Nobody says defense stats are perfect... but you guys use that as a reason to dismiss it altogether.Originally Posted by chop2chip
Offensive stats aren't perfect either... yet people use them as gospel to measure a player's performance.
Nobody says defense stats are perfect... but you guys use that as a reason to dismiss it altogether.
Offensive stats aren't perfect either... yet people use them as gospel to measure a player's performance.
jpx7 (05-17-2017)
That is under the assumption that statistic behave in the same way for a smaller stetch and a larger one which is not the case
Have people really dismissed it?
Because it's impossible for a good hitter to be bad enough defensviely to be a below average player, right?
Sure. In a playoff series, Kevin Kiermaier can let the ball go under his glove a couple times and lose you a series. But that isn't what he claimed. He said that because Kemp is not good defensively, that could hurt you in a playoff series and even decide the series. That suggests that Kemp has a higher likelihood of making bad defensive plays, and he is conceding that bad defensive plays can cost you games.
Well, over an entire season, he also has a higher likelihood of bad defensive plays, and those bad defensive plays can cost you games in the regular season, too. If you are acknowledging that worse defense can cost you runs and games in a small sample, then you're acknowledging it can do the same, and is actually more likely to do the same, in a larger sample.
Yes. You give it lip service but then go on to say it's not relevant.
Define good..
I think it's impossible for a 900+ OPS to be bad enough defensively to be below average overall.
This is using the fact that any LF can make every routine play.
Never once said it's irrelevant but if you can a post in said that I'll gladly admit my wrong.
Like I said - you give it lip service but ultimately dismiss it
Hoping for some lip service from my wife this evening.. but since she is in law school, she will ultimately dismiss it as well.
Tapate50 (05-17-2017)
This is probably pretty close to accurate. Even if you're talking truly below average rather than below replacement level, I think you're correct. I do think it's possible for that player to merely be about average, though.
I would define good as what Kemp did for us last year. Something in the 120 WRC+ range. Ignoring the fact that a 900 OPS can be subjective to park factors let's look at someone like Ryan Braun last year who had a 903 OPS.
His 903 OPS came out to being 23 batting runs above replacement level. For a corner outfielder to have that offensive ability and to still fall below 2 WAR (average) he would need to cost his team roughly 16 runs in the field. Now that is possible but unlikely.
If you want to have a broader term of what average is, say 1.5-2.5 WAR then a 900 OPS guy would need to cost his team over 20 runs on defense. That's only happened 4 times in LF in the last 10 years. So while possible still unlikely. And those seasons all occurred at he end of the 00's before defense really started getting looked at like it is today. Teams simply don't let defenders that bad play anymore and for good reason.
So yeah in todays game I would agree with you that a 900 OPS corner outfielder is very unlikely to ever be considered a below average player. If his defense is truly that atrocious he would be DHing somewhere.
"You guys"?
In the very same post you quoted I said there's likely a strong correlation. How is that dismissing them altogether?
My greater point, which you didn't address, is that teams have access to better data. Make with that what you will. If you care to discuss what I thought about that then feel free to read my other post where I elaborated on it.
False equivalency. Literally everyone in the industry believes offensive metrics to be clearly more accurate.Offensive stats aren't perfect either... yet people use them as gospel to measure a player's performance.
Chicago had multiple opportunities, reportedly, to trade Schwarber. They chose not to. This isn't one of those situations where they were forced to make chicken salad and out chicken ****. They prioritized keeping Schwarber.
I don't think that its more or less likely that a bad defensive play could cost you a game in the postseason or in the regular season.
Over 162 games, I don't think its especially likely that the cumulative number of game deciding bad defensive plays by a left fielder is likely to decide whether a team makes the postseason.
Over a playoff series, should you have the bad luck to have one of those games, it could very well decide the series.
It would be less likely to have one of those games in a seven game series than it would be to have one in a 162 game season. It would just be potentially more impactful in a playoff series.
I don't think talking about playoff series is a particular relevant discussion in relation to the current Atlanta Braves roster. If the playoffs are relevant then the front office has done a better job than anyone thinks.
So its bit moot.
I can think of at least a couple of posters who thought he'd OPS around .775. While that isn't bad, it certainly isn't very good either. Especially for a LFer.
He could end up an OPS in the mid .900's and certain posters would still think he's trash and it was a dumb move.
And the same said posters will never admit they were wrong.
That is an extremely weak argument.
Anyone want to take a wager of the author of the following quote:
A team can win with a high power low on base lawn ornament in LF. They can't win with multiple players like that, but Kemp sitting in the 4 hole hitting 30+ HRs and a low .300 OBP is going to make the offense better.
Natural Immunity Croc
A person who was 100% correct.
It also has zero relevance in this discussion. Congrats, you've once again made a "point" that isn't pertinent.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote