Heyward and Walden to the Cardinals for Miller and Jenkins

[Rob]

I've never seen a 5fWAR 26 year old get so much [expletive] as Heyward. Everyone loves the guy with an elite bat but average defense, but if it's elite defense and an average bat he's overrated and not that great.

 

I think it has to do with expectations many people had for him (that he was going to be an offensive beast) that have gone largely unfulfilled. Defense just isn't as sexy as big offense, especially from a corner. I don't agree with it, but I'd bet that has a lot to do with the negativity.

 

plus a guy with elite defense and average offense is just not that good a player; offense is far more important than defense in player value. the bigger problem is that everyone sees his slugging percentage and thinks he's an average offensive player, which he isn't.

 

Runs are runs, whether you add them with the bat or prevent them with the glove.

[TruffleShuffle]

right, but an elite defender generally isn't preventing as many runs as an elite offensive player is producing, unless the defensive player is ozzie smith or whatever.

[RynoRules]

right, but an elite defender generally isn't preventing as many runs as an elite offensive player is producing, unless the defensive player is ozzie smith or whatever.

 

This is where I was going. I get that Heyward is a good or very good player. I just don't think he is as in league with Trout, Stanton, etc. and what Taveras was projected to be.

[Guest]

right, but an elite defender generally isn't preventing as many runs as an elite offensive player is producing, unless the defensive player is ozzie smith or whatever.

Nor is quantifying runs as cut and dried defensively as it is offensively.

[Wilson A2000]

Atlanta really thought they couldn't sign Heyward? What will Heyward get, 5/$80?

[Guest]

Heyward will get 20 million per, probably more depending on the length.

[Guest]

Heyward will get 20 million per, probably more depending on the length.

 

Definitely. I don't even think you need the probably.

[sneakypower]

i'd do 7/150 without a moment's hesitation

[WrigleyField 22]

right, but an elite defender generally isn't preventing as many runs as an elite offensive player is producing, unless the defensive player is ozzie smith or whatever.

Nor is quantifying runs as cut and dried defensively as it is offensively.

I've wondered how much run saving defense is dependent on chances. Like, is the ball distributed enough across the diamond that each position is going to have roughly the same chances or can you randomly "save" a bunch more runs one year just because 40 more balls got hit your way than the previous year? Whereas with hitting you're guaranteed to get a chance 11% of the time.

 

Basically can good defense be mitigated just because the ball is hit to you less based on randomness...

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tryptamine]

Atlanta really thought they couldn't sign Heyward? What will Heyward get, 5/$80?

 

Really? He's going to get a near 200M deal. I'd be absolutely shocked at anything less than 7/150.

[Cubswin11]

Atlanta really thought they couldn't sign Heyward? What will Heyward get, 5/$80?

 

Really? He's going to get a near 200M deal. I'd be absolutely shocked at anything less than 7/150.

Yeah, I think the Crawford contract will be his benchmark and he will probably top it.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

right, but an elite defender generally isn't preventing as many runs as an elite offensive player is producing, unless the defensive player is ozzie smith or whatever.

Nor is quantifying runs as cut and dried defensively as it is offensively.

I've wondered how much run saving defense is dependent on chances. Like, is the ball distributed enough across the diamond that each position is going to have roughly the same chances or can you randomly "save" a bunch more runs one year just because 40 more balls got hit your way than the previous year? Whereas with hitting you're guaranteed to get a chance 11% of the time.

 

Basically can good defense be mitigated just because the ball is hit to you less based on randomness...

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

This is definitely an effect. It's part of why you have some defensive valuations fluctuate wildly from year to year.

 

It's the constant give/take of designing defensive stats. If you try to normalize for chances, then you aren't really measuring the impact in any given year. If you don't, then you aren't really predictively measuring ability.

[mul21]

You'd think it'd be easy to develop a runs saved per chance stat with all the insane math that the SABR crowd uses.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

You'd think it'd be easy to develop a runs saved per chance stat with all the insane math that the SABR crowd uses.

 

Per chance? Easy.

 

Per chance relative to difficulty of chance? We're waiting for full Field F/X.

[George Hayduke]

right, but an elite defender generally isn't preventing as many runs as an elite offensive player is producing, unless the defensive player is ozzie smith or whatever.

Nor is quantifying runs as cut and dried defensively as it is offensively.

I've wondered how much run saving defense is dependent on chances. Like, is the ball distributed enough across the diamond that each position is going to have roughly the same chances or can you randomly "save" a bunch more runs one year just because 40 more balls got hit your way than the previous year? Whereas with hitting you're guaranteed to get a chance 11% of the time.

 

Basically can good defense be mitigated just because the ball is hit to you less based on randomness...

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

This is definitely an effect. It's part of why you have some defensive valuations fluctuate wildly from year to year.

 

It's the constant give/take of designing defensive stats. If you try to normalize for chances, then you aren't really measuring the impact in any given year. If you don't, then you aren't really predictively measuring ability.

I would think over the course of an entire season, the number of chances by position would pretty well normalize. At the very least, it seems you could compare it to some kind of league average number of chances by position.

[Guest]

right, but an elite defender generally isn't preventing as many runs as an elite offensive player is producing, unless the defensive player is ozzie smith or whatever.

Nor is quantifying runs as cut and dried defensively as it is offensively.

I've wondered how much run saving defense is dependent on chances. Like, is the ball distributed enough across the diamond that each position is going to have roughly the same chances or can you randomly "save" a bunch more runs one year just because 40 more balls got hit your way than the previous year? Whereas with hitting you're guaranteed to get a chance 11% of the time.

 

Basically can good defense be mitigated just because the ball is hit to you less based on randomness...

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

This is definitely an effect. It's part of why you have some defensive valuations fluctuate wildly from year to year.

 

It's the constant give/take of designing defensive stats. If you try to normalize for chances, then you aren't really measuring the impact in any given year. If you don't, then you aren't really predictively measuring ability.

I would think over the course of an entire season, the number of chances by position would pretty well normalize. At the very least, it seems you could compare it to some kind of league average number of chances by position.

It isn't quite that simple - the pitching staff heavily influences the distribution of chances. Primarily, heavy strikeout staffs and ground ball vs flyball tendencies will change the number of chances the fielders receive vs league averages.