Maddux and $$$ to the Dodgers for Cesar Izturis

[CubColtPacer]

Wow..I didn't even see that statement about how Izturis shouldn't be an everyday player. That really is quite a statement-especially considering 8 of the 27 qualified shortstops this year have under a .700 OPS, and 6 of those shortstops have under a .300 OBP-and that doesn't count Izturis. Is 1/3 of the league just missing all these extra shortstops out there? I doubt it-it's just that good hitting shortstops are scarce-almost as scarce as a good hitting catcher.

[cheapseats]

What makes BP an authority on who should and should not be an everyday player? Does defense at the SS position which was not quantified or even mentioned positively in the above quote really matter so little? Would I prefer a SS who can pick it and get on base more than 35% of the time with some pop? Of course. But how available are they? Are their 30 of them? There would have to be in order to clearly determine that Cesar Izturis should not be an everyday player. If not, that statement becomes very debatable and BP's unqualified stance on the subject makes them look myopic.

 

BP doesn't have a stance on Izturis. Christina Karhl does. She writes for BP.

Gee, thanks for the clarification. So what makes the author of the article an authority on who should and should not be an everyday SS? Her unqualified stance makes her opinion look myopic. BP still put her article on their website so it reflects poorly on them, too.

 

The points I made still stand. Whether it is BP or Christina Karhl doesn't matter. Defense at the SS position still went unquantified and Karhl's claim that Izturis "shouldn't be an everyday player" is inaccurate which you agree with in your quoted statement below.

 

There are teams for which Izturis as an everyday shortstop might be an asset, teams that have hitting at the other positions. The Cubs are not one of those teams. Karhl is correct.

Then why bother making the claim that Izturis is not an everyday SS?

 

Also, how do you or Ms. Karhl know exactly what the line-up of the Chicago Cubs will be while Cesar Izturis is on the team? Your response doesn't make any sense.

 

If what this uproarious 80-page thread is all about is that neither Izturis nor Cedeno are great offensive middle infielders, I readily agree. They, by themselves, will not score a lot of runs.

 

I was simply pointing out that there are many different writers at BP, and they don't always agree.

 

And you ought to read the entire thread.

 

Izturis may have value, but he won't contribute much to the Cubs. Believe it or not, the Cubs already have one of the better defenses in baseball. They're currently ranked #6 in defensive efficiency, and they've been as high as #4 in the recent past.

 

They don't need more players who can catch the ball. They need more players who can get on base and drive in runs.

 

Izturis fixes a problem that doesn't exist.

[CubColtPacer]

What makes BP an authority on who should and should not be an everyday player? Does defense at the SS position which was not quantified or even mentioned positively in the above quote really matter so little? Would I prefer a SS who can pick it and get on base more than 35% of the time with some pop? Of course. But how available are they? Are their 30 of them? There would have to be in order to clearly determine that Cesar Izturis should not be an everyday player. If not, that statement becomes very debatable and BP's unqualified stance on the subject makes them look myopic.

 

BP doesn't have a stance on Izturis. Christina Karhl does. She writes for BP.

Gee, thanks for the clarification. So what makes the author of the article an authority on who should and should not be an everyday SS? Her unqualified stance makes her opinion look myopic. BP still put her article on their website so it reflects poorly on them, too.

 

The points I made still stand. Whether it is BP or Christina Karhl doesn't matter. Defense at the SS position still went unquantified and Karhl's claim that Izturis "shouldn't be an everyday player" is inaccurate which you agree with in your quoted statement below.

 

There are teams for which Izturis as an everyday shortstop might be an asset, teams that have hitting at the other positions. The Cubs are not one of those teams. Karhl is correct.

Then why bother making the claim that Izturis is not an everyday SS?

 

Also, how do you or Ms. Karhl know exactly what the line-up of the Chicago Cubs will be while Cesar Izturis is on the team? Your response doesn't make any sense.

 

If what this uproarious 80-page thread is all about is that neither Izturis nor Cedeno are great offensive middle infielders, I readily agree. They, by themselves, will not score a lot of runs.

 

I was simply pointing out that there are many different writers at BP, and they don't always agree.

 

And you ought to read the entire thread.

 

Izturis may have value, but he won't contribute much to the Cubs. Believe it or not, the Cubs already have one of the better defenses in baseball. They're currently ranked #6 in defensive efficiency, and they've been as high as #4 in the recent past.

