceiving, and also one can become set in one's ways and see what they want to see.

    Case: I was pretty harsh on Salty last winter. I did not like the way he handled the staff, or how he blocked the plate or threw out runners. The poor start the Sox staff had last April only furthered my frustration with Salty. 

    harness pointed out in mid-May that Salty appeared to be doing much better with the staff and behind the plate. I hadn't noticed and might not have all year had he not asked me to watch more closely. I did, and I saw a big change from 2011 and early April of 2012. 

    Then, I went back and looked at the numbers pre-April 23, 2012 and after. The numbers backed up the claim by harness and my new observational perspective. Salty's CERA declined a lot and his PBs and WPs as well (even if you take out the Wake games).

    It would have been easy for me to get lazy and look at just the 2012 numbers and conclude that Salty was not getting better, but in fact he was (post 4/23/12).

     



    I, on the other hand, am still very skeptical about Salty. 

     

    Moon, have you checked Salty's CERA for August-September of last year?  I suspect it was pretty bad again in those months, and that the good stretch was May, June, and July.



    I ahve the breakdown somewhere, and I do recall he dipped a bit late in the season, but not much.

    His biggest gains were in less PBs and WPs per game than 2011 games without Wake. He nearly cut the rate in half.

    I am still skeptical about salty as well. One issue I wanted some evidence last year on was his durability and stamina, however, when they brought up Lava and played him so much, they kind of ruined that experiment.

    I did a study on Salty on offense after a day off, and his numbers were better, but not greatly so.

    On the SB%, it's hard to know how much of his poor rate had to do with poor team philosophy about holding runners along with pitchers that were poor at holding runners even when they tried. Salty's footwork is not very good when setting to throw, but that may be something he can still improve.

    On CERA, Lester's velocity was down, so I can't blame that on Salty. Injuries and second rate starters didn't help either. The pen was taxed. Salty was the catcher in a few massive blowouts that really hit his CERA numbers. It will be interesting to see how this year goes.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    Another example of looks being deceiving: Jacoby Ellsbury in CF.

    With his great speed, I naturally assumed he was an above average fielder when he first played for the Sox (2007-2009 or 2010). There were big arguments about jacoby's offense and defense, and I was surprised that several posters led by softy were bashing jacoby for his defense, namely his late breaks on balls, taking poor angles, and positioning deep in CF, even against weak hitters. So, I began to watch closer in 2009. 

    I realized I had been wrong. Ellsbury did have many late breaks, poor angles, and seemingly played too deep. After realizing this-- not before-- I looked at his UZR and RngR numbers for 2009:

    2009:

    UZR/150  -10.0

    RngR factor  -6.5

     

    2007 to 2009:

    UZR/150: -0.8

    RngR factor: +2.6

     

    2007-2010:

    UZR/150: 0.0

    RngR factor: +5.1

     

    Jacoby has clearly improved since 2009, when healthy, but this example showed me how it is hard to see somethings unless you are specifically looking for them. 

     

    softy also mentioned, among hundreds of other Jacoby faults, that Jacoby ran into many outs on the bases (beyond CS'ings). I watched that closer as well, and it did seem like he did run into more than his fair share of outs taking the extra base.

    It's hard to pay attention to everything going on out there, especially fi you watch many of the games on TV, but there are still many things you can pick up on -- if you look closely for them.

     

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    While one of the new school stats, UZR, is not favorable to Jeter, one of the others, WAR, or Wins Above Replacement, certainly is.  WAR factors in several components of a player's performance including UZR.  Jeter's career WAR per Baseball-Reference is 69.3 in 17 seasons, or an average of about 4 WAR per season.  FanGraphs has him even higher at 77.6.

    So Jeter's offensive productivity and durability have much more than made up for his defensive deficiencies.  Even with his fielding range issues, WAR rates him as one of the top shortstops in history.     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    No question, nut.   I wonder what would have happened had he switched to 3B when ARod arrived (as he should have, IMO)?  ARod was a better SS then, though now probably less able to play there than Jeter. 

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    How reliable is WAR?

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    How reliable is WAR?

     



    I'm not sure reliable is a term that can be applied to baseball stats.  Personally I think the more you look at WAR the more credible it is. For example, here is Baseball-Reference's list of career WAR leaders.

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/WAR_career.shtml

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    How reliable is WAR?

     



    I'm not sure reliable is a term that can be applied to baseball stats.  Personally I think the more you look at WAR the more credible it is. For example, here is Baseball-Reference's list of career WAR leaders.

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/WAR_career.shtml

     

     



    Fairly convincing, but still flawed, and I'm guessing it overlooks intangibles & clutch play. For example: Mike Mussina (Rank 58) has a higher WAR than Pete Rose, Rod Carew, Charlie Gehringer, Nolan Ryan, Joe DiMaggio, Reggie Jackson, Johnny's Bench & Mize. Carl Hubbell is at 104. Al Simmons is at 112. Duke Snider is at 118, right above Willie Randolph. Bob Feller is at 164 & Yogi Berra at 179. Whitey Ford is at 198; think about that for a second; Ford, who has the highest WPct in history for those with over 100 decisions, is 140 slots behind Mussina. Bill Dickey & Ducky Medwick is at 217, Bill Terry at 221, Gabby Hartnett at 236. One of the greatest catchers in history is at 236; I'm guessing WAR doesn't take into account the extremely important & grueling job catchers have. I didn't look past 250.   I understand why Koufax wouldn't be there, but all these guys mentioned played a long time.

