Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Thursday, March 28, 2013

Bill James says Bradley Jr. could succeed where Carl Crawford did not

Be the first to collect four leftfielders without knocking over Mr. Tippet!

Tippet spoke in August at a seminar called Sabermetrics, Scouting and the Science of Baseball in a Boston University lecture hall that’s a five-minute walk from Fenway Park exactly three weeks before the Red Sox traded Crawford.

He and James had opposite viewpoints on how Crawford would fare. What follows is one of the more revelatory accounts you’ll find of a leading organization’s thought process and approach to evaluation, as told by Tippett.

  “The defensive thing, it’s an interesting question, because, we don’t always agree within our organization. And I’m glad about that. … On this one, Bill James, who’s sitting right over there, and I disagreed pretty fundamentally.

  Bill argued that Fenway Park would mostly negate Carl Crawford’s defensive value because he’d be playing 20 feet closer to home plate and reaction time would be diminished and his skills would to some degree be wasted in that environment.

  I argued the opposite. I argued that we still play half our games on the road, so at least half of his defensive value is still there. And then I did a study showing the distribution of batted balls around Fenway, and concluded that, for the medium and shallow balls, he would still have his defensive ability. And although his range might be reduced and he’s playing closer to home plate, so would everybody else’s range be reduced. So, relative to other players we could play out there, his range was still going to be better. And I concluded that we still retained I think 85 or 90 percent of his defensive value in that environment.

  So we had Bill saying most of it will go away, me saying most of it will stay. And then he goes out and has a year where according to most of the defensive metrics, he was about an average left fielder. And so far it looks like Bill was right and I was dead wrong. I’m not willing to rule on that yet, time will tell. But it’s a really interesting question and we did our best to figure that out before we made the signing. So far, it hasn’t worked out the way I thought it would.”

The trade came 21 days later.

...That raises the question of how much stock can be put into minor league fielding statistics. Major league data is indeed more comprehensive, James said. Therefore, Bradley’s case is particularly reliant on the partnership between scouting and stats comes into play.

“But I mean, we trust our scouts and I trust our scouts,” James said. “And our scouts say that he’s an exceptional outfielder. His speed is not the level that Ellsbury was at when he was a kid, when he was young, but his ability to read the ball and react is at an exceptional level, is what our scouts tell them. And I believe them.”

..Bradley Jr., however, could be more of an open book because of his youth. By extension — not per James’ direct words — he could be more adaptable than Shane Victorino as well.

“He’s a young player, and he’s going to go out and figure out how, he’s going to be asking himself … ‘how do I do this job?’” James said. “Whereas the guy who’s been in the majors for a long time, [thinks] ‘this is how I play this position’ and he doesn’t have the same flexibility. It may be that Jackie will learn to be valuable defensively in left field in Boston you have to shade toward center more because that’s where you want to be for the opportunity to run down balls. I don’t know.” .

Repoz Posted: March 28, 2013 at 09:34 AM | 48 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: red sox, sabermetrics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. alkeiper Posted: March 28, 2013 at 10:56 AM (#4398367)
And although his range might be reduced and he’s playing closer to home plate, so would everybody else’s range be reduced. So, relative to other players we could play out there, his range was still going to be better. And I concluded that we still retained I think 85 or 90 percent of his defensive value in that environment.


This feels like a terrible use of sabermetrics. Sure Crawford (in theory) is a better defensive outfielder, but the point is that value is entirely negated by the ballpark. When there is no place to apply range, range doesn't matter!
   2. Nasty Nate Posted: March 28, 2013 at 11:05 AM (#4398375)
but the point is that value is entirely negated by the ballpark. When there is no place to apply range, range doesn't matter!


But there is still some place to apply range in LF at Fenway, so it's not "entirely" negated.

--

Crawford for some reason deciding he didn't like to steal bases anymore also negated a bunch of his baserunning value.
   3. Dale Sams Posted: March 28, 2013 at 11:06 AM (#4398376)
Crawford is done as an all-out speedster. He's trying to protect his hammys.
   4. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: March 28, 2013 at 11:07 AM (#4398380)
Crawford is done as an all-out speedster. He's trying to protect his hammys.