 

They don't need more players who can catch the ball. They need more players who can get on base and drive in runs.

 

Izturis fixes a problem that doesn't exist.

 

For somebody that values defense as Henry does, this does allow him the flexibility to go out and sign somebody like Soriano to play 2b. Izturis and Lee will make up the defensive shortcomings of a player like Soriano, and Soriano would help the offense tremendously-this move by itself cannot be judged very well because it is really hard to tell what the rest of the team will be like. If by this they determine the defense is fine and are free to sign some great offensive players, then it is a very good move. I don't know if they are thinking this, but it is reasonable that something like this could be their plan.

[CuseCubFan69]

What makes BP an authority on who should and should not be an everyday player? Does defense at the SS position which was not quantified or even mentioned positively in the above quote really matter so little? Would I prefer a SS who can pick it and get on base more than 35% of the time with some pop? Of course. But how available are they? Are their 30 of them? There would have to be in order to clearly determine that Cesar Izturis should not be an everyday player. If not, that statement becomes very debatable and BP's unqualified stance on the subject makes them look myopic.

 

BP doesn't have a stance on Izturis. Christina Karhl does. She writes for BP.

Gee, thanks for the clarification. So what makes the author of the article an authority on who should and should not be an everyday SS? Her unqualified stance makes her opinion look myopic. BP still put her article on their website so it reflects poorly on them, too.

 

The points I made still stand. Whether it is BP or Christina Karhl doesn't matter. Defense at the SS position still went unquantified and Karhl's claim that Izturis "shouldn't be an everyday player" is inaccurate which you agree with in your quoted statement below.

 

There are teams for which Izturis as an everyday shortstop might be an asset, teams that have hitting at the other positions. The Cubs are not one of those teams. Karhl is correct.

Then why bother making the claim that Izturis is not an everyday SS?

 

Also, how do you or Ms. Karhl know exactly what the line-up of the Chicago Cubs will be while Cesar Izturis is on the team? Your response doesn't make any sense.

 

If what this uproarious 80-page thread is all about is that neither Izturis nor Cedeno are great offensive middle infielders, I readily agree. They, by themselves, will not score a lot of runs.

 

I was simply pointing out that there are many different writers at BP, and they don't always agree.

 

And you ought to read the entire thread.

 

Izturis may have value, but he won't contribute much to the Cubs. Believe it or not, the Cubs already have one of the better defenses in baseball. They're currently ranked #6 in defensive efficiency, and they've been as high as #4 in the recent past.

 

They don't need more players who can catch the ball. They need more players who can get on base and drive in runs.

 

Izturis fixes a problem that doesn't exist.

 

For somebody that values defense as Henry does, this does allow him the flexibility to go out and sign somebody like Soriano to play 2b. Izturis and Lee will make up the defensive shortcomings of a player like Soriano, and Soriano would help the offense tremendously-this move by itself cannot be judged very well because it is really hard to tell what the rest of the team will be like. If by this they determine the defense is fine and are free to sign some great offensive players, then it is a very good move. I don't know if they are thinking this, but it is reasonable that something like this could be their plan.

 

I'm curious to see if Soriano wants to stay in LF.

[cheapseats]

 

For somebody that values defense as Henry does, this does allow him the flexibility to go out and sign somebody like Soriano to play 2b. Izturis and Lee will make up the defensive shortcomings of a player like Soriano, and Soriano would help the offense tremendously-this move by itself cannot be judged very well because it is really hard to tell what the rest of the team will be like. If by this they determine the defense is fine and are free to sign some great offensive players, then it is a very good move. I don't know if they are thinking this, but it is reasonable that something like this could be their plan.

 

But it would still be a bad trade. Neifi Perez, who is already signed through 2007, is a better defensive shortstop than Izturis. His career fielding rate is 111, better than Izturis's best season. If Ronny's defense at SS weren't acceptable, Neifi could be inserted at SS.

 

Izturis is redundant, and it's offensive that Trib sportswriters are trying to sell him like he's the second coming of Ozzie Smith.[/b]

[CubsWin]

What makes BP an authority on who should and should not be an everyday player? Does defense at the SS position which was not quantified or even mentioned positively in the above quote really matter so little? Would I prefer a SS who can pick it and get on base more than 35% of the time with some pop? Of course. But how available are they? Are their 30 of them? There would have to be in order to clearly determine that Cesar Izturis should not be an everyday player. If not, that statement becomes very debatable and BP's unqualified stance on the subject makes them look myopic.

