CardsFanInChiTown

who invited the Cards fan? Queen 4 eva

I don't think Jones in CF is in any way, shape or form giving up on OF defense. Even if Jones is not a great defender, the drop from RF to CF observed by BP is so miniscule that it's a nonissue. Even if fielding rate is not as good as the Fielding Bible, I have a lot of trouble believing that the qualitative comparison of the difficulties of the two positions is tremendously wrong. Since Jones has to be here next year, he's probably most valuable to the Cobs as a CF. That way they can look into getting another corner OF who, if nothing else, would provide more with the bat than Juan Pierre. When it's all said and done, it's probably the Cobs best move. I'm suggesting Jone is a terrible RF and if they moved him to CF he'd be completely god awful. Just because Jones has a range of X in RF doesn't mean he'd have that range in CF. It's a much more difficult position to play. I'm a Cards fan on a Cubs board so I'll drop his. Admittedly it's become a silly pissing match with cheapseats. I've actually been quite entertained throughout the whole ordeal. I especially liked it when you dissected each others opinions piece-by-piece. Edit: Oh, and the arguments, of course. I'm going to check out the Fielding Bible. lol ordeal. Clearly, I think it's great book and you should check it out. I honestly think it's the most important baseball metics book to come out in years. It's a really easy book to read and grasp. I did an phone interview with John Dewan for my msg board here. Some of the stuff we talked about isn't even in his book. The bit about the value of good 1B defense is shocking.

I don't think Jones in CF is in any way, shape or form giving up on OF defense. Even if Jones is not a great defender, the drop from RF to CF observed by BP is so miniscule that it's a nonissue. Even if fielding rate is not as good as the Fielding Bible, I have a lot of trouble believing that the qualitative comparison of the difficulties of the two positions is tremendously wrong. Since Jones has to be here next year, he's probably most valuable to the Cobs as a CF. That way they can look into getting another corner OF who, if nothing else, would provide more with the bat than Juan Pierre. When it's all said and done, it's probably the Cobs best move. I'm suggesting Jone is a terrible RF and if they moved him to CF he'd be completely god awful. Just because Jones has a range of X in RF doesn't mean he'd have that range in CF. It's a much more difficult position to play. I'm a Cards fan on a Cubs board so I'll drop his. Admittedly it's become a silly pissing match with cheapseats.

Yes, because he has better range. I wouldn't because you can find a better bat for RF and can get away with worse defense since less balls are hit out there. CF is just a tougher position to learn and play. So, to be clear, that's just a flat-out guess, conjecture based upon no reviewable data. How many more throws does a CF make? How does the park influence that statistic? How often does a RF actually throw to 3rd? Once a game? Once a series? It's a guess however more balls are hit to CF so I don't think it's completely out of line. Are you suggesting the Cubs should give up on OF defense? All we need to talk about is arm, really. The fact that it's "debatable" means that it's reasonable to believe that an arm is more important in RF than CF. So if Jones' arm is a liability in RF but isn't quite as much in CF, he "debatably" could be an equal or better player in CF, even though you think, for whatever reason, that he would be a "disaster." No you also need to talk about range. In fact I'd say that's more important. By putting JJ in CF you'd be exposing his limited range even more because more balls are hit to CF. A funny side note, TFB actually says Jones arm is underrated. al·most (ôlmst, ôl-mst) adv. Slightly short of; not quite; nearly: almost time to go; was almost asleep; had almost finished. Apparently you've confused "almost" with "always." You go on and on about how Jones would make a terrible CF but don't give any evidence as to why. My evidence is his poor range getting exposed even more in CF. So you're not sure if Arod was ever good defensively, but then in the next breath you say he was fine? Do you even look at what you're writing? I said that because his SS work wasn't covered in TFB but his 3B defense was. I wanted it be consistent.

When did I endorse Beltran as a RF? I just said he'd likely play at an elite defensive level at that position. I'd say it's about a wash for the throwing arm because a CFer makes many more throws however a RF has to protect runners going from 1st to 3rd. You keep talking about different skill sets but the only thing offered was a throwing arm (debatable). Could you provide more examples? Yeah, rightward shifts almost never work. That's why it's silly to go in to a season expecting JJ to play CF while moving ARod to 3rd isn't. Again, Jones has enough trouble with RF. Besides I'm still not sure ARod was ever a good SS. Anyway ARod D has been bad this year it has been fine in the past. One more thing, it's not every single pitch, it's every single non catcher defensive play.