Wind sprints, outdoors in Boston, are more dangerous for hammys than wind sprints indoors in Tampa.
   5. Nasty Nate Posted: March 28, 2013 at 11:09 AM (#4398383)
Crawford is done as an all-out speedster. He's trying to protect his hammys.


His contract is like the A Soriano contract except without the home runs and health. It's a miracle the Sox got rid of almost all of it.
   6. Dale Sams Posted: March 28, 2013 at 12:16 PM (#4398457)
In an ideal world, I'd prefer to see "Ellsbury succeed where Crawford did not." (Give him Crawford's money too, if he can perform what they were expecting out of Crawford) and "Bradley perform where Gomes and Victorino cannot"
   7. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: March 28, 2013 at 12:21 PM (#4398463)
Sure Crawford (in theory) is a better defensive outfielder, but the point is that value is entirely negated by the ballpark.


As Tippett points out, at worst, half his defensive value is negated by the park because only half the games are played there.
   8. ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: March 28, 2013 at 12:37 PM (#4398479)
Am I missing something obvious (probably) or is Fenway's LF actually not that different than Tropicana Field's? I mean, obviously there's the Wall in Fenway, and the devil is in the angle of the walls, but range-wise they don't seem wildly different if these measurements are right.

Fenway
Field dimensions
Left Field: 310 ft (94.5 m)
Deep Left-Center: 379 ft (115.5 m)
Center Field: 389 ft 9 in (118.8 m)

Tropicana Field
Field dimensions
Left Field – 315 ft (96 m)
Left-Center – 370 ft (110 m)
Center Field – 404 ft (123 m)

Has anyone added up the square footage of various OF spots around the league? That would be pretty interesting.
   9. OCD SS Posted: March 28, 2013 at 12:42 PM (#4398483)
Fenway's LF is small because of the monster and has no foul territory, but opens up to a pretty good sized CF. The bottom line is that if there were no room for range the only hits we'd ever see would be off the monster, and that's clearly not the case. Fenway might suppress the effects of good fielding (and clearly how much is the real issue at stake), but it's not negated.

Where Bradley might have an advantage is that his phenomenal reads might allow him to know which balls will hit off the monster, and which can be caught at the warning track. But I'd rather see JBJ in CF for now, and Elsbury in LF (if he's retained) or find someone else for LF (platoon, whatever) and have Victorino in RF (under the arrangement with the least moving parts).
   10. Nasty Nate Posted: March 28, 2013 at 12:54 PM (#4398498)
Am I missing something obvious (probably) or is Fenway's LF actually not that different than Tropicana Field's? I


It's not that different. The Trop does have more foul ground which can be covered by the LF. There is also a chance that the posted dimensions are not accurate, i.e. the monster might actually be closer than 310' down the line.

Has anyone added up the square footage of various OF spots around the league? That would be pretty interesting.


I agree. Square footage info of outfields and foul territories would be interested.
   11. Jim Wisinski Posted: March 28, 2013 at 01:05 PM (#4398509)
We have no idea how much of Crawford's defensive value was really affected by the switch to Fenway because his entire game went to #### with the Red Sox.
   12. John Northey Posted: March 28, 2013 at 01:20 PM (#4398524)
There is a reason the Red Sox had slow poor defensive guys in LF for years - Ted Williams, Jim Rice and Manny Ramirez for example - because they could. With the smaller LF and the ability to read the ball off the wall being important you can get away with it and have a far smaller defensive cost. Putting speed in LF is pretty much a waste of resources in Fenway. Better to put that talent in CF or RF or to put the cash into guys who suit the park a bit better.
   13. KJOK Posted: March 28, 2013 at 01:21 PM (#4398527)
This feels like a terrible use of sabermetrics. Sure Crawford (in theory) is a better defensive outfielder, but the point is that value is entirely negated by the ballpark. When there is no place to apply range, range doesn't matter!


