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

Monday, September 27, 2004

ESPN: Gammons: The many points of interest

The latest effects from Gammo rays…

Dave Roberts says Orlando Cabrera is one of those players who is not particularly good playing on bad teams where the only things that count are sabermetrics, but is much better playing for a good team where little things can make the difference between winning and losing…

Roberts is right about Cabrera, and the same thing can be said about Derek Jeter—who the stats Nazis will insist from their garages isn’t an exceptional shortstop.

Repoz Posted: September 27, 2004 at 10:44 PM | 210 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags:

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.

Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 > 
   1. Miko Supports Shane's Spam Habit Posted: September 27, 2004 at 11:11 PM (#881102)
Any loss of revenues is a serious issue when you're in a division with the Yankees and Red Sox. It's hard for anyone to play in their leagues; the Angels are expected to cut back $20 million from their $112 million payroll, and the Dodgers are expected to have some rollback, as well.

Aren't the Sox going to cut back in '05, too?
   2. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: September 27, 2004 at 11:13 PM (#881109)
So which one of us pissed in Gammons corn flakes this morning?
   3. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: September 27, 2004 at 11:15 PM (#881112)
Awful nice of Gammons to tout the book that Neyer had a snit about.
   4. CFBF Is A Golden Spider Duck Posted: September 27, 2004 at 11:16 PM (#881115)
This thread's going to occupy a few hundred posts, I predict.
   5. Smiley Posted: September 27, 2004 at 11:17 PM (#881118)
"Stats Nazis?" That's a little rough. It's not like anyone's slamming light-hitting first-basemen into ovens here.
   6. Bob T Posted: September 27, 2004 at 11:19 PM (#881125)
But what do you do when the OP already invokes Godwin's Law?
   7. Miko Supports Shane's Spam Habit Posted: September 27, 2004 at 11:23 PM (#881133)
He defended the Dodgers' trade. That kind of sets him apart among mainstream sportswriters.
   8. Bob T Posted: September 27, 2004 at 11:26 PM (#881140)
That sets Gammons apart from Bill Plaschke of the LA Times who wrote three columns about the weekend Dodgers-Giants series.
Fri: Dodgers win - "The Dodgers are a gutty team that is hanging on."
Sat: Dodgers lose - "DePodesta broke up the best bullpen in the majors and that's why the team lost."
Sun: Dodgers win - "The Dodgers are a gutty team that will hang on."
   9. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: September 27, 2004 at 11:26 PM (#881143)
On that subject, last winter the Yankee baseball people -- who have a very successful history -- wanted Vladimir Guerrero. Problem was, George Steinbrenner wanted Gary Sheffield and we know who wins those battles. But Steinbrenner was right

I think the jury's still out on this one. Sheffield has been very slightly better this year, but it remains to be seen if that will be true in 2005 and 2006. Given their respective ages, I have more faith in Guerrero continuing to produce than Sheffield.


New Englanders are paranoid about Pedro Martinez going to the Yankees, but unless the Yanks get knocked out quickly and Steinbrenner insists on getting Pedro, they are expected to go after Carl Pavano.

I'll guarantee Yankee fans that settling for Pavano rather than Martinez won't turn out as well as Sheffield in lieu of Guerrero.
   10. AK47 Posted: September 27, 2004 at 11:29 PM (#881148)
RE: Big Unit/Cy Young discussions. I think it should be noted that ESPN is not the one who doesn't think he should be a cy young candidate, it's the voters who are the close-minded ones.
   11. Los Angeles Waterloo of Black Hawk Posted: September 27, 2004 at 11:34 PM (#881158)
Did Dave Roberts really refer to sabermetrics by name?

And, anyway, Cabrera was a Win Shares superstar a few years ago by his defense ...
   12. Richie Posted: September 27, 2004 at 11:39 PM (#881162)
Does MLB ever adopt a new divisional format, sorted by team salaries?
   13. Toolsy McClutch Posted: September 27, 2004 at 11:39 PM (#881164)
Just when you think he's out, they keep pulling him back in!
   14. VoiceOfUnreason Posted: September 27, 2004 at 11:54 PM (#881182)
So Gammons is claiming that Jeter would be more ordinary if he weren't playing for a championship franchise every year? This is a good thing?
   15. Srul Itza Posted: September 27, 2004 at 11:58 PM (#881189)
stats Nazis

Hey rLr, I think I found your new offensive handle.

;-)
   16. Guapo Posted: September 28, 2004 at 12:05 AM (#881202)
who the stats Nazis will insist from their garages isn't an exceptional shortstop

No stats for you! One year!

But seriously folks... garages? I don't get it. Should I be hanging around garages for intelligent baseball talk? Is that where sabrmetricians hang out these days?
   17. Bob T Posted: September 28, 2004 at 12:05 AM (#881203)
"No Stats for you!"
   18. Guapo Posted: September 28, 2004 at 12:05 AM (#881207)
Yes! I won by a picosecond! Off to the garage to celebrate...
   19. Bob T Posted: September 28, 2004 at 12:09 AM (#881214)
I don't even have a garage. But I'm not a big stats guy either. I just dislike Derek Jeter on general principles, but Bruce Markusen says that's wrong.
   20. DCW3 Posted: September 28, 2004 at 12:10 AM (#881216)
This is plagiarism. Dan O'Neill of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch was calling us "stats Nazis" months ago.
   21. Bob T Posted: September 28, 2004 at 12:14 AM (#881218)
If someone found a stat proving that Albert Pujols was better than Barry Bonds, Dan O'Neill would be using a different phrase.
   22. RickG Posted: September 28, 2004 at 12:17 AM (#881223)
Bob:

I guarantee from this very second until the end of time, Albert Pujols will hit more home runs than Barry Bonds.

