Ha. Figure Filbert. I haven't heard that one in awhile. That's a great line that deserves resurrection.

Quite simply, the Cleveland Indians came to Boston wrapped so tightly they made Mitt Romney look like Wavy Gravy

Timely!

As long as this thread is about Manny, I'd like to point out he took the blame in the interview after the game for what was obviously Lugo's incompetence on that pop-up. I'll be surprised if any of the sportswriters who were questioning Manny's membership in the human race mention that.

I'd like to point out he took the blame in the interview after the game for what was obviously Lugo's incompetence on that pop-up


just Manny being Lugo

Manny can hit. He is great.

You can question his antics though. You cannot question his value at the plate. He is the best RH hitter I have ever seen.

The season was an interesting one for Manny. For most of the year, he clearly wasn't his old self. He probably had a few minor injuries, not serious enough to sit out, but possibly affecting his play. And then he took a month off with a relatively minor injury. He wasn't criticised as loudly as might otherwise happen, because he wasn't playing that well before hand anyway, and Ellsbury was playing better as his replacement than Manny did all year.

Now its playoff time, and Manny is on a tear. Is it related to taking the time off (assuming he wasn't really hurt bad)? And does it ever make sense for a player to take some time off if his team is comfortably ahead in the division race? (Not that that really describes the Sox in September.)

He is the best RH hitter I have ever seen.

You've never seen Frank Thomas or Albert Pujols hit?

How nice, the prince decieded to put forth some effort.

I don't think enough has been made of Manny's throw on Kenny Lofton last night. I know he's 40 years old, but he's still Kenny Lofton; how often do you think he gets thrown out at second on a ball off the wall? If Lofton is safe there, the Indians score at least once more that inning, maybe more, and the game is at least tied. Plus if Joel Skinner hasn't already been burned once by Manny's arm, he probably sends Lofton in the seventh.

Yeah, Lofton was actually safe, but still.

Thomas wasn't better, and Puljos hasn't been doing it long enough. The wonder of Manny is his consistancy.

And then he took a month off with a relatively minor injury.

I asked a friend of mine who is a professional trainer if a strained oblique is an injury of sufficient severity to warrant a month off.

He told me, for a baseball player who torques his waist so, an injury to the oblique is severely debilitating and the only way to deal with it is to rest until it is healed enough so it can withstand the torqueing again without undue pain.

Now that the results are in, it looks like Manny did the right thing resting it and getting in shape for the post-season.

Thomas wasn't better

Um, yes he was. Thomas's career numbers are still comparable to Ramirez's, even after a pretty steep decline phase.

He is the best RH hitter I have ever seen.

You've never seen Frank Thomas or Albert Pujols hit?

or me?

Or Mark McGwire?

uh oh, I think I broke the internet. What did I do wrong?

EDIT: victory!

Hell, Thomas had just about as good a year as Manny at the plate this year, despite being four years older.

I asked a friend of mine who is a professional trainer if a strained oblique is an injury of sufficient severity to warrant a month off.

It's the same injury that has kept Aaron Cook out of the Rockies' rotation since August. I don't think Cook is slacking.

Frank Thomas, from 1990-1997, seven full seasons + 1990 callup
.330/.452/.600, 182 OPS+

Albert Pujols, 2001-2007
.332/.420/.620, 167 OPS+

how often do you think he gets thrown out at second on a ball off the wall

When that wall is the Monster, the odds are much worse in Lofton's favor than they normally are.

Thomas's career numbers are still comparable to Ramirez's, even after a pretty steep decline phase.

Manny's still a better fielder.

pujols is a better fielder than either of them. still, thomas is a monster.

remember, guys, once you factor in defense Manny is below league average at LF.....

Thomas's decline phase actually wasn't very steep. But, offensively at least, he has an edge over Ramirez that will probably widen over the next few years-- though Manny, if he hangs in there, could easily surpass Thomas's games played total, and some other counting stats (hits, for instance).

Alex Rodriguez is not as good a hitter as Manny. Unless I'm missing something.

I just pulled up the last 3 years, but here are Manny, A-Rod, and Pujols:

Rigorous park adjusted linear weights runs per 150 games (around 630 PA actually):

05 45.2 55.5 50.3
06 51.8 29.6 59.1
07 18.3 68.2 43.6

Most of you can figure out which player is which, and from that who was the best CONTEXT-NEUTRAL hitter over these 3 years.

Manny, in those same 3 years, has given up:

-42
-39
-33

park adjusted runs in defense, so yes, he has been well-below an average left-fielder overall.

But it is probably not possible for the Red Sox to make or win the WS with Manny being a below average LF'er, right?

