Jones back to Twins?

[jjgman21]

 

Who has insinuated that is unimportant?

 

Moneyball, SABR, and all the adherents thereto.

 

I personally agree with much of those peoples' assessment of defense and it's lack of importance in the big picture (with the exception of absolute butchers). what I can't stand is people sitting on both sides of the fence when it suits their current argument.

[Banedon]

 

Who has insinuated that is unimportant?

 

Moneyball, SABR, and all the adherents thereto.

 

Hooray for generalizations.

[jjgman21]

 

I've always thought Pierre had a weak arm and that Hendry gave up way too much for him

 

perhaps an illustration is necessary. in the argument of Pierre or Wilkerson, nobody who advocates Wilkerson will give an ounce of credit to Pierre for his superior defensive range. that aspect of the game just doesn't matter.

 

when those same people come on and rant about Jones, suddenly defense is a huge part of the game that has to be taken into account to point out how much he sucks.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Generalizations are fun.

[jjgman21]

 

Who has insinuated that is unimportant?

 

Moneyball, SABR, and all the adherents thereto.

 

Hooray for generalizations.

 

another generalization for you. African-Americans are generally darker in skin tone than other peoples in America.

 

it may be a generalization, but the veracity of the statement cannot be disputed.

 

Hooray for meaningless contributions to a thread.

[fromthestretch]

 

Who has insinuated that is unimportant?

 

Moneyball, SABR, and all the adherents thereto.

 

I personally agree with much of those peoples' assessment of defense and it's lack of importance in the big picture (with the exception of absolute butchers). what I can't stand is people sitting on both sides of the fence when it suits their current argument.

 

I don't believe that anyone has said that defense isn't important. A lot of people have said that it isn't as important as some other things. There's a big difference.

 

If defense wasn't considered important, why then would "Moneyball, SABR, and all the adherents thereto" constantly try to devise ways to better measure defense?

[Banedon]

it may be a generalization, but the veracity of the statement cannot be disputed.

 

Hooray for meaningless contributions to a thread.

 

The veracity of your "Moneyball, SABR, and all the adherents thereto," sure can be disputed though.

 

You didn't say generally...you said all. And that's a mischaracterization.

 

It's also a mischaracterization every time you say something "can't be disputed"...just because you believe it, doesn't make it indesputable.

Edited July 17, 2006 by Banedon

[fromthestretch]

 

Who has insinuated that is unimportant?

 

Moneyball, SABR, and all the adherents thereto.

 

Hooray for generalizations.

 

Hooray Beer!!!

 

http://derekstubbs.com/wp/images/redstripe.jpg

[badgercub]

 

I've always thought Pierre had a weak arm and that Hendry gave up way too much for him

 

perhaps an illustration is necessary. in the argument of Pierre or Wilkerson, nobody who advocates Wilkerson will give an ounce of credit to Pierre for his superior defensive range. that aspect of the game just doesn't matter.

 

when those same people come on and rant about Jones, suddenly defense is a huge part of the game that has to be taken into account to point out how much he sucks.

 

Wilkerson's range is nowhere near as inadequate as Pierre's arm either. There is always some give and take when talking about a players all around game. I have nothing against Pierre, I think he is probably the hardest working guy on the Cub, but again if you look at his career as a whole and where he has been trending, that is the argument that is to be made.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

 

I've always thought Pierre had a weak arm and that Hendry gave up way too much for him

 

perhaps an illustration is necessary. in the argument of Pierre or Wilkerson, nobody who advocates Wilkerson will give an ounce of credit to Pierre for his superior defensive range. that aspect of the game just doesn't matter.

 

when those same people come on and rant about Jones, suddenly defense is a huge part of the game that has to be taken into account to point out how much he sucks.

 

I don't think SABR-inclined people don't think defense matters, it's the degree to which it matters. In fact, defensive metrics are viewed somewhat as the final frontier for those that are inclined to look at them. They're just more difficult to assess than the offensive metrics and are more debated in the conclusions.

 

Stats such as VORP and WARP try to take these measures into account.

 

In your Wilkerson vs Pierre situation. It's not that Wilkerson's defense doesn't matter, it's just that Wilkerson proponents likely believe that it doesn't discount enough from his offensive contributions to be a detriment. The same is likely of Pierre. The problem with Pierre is that he brings very little to the table offensively besides a mediocre OBP and some stolen bases.

[jjgman21]

 

Who has insinuated that is unimportant?

 

Moneyball, SABR, and all the adherents thereto.

 

I personally agree with much of those peoples' assessment of defense and it's lack of importance in the big picture (with the exception of absolute butchers). what I can't stand is people sitting on both sides of the fence when it suits their current argument.

 

I don't believe that anyone has said that defense isn't important. A lot of people have said that it isn't as important as some other things. There's a big difference.