 

BP doesn't have a stance on Izturis. Christina Karhl does. She writes for BP.

Gee, thanks for the clarification. So what makes the author of the article an authority on who should and should not be an everyday SS? Her unqualified stance makes her opinion look myopic. BP still put her article on their website so it reflects poorly on them, too.

 

The points I made still stand. Whether it is BP or Christina Karhl doesn't matter. Defense at the SS position still went unquantified and Karhl's claim that Izturis "shouldn't be an everyday player" is inaccurate which you agree with in your quoted statement below.

 

There are teams for which Izturis as an everyday shortstop might be an asset, teams that have hitting at the other positions. The Cubs are not one of those teams. Karhl is correct.

Then why bother making the claim that Izturis is not an everyday SS?

 

Also, how do you or Ms. Karhl know exactly what the line-up of the Chicago Cubs will be while Cesar Izturis is on the team? Your response doesn't make any sense.

 

If what this uproarious 80-page thread is all about is that neither Izturis nor Cedeno are great offensive middle infielders, I readily agree. They, by themselves, will not score a lot of runs.

 

I was simply pointing out that there are many different writers at BP, and they don't always agree.

 

And you ought to read the entire thread.

 

Izturis may have value, but he won't contribute much to the Cubs. Believe it or not, the Cubs already have one of the better defenses in baseball. They're currently ranked #6 in defensive efficiency, and they've been as high as #4 in the recent past.

 

They don't need more players who can catch the ball. They need more players who can get on base and drive in runs.

 

Izturis fixes a problem that doesn't exist.

Basically I agree with you, cheapseats. This trade is no great shakes. I don't think anyone is saying it is. But if you simply subtract Walker from this team and do not bring in someone like Izturis, this team is even worse. The Cubs got marginally better by acquiring Izturis when compared to not acquiring him, didn't they?

 

What is great is that Hendry was able to get something that may be of value to another team in exchange for two months of a guy we no longer had a use for. And Izturis may even be of use to this team depending on who else the Cubs acquire. And for this, we have 80 pages of complaints about Hendry? I mean the title of this thread was Hendry trades Maddux for low OBP arthritic crap or something like that. And that title went unchanged for a long time. And in response to what, Hendry actually getting something for nothing?

 

Is it guaranteed that both Izturis and Cedeno will be manning the middle infield next season with the OF being exactly the same? No. Yet it seems like many posters in this thread were going on the asumption that that was the way it was going to be. If we want our opinions to carry water, don't we have the obligation to balance out our opinions with the other possible outcomes?

[CubColtPacer]

 

For somebody that values defense as Henry does, this does allow him the flexibility to go out and sign somebody like Soriano to play 2b. Izturis and Lee will make up the defensive shortcomings of a player like Soriano, and Soriano would help the offense tremendously-this move by itself cannot be judged very well because it is really hard to tell what the rest of the team will be like. If by this they determine the defense is fine and are free to sign some great offensive players, then it is a very good move. I don't know if they are thinking this, but it is reasonable that something like this could be their plan.

 

But it would still be a bad trade. Neifi Perez, who is already signed through 2007, is a better defensive shortstop than Izturis. His career fielding rate is 111, better than Izturis's best season. If Ronny's defense at SS weren't acceptable, Neifi could be inserted at SS.

 

Izturis is redundant, and it's offensive that Trib sportswriters are trying to sell him like he's the second coming of Ozzie Smith.[/b]

 

I can understand how you can think this is a terrible trade if you think Neifi is a better defensive shortstop right now. From watching the two, I can't believe it myself-Izturis's range is so much greater than Neifi's at this point. Also, Izturis hits better than Neifi this year, when Izturis is coming back from his injury. The likelihood is that Izturis will improve at least slightly from his numbers this year, and that Neifi will continue to decline-which will make Izturis a much better shortstop next year than Neifi.

[CuseCubFan69]

What bugs me a little more about this move is that is gives Theriot even less playing time. I'd hate to see a guy in the 2 spot with a 360 OBP.

[CoolHandLuke]

Hendry apparantly turned down a package of top prospects because he was drooling over Izturis. Thats what angers me about the trade.