Unless every ball hit to left field was either off the wall or caught, there's some room to apply range. There will be some balls hit over his head that he can't go catch, but there should then be corresponding balls hit behind the short stop and third baseman that he catches that other players would not. Plus as James alludes to there are balls hit into left-center that he should also be able to use his defensive skills to catch.

I really think Tippett was ultimately correct that he should retain about 85% of his value.
   14. Dan Posted: March 28, 2013 at 01:44 PM (#4398550)
We have no idea how much of Crawford's defensive value was really affected by the switch to Fenway because his entire game went to #### with the Red Sox.


This is 100% true. It's not like Crawford was playing just as well on defense and the value just wasn't there; he seemingly forgot how to play the outfield (culminating in dropping a line drive hit 5 feet in front of him in game 162).
   15. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: March 28, 2013 at 01:58 PM (#4398565)
I think the criticism of Crawford for Andino's hit is unfair. That was a clean single and would have required a hell of a play to catch it.

Jim is right, it's not like Crawford just stopped playing well defensively, he did EVERYTHING poorly in 2011. I've never met Carl Crawford but if I ever had to point to a season and say "this is what a good player who has lost confidence looks like" Carl Crawford's 2011 would be the season I would point too. It's not just the things he did poorly, it's the things he didn't do. He probably had as much experience as any non-Red Sox left fielder would have had with the Wall and the angles and the wind patterns but he spent the entire year running around like he'd never played there before. On the bases it's not that he stole bases badly, he just didn't steal. At the plate a guy who was never exactly Eddie Yost to begin with saw his walk rate collapse. He never seemed to take an extra base that any ordinary player wouldn't take on a base hit or a wild pitch.

He wasn't just bad, he was a different player. It was stunning to me.

One thing that struck me is that the articles by the press and the reactions of the players when he DID do something well make me think he's extremely well liked which makes me want to see him succeed.
   16. Robert in Manhattan Beach Posted: March 28, 2013 at 02:20 PM (#4398588)
I really think Tippett was ultimately correct that he should retain about 85% of his value.

Of course he was. I'm not sure what Bill James brings to the table at this point. He seems wrong or disinterested in everything these days.
   17. villageidiom Posted: March 28, 2013 at 02:28 PM (#4398596)
Am I missing something obvious (probably) or is Fenway's LF actually not that different than Tropicana Field's? I mean, obviously there's the Wall in Fenway, and the devil is in the angle of the walls, but range-wise they don't seem wildly different if these measurements are right.

Fenway
Field dimensions
Left Field: 310 ft (94.5 m)
Deep Left-Center: 379 ft (115.5 m)
Center Field: 389 ft 9 in (118.8 m)

Tropicana Field
Field dimensions
Left Field – 315 ft (96 m)
Left-Center – 370 ft (110 m)
Center Field – 404 ft (123 m)


"Deep Left-Center" in Fenway is where the Monster meets the bleachers, and is pretty close to center. Traditional left-center - from an angular view, say, halfway from left to center - is probably more like 345-350. An additional 20-25 feet is a pretty big difference in OF space.
   18. Dan Posted: March 28, 2013 at 02:35 PM (#4398601)
I think the criticism of Crawford for Andino's hit is unfair. That was a clean single and would have required a hell of a play to catch it.


Hell of a play or not, Tampa Bay's version of Carl Crawford catches that ball 100%, probably without even leaving his feet. I'm sure Jim Wisinski would agree (or any other Rays fan but he's the one on the site and in this thread).
   19. Fernigal McGunnigle has become a merry hat Posted: March 28, 2013 at 02:56 PM (#4398613)
"Deep Left-Center" in Fenway is where the Monster meets the bleachers, and is pretty close to center. Traditional left-center - from an angular view, say, halfway from left to center - is probably more like 345-350. An additional 20-25 feet is a pretty big difference in OF space.