And since everyone can see how great a hitter he is almost every time he steps up to the plate or in those scores of Manny's great offensive stats that the media pours down our throats, and you can't really "see" his historically bad defense (and heck, his good arm makes up for it anyway), we can just pretend that his bad defense doesn't exist, or that it isn't as bad as it really is...

Manny, in those same 3 years, has given up:

-42
-39
-33

I will no way argue that Manny is the best RH hitter over the last X years. However, I *cannot* believe these numbers properly account for LF in Fenway. I believe he is a bad defender, but giving up 1 run every four games does not seem realistic. <It may be correct, but it does not *seem* realisitic>

I really would like to see how these numbers come about, because I've had a very hard time believing many of the defense numbers I've seen recently.

In another thread, mgl posted Mammy's road-only UZR's, and they were just as bad.

Is there a way to look at the "raw" data? Eg, look at how the runs are distributed (which games he let up runs in, which innings?) in a PBP metric it should be possible, right? I think a lot of people would find that interesting (and maybe more convincing)

In another thread, mgl posted Mammy's road-only UZR's, and they were just as bad.

This is hypothetical (having not seen the numbers), but if the road-only numbers were "just as bad" and not worse, I would see that as evidence that the numbers fail to correctly account for Fenway; Manny appears to be a better fielder in Fenway than elsewhere.

In another thread, mgl posted Mammy's road-only UZR's, and they were just as bad.

Well she is over 50 years old; give her a break!

Manny, of course...

Mammy, now that's funny! I'll post the road only numbers soon. Playing balls off the wall at Fenway is not really represented in UZR, so I am not sure what it means by "Manny plays better defense at home."

A player's road UZR is a good indication of a player's defense without a park factor possibly screwing things up. Of course, you cut your sample size in half as the price. Personally, I have no problem with park factors (and for most parks it doesn't really matter), but when someone says that the only reason Manny has poor UZR's is because I am "screwing up" the park factor at home, I give them his road UZR numbers, which is pretty good evidence that he is a poor fielder independent of park.

I just finished an article on the relationship between speed (aas measured by a Bill James type speed score) and defensive value, as measured by UZR. In the outfield the relationship is large. I've never seen the controverty with Manny being a poor outfielder. Even if we knew nothing about his numbers, a slow (not the slowest in baseball but definitely SLOW by OF standards) 30 something big, lumbering player is LIKELY to be a pretty bad outfielder. IOW, it is not like we are talking about someone like Ichiro who has poor UZR numbers but is fast and LOOKS like a great OF'er. Why should there be any argument that Manny is a very poor outfielder? It is pretty easy to tell more or less whether an OF'er is very good, good, average, poor, very poor, etc. (with some exceptions) by watching him a lot. The whole point of UZR and other PBP metrics is to tell us exactly (more or less, as far as sample error is concerned of course) how poor poor is or how good good is, etc.

I see nothing intuitively remarkable about the fact that everyone knows that Manny is a slow and poor OF'er and UZR and other metrics (like Dewan's) simply telling us that he happens to be monumentally poor.

There are other examples of players like that. If it were not for the advanced metrics,m I don't think anyone would know how monumentally bad Griffey was/is in RF and in CF. Or Bernie his last few years with the Yankees. Some players "look" a little better than they are and some players look a little worse than they are. I don't know if Manny looks better or worse than he really is, but that is what these advanced metrics do - fill in those gaps between what we think we see (or even CAN see) with the naked eye and what is, based on the data.

Here are Manny's road UZR numbers for the last 3 years combined:

179 games, -20 total runs, or -17 per 150.

(In 04, it was -15 per 150.)

If we go on the assumption that this is his true defensive value (IOW, we discard his home numbers, even after being park adjusted), it implies that his hitting value is "offset" by anwhere from 30% to 50%, and that he is around a win better than an average OF overall, or almost 3 wins over a replacement OF, over the last 3 years. That is worth around 12-14 mil per year as a FA in the current market.

As many of you know, a 3 win above replacement player (please don't compare that with BP's "wins over replacement") is nowhere near one of the best overall players in baseball.

Here are Manny's road UZR numbers for the last 3 years combined:

179 games, -20 total runs, or -17 per 150.

If we go on the assumption that this is his true defensive value (IOW, we discard his home numbers, even after being park adjusted)...

Manny, in those same 3 years, has given up:

-42
-39
-33

park adjusted runs in defense, so yes, he has been well-below an average left-fielder overall.

Am I understanding this correctly? Manny has been responsible for -114 park adjusted runs on defence over the past three years, of which -20 are on the road and -94 are at home? Doesn't that suggest that there's something bizarre going on with the park factors?