 

If defense wasn't considered important, why then would "Moneyball, SABR, and all the adherents thereto" constantly try to devise ways to better measure defense?

 

I think the devices they come up with are for two purposes. first, because that's what they do, measure. second, and I also don't think this can be disputed either, is that they set about doing such studies in order to prove the lack of value defense has.

 

I think alot of the SABR studies don't seek to prove a theory. they seek to disprove 'traditional baseball analysis' under the guise of a search for objectivity. they're protecting there own jobs now too.

 

for instance, when comparing the value of speed, the most widely sited study compares Cameron and Griffey. the analysis imo is basically worthless as they fill different roles on a team (run scorer vs. run producer) and they choose two players who don't vary vastly in speed. there is no comparison of say Wilkerson v. Pierre as leadoff hitters, which would do a better job of helping us understand the value of speed. I'm not saying their conclusions are wrong, but the way the ask the question they seek to answer and go about proving it is often flawed, imo.

[goonys evil twin]

I think the devices they come up with are for two purposes. first, because that's what they do, measure. second, and I also don't think this can be disputed either, is that they set about doing such studies in order to prove the lack of value defense has.

 

That's freaking absurd. Your anti-sabr bias completely clouds your ability to have a rational conversation. If you insist on making asinine claims such as this, then there is nowhere else to go with this and any other conversation. A lot of what these guys try to do is to find and exploit inefficiencies in the market.

[Elrhino]

Jones and RF is the least of our outfield concerns. The two other starting positions that are much, much bigger problems.

[Elrhino]

Hindsight is 20/20 but looking forward I would say Giles' numbers will improve and Jone's will decline.

 

Given Giles' is 35 years old, that's a heck of an assumption.

[CubinNY]

I think the devices they come up with are for two purposes. first, because that's what they do, measure. second, and I also don't think this can be disputed either, is that they set about doing such studies in order to prove the lack of value defense has.

 

The problem as "saber" people phrase it is that they don't have a good way to measure defense, not that it is unimportant. But some stat companies have now started to employ scores of young people to pour through video and plot a multitude of information. I think in a few years people who are interested in such things will come up with a usefull metric. Whether baseball men who played the game will see value in them remains to be seen.

[KaiserCesar]

Jones and RF is the least of our outfield concerns. The two other starting positions that are much, much bigger problems.

 

Yeah, the fact is, you combine all of our OF and you get one very productive outfielder - Murton/Jones platoon while Juan Pierre pinch runs or something. But really, get a big bat corner OF and a CF with a nice OBP to be a stop-gap for Pie and you got yourself a good outfield.

[jjgman21]

I think the devices they come up with are for two purposes. first, because that's what they do, measure. second, and I also don't think this can be disputed either, is that they set about doing such studies in order to prove the lack of value defense has.

 

That's freaking absurd. Your anti-sabr bias completely clouds your ability to have a rational conversation. If you insist on making asinine claims such as this, then there is nowhere else to go with this and any other conversation. A lot of what these guys try to do is to find and exploit inefficiencies in the market.

 

why can this guy constantly do this and not be chastised by the mods?

 

like your pro-sabr bias allows such an objective analysis. in case you didn't notice, my plan in the other thread is completely OBP intensive. my problem with SABR is many of the theories are taken too far. I'm a total advocate of using stats to identify the players who should be acquired. I'm a total advocate of taking advantage of inefficiencies. your accusation is without basis and presented with a tone that should not be acceptable.

 

both sides in any debate will unfairly discount what the other side says. if you think SABR is immune from that you're on crack. make a legitimate dispute to the notion that SABRs often fail to ask a scientific questions before giving a scientific answer, or be through with this before you post this garbage.

[jjgman21]

I think the devices they come up with are for two purposes. first, because that's what they do, measure. second, and I also don't think this can be disputed either, is that they set about doing such studies in order to prove the lack of value defense has.

 

The problem as "saber" people phrase it is that they don't have a good way to measure defense, not that it is unimportant. But some stat companies have now started to employ scores of young people to pour through video and plot a multitude of information. I think in a few years people who are interested in such things will come up with a usefull metric. Whether baseball men who played the game will see value in them remains to be seen.

 

that's awesome. can't wait to see the results of those studies.

[goonys evil twin]

like your pro-sabr bias allows such an objective analysis. in case you didn't notice, my plan in the other thread is completely OBP intensive. my problem with SABR is many of the theories are taken too far. I'm a total advocate of using stats to identify the players who should be acquired. I'm a total advocate of taking advantage of inefficiencies. your accusation is without basis and presented with a tone that should not be acceptable.

 

You made an absurd accusation.

 

I'm pro "learning about the game". I'm not a sabr guy myself, but I've learned a lot from them, a lot more than I've learned from the traditional experts that have poisoned the minds of many followers of the game for years with lies.