Yes, and it's worth noting that the the deep left-center spot in Tropicana is about 415. It's a much bigger OF.
   20. DFA Posted: March 28, 2013 at 03:42 PM (#4398643)
Hell of a play or not, Tampa Bay's version of Carl Crawford catches that ball 100%, probably without even leaving his feet. I'm sure Jim Wisinski would agree (or any other Rays fan but he's the one on the site and in this thread).


I would agree...at the time I was absolutely shocked that Crawford didn't catch that ball.
   21. Dale Sams Posted: March 28, 2013 at 04:28 PM (#4398666)
I think the criticism of Crawford for Andino's hit is unfair. That was a clean single and would have required a hell of a play to catch it.


If you watch the play, you'll see he takes his eye off the ball to look up at the runner. Which (as with everything with Carl,) makes no sense since there were two outs. It, in fact, hits his glove...so it certainly wasn't a clean single.
   22. Pingu Posted: March 28, 2013 at 04:37 PM (#4398668)

"Deep Left-Center" in Fenway is where the Monster meets the bleachers, and is pretty close to center. Traditional left-center - from an angular view, say, halfway from left to center - is probably more like 345-350. An additional 20-25 feet is a pretty big difference in OF space.


Yes, and it's worth noting that the the deep left-center spot in Tropicana is about 415. It's a much bigger OF.



Yeah, and theres a jog in the Trop's LF wall, so the 315 only exists right down the line. Then it quickly bumps out.

The Wall in Fenway starts at 310 and makes a b-line to CF.

Any numbers quoted above are deceiving. Fenway LF is much much smaller in total area, without even accounting for the complete lack of foul territory.
   23. booond Posted: March 28, 2013 at 04:46 PM (#4398676)
I think the criticism of Crawford for Andino's hit is unfair. That was a clean single and would have required a hell of a play to catch it.


He played it about as well as Manny would play it.
   24. booond Posted: March 28, 2013 at 04:48 PM (#4398678)
There is a reason the Red Sox had slow poor defensive guys in LF for years - Ted Williams, Jim Rice and Manny Ramirez for example - because they could. With the smaller LF and the ability to read the ball off the wall being important you can get away with it and have a far smaller defensive cost.


Having an accurate arm helps. Play the ball off the wall and there are some easy assists to be had.
   25. Chris Fluit Posted: March 28, 2013 at 05:15 PM (#4398698)
Exactly. The fielding requirements in Fenway are essentially the opposite of other parks due to its unique dimensions. Typically, you want the faster guy in left and the stronger arm in right. But in Fenway, the extra speed is wasted in left but helpful in right, while an accurate arm is a surprise weapon in left. The Sox should have played Crawford in center or left from the beginning.
   26. Walt Davis Posted: March 28, 2013 at 05:56 PM (#4398717)
Still, it doesn't _negate_ the value.

Half the games are on the road. He's been about a +10 LF in Tampa so that's +5 right there.

Then, in Fenway, obviously there are some balls that a more range-y LF gets to that a less range-y LF does not. You might derive less positive value out of LF range but clearly it's positive value. Whether that should be 1, 2, 3 or 4 runs is obviously debatable.

Also, Crawford went from +8 the year before (or about +10 over the previous 3) to -2. Ten run swings in defensive value happen all the freaking time. In 2005 he was +13 to +4 to -2 to + 11.

   27. tfbg9 Posted: March 28, 2013 at 06:03 PM (#4398719)
I agree with #18: One of the reasons Carl got the big contract was to supposedly make catches on balls like Andino hit. He's gotta catch that ball.
   28. Jim Wisinski Posted: March 28, 2013 at 06:05 PM (#4398721)
Yes, there's no reason for Crawford to not catch that ball. It should have been a pretty routine play for him if he was the player he was the previous eight seasons.
   29. OCD SS Posted: March 28, 2013 at 09:28 PM (#4398836)
So are #18, 27 & 28 arguing that because Crawford didn't catch one specific batted ball, it is essentially a validation of Bill James' position in the argument of his defensive value in Fenway? (I know they're not, but still, c'mon... there are plenty of balls through the season that he just "had" to catch if he's playing like he did in Tampa, arguing about this one is just a glaring example of something individually memorable but statistically insignificant being over weighted.)

