Chris Johnson - NL Batting Leader

Yeah, he doesn't seem to just own Abs but he has been consistently squaring the ball up. He doesn't look like a candidate for a trip to the optometrist, anyway.
 
zitothebrave said:
The only thing they measure for 1B is range. So of course they'll be negative on Freeman. Freeman's biggest attribute is his fielding of throws which isn't measurable.
Click to expand...

Stop. You lost me right there. Nothing else you said matters. That's ridiculous. That's 2/3 of a 1B's value.
 
Julio3000 said:
Yeah, he doesn't seem to just own Abs but he has been consistently squaring the ball up. He doesn't look like a candidate for a trip to the optometrist, anyway.
Click to expand...

LOL...indeed.

Hey, when did Melvin last have his eyes checked? Not that it matters, with that train wreck swing.
 
GovClintonTyree said:
Stop. You lost me right there. Nothing else you said matters. That's ridiculous. That's 2/3 of a 1B's value.
Click to expand...

If you check Freeman on DRS (Defensive Runs Saved) you'll see he's rated well (and isn't negative for his career either). So it's not as if all defensive metrics don't give him credit for being a solid first baseman.
 
GovClintonTyree said:
Stop. You lost me right there. Nothing else you said matters. That's ridiculous. That's 2/3 of a 1B's value.
Click to expand...

Have I or nearly any other stathead said that Freeman sucks with the glove? I've said Freeman has bad range, but is amazing picking.

As far as why it isn't measurable, it has to do with trackable data. I'm sure down the road it will be they'll be able to measure the velocity of a throw, what kind of movement it has and where it was in relation to the runner arriving at the bag in terms of difficulty or the field. Until that day though they have to be separate. 3 positions on the diamond don't have amazing fielding stats yet, pitcher (sample), 1B (only part of the game measured) and C (still has many factors that need to be ironed out) The other positiosn though are pretty damned accurate.
 
zitothebrave said:
Have I or nearly any other stathead said that Freeman sucks with the glove? I've said Freeman has bad range, but is amazing picking.

As far as why it isn't measurable, it has to do with trackable data. I'm sure down the road it will be they'll be able to measure the velocity of a throw, what kind of movement it has and where it was in relation to the runner arriving at the bag in terms of difficulty or the field. Until that day though they have to be separate. 3 positions on the diamond don't have amazing fielding stats yet, pitcher (sample), 1B (only part of the game measured) and C (still has many factors that need to be ironed out) The other positiosn though are pretty damned accurate.
Click to expand...

Velocity/spin/trajectory are important variables that can't be measured. Therefore it is impossible to come up with a statistical measure as to how two players compare. Then their are other factors such as how the sun is shining, cloud cover, the way the grass is cut, etc...

There are too many variables to come up with reliable measures of fielding performance.
 
thethe said:
Velocity/spin/trajectory are important variables that can't be measured. Therefore it is impossible to come up with a statistical measure as to how two players compare. Then their are other factors such as how the sun is shining, cloud cover, the way the grass is cut, etc...

There are too many variables to come up with reliable measures of fielding performance.
Click to expand...

Well done.

Of course, there's the eyeball test, but that's a lot of work, watching games.

Also subjective, I admit.
 
No you're arguing against the potential issue with putting run values on certain plays. In general in baseball's large sample those small things like sun, cloud cover, individual playing surfaces level out for the most part.

The input data is that, Johnson doesn't make as many plays as the average 3B. You can argue how many runs that costs cause that's up for debate but you cannot argue that he's not well below average.

Also in today's world, velocity and trajectory off the bat are pretty danged accurate.
 
zitothebrave said:
You are highly predictable.

The eyeball test is thet most inaccurate way to judge a player. OK second most, behind fielding%
Click to expand...

LOL.

Perhaps we should agree to disagree. Although I do agree that fielding percentage sucks.

Also, I like arguing with you because that's more times to see your avatar.
 
zitothebrave said:
No you're arguing against the potential issue with putting run values on certain plays. In general in baseball's large sample those small things like sun, cloud cover, individual playing surfaces level out for the most part.

The input data is that, Johnson doesn't make as many plays as the average 3B. You can argue how many runs that costs cause that's up for debate but you cannot argue that he's not well below average.

Also in today's world, velocity and trajectory off the bat are pretty danged accurate.
Click to expand...

I don't believe those things average out during the year but lets put that aside.

Please link to how velocity/spin/trajectory of batted balls are incorporated into defensive metrics. I haven't found anywhere which shows those factors are used.
 
they're not perfectly accurate measures (can't tell you the MPH and angle) but they can measure if a ball is hard hit soft hit, a chopper, grounder, liner, etc.

Now when Field F/x becomes available, all these debates will be settled since it's pretty much perfect in it's tracking of data but who knows when that will be available.
 
zitothebrave said:
they're not perfectly accurate measures (can't tell you the MPH and angle) but they can measure if a ball is hard hit soft hit, a chopper, grounder, liner, etc.

Now when Field F/x becomes available, all these debates will be settled since it's pretty much perfect in it's tracking of data but who knows when that will be available.
Click to expand...

Fine, when that comes out I will read up on it and then may change my opinion but for now defensive metrics are not as accurate as you make them out to be.
 
zitothebrave said:
Players don't enter their prime at 28, that's when their physical skills begin diminishing. You dont' enter your prime when your body reacts slower, you can't add muscle as easy and your hand/eye starts slipping. Just doesn't happen. Would be nice to dream about but it's not a multi-million dollar gamble I would want to be part of.
Click to expand...

Not really, prime years in baseball is around 27-34 or so.

Yadi Molina is a good example even though he's a dick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top