Suck on that, O'Neill :)

Seriously...why do I have a scary feeling that Rafael Palmeiro will play 1B for Your Chicago White Sox next year?
   23. caprules Posted: September 28, 2004 at 12:20 AM (#881230)
Which statement is more extreme, Gammons calling Jeter an exceptional shortstop, or this post from mgl?

"Posted by mgl on July 27, 2004 at 05:30 PM (#759148)
For the record, Jeter's park adjusted lwts per 150 do far this year is -4 (that's 4 runs per 150 games below the average player), and his UZR is -7 per 150.

That makes him a slightly above average SS, which is about where is has been career-wise, which makes him so far from an MVP-caliber player it is not even funny, and continues to make him perhaps the most overrated player in the history of sports (IMO).

If it weren't for the Jeter mystique, the undervaluing of defense, and various and sundry other fortuitous events and circumstances, he would barely be a blip on the radar screen of baseball players... "

Jeter is overrated in most aspects of his game (but is still a good player and has had a great career so far). Jeter is overpaid in relation to today's market. Some people are so eager to point out Jeter's flaws that they go overboard and leave the impression that Jeter is less than a good player.

I doubt that there is a shortstop in recent memory that accumulated 1500+ hits in his first 8 seasons that could be referred to as a blip on the radar. Jeter is not worthy of being in a MVP discussion. But there's no reason to go overboard and try to say that Jeter has been barely above average in his career.
   24. K. Andrew Smith Posted: September 28, 2004 at 12:21 AM (#881234)
does Wilpon realize that baseball executives in other cities tell stories of how one of your scouts boasts that he has more power than the general manager (without the hard work) and how many times some of us have been told by scouts and executives all around the game that that scout is "doing a number" on the GM?

This is sickening.
   25. Sam M. Posted: September 28, 2004 at 12:34 AM (#881296)
That's undoubtedly Al Goldis, 3AM. And if he's still working for the Mets within a week after the season ends, the franchise is a complete lost cause.
   26. CFiJ Posted: September 28, 2004 at 12:35 AM (#881306)
Which statement is more extreme, Gammons calling Jeter an exceptional shortstop, or this post from mgl?

Gammons.

Still, what surprises me is that whenever the accolades fall on Jeter, no one mentions baserunning, which is something I think he's extremely good at. His SB% is always very high, he takes the extra base as good or better than anyone in MLB, and you rarely see him make a mistake. I suppose the YES drones go on and on about it, but I always find it odd that its never even mentioned in the national media.

A digression. Just now going to MLB.com to check Jeter's SB%, I notice that Bonds is no longer listed in the top 5 in MLB for BA. Has the man actually been walked so often this year he no longer even qualifies for the NL batting title? Good God...
   27. Los Angeles Waterloo of Black Hawk Posted: September 28, 2004 at 12:40 AM (#881319)
Jeter is not worthy of being in a MVP discussion. But there's no reason to go overboard and try to say that Jeter has been barely above average in his career.

MGL would hold, apparently, that Jeter's defense has been so bad that it negates much of his offensive value. I don't know how true that is.
   28. Miko Supports Shane's Spam Habit Posted: September 28, 2004 at 12:40 AM (#881321)
Has the man actually been walked so often this year he no longer even qualifies for the NL batting title?

I'm pretty sure you qualify based on PA, not AB's.
   29. CFBF Is A Golden Spider Duck Posted: September 28, 2004 at 12:44 AM (#881337)
So, does Duquette resign at the end of the season, or does he rationalize enough to stay aboard the U.S.S. Metropolitan?
   30. Sam M. Posted: September 28, 2004 at 12:49 AM (#881355)
does Duquette resign at the end of the season, or does he rationalize enough to stay aboard the U.S.S. Metropolitan?

God, I hope he either is given the authority or he says, "Screw it." Simple test: he should say that from now on, no one with the last name "Wilpon" should have a meeting with any member of the front office staff other than Duquette. Everyone reports to Duquette, and Duquette reports to ownership. Period.

And, if Goldis is still around after that Gammons item, then Duquette should tell them to take the job and shove it.
   31. Gavvy's Cravat Posted: September 28, 2004 at 12:51 AM (#881363)
the Mets will have to hire an alternative, perhaps a proven winner like Jim Fregosi

A 1028-1095 (.484) record and two first-place finishes in 15 years of managing makes Fregosi a "proven winner"? I mean, I have fond memories of 1993, but "proven winner" sounds like a bit of an exaggeration.
   32. I am going to be Frank Posted: September 28, 2004 at 12:52 AM (#881365)
As a Yankee fan I think he's overpaid, however, while watching the little league world series, I saw that a lot of the kids said that Jeter was there favorite player, so that does count for something. Basically a whole generation of Jeter fans, which unless he moves on to another team, are Yankee fans also.
   33. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: September 28, 2004 at 12:54 AM (#881380)
I doubt that there is a shortstop in recent memory that accumulated 1500+ hits in his first 8 seasons that could be referred to as a blip on the radar.

Well, I obviously can't speak for MGL, but I'm pretty sure he'd be of the opinion that counting stats are merely bits of trivia and that only a player's marginal value over replacement level is relevant for determining a player's worth.

Jeter's offensive would be more valuable if he were playing in the 1970s when the offensive performance of the average shortstop were much lower. But given that a good hitting shortstop is no longer the rarity it once was, Jeter's marginal offensive value is reduced to the point where it's nearly negated by his poor defense.
   34. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: September 28, 2004 at 12:57 AM (#881392)
Forgive the poor subject-verb agreement in the second paragraph. I hit "Submit" right before I spotted it. Oh well.
   35. caprules Posted: September 28, 2004 at 01:01 AM (#881418)
I don't love Win Shares, but WS has Jeter in a four way tie for WS at shortstop this year with 24, with the leader at 26 and average being around 10 or so. If you like BPro better, he's listed 4th there at 55.8, with the leader at 76.6 with average being around 15-20. For this year, anyway, Jeter is closer to being called an exceptional SS rather than being called barely above average.
   36. Hendry's Wad of Cash (UCCF) Posted: September 28, 2004 at 01:03 AM (#881420)
Jeter is not worthy of being in a MVP discussion.

Well, get ready for it. I've been predicting since "the catch" against Boston back in July that Jeter would show up on more than a few MVP ballots this offseason.

He's got "the catch". He's got Toolsy McClutch. He's got captain. He's got rebounding after the tough start. And, perhaps most importantly, he's got making ARod's transition as easy as possible by his selflessness of welcoming him to switch positions.

Add those in to the probable fact that his defense is slightly better this year, and I bet he gets at least 1 first place vote.

I don't think he'll win. But I bet he's top 10.
   37. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: September 28, 2004 at 01:07 AM (#881428)
As a Yankee fan I think he's overpaid, however, while watching the little league world series, I saw that a lot of the kids said that Jeter was there favorite player, so that does count for something. Basically a whole generation of Jeter fans, which unless he moves on to another team, are Yankee fans also.

I wonder how many of them are Yankee fans because of Jeter, or Jeter fans because he's a Yankee. I'm sure it's a little of both.

Disclaimer: I like Jeter for what he is, an above average shortstop, even though I realize he is overrated by a lot of people.
   38. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: September 28, 2004 at 01:48 AM (#881573)
I like Derek Jeter because he unnecessarily dives into the stands after making a running catch.
   39. Nobody ##### with DeJesus Posted: September 28, 2004 at 01:59 AM (#881618)
and Brian Roberts.
   40. mgl Posted: September 28, 2004 at 02:00 AM (#881622)
Well, I obviously can't speak for MGL, but I'm pretty sure he'd be of the opinion that counting stats are merely bits of trivia and that only a player's marginal value over replacement level is relevant for determining a player's worth.

Depends on what you mean by "worth."

My statements about Jeter are merely about what his "value per unit time" has been over the last few years and what his value per unit time is likely to be next year and over the next few years, based on his offensive, defensive (UZR), and baserunning lwts. And that value is somewhere around that of the average SS in baseball. That is irrefutable.

What may be refutable for wehatever reason is that his UZR reflects his true defensive value. Then again, perhaps his offensive lwts or VORP does not reflect his true offensive value. Who knows? All we can do is make educated and usually pretty accurate guesses about a player's true value based on (good) metrics that measure all aspects of a player's potential value to his team in terms of adding or subtracting marginal runs to their offense and defense, as compared to another (average, replacement, whatever) player.

No spin here.

What Gammons said about Jeter makes no sense. What, his poor defensive ratings (ZR, UZR, RF, et al.) would be even poorer if he played for another team?
   41. caprules Posted: September 28, 2004 at 02:08 AM (#881643)
MGL, have you looked at Jeter's numbers again since you found the HBP error in this year's database? Does that change anything? Jeter is currently in the top 10 range of HBP. Also, is there some study available that shows why infielders aren't given credit for line drives in UZR? My personal observation shows that Jeter is at least average if not better in catching LDs.
   42. Nobody ##### with DeJesus Posted: September 28, 2004 at 02:12 AM (#881664)
Is Peter King turning into the football Gammons?

Last week, on the 21st night of September, defensive back Earthwind Moreland, named after the R&B group Earth, Wind and Fire, was signed to the New England Patriots' practice squad.

Which brings to mind the 1975 Earth, Wind and Fire song September, which begins:

Do you remember
The 21st night of September?
Love was changing the minds of pretenders,
While chasing the clouds away.
   43. mgl Posted: September 28, 2004 at 02:22 AM (#881710)
jmp, his current batting (and SB/CS) lwts per 620 PA's is +15, including HBP's. His projected batting lwts (according to me) going into this year was +13. So nothing has "changed" there.

His current (as of a week ago) UZR per 150 games is -4 as compared to a projected -19.

His pre-season projected total position-adjusted run value was +3 per 150 games (3 runs above the average SS). His current projection (with his 2004 UZR numbers) is +7.

So he is now (his current projection) 7 runs above an average SS per 150 games or around 24 runs, or 2.2 wins, above a replacement SS. Give me a replacement SS and Jeter's 19 mil per year. I can buy a lot (6-10) of wins with that, but maybe not much leadership and character...
   44. Boots Day Posted: September 28, 2004 at 02:27 AM (#881736)
My statements about Jeter are merely about what his "value per unit time" has been over the last few years and what his value per unit time is likely to be next year and over the next few years, based on his offensive, defensive (UZR), and baserunning lwts. And that value is somewhere around that of the average SS in baseball. That is irrefutable.

It's easily refutable. It's probably even wrong.

Unless you're saying that his value as you calculate it, based on the assumptions built into your various weights, are around that of an average shortstop, in which case it's simply tautological.
   45. Chris Dial Posted: September 28, 2004 at 02:28 AM (#881742)
jmp,
by-and-large, catching line drives on the infield is mostly a function of having line drives hit at you.
   46. GGC don't think it can get longer than a novella Posted: September 28, 2004 at 02:31 AM (#881750)
Last week, on the 21st night of September, defensive back Earthwind Moreland, named after the R&B group Earth, Wind and Fire, was signed to the New England Patriots' practice squad.

Which brings to mind the 1975 Earth, Wind and Fire song September, which begins:

Do you remember
The 21st night of September?
Love was changing the minds of pretenders,
While chasing the clouds away.



... and J C Garrett.
   47. Sam M. Posted: September 28, 2004 at 02:32 AM (#881752)
catching line drives on the infield is mostly a function of having line drives hit at you.

