Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Monday, April 07, 2014
But Eckstein was a clubhouse lawyer...
The issue with the fielding is mostly tied to the spread that the system will estimate. For example, the 114 fielders in 2013 with at least 1000 innings, and including the “positional adjustment”, Fangraphs has those players with one standard deviation = 10.7 runs. http://tinyurl.com/fangraphsFLD2013 I presume that Win Shares is going to be less, probably half of that. So, if Fangraphs has [Manny] Machado at +34 runs, [Andrelton] Simmons at +32 and [Carlos] Gomez at +27 (and [Carlos] Beltran at -21!), this will drive the WAR result for many such players. Win Shares, by giving a fielding estimate a smaller standard deviation allows the offense portion to drive most of the results.
Right. And, to try to move the ball on this just an inch. .. .these discrepancies are caused by two issues. One issue is whether fielding events should be treated as proportional events or marginal events. A single only creates something like 0.29 runs; however, if one adds 100 ADDITIONAL singles to a team, marginal singles, then you’ll add something more than 60 additional runs. The marginal value of an offensive event is more than twice as great as the value of such an event integrated into the whole package. And second, there is an issue as to what is skill and what is luck. It is my view, based on what I know, that the differences between what is attributed to two fielders might equally plausibly be attributed to luck. In the same way that a hitter might hit .370 on balls in play one year and .230 the next, just based on luck; in the same way that a pitcher might give up 220 hits one year and 170 the next, just based on luck, it is reasonable to think that a fielder catching 70% of the catchable but non-routine plays, rather than 40%, might simply be luck. We don’t know. Unless or until we know, I’m using the conservative assumptions.
...I meet Rick Eckstein, when my Dad, took us to watch my nephew play while at UK. Rick was with Georgia. While talking to him I said, “If Boston had kept your brother, David in 2002 and let him play second, they would have won the WS and not the Angels.”... You got there in 2003, did anyone talk about that?
... yes, we would talk quite a bit about Eckstein, because he’s the perfect player to illustrate the need to focus on what players actually can do, rather than on how they look in the uniform. The Red Sox signed Eckstein in 1997; he hit .301 that year, hit .306 and scored 99 runs in 1998, 87-51 walks to strikeouts, hit .313 and scored 101 runs in 1999, 89 -48 walks to strikeouts, and then played decent at Pawtucket his first year at AAA, 2000—and we put him on waivers because he wasn’t athletic enough. It was ridiculous.
Hey Bill, are there pieces of baseball writing that you like to re-read (ostensibly for pleasure) every once in awhile? For me, Roger Angell’s “The Go Shouters” about the ‘62 Mets and their fans is particularly delightful, and of course the one about box scores (I think it’s simply called “Box Scores.” Thanks.
Thanks. But No; I don’t re-read anything. Even my own stuff. The only stuff I ever enjoyed re-reading was the stuff I would re-read to my kids.
...What did the Sox see after 2012 that convinced them that it was OK to let [Jonathan Papelbon] go that the Phils’ didn’t see and wasted $59 million?...
Well, actually, we didn’t let him go after 2012; we let him go after 2011, and it should be pointed out that he had a very good year in 2012 when, as I recall, we didn’t have such a good year and the guys we brought into replace him weren’t really too good. He actually left us. .. .I don’t know if you remember, but after the 2011 season we had a chaotic interval in which our manager and general manager both left, and some other people. Very early in that period, before we could get our feet back on the ground, Philadelphia made Papelbon a generous offer and he accepted it. I’m 99% sure we wouldn’t have matched the offer anyway, but I guess we’ll never know.
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
: Welcome back, Kyle Schwarber! | 2080 Baseball
(15 - 5:59pm, Oct 23)
: Why Steve Bartman should throw the first pitch at Game 3 of the World Series
(45 - 5:52pm, Oct 23)
Last: Tom NawrockiNewsblog
: red sox - Inside story of David Ortiz's injury: 'He was essentially playing on stumps' - WEEI | Rob Bradford
(31 - 5:35pm, Oct 23)
Last: Walt DavisNewsblog
: OTP 2016 Oct 17: Politics, Sports, and the 'League of Legends' World Championship
(2053 - 5:32pm, Oct 23)Last:
: 2016 Season Prediction OMNICHATTER
(80 - 5:13pm, Oct 23)
Last: Kiko SakataGonfalon Cubs
: NL pennant thread
(34 - 5:06pm, Oct 23)
: Epstein on Cubs clinching NLCS | MLB.com
(6 - 5:04pm, Oct 23)
Last: Kiko SakataNewsblog
: Sunday Notes: DH Dilemma, Indians, Gallardo, Glasnow, HoF Managers, more | FanGraphs Baseball
(3 - 5:02pm, Oct 23)
: Verlander deal? Astros all-in? Why MLB hot stove could be trade-heavy | New York Post
(3 - 4:55pm, Oct 23)
Last: Walt DavisNewsblog
: OT: October-November 2016 Soccer Thread
(72 - 4:17pm, Oct 23)
: OT: NBA 2016-17 Preseason Thread
(228 - 3:04pm, Oct 23)Last:
: Prospect Retrospective: Ricky Vaughn, RHP, Cleveland Indians - Minor League Ball
(13 - 2:07pm, Oct 23)
Last: Man o' SchwarNewsblog
: ESPN: Stark: Why super teams don't win the World Series
(15 - 12:27pm, Oct 23)
: NLCS Game 6 Chatter
(674 - 11:18am, Oct 23)Last:
RMc is Fairly IrrefutableHall of Merit
: Most Meritorious Player: 2016 Discussion
(6 - 7:17am, Oct 23)