I think it suggests that defensive metrics still have a long-ass way to go more than anything else.

...but when someone says that the only reason Manny has poor UZR's is because I am "screwing up" the park factor at home, I give them his road UZR numbers, which is pretty good evidence that he is a poor fielder independent of park.

I don't doubt that Manny is a bad fielder; I think we're just quibbling about how bad. I also want to say that I cannot thank you enough for all of the work you've done with defensive metrics. This is an (extremely) small nitpick, and the only reason I'm being critical is that I'm very interested in the general question.

I do think that it is "intuitively remarkable" that the difference between Ramirez and a good LF is the same as the difference between Ramirez's 2007 at the plate and Julio Lugo's 2007 at the plate.

I am absolutely 100% willing to believe that Manny is a -17/150 fielder; the numbers you give in #29 seem correct to me.

Am I understanding this correctly? Manny has been responsible for -114 park adjusted runs on defence over the past three years, of which -20 are on the road and -94 are at home? Doesn't that suggest that there's something bizarre going on with the park factors?

A little off. The home and road numbers are per 150 and the -20 is total for 179 games. The correct h/r breakdown is:

-20 on road and -45 at home, assuming 179 games at home also (I don't know if this is correct).

Whether that "suggests" something "wrong" on the park factors, I really have no idea. Obviously both home and road are going to fluctuate so that the chance they are almost exactly the same is small.

I don't do a very good job of doing the park factors at Fenway, or more accurately speaking, the way I do the park factors is not tremendously applicable to Fenway, although probably not THAT bad.

Doesn't really matter. All evidence points to him being one of the worst fielders in baseball. Whether that is 11 or 30 runs bad, I don't really know (and that is a big difference, 11 or 30). If someone put a gun to my head, I would probably say -15 bad.

Either way, it is extremely useful information and to characterize advanced defensive metrics as in #31 above is just plain ignorant. I assume the poster has no clue how these metrics are developed and instituted, and if he does, he is apparently not intellectually capable of separating the weaknesses of ANY methodology that deals with sample data from its value.

#32, thanks.

-20 on road and -45 at home, assuming 179 games at home also (I don't know if this is correct).

Whether that "suggests" something "wrong" on the park factors, I really have no idea. Obviously both home and road are going to fluctuate so that the chance they are almost exactly the same is small.

I don't do a very good job of doing the park factors at Fenway, or more accurately speaking, the way I do the park factors is not tremendously applicable to Fenway, although probably not THAT bad.

I have no problem with any of this, but doesn't it run counter to what you said here in June?:

Village, I know exactly what you mean about Fenway. My park factor for LF at Fenway is perfectly adequate in the long run. I simply divide everyone's catch rate in LF at Fenway by .82 or so. In the short run, that is not correct of course, but in the long run when everyone has around the same distribution of balls hit near them in LF at Fenway, it is perfectly adequate to do it that way. Not to mention that Ramirez' road UZR is just as bad as his park adjusted home UZR.

And maybe I'm mis-reading or mis-interpreting the data incorrectly, but the difference between a true-talent level -20 player and a true-talent level -35 or 40 player (if such a beast truly exists) is enormous. While it still ranks Manny as one of the worst defensive players in baseball, it gives back a significant chunk of value.

And maybe I'm mis-reading or mis-interpreting the data incorrectly, but the difference between a true-talent level -20 player and a true-talent level -35 or 40 player (if such a beast truly exists) is enormous. While it still ranks Manny as one of the worst defensive players in baseball, it gives back a significant chunk of value.

MGL said something outrageous, including imply that those who disagreed have no capacity to understand the situation, only to have the outrageous claim disproven upon further reflection?

Count me astonished.

The quote in #34 about park adjustments and Fenway is correct. I do not handle individual balls in play in Fenway well. In the long run, with a perfectly "normal" distribution of balls in play, and an infinite sample size for baseline UZR in Femnway and in the road parks, that is fine. In the short run it adds to the sample error. Obviously the longer the run, the more adequate the Fenway park factor is. I don't think there is a bias (such that for example, a player in Fenway will tend to look worse than he "really" is). But there could be. If someone wants to eliminate any home park problems in the quirky parks for defense, by using only road numbers (and perhaps a fraction of the home ones), and cutting their sample size in half as the "price," I have no problem with that.

When I said that Manny's road numbers are just as bad as his (park adjusted) home numbers, I misspoke. His road numbers are around half as bad as his park adjusted home ones. I guess it has been proven that I am not infallible. Therefore everything I have said in the past and will say in the future has to be revised, ignored, discarded, given an asterisk, etc. Congratulations to #35. You are now a better man than I. I am going to have to completely reassess my sense of self.