And the way the Yankees have pitched this year, God knows there's been a boatload of those! ;-)
   48. caprules Posted: September 28, 2004 at 02:34 AM (#881761)
Chris, that being the case, wouldn't pre at-bat positioning obviously then be a factor, and a positive one if that positioning was intentional? Maybe the Yankees have really good advance scouting and Jeter uses that to be in the right position at the right time (assuming Jeter is good at this, it is just my observation).
   49. The Original SJ Posted: September 28, 2004 at 02:41 AM (#881779)
My personal observation shows that Jeter is at least average if not better in catching LDs.

Jeter catches a lot of line drives because the bottom of the bullpen is pretty terrible and gets a lot of hard hit balls.

For all of Jeters flaws, he is simply tremendous on relay throws, his footwork is great, his arm is strong and accurate and he gets rid of the ball quickly.

That comes in handy every once in a while, like game 1, 2000 WS, game 3 2001 LDS, etc.
   50. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: September 28, 2004 at 02:41 AM (#881782)
If you like BPro better, he's listed 4th there at 55.8, with the leader at 76.6 with average being around 15-20. For this year, anyway, Jeter is closer to being called an exceptional SS rather than being called barely above average.

The metric he's refering to there is VORP, which is strictly offensive based.

A more comprehensive methodology would be WARP3, which does account for defensive performance. Here's the numbers for everyone with over 300 PA at SS:
Player       WARP3   PA    WARP3/100PA
Guillen
:     11.1    583   1.90
Tejada
:      11.9    696   1.71
Wilson
:       8.3    677   1.23
Jeter
:        8.3    704   1.18
Crosby
:       6.6    595   1.11
Greene
:       6.0    554   1.08
Valentin
:     4.7    486   0.97
Guzman
:       5.8    603   0.96
Garciaparra
:  3.1    324   0.96
Furcal
:       5.8    610   0.95
Lugo
:         5.7    623   0.91
Vizquel
:      5.6    641   0.87
Larkin
:       3.2    377   0.85
Young
:        6.0    711   0.84
Izturis
:      5.5    700   0.79
Cruz
:         3.2    405   0.79
Everett
:      3.4    435   0.78
Renteria
:     4.5    619   0.73
Counsell
:     3.9    533   0.73
Rollins
:      4.9    700   0.70
Eckstein
:     4.3    616   0.70
Gonzalez
:     3.7    575   0.64
Matsui
:       3.1    487   0.64
Cabrera
:      3.4    650   0.52
Clayton
:      3.1    624   0.50
Gomez
:        1.6    370   0.43
Berroa
:       1.7    529   0.32
Aurilia
:      1.2    428   0.28
Cintron
:      1.4    591   0.24
Perez
:        0.8    417   0.19 

The weighted average for a starting shortstop is 5.04 WARP3 and 0.84 WARP3/100PA.

So by this measure, Jeter's been about 3 wins above average. Right above the 75th percentile, if my math's right.
   51. caprules Posted: September 28, 2004 at 03:08 AM (#881838)
Someone please kindly help me, because mgl's numbers aren't adding up for me. Is there a 3rd factor that is involved that wasn't mentioned? Jeter's batting/running for this year is +15 and defense is -4, and this results in a total of +7? His projected batting/running was +13 and defense was -19 and the total was +3? I must have missed something, because those numbers don't make sense to me.
   52. Sam M. Posted: September 28, 2004 at 03:13 AM (#881846)
jmp --

mgl's projections are based on more than just this season. This season's performance is factored in, along with past performance, in projecting forward. So this year, which has been better than before (especially defensively) in raw performance, has raised the projections going forward compared to what they were going into the season. But since this year's numbers aren't all that counts, they are naturally not going to be exactly the same.
   53. James Posted: September 28, 2004 at 03:21 AM (#881855)
As yes, Jim Fregosi, proven winner

Califrna 486 237 249 .488
ChicagoW 419 193 226 .461
Phildlpa 894 431 463 .482
Toronto 324 167 157 .515
+----+-----------+--------+-----+----+----+------+------+
TOTAL 2123 1028 1095 .484

He must have meant when he was a player- no. Fregosi's teams never made the playoffs.
   54. caprules Posted: September 28, 2004 at 03:22 AM (#881856)
Sam M, that makes sense for this season, but how does a preseason projection of +13 and -19 = +3?
   55. Harold can be a fun sponge Posted: September 28, 2004 at 03:44 AM (#881888)
jmp, there's a position adjustment in there. The hitting/running LWTS is compared to the average hitter, but the total is compared to the average shortstop. I'd have guessed the adjustment for shortstops would have gone in the other direction, though.

There are a number of miscellaneous SLWTS ratings (advancing runners, etc.); I'm not sure how those fit in.
   56. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: September 28, 2004 at 03:47 AM (#881892)
If Derek Jeter had Antonio Alfonseca's face would we even be having this discussion?
   57. caprules Posted: September 28, 2004 at 03:52 AM (#881898)
Thanks for the response Vinay, I knew I was missing something, just didn't know what it was and it's too late for me to slog through slwts articles.
   58. Dr. Vaux Posted: September 28, 2004 at 03:57 AM (#881905)
Fregosi won two division titles, one of which was an out-of-nowhere season, and most recently finished over .500 two years with Toronto teams that were perceived as not that good, so he's seen by sportswriters as a winner and overachiever.
   59. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: September 28, 2004 at 03:57 AM (#881906)
If it's Pinella & giving up prospects or Fregosi for free, I think I can live with Jim.
   60. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: September 28, 2004 at 04:03 AM (#881913)
If Derek Jeter had Antonio Alfonseca's face would we even be having this discussion?

Yes, so long as he didn't have John Kruk's butt.
   61. TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser Posted: September 28, 2004 at 04:10 AM (#881923)
Haven't you been watching BBTN, 6-4-3? He clearly does.

