Why does everyone hate Neifi Perez?

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I just want to add, that for most of us, we didn't need Moneyball to help us recognize statistical analysis.

 

Moneyball was published in what....2003? Considering The Hidden Game of Baseball has been around since 1985 and Bill James's abstracts before that...many of us have been reading this stuff for a long, long time.

[stitchface]

I don't know exactly why people hate Neifi Perez so much. I'm probably wrong, but it may have something to do with the onset of fantasy baseball, the Bill James book Moneyball and the frustration of the Cubs failing to win a World Series during our lifetimes.

 

When you mix the notion that you could be just as good of a GM as the next guy because you won your fantasy baseball league with the importance some people who have read Moneyball (and played fantasy baseball) place on OBP and then add in a healthy dose of anger and frustration with the lack of a Cubs championship, scapegoats and whipping boys start coming out of the woodwork.

 

"Neifi Perez?! He sucks. He would never be on my fantasy baseball team. In fact, he wasn't on anyone's roster in the league I was in. Plus, look at his OBP. Its terrible. Even I know that Neifi doesn't deserve to be on a major league roster. Hendry must be an idiot."

 

And that is the end of deliberations in the trial of Neifi Perez. It must feel good to be the prosecutor, judge and jury.

 

Ok, lets review.

1. Bill James didn't write Moneyball or have anything to do with it.

2. Moneyball did not address the importance of OBP other than that Billy Beane recognized its value.

3. Just because you criticize the moves a GM makes, does not mean you think you could be a better GM. This is similar to arguing that because you criticize a player for striking out you think you could do better.

4. Most people don't scapegoat Neifi other than to point out the fact that his playing everyday and batting at the top of the order probably cost the Cubs a lot of runs.

5. Neifi's production could be obtained from a player making near league minimum. This makes Neifi's contract a bad one. This is not remotely related to fantasy baseball. This is very related to Moneyball. Have you read it?

6. The judge and jury part I don't understand. Yes, Neifi's abilities can be evaluated based entirely on statistics. What does he provide that can't be measured by statistics?

 

Please don't hurt me this is my first post.

 

I would like to refute some of Poudre's six points of light.

 

1. Although James did not write Moneyball saying he had nothing to do with it is like saying God had nothing to do with the writing of the ten commandments.

 

2. On the Billy Beane valuation of OBP my thoughts are: Beane recognized that players with high OBPs and lower BAs were being undervalued. To maximize his meager payroll he decided to pick-up as many high OBP players as possible. If high BA low OBP guys were what Beane perceived to be undervalued those are the players he would have been aquiring. It was all about getting the most bang for his buck, not about OBP.

 

3. Let's be honest here. We all know that we could do no better than the major league hitter who strikes out. But, at the end of the day we all think that we could do Hendry's or Baker's job.

 

4. Maybe this board needs to adopt some Neifi post traking statistics. My observation tells me that Neifi gets slammed at about a 4:1 ratio on this board.

 

5. Maybe Neifi's production could be obtained cheaper, but the Cubs are a large market team with a $100 million dollar payroll. Having a major league starting infielder who has won a GG on your bench is a tremendous luxury, and completely useless. Except, when your starting shortstop goes down in April for four months. But, how likeley is that to happen?

 

6. Obviously a player's abiities can not all be determined by statistics alone. If statistics were the only tool for determining a player's value Todd Walker would not be staring down his fifth team in six years, and D'Angelo Jimenez would have a starting job as a major league middle infielder.

 

Not points of light, points of discussion.

 

1. Either way, James was not associated with the writing of Moneyball. Most people's opinions come from reading James, BP, Neyer, not from reading Moneyball.

2. Yes. Sulley you misread this.

3. I don't think I could do Hendry or Baker's job.

4. Regardless of how many don't like neifil, most people don't blame him for last year's fiasco.

5. Yet, we don't pursue players like Giles or Weaver that could help us because they are too expensive.

6. Yes, they can be measured by statistics. Defensive statistics are admittedly unreliable but they exist. If a players "intangibles" help a team, that will reveal itself in more runs scored or fewer runs allowed - the only statistics that really matter.

[J.R.]

Neifi gets slammed at about a 4:1 ratio on this board.

 

The truth hurts.

 

Why do people feel the need to defend this guy?

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I don't know exactly why people hate Neifi Perez so much. I'm probably wrong, but it may have something to do with the onset of fantasy baseball, the Bill James book Moneyball and the frustration of the Cubs failing to win a World Series during our lifetimes.

 

When you mix the notion that you could be just as good of a GM as the next guy because you won your fantasy baseball league with the importance some people who have read Moneyball (and played fantasy baseball) place on OBP and then add in a healthy dose of anger and frustration with the lack of a Cubs championship, scapegoats and whipping boys start coming out of the woodwork.