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    While one of the new school stats, UZR, is not favorable to Jeter, one of the others, WAR, or Wins Above Replacement, certainly is.  WAR factors in several components of a player's performance including UZR.  Jeter's career WAR per Baseball-Reference is 69.3 in 17 seasons, or an average of about 4 WAR per season.  FanGraphs has him even higher at 77.6.

    So Jeter's offensive productivity and durability have much more than made up for his defensive deficiencies.  Even with his fielding range issues, WAR rates him as one of the top shortstops in history.     



    I have never said Jeter was bad overall. I was talking only about fielding. I even mentioned his offense and leadership makes up for the poor defense. 

    Here's a breakdown of the top SSs of the past decade by O and D...

    There are 25 SSs with over 3500 PAs in the decade.

    Fangraphs breaks down their WAR into different components:

    Batting (only 10 of 25 are plus- showing the comparative value of an offensive SS over his peers):

    1) Jeter  +186.3

    2) HanRam +176.1

    3) C Guillen +102.6

    4) Young  +95.1

    5) Tejada +81.2

    6) Reyes  +71.8

    7) Furcal  +40.1

    8) Rollins +30.3

    9) Peralta +15.1

    10) Renteria +10.9

    11) Hardy   -8.6

    12) Scutaro -10.5

    20) Gonzo  -76.2

    25) Izturus -158.1

     

    Base Running (Jeter is a good baserunner- 2nd best in MLB among SSs)

    1) Rollins +67.8

    7) Jeter   +25.2

    9) Lugo   +18.6

    10) Rent  +15.0

    13) Scoot +5.9

    18) B Hall -1.8

    24) Gonzo  -11.2

    25) Peralta -26.3

     

    Fielding (Imagine if Jeter was a top 3-4 fielder!):

    1) Hardy  +66.4

    2) Rollins  +54.1

    3) Izturus  +48.5

    4) Vizquel  +47.2

    5) Uribe     +47.2

    6) Wilson   +45.3

    7) Gonzo    +38.6

    8) O Cabr   +20.6

    11) Rent     -2.7

    12) BHall   -5.3

    14) Lugo    -10.9

    16) Scoot  -12.5

    24) Jeter  -65.0

    25) Young -88.1

     

    WAR

    1) Rollins  44.3

    2) Jeter     43.3

    3) Reyes    37.9

    4) HanRam 34.0

    5) Furcal   29.7

    6) Tejada  29.6

    7) Young  27.7

    8) Rent     23.2

    9) Hardy  23.2

    10) Guillen 21.8

    11) O Cab  21.6

    13) Scoot  18.5

    17) Gonzo  14.2

    18) Lugo    13.2

    25) Betancourt +2.5

     

     

     

     

     

     

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from BMav. Show BMav's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/WAR_career.shtml

     

     



    Fairly convincing, but still flawed, and I'm guessing it overlooks intangibles & clutch play. For example: Mike Mussina (Rank 58) has a higher WAR than Pete Rose, Rod Carew, Charlie Gehringer, Nolan Ryan, Joe DiMaggio, Reggie Jackson, Johnny's Bench & Mize. Carl Hubbell is at 104. Al Simmons is at 112. Duke Snider is at 118, right above Willie Randolph. Bob Feller is at 164 & Yogi Berra at 179. Whitey Ford is at 198; think about that for a second; Ford, who has the highest WPct in history for those with over 100 decisions, is 140 slots behind Mussina. Bill Dickey & Ducky Medwick is at 217, Bill Terry at 221, Gabby Hartnett at 236. One of the greatest catchers in history is at 236; I'm guessing WAR doesn't take into account the extremely important & grueling job catchers have. I didn't look past 250.   I understand why Koufax wouldn't be there, but all these guys mentioned played a long time.

     




    WAR seems to have always under valued catchers. Part of the reason is catchers play less, but it still seems to under value them beyond that. I always add a touch more WAR for catchers when using WAR. So I agree there.

    Also agree that Willie Randolph was over valued.

    As for the other complaints, not sure I agree as much. Pete Rose, Rod Carew, Charlie Gehringer, Nolan Ryan, Joe DiMaggio, Reggie Jackson, Mize, Al Simmons  are all about where they probably should be.  Ford and Feller missed their prime 2-4 years because of the two wars, causing them to lose a ton of WAR. Snyder was injured after the age of 30, hurting his career WAR totals. Hubbell didn't start playing until he was 25.

     

    As for Mike Mussina, I thought he was an outstanding and under rated pitcher for his career. He had a record of 270-153. Hard to beat that in the 5 man rotation era. It was a long, consistent, and great career. He was 20-9 with a 3.37 ERA at the age of 39. You might complaign about cumalitive career numbers rewarding longevity and over rating a player[SEE PETE ROSE], but it seems WAR ranked Mussina very fairly and accurately from a seasonal stand point. Its just that all those 5 WAR seasons added up over a consistent and long career. As for clutch, Mussina was an excellent playoff pitcher.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    How reliable is WAR?