*rim shot*
   62. Nobody ##### with DeJesus Posted: September 28, 2004 at 04:55 AM (#881994)
If Derek Jeter had Antonio Alfonseca's face would we even be having this discussion?

I don't understand this question. Is Alfonseca extraordinarily ugly?
   63. Larry Bowa Posted: September 28, 2004 at 05:12 AM (#882053)
Fellas,

If I have learned one thing from hanging out with you fellas, it is the following:

Proving Derek Jeter is a Defensive Fraud = The Sabermetric White Whale

And there are a whole lot of ****ing Ahabs around here.

Look, I'm on record as saying I'd pick Rollins over Jeter in a heartbeat--and I wouldn't even think twice about it--but the length and breadth and gaseous emissions spent on proving or disproving the McClutchiness of Mr. Jeter is somewhat... passe.

So I am here to give you a better task--and one I think you all are up to:

Larry Bowa = HOF SS

Thanking you in advance, I remain,

Your pal,
Larry
   64. I Love LA (OFF) Posted: September 28, 2004 at 05:22 AM (#882071)
Something tells me Larry's had a few bottles of Bushmills tonight. Its okay, Larry, you are still a better manager than Art Howe. Plus you got that fielding percentage stat going for you.
   65. TFTIO is familiar with the work of Pablo Neruda Posted: September 28, 2004 at 06:32 AM (#882164)
Guzman:       5.8    603   0.96


Color me stupefied.

'jfb
   66. Miko Supports Shane's Spam Habit Posted: September 28, 2004 at 07:09 AM (#882237)
Guzman: 5.8 603 0.96

A 23-run turnaround on defense (-6 to +17)??

Guzman is out-Jetering Jeter.
   67. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: September 28, 2004 at 08:21 AM (#882342)
The DT fielding methodology considers Guzman to be a superior defender at short (Rate of 112). Within the WARP3 metric, that defense is worth a little less than 3 wins.

Worth noting that this is only the second time DT ranks Guzman as above-average defensively, which probably means that he's playing above his level.
   68. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: September 28, 2004 at 10:33 AM (#882351)
"Jeter's offensive would be more valuable if he were playing in the 1970s when the offensive performance of the average shortstop were much lower. But given that a good hitting shortstop is no longer the rarity it once was, Jeter's marginal offensive value is reduced to the point where it's nearly negated by his poor defense. "

That's wrong. Don't know any other way to say it, don't mean to be harsh. Replacement level has almost nothing to do with the average player at a position.

Because average players are valuable assets, they are much further to the right of the distribution curve than a replacement level player. Bill James postulated many years ago that replacement level is the exact spot on the far right of the curve where it starts to widen dramatically.

It's kind of like saying that for every star at the top of the pyramid there are 3 good players on the next level, 8 average players on the next level and 20 mediocre players (per major league standards) on the next level. That following level is where your replacement level players and the number of stars at a particular position has practically no effect on the level of play at the bottom end - because there are so many players at that level.

If you suddenly add 5 stars at a position (which is basically what has happened at SS in the last decade), it only moves replacement level (if you consider it the bottom 20% of regulars) from the 25-30th best player at the position to the 20-25th best, which is a negligible difference in the grand scheme of things.
   69. Johnny Tuttle Posted: September 28, 2004 at 11:30 AM (#882357)
Can Jeter be the SS of a great team? Yes.

Is Jeter overpaid for an inflated version of his worth to those great teams? Yes.

Would another team with limited resources (think Jays or Astros) be truly competitive with that contract? Probably not.

Is Jeter so good defensively that all talk of moving him off of SS should be ignored, given a better SS, the best SS since Wagner, is already on the roster? No.

Is Jeter skilled "beyond the numbers"? Probably.
   70. Larry Bowa Posted: September 28, 2004 at 12:26 PM (#882365)
Will is channeling Robert Evans. LOL.
   71. Sam M. Posted: September 28, 2004 at 01:05 PM (#882373)
If you suddenly add 5 stars at a position (which is basically what has happened at SS in the last decade), it only moves replacement level (if you consider it the bottom 20% of regulars) from the 25-30th best player at the position to the 20-25th best, which is a negligible difference in the grand scheme of things.

Two things, Joe. First, while the effect on replacement level is negligible, the effect on value relative to league average is very significant. Both are valid measures of value, depending on the purpose.

Second, I'm not so sure it doesn't impact replacement level in an indirect way, over time. If the expectations for the position shift (e.g., more offense from shortstops), teams will begin to make decisions in their scouting, drafting, and development systems that will funnel players who meet that expectation into becoming ML shortstops. A guy who a generation ago might have been a third baseman or center fielder because he didn't fit the shortstop profile will be considered for SS nowadays. This, over time, would (or at least could) have a more dramatic impact on replacement level.

Just speculating here, by the way. But it makes intuititive sense to me.
   72. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: September 28, 2004 at 01:19 PM (#882378)
Well, I sure lost a lot of respect for Gammons with that flip little remark.
   73. Damon'sHair Posted: September 28, 2004 at 01:35 PM (#882385)
Gammons is such a p-ssy. He should stick to being baseball's gossip columnist, he is too afraid to criticize anyone when he tries to analyze the game.
   74. Sam M. Posted: September 28, 2004 at 01:43 PM (#882390)
he is too afraid to criticize anyone when he tries to analyze the game.

Too afraid to criticize? That was a pretty devastating hatchet he took to the Mets front office at the outset of this column . . . .
   75. OlePerfesser Posted: September 28, 2004 at 02:01 PM (#882398)
Like Sam, I'd disagree with Damon's Hair about Gammo's propensity to criticize. He loves to use his prominence to #####-slap people--but his targets are often selected less on merit than to satisfy personal grudges.