I love how you chide me for not answering intelligently after you made these two posts: If you notice the defensive spectrum came from Bill James so it wouldn’t it mine. Yes, Carlos Beltran would be an incredible RFer. Do you know who were the best corner OFers are according to Dewan’s book? Carl Crawford and Co Co Crisp – two guys that can play CF. What skills does a RFer have that a CFer doesn’t have? At best you can say a strong arm but even that’s debatable. Its clear CF is much harder to play because good hitters are scare at that position. As for Jones bat why don’t you play A-Ram at SS? Heck, he’d have a good stick for that position. edit - Pods also ranked really high as a corner OFer.

Your right, let's trust stats the creator admits aren’t as good as John Dewan’s work. I guess this is how you post when you’re wrong.

Logic < The Fielding Bible Your right, it’s very logical to trust a poor fielding RF with CF. Than again he’s average if you trust antiquated defensive statistics.

The fact is the Cubs would be foolish to trust CF to JJ. BTW, thanks for ending this with an incoherent logic rant.

So the Cardinals should fire Mitchel Lichtman now, right? Two points, neither of which you answer: 1) If the Fielding Bible says Jacque Jones is below average and EVERY other metric says he's above average, how do you square that? Do you blindly accept the Fielding Bible's rating without any regard for the others? Apparently so. I guess I should cancel my BP subscription and quit reading Hardball Times. The Fielding Bible is all I'll ever need. 2) You have consistently insisted on applying the defensive spectrum without regard for individual players' skills. Even if you want to discount EVERY metric that says Jacque is an above average RF, you ought to see that his range is consistently well above average for RF. So, even if he gets "bad jumps on balls," he gets to more balls than most RF. His problem? His arm, a problem that would be somewhat minimized in CF. So go ahead and explain about A-Rod and Cameron, OK? First off I like Mitchel Lichtman a lot and I never said his system was bad given the information he had. Secondly he's not currently working for the Cardinals. The fact is "The Fielding Bible" simply blows all other fielding metrics out of the water because they analyzed every single play in the last 3 years. No other metrics you site can claim that. Simply put it’s a seminal book on the subject. ... Jones does not have above average range. A-Rod and Cameron may have declining skills or were overrated in terms of defense to begin with. Why do you think it’s so much harder to find a good hitting SS or CFer? Then I guess I can't have a conversation with you, since "The Fielding Bible" trumps everything. Strangely, though, most research that cites only one source, no matter how authoritative that source may be, is found to be inadequate. If I had used a single source when when doing research as a graduate student, I would not have received my degree. It seems to me that you'd like to have everything as black and white as your avatar, but unfortunately, that's not possible. As for your refutation of Jones' range, just saying "he doesn't really have good range" is inadequate. There are numerous metrics that say he does. Cameron has been a very good CF in San Diego. Did his skills decline in 2005 only to be rediscovered in 2006? If you want to argue that Cameron is or was overrated, go right ahead, but provide eveidence for your argument. Maybe, just maybe, Arod struggles at 3B because range isn't nearly as important as it is at SS, neutralizing one of his greatest strengths. But if you want to argue an overnight decline in skills, go right ahead. When the one source is so much better than all others I do feel it's appropriate. Go ahead and keep citing a Mitchel Lichtman stats even when he freely admits John Dewan's work is seminal. Wasn't Cameron injuried in 05? Is Arod that bad of a 3B? You do realize defense fluctuates from year to year? Answer the question - Why is it so much harder to find good hitting SS and CFers?

So the Cardinals should fire Mitchel Lichtman now, right? Two points, neither of which you answer: 1) If the Fielding Bible says Jacque Jones is below average and EVERY other metric says he's above average, how do you square that? Do you blindly accept the Fielding Bible's rating without any regard for the others? Apparently so. I guess I should cancel my BP subscription and quit reading Hardball Times. The Fielding Bible is all I'll ever need. 2) You have consistently insisted on applying the defensive spectrum without regard for individual players' skills. Even if you want to discount EVERY metric that says Jacque is an above average RF, you ought to see that his range is consistently well above average for RF. So, even if he gets "bad jumps on balls," he gets to more balls than most RF. His problem? His arm, a problem that would be somewhat minimized in CF. So go ahead and explain about A-Rod and Cameron, OK? First off I like Mitchel Lichtman a lot and I never said his system was bad given the information he had. Secondly he's not currently working for the Cardinals. The fact is "The Fielding Bible" simply blows all other fielding metrics out of the water because they analyzed every single play in the last 3 years. No other metrics you site can claim that. Simply put it’s a seminal book on the subject. But don’t take my word for it, let’s see what Mitchel Lichtman has to say: Link Jones does not have above average range. A-Rod and Cameron may have declining skills or were overrated in terms of defense to begin with. Why do you think it’s so much harder to find a good hitting SS or CFer?