     



    I'm not sure reliable is a term that can be applied to baseball stats.  Personally I think the more you look at WAR the more credible it is. For example, here is Baseball-Reference's list of career WAR leaders.

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/WAR_career.shtml

     

     



    Fairly convincing, but still flawed, and I'm guessing it overlooks intangibles & clutch play. For example: Mike Mussina (Rank 58) has a higher WAR than Pete Rose, Rod Carew, Charlie Gehringer, Nolan Ryan, Joe DiMaggio, Reggie Jackson, Johnny's Bench & Mize. Carl Hubbell is at 104. Al Simmons is at 112. Duke Snider is at 118, right above Willie Randolph. Bob Feller is at 164 & Yogi Berra at 179. Whitey Ford is at 198; think about that for a second; Ford, who has the highest WPct in history for those with over 100 decisions, is 140 slots behind Mussina. Bill Dickey & Ducky Medwick is at 217, Bill Terry at 221, Gabby Hartnett at 236. One of the greatest catchers in history is at 236; I'm guessing WAR doesn't take into account the extremely important & grueling job catchers have. I didn't look past 250.   I understand why Koufax wouldn't be there, but all these guys mentioned played a long time.

     



    They should list players by WAR per 162 games played as another way of looking at the greats.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    Yes, I thought of that.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from garyhow. Show garyhow's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    Why is it that everytime on this board that when defensive metrics are brought up on this board every RS fan wants to bring up Derek Jeter. Look I'm a huge RS fans who lives in Ffl County, CT and has watched Jeter and Yanks play probably as much as any RS fan on this board. For yrs was not able to get Baseball pkg thru cable provider [Yanks or Mets were the options]. This idea that Jeter is the worst fielding SS is absolute nonsense. Jeter makes every routine play and sometimes the occasional outstanding play, where I've seen some of the supposed great defensive SS who botch the routine play. Jeter has always been a big SS in terms of Ht so he's probably not going to have the lateral movement of a smaller SS, but no one here is complaining that Cal Ripken wasn't a great fielding SS and that is who Jeter most reminds me of defensively. Seems to me that a lot of RS fans have a SS envy thing going on. I've watched Jeter play almost his entire career and will tell you this I don't care what the defensive metrics say he might not be the best fielding SS in the league but he is definately not the worst. RS fans could have only wished that Jeter played for us his entire career and not the hated Yanks.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to garyhow's comment:

    Why is it that everytime on this board that when defensive metrics are brought up on this board every RS fan wants to bring up Derek Jeter. Look I'm a huge RS fans who lives in Ffl County, CT and has watched Jeter and Yanks play probably as much as any RS fan on this board. For yrs was not able to get Baseball pkg thru cable provider [Yanks or Mets were the options]. This idea that Jeter is the worst fielding SS is absolute nonsense. Jeter makes every routine play and sometimes the occasional outstanding play, where I've seen some of the supposed great defensive SS who botch the routine play. Jeter has always been a big SS in terms of Ht so he's probably not going to have the lateral movement of a smaller SS, but no one here is complaining that Cal Ripken wasn't a great fielding SS and that is who Jeter most reminds me of defensively. Seems to me that a lot of RS fans have a SS envy thing going on. I've watched Jeter play almost his entire career and will tell you this I don't care what the defensive metrics say he might not be the best fielding SS in the league but he is definately not the worst. RS fans could have only wished that Jeter played for us his entire career and not the hated Yanks.



    It has nothing to do with me being a Sox fan, and by the way, years ago I was criticizing Ripken's D as well, as well as his streak quest hurting the team.

    Making almost of all of the "routine plays" is a good thing, but it essentially amounts to maybe making 5-10 more plays in that category thatn the average MLb SS. While important, it does not come close to the amount of plays he misses due to his limited range as compared to the league average and league best.

    I think that some Jeter fielding supporters may have formulated their positions based on his early career work- where he was better than he is now. This position has been fortified over the years by sports highlight shows skewing towards the NY market and showing more of his highlights than small market or west coast market players.

    His lack of range clearly outweighs the steady routine plays and holding runners with his strong relay arm. 

    His leadership skills are perhaps second to none.

    His offense has been top 2-3 over the past decade and longer.

    I'd have loved to have him our team, but maybe at 3B the last few years.

     

    As for "homerism", have you been paying attention to all the bashing of Sox short stops over the past decade? It has been worse than Jeter as a fielder bashing.

     

    When this topic came up and started going towards fielding stats and metrics, Jeter is the natural case to bring up. He is both a recent GG winner, while at the same time being called one of the worst fielding SSs of the decade by several respectable baseball people and posters on this site. It's obvious why his name keeps coming up.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    Hypothetical question about UZR. Imagine that there is a season when most of the fielders at a particular position have poor range and don't get to many balls in their zone. How does this impact the calculation for what constitutes an average fielder at that position for that season? And does it make the few superior fielders look better?

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share