Like Vlad, that "stats Nazis in their garages" remark just makes me shake my head--but I had relatively little respect for Gammo to begin with.

One question that the mainstream journalists and Baseball Lifers ought to have to answer is why they feel entitled to have a monopoly on baseball analysis, and feel free to use terms like "stats Nazis" to describe those with whom they frequently disagree. I'm not aware of ANY statheads who think statanalysis ALONE can be used to run a team effectively; everyone on this side of the aisle understands that other info (from scouts, trainers, etc.) is not just useful but essential. It's only the Lifers who seem to think that striking a balance is unnecessary, and that theirs is the One True Way. But they keep calling the outsiders "Nazis" and other insulting names. Sheesh.
   76. Toolsy McClutch Posted: September 28, 2004 at 02:21 PM (#882415)
The problem, if you can call it that, is there is a segment of the Sabre community who hold so fast to their beliefs that they aren't open to any of the 'old ways'. Or any discussion of any ways other than their own. The issue is these are usually the most vocal or visible. I think we all know someone like that.

And unfortunately, stupid people colour the whole stats-savvy group with that brush. That's more their problem than ours, but it's still alarming.

And now I'm going to have to take my SABR-L printouts out of my garage for fear of being rounded up by the Tools Gestapo. I think there's a loose floorboard in my attic.
   77. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: September 28, 2004 at 02:36 PM (#882431)
Am I allowed to be in the club? I don't actually have a garage...

I actually had a surprising amount of respect for Gammons, since he looked to have been making sincere efforts to understand sabermetric theory over the last year or two. It's tough to learn new tricks when you're an old dog, and I guess he just gave up.

That, or he read yet another thread here full of nitpicks about his grammar and finally lost it.
   78. Suff Posted: September 28, 2004 at 02:42 PM (#882436)
I took the "exceptional shortstop" remark to refer to defense. Although there are some exceptions, most "statheads" agree that Jeter is an exceptional player -- meaning a deserving perennial all-star and a very good player having a good career -- but say his defense is a weakness, maybe even a major weakness.
   79. Backlasher Posted: September 28, 2004 at 02:59 PM (#882456)
I'm not aware of ANY statheads who think statanalysis ALONE can be used to run a team effectively; everyone on this side of the aisle understands that other info (from scouts, trainers, etc.) is not just useful but essential.

I don't know where your aisle is Perfesser, if you listen to most on this site, there is no aisle, there is no discernable difference between any two people. Nevertheless, the one thing that does irk me is this, "we are as pure as the driven snow," line of argument.

Many people that embrace new statistical measures are not in an objective search for the truth.

Many people that do embrace new statistical measures are quick to call people "idiots" if they rely on information besides new statistical measures.

Many people that do embrace new statistical measures are quick to place outcomes in the providence of luck rather than investigate causal factors.

Many people that do embrace new statistical measures will deny ever being wrong or take any accountability in their failings.

Draw your lines like Goldman, create your aisles, talk about diversity, talk about groupthink, talk about stat nazis. It doesn't matter what you name it, the outcome is still the same.
   80. Backlasher Posted: September 28, 2004 at 03:04 PM (#882459)
most "statheads" agree that Jeter is an exceptional player -- meaning a deserving perennial all-star and a very good player having a good career -- but say his defense is a weakness, maybe even a major weakness.

I'm glad to see so many people have graduated from the Steve Treder school of adverbs. If you think that is the case, why don't you run a Primer poll. In this very thread, Jeter has been described as "an above average shortstop." Maybe I haven't spent my time learning "sabermetric theory", but I don't see how "above average shortstop" = "perennial all star".
   81. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: September 28, 2004 at 03:15 PM (#882474)
Maybe I haven't spent my time learning "sabermetric theory", but I don't see how "above average shortstop" = "perennial all star".

Without looking at it in great detail, I think Jeter was probably a deserving All-Star from '98 to '01, and a legit MVP candidate in '99. Over the last couple of years, though, he's had more competition at the position and he has been worse/injured, so I'd merely consider him "above average." I think an above average shortstop is a very good thing for a team to have, though.

For what it's worth, if he was in the NL he'd be a perrenial All-Star.
   82. Toolsy McClutch Posted: September 28, 2004 at 03:18 PM (#882477)
f you listen to most on this site, there is no aisle, there is no discernable difference between any two people.

Backlasher, lowering the level of discourse for 3 months... and counting!
   83. Cliff Floyd the Barber Posted: September 28, 2004 at 03:30 PM (#882494)
Am I the only one who remembers Gammon's article a week ago when he was universally praised on this site for his "Expanding Moneyball" article?

As far as I know, Gammons is one of the few mainstream baseball writer who seems to grasp the concept of Moneyball, and we love him for it, as long as he keeps his mouth shut and agrees not to say anything bad about statistics. Ever.
   84. Sam M. Posted: September 28, 2004 at 03:31 PM (#882496)
I don't see how "above average shortstop" = "perennial all star".

For Mets' fans, "above average shortstop" equals "not in this lifetime, buddy."
   85. Backlasher Posted: September 28, 2004 at 03:36 PM (#882504)
Backlasher, lowering the level of discourse for 3 months... and counting!

You must have context adjusted my contribution. My streak is Ripkenesque.
   86. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: September 28, 2004 at 03:40 PM (#882521)
As far as I know, Gammons is one of the few mainstream baseball writer who seems to grasp the concept of Moneyball, and we love him for it, as long as he keeps his mouth shut and agrees not to say anything bad about statistics. Ever.