 

"Neifi Perez?! He sucks. He would never be on my fantasy baseball team. In fact, he wasn't on anyone's roster in the league I was in. Plus, look at his OBP. Its terrible. Even I know that Neifi doesn't deserve to be on a major league roster. Hendry must be an idiot."

 

And that is the end of deliberations in the trial of Neifi Perez. It must feel good to be the prosecutor, judge and jury.

 

Ok, lets review.

1. Bill James didn't write Moneyball or have anything to do with it.

2. Moneyball did not address the importance of OBP other than that Billy Beane recognized its value.

3. Just because you criticize the moves a GM makes, does not mean you think you could be a better GM. This is similar to arguing that because you criticize a player for striking out you think you could do better.

4. Most people don't scapegoat Neifi other than to point out the fact that his playing everyday and batting at the top of the order probably cost the Cubs a lot of runs.

5. Neifi's production could be obtained from a player making near league minimum. This makes Neifi's contract a bad one. This is not remotely related to fantasy baseball. This is very related to Moneyball. Have you read it?

6. The judge and jury part I don't understand. Yes, Neifi's abilities can be evaluated based entirely on statistics. What does he provide that can't be measured by statistics?

 

Please don't hurt me this is my first post.

 

I would like to refute some of Poudre's six points of light.

 

1. Although James did not write Moneyball saying he had nothing to do with it is like saying God had nothing to do with the writing of the ten commandments.

 

2. On the Billy Beane valuation of OBP my thoughts are: Beane recognized that players with high OBPs and lower BAs were being undervalued. To maximize his meager payroll he decided to pick-up as many high OBP players as possible. If high BA low OBP guys were what Beane perceived to be undervalued those are the players he would have been aquiring. It was all about getting the most bang for his buck, not about OBP.

 

3. Let's be honest here. We all know that we could do no better than the major league hitter who strikes out. But, at the end of the day we all think that we could do Hendry's or Baker's job.

 

4. Maybe this board needs to adopt some Neifi post traking statistics. My observation tells me that Neifi gets slammed at about a 4:1 ratio on this board.

 

5. Maybe Neifi's production could be obtained cheaper, but the Cubs are a large market team with a $100 million dollar payroll. Having a major league starting infielder who has won a GG on your bench is a tremendous luxury, and completely useless. Except, when your starting shortstop goes down in April for four months. But, how likeley is that to happen?

 

6. Obviously a player's abiities can not all be determined by statistics alone. If statistics were the only tool for determining a player's value Todd Walker would not be staring down his fifth team in six years, and D'Angelo Jimenez would have a starting job as a major league middle infielder.

 

Not points of light, points of discussion.

 

1. Either way, James was not associated with the writing of Moneyball. Most people's opinions come from reading James, BP, Neyer, not from reading Moneyball.

2. Yes. Sulley you misread this.

3. I don't think I could do Hendry or Baker's job.

4. Regardless of how many don't like neifil, most people don't blame him for last year's fiasco.

5. Yet, we don't pursue players like Giles or Weaver that could help us because they are too expensive.

6. Yes, they can be measured by statistics. Defensive statistics are admittedly unreliable but they exist. If a players "intangibles" help a team, that will reveal itself in more runs scored or fewer runs allowed - the only statistics that really matter.

 

Regarding #2, Sulley was right on point. One of the key points of Moneyball was that Beane discovered what was undervalued, and it happened to be one of the most important aspects of the game. When less important things are undervalued, then there's a much different thought process because the trains of thought(what's best for the team, and what's most efficient/inexpensive) are no longer in unison.

[stitchface]

you could argue that what is undervalued is best for the team.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

you could argue that what is undervalued is best for the team.

 

I really don't think so. I'm pretty sure getting players who have played in 3 different decades is undervalued, or players who can't switch hit but can bunt from either side are undervalued, but that doesn't mean having them is best for the team.

[stitchface]

you could argue that what is undervalued is best for the team.

 

I really don't think so. I'm pretty sure getting players who have played in 3 different decades is undervalued, or players who can't switch hit but can bunt from either side are undervalued, but that doesn't mean having them is best for the team.

 

 

huh? undervalued means the contribution to winning is underpriced.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

you could argue that what is undervalued is best for the team.

 

I really don't think so. I'm pretty sure getting players who have played in 3 different decades is undervalued, or players who can't switch hit but can bunt from either side are undervalued, but that doesn't mean having them is best for the team.

 

 

huh? undervalued means the contribution to winning is underpriced.