[mul21]

Hendry apparantly turned down a package of top prospects because he was drooling over Izturis. Thats what angers me about the trade.

 

That was refuted by Bruce Miles. He said Hendry wanted prospects but the Dodgers weren't willing to part with them so Hendry took what he could get.

[oldcubsfan]

Hendry apparantly turned down a package of top prospects because he was drooling over Izturis. Thats what angers me about the trade.

 

I don't believe that to be true. Hendry wanted prospects and the Dodgers said no, at least according to Bruce Miles.

[CubsWin]

Hendry apparantly turned down a package of top prospects because he was drooling over Izturis. Thats what angers me about the trade.

That would make me upset too. What reason do you have to believe that is what happened?

[NCCubFan]

Hendry apparantly turned down a package of top prospects because he was drooling over Izturis. Thats what angers me about the trade.

That would make me upset too. What reason do you have to believe that is what happened?

Because Hendry said so himself on an interview on WGN TV during a telecast after the trade.

[daske17]

Hendry apparantly turned down a package of top prospects because he was drooling over Izturis. Thats what angers me about the trade.

That would make me upset too. What reason do you have to believe that is what happened?

Because Hendry said so himself on an interview on WGN TV during a telecast after the trade.

 

I think we need to send up the Bruce signal for clarification. To paraphrase John Kerry in Jim Hendry's position, "I wanted prospects before I didn't want them."

[cheapseats]

 

I can understand how you can think this is a terrible trade if you think Neifi is a better defensive shortstop right now.

 

John Dewan, author of The Fielding Bible, ranks Izturis #8 on his top ten shortstops list. Neifi's #6.

 

Every other defensive metric I've seen indicates Neifi is a better shortstop. No offense intended, but I trust them more than your eyes.

[CubColtPacer]

 

I can understand how you can think this is a terrible trade if you think Neifi is a better defensive shortstop right now.

 

John Dewan, author of The Fielding Bible, ranks Izturis #8 on his top ten shortstops list. Neifi's #6.

 

Every other defensive metric I've seen indicates Neifi is a better shortstop. No offense intended, but I trust them more than your eyes.

 

It's not only my eyes-it's the eyes of everyone who has seem him play. It's not just a few people who are saying he's a wonderful defender-I've never seen a Dodger fan say he's not, and there are plenty of informed outsiders who have said through observation that he's a wonderful defender, and maybe the best in the league at the position. Are you saying that all of them are wrong? I'm not inclined to believe necessarily what one person says, or two-but when just about everyone who has ever been around him says it, I'm more inclined to listen to it. When the opinions are somewhat split, I'm more likely to turn to defensive metrics to help settle the debate-but there are too many discrepancies in defensive metrics for me to make that alone overrule the virtually unanimous other evidences of Izturis's defense.

[cheapseats]

Are you saying that all of them are wrong?

 

Absolutely. Neifi is a better defender than Izturis.

 

Cesar's 2005 fielding rate: 108

His career fielding rate: 101

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/izturce01.shtml

 

Neifi's 2005 fielding rate: 115

His career fielding rate: 111

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/perezne01.shtml

 

By PMR, Neifi is shown to have been much better in 2005:

 

http://anaheimangelsblog.blogspot.com/2006/01/pmr-redux-shortstops-update-david.html

 

Just because some Dodgers fans (who probably watch as many Cubs games as I watch Dodgers games) think he's the best fielder in baseball doesn't mean it's true.

 

And Dewan's method of rating middle infielders is pretty flawless, by the way.

[CubColtPacer]

Are you saying that all of them are wrong?

 

Absolutely. Neifi is a better defender than Izturis.

 

Cesar's 2005 fielding rate: 108

His career fielding rate: 101

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/izturce01.shtml

 

Neifi's 2005 fielding rate: 115

His career fielding rate: 111

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/perezne01.shtml

 

By PMR, Neifi is shown to have been much better in 2005:

 

http://anaheimangelsblog.blogspot.com/2006/01/pmr-redux-shortstops-update-david.html

 

Just because some Dodgers fans (who probably watch as many Cubs games as I watch Dodgers games) think he's the best fielder in baseball doesn't mean it's true.

 

And Dewan's method of rating middle infielders is pretty flawless, by the way.

