davearm2

Defensive metrics? You really think he's the second-best leftfielder in the national league? LOL. You seriously are pathetic. Those metrics don't show he's the second-best leftfielder in the NL. But thanks for stopping by and embarrassing yourself again by thinking they do. Well, that went over your head. And they do show he's the fourth best. Maybe not "prove" he's the fourth best, but you get the picture... I'll assume (probably shouldn't do that). Fourth best? Huh? Not the point, but seriously, WTF? Some allegedly saber-savvy folks apparently have no clue how to read and interpret what they're looking at.

Defensive metrics? You really think he's the second-best leftfielder in the national league? LOL. You seriously are pathetic. Those metrics don't show he's the second-best leftfielder in the NL. But thanks for stopping by and embarrassing yourself again by thinking they do.

A page ago we agreed that we're in the same ballpark on the probabilities. Not sure why you're going bananas about them now.

That's great that his defense is more than fine. The point is, it could be much better than fine simply with more effort. Imagine a guy is hitting .300 without watching a second of video, but could boost that up to .330 if he spent 30 minutes a day studying pitchers. Are you going to be satisfied with the .300, since that's more than fine too?

No, it's really not. You've yet to show how sliding to avoid a tag or breaking up a double play is a similar risk/reward situation. If you don't slide when you can avoid the tag you're out and your value as a runner and ability to score as a result of that PA gone. If an OF doesn't choose to try to make a diving catch they can still play it and keep the runner to a single or a double instead of more. Seriously? An OF playing a ball they could have caught (with 50% probability) on a hop for a double has virtually the same cost to the team as a runner being tagged out at 2B when he could have been safe (again with 50% probability) by sliding. In both cases, the stakes are a runner on 2B versus an out.

Not typically, no, but it definitely happens. You can be comfortable with the number of extra bases surrendered and outs foregone by Soriano's injury prevention outfield protocol, but not everyone is.

And Im sure any manager in baseball would take any one of them over Reed Johnson, Sam Fuld, or Aaron Rowand slip and sliding all over the field to make a slightly non routine play. Since it's clear you're not following the debate, the issue at hand is what (if any) added value would come from Braun/Bautista/Holliday giving the sort of effort Johnson/Fuld/Rowand do. Preferring Holliday etc. to Fuld etc. is completely irrelevant. If that's the debate then it was over a long time ago. The added value of them busting their asses and leaping after balls in the OF is so negligible (since it's not an all or nothing situation and they can still play the ball well or adequately otherwise) vs. the increased injury risk and losing their bats. The added value is not negligible. Even by your conservative estimate, it would be successful more than 1 in 3 times. Regardless, you have isolated this particular risk and declared it unwarranted, yet somehow are okay with many other similarly risky actions where the marginal benefit is also small. It's just a very strange and confusing line in the sand, IMO.

Actually they very much are okay with Soriano casually chasing after every last ball hit his way. They justify it by saying they don't want him to risk injury. And Soriano is loafing to at least some of the balls he has a 50/50 chance of getting to. At least that's what I've seen.

Fine. Ryan Braun, Jose Bautista, and Matt Holliday dont do much of it either. All three have gotten their share of criticism for their less than ideal defense. And Im sure any manager in baseball would take any one of them over Reed Johnson, Sam Fuld, or Aaron Rowand slip and sliding all over the field to make a slightly non routine play. Since it's clear you're not following the debate, the issue at hand is what (if any) added value would come from Braun/Bautista/Holliday giving the sort of effort Johnson/Fuld/Rowand do. Preferring Holliday etc. to Fuld etc. is completely irrelevant.

No you don't. We're not discussing OF plays that have very little chance at success. We're discussing OF plays that have a 35% (low estimate) to 50% or better (high estimate) chance at success. And nobody I've seen has suggested sprinting down to first on a two hopper to the 2B.

He does take pride in gunning down runners with his arm. I'll definitely give him credit for that. I just wish he showed the same eagerness to rise to the challenge when the ball is in the air. Instead it's like you suggest -- he looks like he's playing not to get hurt, and if he can catch it on a jog, great, if not oh well.

I'd be shocked if that was the case. Players are pretty smart about choosing when they dive now which makes the percentage a lot higher. Of course, that's part of the reason I don't want Soriano diving. He doesn't have the instincts out there and probably would make some dives that would make it a very poor percentage play. This is my thinking as well. As has been alluded to previously, players make these calculations on the fly. If they think they have a reasonable chance of catching the ball, they go for it. If not, *and* they don't have a teammate backing them up, they usually don't. All of which leads to a success rate greater than 35% for sure. I'm including when guys try to catch a ball leaping against the wall/fence and not just diving, so we're likely coming at this differently. We're also not that far apart. If there are two dozen attempts made at these types of plays in a week I'm saying they succeed 8-10 times and you're saying, what, 12-15 times? Two dozen attempts across MLB you mean? That seems low. But the rest, sure.

So you think Soriano makes the mental calculations, decides he can make the play and, on a regular basis, chooses not to make the play? I think he gives up on balls way too easily. Look some guys go out there with the attitude that you darn well better not hit it my way, because if you do I'm gonna run it down. Soriano is like whatever the opposite of that is. He makes it seem like a nuisance when he has to run after a ball.

