I'm not sure I want Jeff Keppinger to be our starting 3B for more than a year or two...

What do you see changing between now and a year from now that would suggest we'd have someone better?

What do you see changing between now and a year from now that would suggest we'd have someone better?

 

A miracle.

Did the Sox just sign a 33 year old utility infielder to a three year deal?

 

And is said utility infielder going to start at 3b?

It's at the very bottom of that first table, in the Career row.

 

Oh, a career row that includes all positions and not just 3B. OK. Well let's just say he'll be bad at playing 3B because he sucks at Monopoly. It's about the same.

FanGraphs' take: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/w...an-ball-return/

Oh, a career row that includes all positions and not just 3B. OK. Well let's just say he'll be bad at playing 3B because he sucks at Monopoly. It's about the same.

 

 

Please see post #96: http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?sh...t&p=2733259

Please see post #96: http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?sh...t&p=2733259

 

I saw your post and I'm not buying it. Being bad for several years at positions he isn't going to play is not more significant than being good for one year at the position he is going to play. If you think his sample size at 3B is too small, that's fine, but then don't quote UZR at all.

 

 

 

I would rely more on one season's worth of numbers at the position he's going to play over career numbers at positions he isn't going to play.

 

 

I get that, but I'm not sure it's fair to say he's a bad defensive 3B just because he's a bad defensive SS and 2B. There's a huge difference in the demands of the positions, specifically range.

It's that his ratings are consistently so low (at least -10 defense runs per year at SS/2B/1B), not just slightly below average, everywhere else that it would be unlikely he's significantly better at one position. Plus, the aging curve for fielding starts to decline earlier than for batting. We'll see.

FanGraphs' take: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/w...an-ball-return/

 

I think that's probably the best way to put it. Beggars can't exactly be choosers right now with 3B. Hopefully the Sox draft a good 3B prospect in the next 2 years.

It's that his ratings are consistently so low (at least -10 defense runs per year at SS/2B/1B), not just slightly below average, everywhere else that it would be unlikely he's significantly better at one position. Plus, the aging curve for fielding starts to decline earlier than for batting. We'll see.

 

What data supports that claim? Lots of players are much better at one position than others.

I saw your post and I'm not buying it. Being bad for several years at positions he isn't going to play is not more significant than being good for one year at the position he is going to play. If you think his sample size at 3B is too small, that's fine, but then don't quote UZR at all.

 

His career UZR numbers suggest a guy who has below average range, arm, and hands. I agree with you that third is easier and you can't expect a direct correlation, but there is no reason to believe he will be a plus defender.

 

When I originally made the post "-17.7 career UZR," it was in response to the question, "where is this notion that he's a sub-par defender coming from?" And, his career UZR is where the notion of him being a sub-par defender comes from. I stand by that.

His career UZR numbers suggest a guy who has below average range, arm, and hands. I agree with you that third is easier and you can't expect a direct correlation, but there is no reason to believe he will be a plus defender.

 

When I originally made the post "-17.7 career UZR," it was in response to the question, "where is this notion that he's a sub-par defender coming from?" And, his career UZR is where the notion of him being a sub-par defender comes from. I stand by that.

 

He has a season's worth of being a plus defender at 3B, so there is some reason to believe that he might be.

 

He was signed to play 3B, so that is the context of the question but apparently not your answer.

White Sox talked with Chavez before signing Kepp, Chavy preferred Arizona. per DKnobler.

Edited December 5, 201213 yr by justBLAZE

White Sox talked with Chavez before signing Kepp, Chavy preferred Arizona. per DKnobler.

 

From California, doesn't surprise me at all. Glad they kicked the tires on it.

He has a season's worth of being a plus defender at 3B, so there is some reason to believe that he might be.

 

He was signed to play 3B, so that is the context of the question but apparently not your answer.

 

Right, there is some reason to believe he MIGHT be, but UZR historically doesn't become a reliable indicator of true talent until about three seasons of data. So pick your poison -- small sample of numbers not nearly enough to show the whole picture, or larger sample of numbers that can show a related picture but isn't exactly what you want to see. Again, the truth is somewhere in between. My point on the UZR data from third is that that number doesn't do much for us. I'm more confident that he'll be better at third because I believe it is an easier position, not because of small sample UZR data.

What data supports that claim? Lots of players are much better at one position than others.

They are, but not typically when the positions in question are 2B/3B. The positions share many of the same skills needed to be successful. There are differences, more range helpful at 2B, better arm helpful at 3B, etc.