Surely you can see the difference between saying something bad about statistics and making an incomprehensible wisecrack about "stat Nazis" in "their garages," or a similarly incomprehensible comment about how "sabermetrics" are the only thing that matters on bad teams.
   87. Boots Day Posted: September 28, 2004 at 03:43 PM (#882529)
In this very thread, Jeter has been described as "an above average shortstop." Maybe I haven't spent my time learning "sabermetric theory", but I don't see how "above average shortstop" = "perennial all star".

If you were interested in contributing to the discussion, rather than simply picking fights, you would realize that saying "most statheads think Jeter is a perennial all-star" does not preclude some statheads from thinking he is merely an above-average player. Indeed, it would seem to be implicit in the use of the word "most" rather than "all." But I guess in addition to not learning sabermetric theory, you haven't spent much time learning English, either.
   88. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: September 28, 2004 at 03:57 PM (#882564)
This is plagiarism. Dan O'Neill of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch was calling us "stats Nazis" months ago.

Plus it reeks of the comment Dan Rather made about bloggers sitting in their pajamas.
   89. Backlasher Posted: September 28, 2004 at 03:59 PM (#882568)
If you were interested in contributing to the discussion, rather than simply picking fights, you would realize that saying "most statheads think Jeter is a perennial all-star" does not preclude some statheads from thinking he is merely an above-average player. Indeed, it would seem to be implicit in the use of the word "most" rather than "all." But I guess in addition to not learning sabermetric theory, you haven't spent much time learning English, either.

Maybe I haven't, but I do now a couple of things about counting and tense usage. Do you think that most "statheads" think that Jeter is a perenial all star? Do you think Dave and mgl are "statistical outliers" or the product of "luck"? Do you think that "most" connotes 50%+1? Do you think you can get 50%+1 people that are statheads to say that "Jeter is a perenial all-star" without butchering the definition of "perenial" or "all-star"?

If you were really interested in discussion, you would answer these questions rather than just respond based on your sabering-up for a fight. However, it appears that in addition to not responding, you also didn't bother to read my post where I suggest he should take a poll.
   90. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: September 28, 2004 at 04:01 PM (#882574)
"...as long as he keeps his mouth shut and agrees not to say anything bad about statistics. Ever."

It's not so much that I mind him criticizing sabermetrics, as it is that I mind the nature of that criticism: flip, dismissive, and ultimately unhelpful. It'd be like saying that baseball writers are a bunch of ink-stained dolts who don't know anything about baseball because they spend more time at the complementary media buffet than they do watching the game. Momentarily amusing (in theory), but ultimately unhelpful.
   91. Backlasher Posted: September 28, 2004 at 04:04 PM (#882580)
as it is that I mind the nature of that criticism: flip, dismissive, and ultimately unhelpful. It'd be like saying that baseball writers are a bunch of ink-stained dolts who don't know anything about baseball because they spend more time at the complementary media buffet than they do watching the game.

Or like saying "sportwriters are idiots."

"The mediots don't get it."

"Morgan is an idiot."

"...just more yellow journalism."

"GMs are idiots."

"[team owner] is a ########."

"so-and-so is an asshat."

Your right Vlad, let's get rid of all of that stuff.
   92. Boots Day Posted: September 28, 2004 at 04:13 PM (#882599)
Do you think that most "statheads" think that Jeter is a perenial all star?

Yes.

Do you think Dave and mgl are "statistical outliers" or the product of "luck"?

No. I think they're wrong.

Do you think that "most" connotes 50%+1?

Yes.

Do you think you can get 50%+1 people that are statheads to say that "Jeter is a perenial all-star" without butchering the definition of "perenial" or "all-star"?

Yes. Or butchering the spelling of "perennial," for that matter.

If you were really interested in discussion, you would answer these questions rather than just respond based on your sabering-up for a fight.

You lose.

However, it appears that in addition to not responding, you also didn't bother to read my post where I suggest he should take a poll.

I've got news for you: A lot of people don't bother to read your posts, and even fewer take your "suggestions" seriously.
   93. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: September 28, 2004 at 04:15 PM (#882602)
Do you think that most "statheads" think that Jeter is a perenial all star?

In terms of quality? No, I think when "most statheads" factor in Jeter's defense, he hasn't been a perenial All-Star in some time but was during what seems to have been his peak, the 1998-2001 years.


Do you think Dave and mgl are "statistical outliers" or the product of "luck"?

I find this a bit nonsensical but I assume (and forgive me if I'm wrong) it means "Do Dave and mgl differ from what most statheads think of Jeter's value?" No (Dave) and Yes (mgl). Dave says in #81 about what I'd think most statheads would agree with. mgl says Jeter's value is "somewhere around that of the average SS in baseball." I think most statheads would disagree with that sentiment.

Do you think that "most" connotes 50%+1?

Webster's defines it as a majority, I again can only assume that's what you mean by 50% + 1


Do you think you can get 50%+1 people that are statheads to say that "Jeter is a perenial all-star" without butchering the definition of "perenial" or "all-star"?

How are we defining all-star and perenial? The most suitable dictionary definition I can find for Perenial (actual spelling, by the way: "perennial") in this context is "continuing without interruption" (as in "perennial student"). How are we definining all-star? If we take it to mean literally and only someone who is on the all-star team then Jeter was a perennial AS every year from 1998-2002 but never before or after. If we take all-star to mean "player worthy of being on the all-star team" than you open up a can of worms with each person having their own meaning. Nonetheless (conclusion coming) I do not think you could get 50% +1 of "statheads" to agree that Jeter is a perennial All-Star"
   94. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: September 28, 2004 at 04:21 PM (#882620)
Backlasher, I'm just curious, do you think that Jeter has deserved to be a perennial All-Star over the last, say, 4 years (obviously he has made the team just about every year)?
   95. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: September 28, 2004 at 04:24 PM (#882624)
Oooh, way to close your tags, RB
   96. Cowboy Popup Posted: September 28, 2004 at 04:50 PM (#882668)
"So he is now (his current projection) 7 runs above an average SS per 150 games or around 24 runs, or 2.2 wins, above a replacement SS. Give me a replacement SS and Jeter's 19 mil per year."