I'd be shocked if that was the case. Players are pretty smart about choosing when they dive now which makes the percentage a lot higher. Of course, that's part of the reason I don't want Soriano diving. He doesn't have the instincts out there and probably would make some dives that would make it a very poor percentage play. Like I said, I have no idea if I'm right, but it wouldn't surprise me if I was. It's a [expletive] hard thing to do, and it's typically done out of desperation. It's not typically done out of desperation. It's typically done when the fielder perceives the risk to be worthwhile (i.e., when the success rate is reasonably good).

So Soriano is somehow more effective by loafing after the ball than sprinting for it? And folks think I'm nuts.

I'd be shocked if that was the case. Players are pretty smart about choosing when they dive now which makes the percentage a lot higher. Of course, that's part of the reason I don't want Soriano diving. He doesn't have the instincts out there and probably would make some dives that would make it a very poor percentage play. This is my thinking as well. As has been alluded to previously, players make these calculations on the fly. If they think they have a reasonable chance of catching the ball, they go for it. If not, *and* they don't have a teammate backing them up, they usually don't. All of which leads to a success rate greater than 35% for sure.

And of the other 65%, how often does the runner gain an extra base due to the missed dive/leap? Certainly not all the time, with the adjacent outfielder backing up the play. If just for sake of round numbers, we assumed that 33% of the attempts result in a catch for an out, 33% result in the batter getting an extra base, and the last 33% yield the same result as if the fielder did not attempt the leap/dive, would you not like those odds enough to make the leap/dive? The good and the bad have equal odds. The good (an out) is usually more valuable than the bad (the extra base).

It would be crazy if we existed in a world where we could have stats that gauge how much of a liability defensively a fielder is based on the speed they display/plays they make, etc.. You'd think davearm2 would be all over that because surely it shows that Soriano as someone who obviously would benefit from busting his ass more. A), defensive metrics in their current state are unreliable, at best. But that's a totally separate discussion. The bigger issue is, B) those metrics are never ever going to be able to tell you how many more plays a particular fielder giving <100% effort would have made with 100% effort. And that's the issue at hand here. So you think Soriano would be a better OF if he ran harder out there and took more risks as a defender? For sure yes on the running harder part. He'd catch more balls on the fly, and limit extra bases on the ones he doesn't catch on the fly. In fact this seems so fundamentally obvious that I can't believe it's even open to discussion. That alone would make him a better OF, even setting aside the more risks issue. That one could go either way.

You're pretty much doing this for the lulz, aren't you? What's your guesstimate? Obviously it must be dramatically different from 50% for you to think I'm just trolling by suggesting something so outrageous. So let's hear it.

It would be crazy if we existed in a world where we could have stats that gauge how much of a liability defensively a fielder is based on the speed they display/plays they make, etc.. You'd think davearm2 would be all over that because surely it shows that Soriano as someone who obviously would benefit from busting his ass more. A), defensive metrics in their current state are unreliable, at best. But that's a totally separate discussion. The bigger issue is, B) those metrics are never ever going to be able to tell you how many more plays a particular fielder giving <100% effort would have made with 100% effort. And that's the issue at hand here.

Sliding into a base is not necessary. So, can you actually explain this, or are you just taking the broad "nothing in the game is actually necessary" stance? Within the realm of what's necessary, there's no discernable difference between sliding and diving/leaping. A guy can stand up and be tagged out at a base just as easily as he can pull up and play a sinking liner on a bounce. You're beyond ridiculous at this point. The likelihood of sliding working out balance out the risk. Laying out to make a catch is such a long shot that the odds of things going wrong (injury, turning a single into a double or more, etc.) are way too high when compared to the likelihood of making the play. That's BS. Diving for a ball in the outfield is not a long shot play, nor is it a high injury risk play. As to the first, I'd completely unscientifically estimate that OFs come up with about half of the diving catches they attempt. Maybe a bit more than half. Doesn't seem long shot to me. As to the second, I'd need it explained how the injury risk from diving in OF grass is higher than the risk of sliding headfirst into second base, where there's a fielder to collide with and a base to jam a finger/wrist on. If I'm beyond ridiculous, then you're doing a horrible job of explaining why. From what I can tell, you're drawing completely arbitrary and indefensible boundaries for what is acceptable risk on a baseball field (batting, sliding, blocking the plate, etc), and what is not (diving/leaping in the outfield).

Do you seriously think Soriano is on the cusp of going balls out on every play? LOL

Better to just let the pitcher use a shield. And clear out the dugouts, too. Lots of foul liners going in there. Dangerous. You seem oblivious to the fact that this just reinforces the point I'm making.

Sliding into a base is not necessary. So, can you actually explain this, or are you just taking the broad "nothing in the game is actually necessary" stance? Within the realm of what's necessary, there's no discernable difference between sliding and diving/leaping. A guy can stand up and be tagged out at a base just as easily as he can pull up and play a sinking liner on a bounce.

Finally you're seeing the fallacy in all of this.