[jjgman21]

 

 

I'm pro "learning about the game"...

 

then look at both sides of the SABR / traditional debate with a critical eye. I completely agree that traditional anaylsis deserves more critique, but I don't think you have ever said anything critical about any SABR notion or study. you seem to lap up every dish of "traditional is wrong" that is put in front of you, without looking to see if you're eatting horse meat.

 

I've stated many times that alot of what SABR claims to have measured hasn't been properly measured. you take issue when I so state, completely discounting that Bill James has backed off the conclusion that clutch doesn't exist until there are better studies, or the inherent admission of failure to properly measure the value of defense through the study that NY states.

[goonys evil twin]

 

 

I'm pro "learning about the game"...

 

then look at both sides of the SABR / traditional debate with a critical eye. I completely agree that traditional anaylsis deserves more critique, but I don't think you have ever said anything critical about any SABR notion or study. you seem to lap up every dish of "traditional is wrong" that is put in front of you, without looking to see if you're eatting horse meat.

 

Nice to see more of that "seem to" crap floating around. Puts a great emphasis on your point.

[Elrhino]

The problem as "saber" people phrase it is that they don't have a good way to measure defense, not that it is unimportant.

 

I don't think they've found a way to properly quantitate speed either.

 

Just an example from earlier this season.

 

Pierre was on 1st with 1 out and Lee is at the plate. The pitcher gets ahead of Lee 1-2 in the count. Concerned that a 1-2 count is a good count for Pierre to steal, the pitcher becomes distracted and starts throwing over to 1st repeatedly. The end result is that he ends up walking Lee. Now Pierre is at 2nd, Lee is at 1st with 1 out. Pierre immediate steals 3rd on a great jump, and a rushed catcher throws the ball over the 3rd baseman's head. Pierre easily trots in, and Lee advances from 1st to 3rd on the stolen base and the error. Lee scores on a lazy sac fly.

 

In such a case, Pierre essentially "manufactured" two runs that inning. His and Lee's. He'll never be accredited with Lee's.

[jjgman21]

 

 

I'm pro "learning about the game"...

 

then look at both sides of the SABR / traditional debate with a critical eye. I completely agree that traditional anaylsis deserves more critique, but I don't think you have ever said anything critical about any SABR notion or study. you lap up every dish of "traditional is wrong" that is put in front of you, without looking to see if you're eatting horse meat.

 

Nice to see more of that "seem to" crap floating around. Puts a great emphasis on your point.

 

whatever. again, if you don't have a valid point, save the keystrokes.

 

how about this...FIXED

[fromthestretch]

 

Who has insinuated that is unimportant?

 

Moneyball, SABR, and all the adherents thereto.

 

I personally agree with much of those peoples' assessment of defense and it's lack of importance in the big picture (with the exception of absolute butchers). what I can't stand is people sitting on both sides of the fence when it suits their current argument.

 

I don't believe that anyone has said that defense isn't important. A lot of people have said that it isn't as important as some other things. There's a big difference.

 

If defense wasn't considered important, why then would "Moneyball, SABR, and all the adherents thereto" constantly try to devise ways to better measure defense?

 

I think the devices they come up with are for two purposes. first, because that's what they do, measure. second, and I also don't think this can be disputed either, is that they set about doing such studies in order to prove the lack of value defense has.

 

I think alot of the SABR studies don't seek to prove a theory. they seek to disprove 'traditional baseball analysis' under the guise of a search for objectivity. they're protecting there own jobs now too.

 

I'm sorry, but this argument is garbage. What would they possibly have to gain from proving that defense has no value? You make it seem like the entire sabermetric world is out to completely squash scouting and traditional analysis. I think if you'd open your eyes, you'd see that most people who do these studies are trying to determine if the current methods of analysis are the best methods, and if they aren't the best methods, then they want to find out what is. With defense, they are simply looking into better ways to measure something that currently has no good means of objective analysis. Statistics like errors and fielding percentage are flawed. Range factor certainly isn't perfect. If someone could find a good way to measure defense, they'd have a hell of a lot to gain. Going into it hoping to prove that defense has no value serves no purpose.

[stitchface]

Moneyball, SABR, and all the adherents thereto.

 

This statement is completely false and indicates you don't read much. In fact, most SABR articles I have read recently indicate that defense is far more important than previously thought. The best measures to date are to combine pitching and defense because they are largely inseparable - preventing runs.

 

The argument here has never been that Jones is the problem - the idea is that he is playing above his head and his trade value is higher now than it ever will be again (most likely). Thus, his value to the Cubs is greater by trading him than by keeping him. If you can get good prospects, I would even eat most of the deal. His position is the antithesis of Prior who is worthless in trade but could pay large dividends by keeping him.