 

Yes, but when the underpriced contribution isn't a very big contribution, then it can be a detriment to pursue the undervalued.

[cubsavant]

6. Yes, they can be measured by statistics. Defensive statistics are admittedly unreliable but they exist. If a players "intangibles" help a team, that will reveal itself in more runs scored or fewer runs allowed - the only statistics that really matter.

 

What value do you give to a measuring device that almost everyone agrees is inacurate? There has to be a common ground between statistical analysis and calibrated observation. Even the advanced defensive statistics like zone rating require evaluation of balls put in play by a human eye. For the time being I am much more inclined to trust the opinion of trained scouts than a complex system which at the end of the day is simply relying on less qualified graders.

 

The problem with intangibles are that if a player does add value to a team with the little things there is no way of measuring that performance against the exact same player not doing the little things. In other words there is no control. I think where we run into problems with the use of sabermetrics is when we forget that they are intended to be used as a macro tool.

 

 

 

 

2. wrong. beane would put little value into high average, low obp guys, even if they were undervalued. beane saw that not making an out is the most important thing one can do in the grand scheme of thing to score more runs. he also noted that people in baseball were being blind, stupid, or both in not valuing players who make less outs than other players. argue all you want for players who "shake things up on the basepaths" or play somewhat above average defense--teams that make outs at a lesser rate will score more runs than any team built on conventional wisdom

 

Sully I think you are completely wrong on this. For beane it was all about getting the most baseball production for the dollar. At that time OBP was the undervalued commodity, great defensive players or speed, or power could just as easily have been the commodit that was undervalued and if they were he would have gone after those talents instead.

 

4.that's what observation would get you. it's actually much higher than that. but, considering sample sizes and what not, you cannot honestly tell me that you can browse this board for less than a month and come away with any kind of idea as to rates or ratios.

 

How do you know it is much higher than that? Observation! And, I can tell you that my level of observation is far superior to what almost anyone I have ever met has.

 

5. this is a terrible argument. simply because we have the money to spend doesn't mean we need to spend it on mediocrity at the plate.

 

Who are all of these players who you are certain can step in and play GG calibre defense at either middle infield spot for less than $2.5 million. Neifi was over-extended last year, he is after all a backup. He gave wonderfull production offensively and defensevely for a backup middle infielder. It is not his fault that he is not a top of the order hitter.

 

Yes, but when the underpriced contribution isn't a very big contribution, then it can be a detriment to pursue the undervalued.

 

If it isn't a very big contribution then it is not undervalued.

[frostwyrm]

I can't see how anyone could talk of Neifi as a gold glover these days. He's very good defensively, but certainly not GG calibre anymore. GG shortstops are supposed to make amazing plays, not just good ones. Neifi doesn't have the range to do anything amazing. I saw Cedeno get to a couple of balls that I'm sure Neifi wouldn't have reached.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

5. this is a terrible argument. simply because we have the money to spend doesn't mean we need to spend it on mediocrity at the plate.

 

Who are all of these players who you are certain can step in and play GG calibre defense at either middle infield spot for less than $2.5 million. Neifi was over-extended last year, he is after all a backup. He gave wonderfull production offensively and defensevely for a backup middle infielder. It is not his fault that he is not a top of the order hitter.

 

Neifi is an above average defender, whether that fits the wildly subjective GG category I don't know. He is an abhorrent offensive player. This makes his total package virtually a net zero, completely replaceable. This means there are scores of players with similar skillsets that can do the exact same thing as Neifi Perez, except many are younger so they have the potential to be better. This isn't complicated.

 

2. wrong. beane would put little value into high average, low obp guys, even if they were undervalued. beane saw that not making an out is the most important thing one can do in the grand scheme of thing to score more runs. he also noted that people in baseball were being blind, stupid, or both in not valuing players who make less outs than other players. argue all you want for players who "shake things up on the basepaths" or play somewhat above average defense--teams that make outs at a lesser rate will score more runs than any team built on conventional wisdom

 

Sully I think you are completely wrong on this. For beane it was all about getting the most baseball production for the dollar. At that time OBP was the undervalued commodity, great defensive players or speed, or power could just as easily have been the commodit that was undervalued and if they were he would have gone after those talents instead.

 

Yes, but when the underpriced contribution isn't a very big contribution, then it can be a detriment to pursue the undervalued.

 

If it isn't a very big contribution then it is not undervalued.

 

Okay, to simplify things, let's say that things have an importance toward winning on a scale of 1-10. Let's say at the time Moneyball was written, OBP was valued as a 4 on the open market when in actuality it was an 8. It was undervalued, and it is important to building a successful club. Now, let's say at some point in the future the ability to steal bases is valued as a 1 in the open market when in actuality it's a 3. It's undervalued, but pursuing it just because it's undervalued doesn't help you because it's not all that important.