 

Well, there's an example of it. Cesar was hurt half of 2005, and both his offense and defense suffered from it. There have been multiple places that said his defense suffered from it, and I think Izturis himself might have said that his defense was worse than usual because of the injuries. The defensive metrics have him as better than his career average though! Also, doesn't the numbers for Neifi concern you just a bit? Why would a player who is getting older and was always known for his defense suddenly have a better than average year? That's what I don't understand-his speed has certainly gone down since he was a younger player-so what has dramatically improved? As I mentioned in another thread, BP had Sosa as a 7 in 2004, while Ichiro had a 1 that year. I simply cannot look at those numbers and say that they are right, that Sosa was a much better right fielder than Ichiro that year defensively. It just doesn't add up for me right now-I think they are getting closer with defensive metrics, but there are still many numbers like that one right there that just make you wonder about how reliable it actually is.

[Chocolate Milk]

Are you saying that all of them are wrong?

 

Absolutely. Neifi is a better defender than Izturis.

 

Cesar's 2005 fielding rate: 108

His career fielding rate: 101

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/izturce01.shtml

 

Neifi's 2005 fielding rate: 115

His career fielding rate: 111

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/perezne01.shtml

 

By PMR, Neifi is shown to have been much better in 2005:

 

http://anaheimangelsblog.blogspot.com/2006/01/pmr-redux-shortstops-update-david.html

 

Just because some Dodgers fans (who probably watch as many Cubs games as I watch Dodgers games) think he's the best fielder in baseball doesn't mean it's true.

 

And Dewan's method of rating middle infielders is pretty flawless, by the way.

 

Good stuff here.

[ConstableRabbit]

Are you saying that all of them are wrong?

 

Absolutely. Neifi is a better defender than Izturis.

 

Cesar's 2005 fielding rate: 108

His career fielding rate: 101

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/izturce01.shtml

 

Neifi's 2005 fielding rate: 115

His career fielding rate: 111

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/perezne01.shtml

 

By PMR, Neifi is shown to have been much better in 2005:

 

http://anaheimangelsblog.blogspot.com/2006/01/pmr-redux-shortstops-update-david.html

 

Just because some Dodgers fans (who probably watch as many Cubs games as I watch Dodgers games) think he's the best fielder in baseball doesn't mean it's true.

 

And Dewan's method of rating middle infielders is pretty flawless, by the way.

 

Interesting.

 

I'd like to get more into defensive metrics, but whenever I try to read definitions, there are a bunch of constants that variables are multiplied that I don't understand. Surely they're not arbitrary, but I'd like to know where they come from.

 

Can anyone recommend a website or handbook that goes into where these standards come from?

[fiver]

I mean the title of this thread was Hendry trades Maddux for low OBP arthritic crap or something like that. And that title went unchanged for a long time. And in response to what, Hendry actually getting something for nothing?

 

Is it guaranteed that both Izturis and Cedeno will be manning the middle infield next season with the OF being exactly the same? No. Yet it seems like many posters in this thread were going on the asumption that that was the way it was going to be. If we want our opinions to carry water, don't we have the obligation to balance out our opinions with the other possible outcomes?

 

If you read the thread, then you'll note that most are upset by the opportunity cost incurred by the Chicago Cubs in this trade. On the surface it does appear that we received 'something' for a pitcher that will no longer be with the team next season. That is peachy until one considers the......OPPORTUNITY COST. Neifi Perez is under contract for next season. Neifi Perez is likely a better fielding SS than Izturis. At very least, they are quite comparable. Izturis will be paid around 5 million dollars next season. These are 5 million dollars that could have gone to a very much needed big bat and/or dominant pitcher. As it stands the Cubs probably need to obtain two of the former and at least one of the latter to have any hope of contending next season. It's not that Izturis is a horrible SS. It's that he's not a good offensive player, and we already have a very skilled defensive SS under contract for next season.

 

Unless Izturis bats as he did in the first half of '05, then many will remain unhappy with the OPPORTUNITY COST associated with this trade.

 

edit - unless the payroll figure is increased significantly, I am betting that the Cubs only obtain one of the players mentioned in bold...not three. If this trade had not happened, one could argue that Hendry may have been able to obtain 2 of those emboldened.

[Magnetic Curses]

Are you saying that all of them are wrong?

 

Absolutely. Neifi is a better defender than Izturis.