Jeter is currently the 3rd best offensive SS in the majors this year. His defense is what, -7, -8 according to UZR? How many SS are really making up that difference in the field? Greene and Young probably, beyond that who? At the beginning of the year you had Jeter pegged as the 12th best SS in the league. This year, according to your system he's probably 5th or 6th. According to other metrics, he's 3rd or fourth, and a top 15-20 player in the league. But keep bashing him, it doesn't make you seem bitter or anything.
   97. Backlasher Posted: September 28, 2004 at 05:06 PM (#882691)
Yes.

So far it looks like you are in a minority.
Yes. , Webster's defines it as a majority, I again can only assume that's what you mean by 50% + 1

Yes, and if you thought it was a slight majority than "slight majority" would be the term you would use. Its rather irrelevant, I don't think you are going to find "50% +1 statheads" that are going to think that "Jeter is a perennial all-star." Of course, you can become more Clintonesque and look up "is" in your Webster's dictionary.

I've got news for you: A lot of people don't bother to read your posts, and even fewer take your "suggestions" seriously.

There loss; however, you might want to continue to read. You seem to have some problems with pretty easy concepts.

If we take all-star to mean "player worthy of being on the all-star team" than you open up a can of worms with each person having their own meaning.

That's a suitable can of worms as long as their definition is reasonable. If they define "all star" to mean "slightly above average" then you are playing semantical games. Otherwise, you are engaging in the discussion. I don't think that most people that post on baseball primer will agree that Jeter is a perennial all star based on their definition of all star. Some will try to strain the definition to make a point or try to redefine "is" and "perennial". Some will even start going "what is a stathead" to see if its relevant.

I opine that the vast majority of the opinion on Primer rates Jeter from "slightly above average" to "very good shortstop". I doubt there are but a few outliers that would think he is a "perennial all star" and a very few outliers that believe he is "worthless"

Backlasher, I'm just curious, do you think that Jeter has deserved to be a perennial All-Star over the last, say, 4 years (obviously he has made the team just about every year)?

How important is my answer to you Dave, because that will depend on how much I look at items to refresh my memory. I think there have been occasions where Jeter's all star roster spot should have gone to another player. Continuing the thought, I think Jeter has some defensive limitations, but the total package of Jeter has been a very desirable baseball player over the course of his career. Its likely there have been players that have outperformed Jeter in some context yet I would still prefer Jeter over said player.

Would I describe him as a perennial all star? Probably, his performance has been among the best at his position, and despite my personal selection criteria, he is deserving of consideration.
   98. Boots Day Posted: September 28, 2004 at 05:11 PM (#882698)
There loss; however, you might want to continue to read. You seem to have some problems with pretty easy concepts.

Such as the definition of "most"? Oh, wait, that was you.
   99. Toolsy McClutch Posted: September 28, 2004 at 05:15 PM (#882706)
Sweet, now all we need is Backlasher to mangle someone's nick to the word "c*ck". May I suggest "Cockly McGrab" or "Gopher molesting's #3 Fan" (to randomly pick someone from this thread).

Pre-Arod moving to 3rd and Nomar going to the NL, you had (at least) three pretty good reasons to not have Jetes as an All-Star. But hey, let's not let facts intefere with your little 'I like to think I'm smarter than everyone else cause I can get people's underwear in a knot'.
   100. CONservative governMENt Posted: September 28, 2004 at 05:16 PM (#882708)
Why is this even an argument anymore? I thought Win Shares was created to avoid this silly banter.
Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Dingbat_Charlie
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogMets call up Dilson Herrera, have "talked about" d'Arnaud to LF
(11 - 6:07am, Aug 29)
Last: Lassus

NewsblogOT: Politics, August 2014: DNC criticizes Christie’s economic record with baseball video
(6030 - 5:32am, Aug 29)
Last: BrianBrianson

NewsblogAfter awkward attempt at game-saving catch, Yankees' Ichiro Suzuki gets testy with reporters
(6 - 4:42am, Aug 29)
Last: Lars6788

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 8-28-2014
(109 - 4:41am, Aug 29)
Last: Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread August, 2014
(771 - 4:13am, Aug 29)
Last: The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott)

NewsblogSimmons' run-saving stop
(35 - 4:11am, Aug 29)
Last: The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott)

NewsblogCalcaterra | John Rocker to join the cast of “Survivor”
(2 - 3:56am, Aug 29)
Last: zonk

NewsblogOT:  2014 College Football pre-season thread
(45 - 3:40am, Aug 29)
Last: zonk

NewsblogPosnanski: Alex Gordon and the M-V-P chants
(26 - 2:29am, Aug 29)
Last: Baldrick

NewsblogRingolsby: Pete Incaviglia paying dues as independent league manager
(12 - 1:20am, Aug 29)
Last: zonk

NewsblogBusiness Week: Houston Astros' Jeff Luhnow Lets Data Reign
(3 - 1:13am, Aug 29)
Last: Weratych

NewsblogJonny Venters Tears UCL, Facing Third Tommy John Surgery
(2 - 12:52am, Aug 29)
Last: CFBF Is A Golden Spider Duck

NewsblogDavid Justice Says Put Barry Bonds in Baseball Hall of Fame Despite Steroid Use Late In Career
(145 - 12:42am, Aug 29)
Last: Greg K

NewsblogJack White, Eddie Vedder, and Paul Simon take in a Seattle Mariners game
(148 - 12:14am, Aug 29)
Last: Greg K

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - August 2014
(364 - 11:48pm, Aug 28)
Last: RollingWave

Page rendered in 1.0310 seconds
52 querie(s) executed