[frostwyrm]

Cedeno is already a very good defender, and has the physical skills to surpass Neifi's defense, so there was no excuse to keep trotting Neifi out last year for his glove. Dusty came up with that disgusting comment about Ronny needing to straighten his throws if he wanted to be a major league shortstop, which of course was just a BS excuse to keep Neifi in the lineup.

[RynoRules]

Cedeno is already a very good defender, and has the physical skills to surpass Neifi's defense, so there was no excuse to keep trotting Neifi out last year for his glove. Dusty came up with that disgusting comment about Ronny needing to straighten his throws if he wanted to be a major league shortstop, which of course was just a BS excuse to keep Neifi in the lineup.

 

Agreed.

 

I just don't blame Neifi for any of it. Neifi is limited; its the manager's job to know how best to use his players; Dusty misuses Neifi; thus, it is Dusty's fault. I think most would agree with thhis logic.

 

Thus, to the extent Neifi is personally based here, its probably misguided.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Cedeno is already a very good defender, and has the physical skills to surpass Neifi's defense, so there was no excuse to keep trotting Neifi out last year for his glove. Dusty came up with that disgusting comment about Ronny needing to straighten his throws if he wanted to be a major league shortstop, which of course was just a BS excuse to keep Neifi in the lineup.

 

Wasn't he rated as having the best infield arm in our organization by BP? Either BP is off, or our IF prospects really suck. I saw enough of Ronny in Des Moines that I know his defense should never be a liability. Shame on you, Dusty.

[CubDad4Ever]

Guess Theo buys defense wins too. Alex Gonzales , worse than Nefi on offense will be the Bo Sox shortstop. God Bless Coach L

[imb]

Guess Theo buys defense wins too. Alex Gonzales , worse than Nefi on offense will be the Bo Sox shortstop. God Bless Coach L

 

If we had an offense the caliber of the Red Sox, I could accept a Neifi at SS. If you blow your financial wad on offense, like the Red Sox have, you can afford to have a bit of a mess on your hands at a position like short stop, where you pay for defense only.

 

Unfortunately for us, we have a mess on our hands everywhere.

[Magnetic Curses]

Guess Theo buys defense wins too. Alex Gonzales , worse than Nefi on offense will be the Bo Sox shortstop. God Bless Coach L

 

forgetting that boston had a .357 OBP and led the AL in walks last year. oh yeah, they also scored over 200 more runs than us. even taking into account the DH, that's astronomical.

 

boston can AFFORD the luxury of alex gonzalez. we cannot afford to start neifi perez.

 

i can't believe that i'm actually having this argument with someone. it's like arguing that 1 + 1 = 2.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

it's like arguing that 1 + 1 = 2.

 

1 + 1 = 11.

[don_kessinger_was_good]

I do not believe Neifi Perez will get more than 30 starts in 2006. And so long as Lugo is acquired, Perez will NEVER bat above 7th in the order when he does get those starts, so he won't cause as much harm down there.

 

Even if Cedeno is successful, he IS a rookie for all intents, so I don't see the Cubs starting him in more than 125-130 games no matter how well he plays. And I can live with that.

[NewUserName]

funny how it seems like most here do not hate neifi they just hate how dusty used him. also could be said about hollandsworth, rusch and batting burnitz cleanup.

 

I actually like dustys quote about neifi saving the team. just look at what he saved them to. 79wins that is almost like a miracle or something

[frostwyrm]

I do not believe Neifi Perez will get more than 30 starts in 2006.

 

Care to offer a bet on that? I'm sure you'll get plenty of takers.

[stitchface]

What value do you give to a measuring device that almost everyone agrees is inacurate? There has to be a common ground between statistical analysis and calibrated observation. Even the advanced defensive statistics like zone rating require evaluation of balls put in play by a human eye. For the time being I am much more inclined to trust the opinion of trained scouts than a complex system which at the end of the day is simply relying on less qualified graders.

 

The problem with intangibles are that if a player does add value to a team with the little things there is no way of measuring that performance against the exact same player not doing the little things. In other words there is no control. I think where we run into problems with the use of sabermetrics is when we forget that they are intended to be used as a macro tool.

 

Its not inaccurate. Its imperfect. Defensive stats create a picture of a players performance. Over a large period, they become more accurate. They are certainly more accurate than anecdotal accounts. Perhaps a scout's opinions would be more valid but most defensive reputations are established by people viewing highlights out of context - ie webgems.

 

What intangibles do you mean? I think they can all be measured.