 

Cesar's 2005 fielding rate: 108

His career fielding rate: 101

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/izturce01.shtml

 

Neifi's 2005 fielding rate: 115

His career fielding rate: 111

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/perezne01.shtml

 

By PMR, Neifi is shown to have been much better in 2005:

 

http://anaheimangelsblog.blogspot.com/2006/01/pmr-redux-shortstops-update-david.html

 

Just because some Dodgers fans (who probably watch as many Cubs games as I watch Dodgers games) think he's the best fielder in baseball doesn't mean it's true.

 

And Dewan's method of rating middle infielders is pretty flawless, by the way.

 

Well, there's an example of it. Cesar was hurt half of 2005, and both his offense and defense suffered from it. There have been multiple places that said his defense suffered from it, and I think Izturis himself might have said that his defense was worse than usual because of the injuries. The defensive metrics have him as better than his career average though! Also, doesn't the numbers for Neifi concern you just a bit? Why would a player who is getting older and was always known for his defense suddenly have a better than average year? That's what I don't understand-his speed has certainly gone down since he was a younger player-so what has dramatically improved? As I mentioned in another thread, BP had Sosa as a 7 in 2004, while Ichiro had a 1 that year. I simply cannot look at those numbers and say that they are right, that Sosa was a much better right fielder than Ichiro that year defensively. It just doesn't add up for me right now-I think they are getting closer with defensive metrics, but there are still many numbers like that one right there that just make you wonder about how reliable it actually is.

 

just give it up, we are living in a new baseball age, an age where all but a few GM's base their philosophy on more than just anecdotal evidence.

 

i'm not sure why it's so hard to see. there's no use in hiding from it, the truth will set you free.

[CubColtPacer]

Are you saying that all of them are wrong?

 

just give it up, we are living in a new baseball age, an age where all but a few GM's base their philosophy on more than just anecdotal evidence.

 

i'm not sure why it's so hard to see. there's no use in hiding from it, the truth will set you free.

 

I agree we should use more than anecdotal evidence, but one shouldn't dismiss anecdotal evidence either. I doubt in a situation like this defensively where all the anecdotal evidence points one way, and defensive metrics point the other way that most GM's are going to go with the defensive metrics over the anecdotal evidence. They use the metrics, but that's not the only thing they use. If they did, it would be extremely hard to evaluate any player. Take a player like Orlando Cabrera for example-he went from a 3 one season to a -3 the next season to a 7 in 2005, the very next year. Did he significantly change on defense in those 3 years, and which year was truly indicative of his ability? Anecdotal evidence can tell you that-and by the way, his negative number was the year that the Red Sox traded for him in order to upgrade their defense.

[NCCubFan]

Hendry apparantly turned down a package of top prospects because he was drooling over Izturis. Thats what angers me about the trade.

That would make me upset too. What reason do you have to believe that is what happened?

Because Hendry said so himself on an interview on WGN TV during a telecast after the trade.

 

I think we need to send up the Bruce signal for clarification. To paraphrase John Kerry in Jim Hendry's position, "I wanted prospects before I didn't want them."

I suspect that's what Hendry meant, but I believe the way he actually said it was that he could have gotten prospects. He seemed to confuse wanting something with actually being able to get it, which of course are two different things. I want several million dollars, but I ain't getting it. :D

[Magnetic Curses]

Are you saying that all of them are wrong?

 

just give it up, we are living in a new baseball age, an age where all but a few GM's base their philosophy on more than just anecdotal evidence.

 

i'm not sure why it's so hard to see. there's no use in hiding from it, the truth will set you free.

 

I agree we should use more than anecdotal evidence, but one shouldn't dismiss anecdotal evidence either. I doubt in a situation like this defensively where all the anecdotal evidence points one way, and defensive metrics point the other way that most GM's are going to go with the defensive metrics over the anecdotal evidence. They use the metrics, but that's not the only thing they use. If they did, it would be extremely hard to evaluate any player. Take a player like Orlando Cabrera for example-he went from a 3 one season to a -3 the next season to a 7 in 2005, the very next year. Did he significantly change on defense in those 3 years, and which year was truly indicative of his ability? Anecdotal evidence can tell you that-and by the way, his negative number was the year that the Red Sox traded for him in order to upgrade their defense.

 

you're using anecdotes to prove that anecdotes are valid.