The big difference is"The Fielding Bible" actually watched every single play in the last 3 years. None the metrics you site can say that. IMO it's the first really good defensive metrics book to hit the market.

So getting bad jumps doesn't matter in RF? Anyway, even if he weren't Willie Mays in CF (and the past shows that he's a better CF than RF, but you can ignore that if you like), his bat would more than make up for his glove. Michael Barrett is not a good defensive catcher, but I'm glad we have him instead of Yadier Molina. Molina has been worth almost 2 wins this year solely because of his defense. Barrett has been worth almost 3 wins thus far solely because of his bat. Of course getting bad jumps in RF matters. My point is if Jones can hardly handle RF than he’ll be completely overwhelmed in CF. Those CF stats you cited were from years ago and “The Fielding Bible” has a much, much better system in place to determining defensive value. Again, CF is a much more demanding position and it would be a disaster for the Cubs to JJ out there.

And some players are better fits for positions on the right of the spectrum rather than the left. Mike Cameron, for an example, is a below average RF but an above average CF. http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/camermi01.shtml Jacque was a CF and was moved to RF not because he couldn't handle the position, but because Hunter was already in CF. Jacque has played 159 games in CF, and his career fielding rate is better than his rate as a LF or RF: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/jonesja04.shtml I'll trust "The Fielding Bible" methods over 3 years as opposed to one year of BP stats from a long time ago. The guy gets really bad jumps on the ball and I seriously doubt he can handle CF.

BP's research actually concluded that 3B and CF should be switched in the spectrum, and further that the players moving from RF to CF tended to experience only a small decline in defensive performance. Interesting, do you have a link for that?

Jones' natural position is CF. He moved to RF because of Hunter. And I don't agree with the assumption that CF is inherently more difficult than RF. Jones has good range but doesn't throw well. CF might emphasize his strengths while minimizing his weaknesses. I'm not sure what "natural position" means. According to "The fielding bible" Jones rank 24th out 27 RF in the last 3 years(Hah, Juan E was 25th!). Dewan notes Jones gets really bad jumps on the ball. I very much believe CF is inherently more difficult than RF. Why is it so much harder to find a good CFer over a RFer? I thought this was interesting from from "Bill James' Primer": Link

There aren't a lot of CF options out there so the Cubs may not have a chioce.

Jones plays poor defense in RF, no way could he handle CF. According to John Dewan's "The Fielding Bible" Rowand was the best defensive CFer in baseball last year.

Playing baseball in Las Vegas would be sweet.

I may do that if Led Zeppelin loses to the Beatles in the finals. That match up is inevitable.

Metallica you had a nice run but it ends here.

Just double checking, you're saying that you'd want the career .300/.350 guy over the career .280/.350 guy coming into a new season? Yep Sounds good. We'll disagree, in that case. I can understand you'd want to "lock in" production but personally I'd take the gamble. Again, more often than not the 300/.350 guy will be more productive. I've been reading though the thread you posted - good stuff.

Just double checking, you're saying that you'd want the career .300/.350 guy over the career .280/.350 guy coming into a new season? Yep

It's hard to examine this particular number in a vacuum because it's really hard to find players who match up equally in other departments, such as defense, power, speed, etc. It's not like I can have Juan Pierre A and Juan Pierre B along with test numbers and whatnot. Heading into a new season, if I had a choice between two hitters who matched up exactly except they had career averages of .280/.350 and .300/.350, I'd be inclined to go with the .280/.350 guy because his plate discipline skills are much better and easier to predict than a guy who has to rely more on BABIP, Line Drive %, and so on to create his production. It's much more likely that the .300/.350 hitter will have his numbers fluctuate than the .280/.350 guy. I'd want the guy who's more likely to be productive - .300/.350 Again singles produce more runs than walks. That said, the difference isn't huge.

Well, having a predictably good OBP is worthwhile in and of itself, I think, and patience has other adantages, as well. The high ISoD guy would be better at making pitchers work and helping the team get into the weaker middle relievers. A single has a .474 "run value" per inning and a non-intentional walk has .33.