Take #11 and add in every lecture you've ever read from Tango or MGL about the variability of defensive stats. Given everything else that went wrong over the entire organization, is it really that much of a surprise that the bet the FO placed on a defensive-whiz LFer also came snake eyes, along with everything else? Take the mulligan and move on, unless you actually think that James is right.
   30. GGC don't think it can get longer than a novella Posted: March 28, 2013 at 09:43 PM (#4398845)
Rice did have 15 triples in 77 and 78. I'm not sure he was that slow when he was young.

In ancient times, when there were more day games, I imagine RF was a ##### to play. The sun must have been murder.
   31. booond Posted: March 28, 2013 at 09:58 PM (#4398866)
Rice did have 15 triples in 77 and 78. I'm not sure he was that slow when he was young.


He wasn't slow in the early years but he was never graceful in the field. He played the wall well and had an accurate arm.
   32. booond Posted: March 28, 2013 at 10:05 PM (#4398871)
GD double post
   33. bjhanke Posted: March 29, 2013 at 04:01 AM (#4398947)
Triples totals for young players in Fenway may not be entirely speed-related. If you hit the ball very hard, which Rice did, it may take the LFs of the league a while to figure out that the ball is coming off The Monster a lot faster and further for Rice than for another hitter. Triples may mostly come from balls that hit The Monster, surprise the LF, and bounce back past him. For related reasons, playing defense in LF in Fenway is intelligence or knowledge related as much as raw range related. If you can figure out how to play the wall, that makes a large difference. A faster guy who doesn't have that grasp may be a worse defender there, where he would be a better glove in a normal park, because he has more range. I have no idea whether Crawford is a bright, informed defender, or just a speed burner, and trying to figure that out leads to dangerous analytical territory. - Brock Hanke
   34. villageidiom Posted: March 29, 2013 at 06:23 AM (#4398955)
Triples totals for young players in Fenway may not be entirely speed-related. If you hit the ball very hard, which Rice did, it may take the LFs of the league a while to figure out that the ball is coming off The Monster a lot faster and further for Rice than for another hitter.
7 at home 8 on the road. Rice's triples in '78 weren't a Fenway thing.
   35. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: March 29, 2013 at 06:52 AM (#4398956)
I would guess that most of Rice's triples at Fenway were hit to the Triangle. And, not that this is mentioned or relevant to the conversation, Rice had power to all fields.
   36. J. Sosa Posted: March 29, 2013 at 07:27 AM (#4398957)
I'm surprised by some of the reactions to Bill James' thoughts on this issue. Fenway does some strange things. I remember not so long ago MGL and others insisting Manny was a true talent negative eleventy billion left fielder. Look, Manny was terrible. It always amazed me how many soft liners fell in front of him while he also seemed to allow a number of soft liners within catching distance off the wall. How he managed to allow both was maddening. But given the constraints of the fielding requirements of the position the negative eleventy billion position was highly dubious. A few posters pointed this out, but IIRC that did not stop Van and others from insisting IIRC that Manny actually had negative value. As I've gotten older I've tended to value more than I used to studying the way players were deployed. Yes managers down through the years for the Red Sox have often been incompetent. But they have also, as baseball men all been pretty clear with the players they deployed in LF exactly how much defense matters in Fenway. Not much. There were a number of discussions amongst Red Sox fans whether it was a good signing. One camp held that the contract placed way too much value on Crawford's fielding and that the contract had enormous bust potential largely because of the Fenway issue. I don't recall which side I was on I think I was just excited to get Crawford. I don't think the impact of Fenway is quite as much as James suggested but the 85 percent number strikes me as too optomistic. Even if that were true given what Crawford would have to do to justify the contract that even that number should have been a red flag. I also find the assumptions that Crawford's defense on the road would be unchanged to be dubious. It may well be that Fenway LFs have the fielding equivalent of Coors. Having watched Crawford forget how to catch a baseball that season an assertion that it was random fluctuation strains credulity for me.