Really, what is the point in arguing this? That is all the data and explanations I can come up with. I don't have any definitive conclusions other than what I said in my last post, that Manny is most likely a -15 or so fielder in LF. To be a "true" -20 or -30, you pretty much have to be a statue and there has to be a compelling reason why you are even playing the OF (like Bonds this year in LF or Griffey the last few years in the OF). Manny probably does not quite fit into that category, however, the compelling reasons why he is in LF is because they already have a great DH and it is hard to "insult" a star player making a gazillion dollars a year by telling him that he is no longer capable of playing a certain position and has to move to another one.

I am going to have to completely reassess my sense of self.


Following simple prodding and quick superficial analysis you've gone from asserting that Manny "has been a well-below average leftfielder overall" to "around a win better than an average OF overall," which is quite a difference.

When I said that Manny's road numbers are just as bad as his (park adjusted) home numbers, I misspoke. His road numbers are around half as bad as his park adjusted home ones. I guess it has been proven that I am not infallible. Therefore everything I have said in the past and will say in the future has to be revised, ignored, discarded, given an asterisk, etc.

Of course virtually everyone here will accept and appreciate your work in general even if you've made a mistake here, and you can feel free to disregard anyone who does otherwise. However, this mistake is pretty relevant when we're discussing Manny's defense, which we seem to do all the time. As you've said, there's a pretty huge difference between -17 per 150 (road last 3 years) and -56 per 150 (home last 3 years, based on 213 home games and your numbers above). This completely undercuts the claim that the park factors are probably okay because the road numbers are "just as bad".

Just dealing with the road numbers, I don't think anyone, including Manny's supporters, would have a problem believing -17 per 150 for Manny's defense. He's slow and awkward. Can we just refer to that as an appropriate estimate of Manny's value, and not throw around these -40 numbers?

Given 1) -17 runs per 150, 2) he's unlikely to be a plus defender anywhere, 3) his bat is less valuable in any position he could play other than LF, and 4) LF in Fenway probably minimizes the damage he does in the OF, isn't this precisely where he should be playing?

This completely undercuts the claim that the park factors are probably okay because the road numbers are "just as bad".

Yes, I misspoke.

Does that mean that the home numbers are irrelevant and should ne ignored? Not necessarily. I explained that above. Does that mean that the park factor adjustments are wrong and all home data should be discarded? Same answer. Are there better ways to do park adjustments in Fenway, other than the way I do it now? Probably, yes.

BTW, I think (I don't remember precisely) that I have ALWAYS said that Manny is probably a "true" fielder better than his sample UZR (home and road) numbers suggest. Virtually no one is a true -30 in the field.

Given 1) -17 runs per 150, 2) he's unlikely to be a plus defender anywhere, 3) his bat is less valuable in any position he could play other than LF, and 4) LF in Fenway probably minimizes the damage he does in the OF, isn't this precisely where he should be playing?

1 is probably about right (again, NO ONE knows for sure). 2 is right whether you mean another position or another park. Certainly he is going to be a well-below average fielder in ANY park. I don't know what you mean by 3. 4, I have some NEW evidence that a bad (at least slow) fielder's "damage" is in fact minimized in a small outfield. I don't know what you mean by "precisely where he should be playing." Relative to what? As I said, he should be a DH. He has much more value as a DH. But that always depends on the team a player is on.

If you mean the Red Sox, then that IS probably where he should be playing (LF), although you could probably make an argument that he play 1B (assuming he could play it reasonably well) and then move other players around or make some acquisition or get rid of some players (like Lowell leaves, Youk moves to third, Ellsbury and left and Crisp in center). I would have to take some time and analyze the alternatives. But as I also said, you can't just tell superstars to move positions. Plus, only a team and their coaching staff know which players can play which positions. Even though the average LF who moves to first picks up several runs (or more) in UZR, I have no idea whether Manny can play 1B, whether he would want to (probably not) or how good or bad he would be if he did play there.

What I meant by 3) is that if you put him at 1B, maybe he's an average 1B. If you replace him with an average-fielding LF, you gain 17 runs that way. However, I'd expect that if you had to find a LF that produces n runs with the bat or a 1B that produces n+17, the 1B is easier. Maybe that's not true, but then again is Manny really going to improve your defense by 17 runs by moving to first? Especially since we seem to agree on 4 (at the very least, I would think that he has fewer chances in Fenway). Would the difference between an average-hitting LF and DH even really be smaller than the runs you'd expect to save on defense?

Anyway, it appears that we're on the same page on this finally. Thanks for the work crunching all the numbers, I'm interested to see what comes out next.