They are, but not typically when the positions in question are 2B/3B. The positions share many of the same skills needed to be successful. There are differences, more range helpful at 2B, better arm helpful at 3B, etc.

 

There are plenty of good 3B who weren't or likely would not have been good 2B.

 

They are, but not typically when the positions in question are 2B/3B. The positions share many of the same skills needed to be successful. There are differences, more range helpful at 2B, better arm helpful at 3B, etc.

Orlando Hudson was a pretty severe drop defensively from 2B to 3B.

 

Right, there is some reason to believe he MIGHT be, but UZR historically doesn't become a reliable indicator of true talent until about three seasons of data. So pick your poison -- small sample of numbers not nearly enough to show the whole picture, or larger sample of numbers that can show a related picture but isn't exactly what you want to see. Again, the truth is somewhere in between. My point on the UZR data from third is that that number doesn't do much for us. I'm more confident that he'll be better at third because I believe it is an easier position, not because of small sample UZR data.

 

Fine, then point out the small sample size for UZR, but don't quote overall UZR that covers multiple positions. That's just as if not more misleading than using the UZR for 3B.

 

Right, there is some reason to believe he MIGHT be, but UZR historically doesn't become a reliable indicator of true talent until about three seasons of data. So pick your poison -- small sample of numbers not nearly enough to show the whole picture, or larger sample of numbers that can show a related picture but isn't exactly what you want to see. Again, the truth is somewhere in between. My point on the UZR data from third is that that number doesn't do much for us. I'm more confident that he'll be better at third because I believe it is an easier position, not because of small sample UZR data.

 

You can't trade one statistical issue for another and say one is ok and the other isn't. A small sample size means that you might not be observing the actual relationship (thus, the combined 'full season' of 3B datapoints might not be accurate until we get more data). However, it is also statistically incorrect to conflate data gathered at other positions as evidence of a true relationship at a different position. Your point is no more statistically correct than those wanting to use the 3B data only.

He was pretty good during those 50 games though. All he needs to be is average defensively. If he puts up his career offensive #s, he'll be an average 3B, which is very well worth the $4 million we're paying him.

 

He's not an ideal #2, but he's a much better fit for that spot right now than anyone else we have. I like the deal.

 

 

 

If he puts up the numbers he did last year he most certainly is. High obp/good contact, a little more speed would be nice but I think he's a good fit.

 

Speaking of where he's gonna hit, Madden hit him in every spot but leading off.

ABs

Batting #2 13

Batting #3 11

Batting #4 77

Batting #5 124

Batting #6 105

Batting #7 47

Batting #8 6

Batting #9 2

 

Joe Madden is one crazy SoB.

Edited December 5, 201213 yr by 2nd_city_saint787

You can't trade one statistical issue for another and say one is ok and the other isn't. A small sample size means that you might not be observing the actual relationship (thus, the combined 'full season' of 3B datapoints might not be accurate until we get more data). However, it is also statistically incorrect to conflate data gathered at other positions as evidence of a true relationship at a different position. Your point is no more statistically correct than those wanting to use the 3B data only.

 

I don't understand why you think I'm arguing that. Once again, someone asked why people think he's a sub-par defender, and I said it's because he has a -17.7 career UZR. That's the answer. You're right that we can't transfer that data over to third and know for sure, and I feel like I've said that in every post I've made.

 

But, if an infielder is bad at a blend of 2B/SS/3B, I would argue it's more likely he's bad at 3B than it is that he's good at 3B. If you disagree, that's fine -- we really don't know.

I don't understand why you think I'm arguing that. Once again, someone asked why people think he's a sub-par defender, and I said it's because he has a -17.7 career UZR. That's the answer. You're right that we can't transfer that data over to third and know for sure, and I feel like I've said that in every post I've made.

 

But, if an infielder is bad at a blend of 2B/SS/3B, I would argue it's more likely he's bad at 3B than it is that he's good at 3B. If you disagree, that's fine -- we really don't know.

His metrics at 3B were also pretty bad until last year. I'm sure the Sox will take average.

Honestly if he is even close to league average offensively and defensively for the amount they're paying him and the other available options, I'll be happy with him.

Honestly if he is even close to league average offensively and defensively for the amount they're paying him and the other available options, I'll be happy with him.

 

Yeah, for sure. I think that's the key in evaluating this deal. Considering context, it was a significant improvement at a low cost.