Apologies for any incoherence, on mobile.
   37. tfbg9 Posted: March 29, 2013 at 08:27 AM (#4398972)
IIRC, Rice hit his Fenway triples mostly to right-center, yes VI.
   38. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: March 29, 2013 at 08:30 AM (#4398973)
Triples may mostly come from balls that hit The Monster, surprise the LF, and bounce back past him


Nah, even if the left fielder misplays it the ball is bouncing back to the shortstop. Triples at Fenway are going to be on balls down the right field line that don't get cut off and balls to the triangle.
   39. SandyRiver Posted: March 29, 2013 at 09:23 AM (#4398993)
7 at home 8 on the road. Rice's triples in '78 weren't a Fenway thing.

And 8 at Fenway, 7 on the road the year before, so his two big triples years split 15-15. One odd 3B I saw (on the tube) was a screeching liner that normally would've been one hop to the CF, but took a weird bounce about 12' high and rolled to the wall. Like it had backspin (or more likely hit a bump in the lawn.)

As for LF "non-defenders", Yaz was pretty good out there, IIRC.
   40. chris p Posted: March 29, 2013 at 10:38 AM (#4399065)
there were a whole pile of other problems with crawford, but this:
Bill argued that Fenway Park would mostly negate Carl Crawford’s defensive value because he’d be playing 20 feet closer to home plate and reaction time would be diminished and his skills would to some degree be wasted in that environment.
is brilliant. there are a few paths to great range. crawford's raw speed could make up for a mediocre to average read and if the ball had any hang time at all, he could get under it. playing shallower, instincts and read off hte bat were more important than raw speed, so his edge is mitigated. bradley is totally the opposite. average speed with great insticts!
   41. Darren Posted: March 29, 2013 at 11:02 AM (#4399090)
Rice was also a fine defender for much of his career. The problem was that he was trying to break into an outfield that won 19 (!) Gold Gloves among them. Overall, BBRef has him as a slightly-above-average OF. Given his speed and decent arm, that sounds about right.
   42. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: March 29, 2013 at 12:05 PM (#4399150)
is brilliant. there are a few paths to great range. crawford's raw speed could make up for a mediocre to average read and if the ball had any hang time at all, he could get under it. playing shallower, instincts and read off hte bat were more important than raw speed, so his edge is mitigated. bradley is totally the opposite. average speed with great insticts!


Ellsbury has tended towards the more speed, less read camp as well. When the Sox re-sign him, as they should, it will be interesting to see who ends up as the CF and who ends up in LF.
   43. Dale Sams Posted: March 29, 2013 at 12:56 PM (#4399178)
#36 re: Manny. And then he would turn around and catch a ball you thought he had no chance on...high-five a fan and double up a runner.

Also he had a very quick release. Just sort of flung it from the hip. Which kind of works.
   44. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: March 29, 2013 at 01:17 PM (#4399187)
I think Manny's best defensive skill was his accuracy. He would get lazy and make some horrific throws on fairly routine plays but if he had a play at the plate on someone he usually put the throw right on the money.
   45. jmurph Posted: March 29, 2013 at 01:23 PM (#4399188)
but if he had a play at the plate on someone he usually put the throw right on the money.


Unfortunately Jason Varitek, in his entire tenure with the Sox, caught not a single throw from an outfielder when there was a play at the plate. Not even one.
   46. BFFB Posted: March 29, 2013 at 01:40 PM (#4399198)
As Tippett points out, at worst, half his defensive value is negated by the park because only half the games are played there.


Without looking at any numbers I'd posit that defensive value is not equally distributed between home and away and that more of a players defensive value is at home because he'll be more familiar with the dimensions, how things like wind affect the flight of the ball or the stands interfere with visibility.
   47. Walt Davis Posted: March 29, 2013 at 06:31 PM (#4399363)
#36 and others:

I think everyone is agreed that range in Fenway LF is going to be less valuable than LF range just about anywhere else. But that doesn't mean it has zero value much less negative value. If you have a choice between the range-y guy and the non-range-y guy, all else equal, you'll take the range-y guy.

And then half the games are on the road. (Is defensive value primarily a home park thing? I don't know.)

But they have also, as baseball men all been pretty clear with the players they deployed in LF exactly how much defense matters in Fenway. Not much.

Again, half the games are on the road. But equally relevantly, teams do this with LF all the time. Luzinski, the fat Rico Carty, Manny in LA, the 40-year-old Aaron -- nobody was playing them for their defense and it had nothing to do with their home park. You'd have thought we might see the end of this with the advent of the DH but it doesn't seem to have slacked off all that much.

It's fine to call upon the wisdom of baseball men but I think the wisdom being offered is that bat always beats glove and it's not very close. Alternatively the wisdom is that you need some big bats in the lineup and you usually need to hide one of them in LF. That wisdom would suggest not signing a "good all-around" LF long-term because sooner or later you're going to want that spot for a slugger.
   48. J. Sosa Posted: March 29, 2013 at 07:18 PM (#4399389)
re: 47

Obviously you take the rangy guy. But that was not what was being said (you may be referring to LF at Fenway in general rather than what was said about Manny in particular). What was being said about Manny is that his defense in left field, with half his games at Fenway, was so bad that his overall value was negligible or even negative. As several people pointed out at the time, given the distribution of batted balls over the course of a season in Fenway that was ridiculous.

I don't disagree about saving slugging positions for sluggers, but I do heartily disagree with the notion that a fielder plays road parks as well as he does his home park. Not in a sport with asymmetrical stadiums.

I feel like this thread is going in a circle. "The road games count too" thing, well... Yeah. But it seems like Tippett and several others assume a player's defensive ability plays the same on the road as it does in a park where he starts 81 times. I find that unlikely. I tend to agree with Obi and (presumably) James.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
The Piehole of David Wells
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: Politics, August 2014: DNC criticizes Christie’s economic record with baseball video
(5865 - 11:05am, Aug 28)
Last: Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick.

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 8-28-2014
(7 - 10:58am, Aug 28)
Last: Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq.

NewsblogSimmons' run-saving stop
(15 - 10:54am, Aug 28)
Last: Lassus

NewsblogPassan: How macho baseball culture wants to ruin Yu Darvish's arm
(7 - 10:50am, Aug 28)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread August, 2014
(723 - 10:41am, Aug 28)
Last: Juilin Sandar to Conkling Speedwell (Arjun)

NewsblogReports: The Astros may still be able to sign top pick Brady Aiken
(30 - 10:40am, Aug 28)
Last: billyshears

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 8-28-2014
(6 - 10:29am, Aug 28)
Last: boteman is not here 'til October

NewsblogBrooklyn Cyclones, Nickelodeon to host '90s night
(18 - 10:26am, Aug 28)
Last: billyshears

NewsblogRoyals Walk Off; Ned Yost Complains About Attendance
(10 - 10:00am, Aug 28)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogJack White, Eddie Vedder, and Paul Simon take in a Seattle Mariners game
(33 - 9:58am, Aug 28)
Last: A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose)

NewsblogCameron: Next year really might be THE year, Cubs fans
(45 - 9:41am, Aug 28)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogC.J. Wilson on Spin Rate, Arm Angles and Exploiting Weaknesses
(17 - 9:39am, Aug 28)
Last: Juilin Sandar to Conkling Speedwell (Arjun)

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - August 2014
(350 - 9:19am, Aug 28)
Last: Der-K and the statistical werewolves.

NewsblogPosnanski: Money money money
(18 - 9:07am, Aug 28)
Last: bookbook

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 8-27-2014
(21 - 8:10am, Aug 28)
Last: RMc's desperate, often sordid world

Page rendered in 0.6840 seconds
52 querie(s) executed