Semien camp. Get your s*** together for 2015.

 

Remember, only hitter with promise that K-Dub ever drafted. And of course I'm checking Courtney's fangraphs page every other day. 190 wRC+ in 60 plate appearances aiiiight. I'm down on my knees, son. Make it two.

What was Jeremy Reed's wRC in 2003?

That's it? That's all anyone has to say after the day Marcus had?

 

But you're cool, Dick. I always thought so. It takes a lot of balls to have a picture of Yoko Ono in your avatar. Chick is more hated than Hanoi Jane.

Just looking at his advanced fielding stats, they have him killing it at SS and 3B, but pretty damn bad at 2B. Any theories on this or is it solely sample size?

Just looking at his advanced fielding stats, they have him killing it at SS and 3B, but pretty damn bad at 2B. Any theories on this or is it solely sample size?

 

You and your damn advanced stats lol

Just looking at his advanced fielding stats, they have him killing it at SS and 3B, but pretty damn bad at 2B. Any theories on this or is it solely sample size?

I've been told by people here who know way more than me that defensive metrics, as they currently stand, generally need 1.5 to 2 seasons to yield a reliable number (and even that's debatable). Specifically, UZR.

You and your damn advanced stats lol

Hey, baseball allows me to get that nerdy side of me out, I'd get lynched if I brought up statistics in relation to Manchester United

Semien was awesome today.

Last I saw, Beckham was hitting

Semien seems to be a better hitter than his .200 average would indicate. Maybe I'm just hoping that's the case but he's a likeable second sacker. I wonder why I like Semien and despise the thought of Beckham returning?

Semien seems to be a better hitter than his .200 average would indicate. Maybe I'm just hoping that's the case but he's a likeable second sacker. I wonder why I like Semien and despise the thought of Beckham returning?

 

Excuse you, .222 average.

Just looking at his advanced fielding stats, they have him killing it at SS and 3B, but pretty damn bad at 2B. Any theories on this or is it solely sample size?

 

Sample size stuff. It's hard to say anybody is good or bad based on UZR with this amount of games played. To begin to establish anything, we want to wait until at least June or July, and to actually establish his typical UZR, it'll be, as noted, around 2-3 seasons worth of data, and in that time frame, his defensive prowess is likely to change too.

 

It's tough to do anything predictive with UZR other than making reasonable judgments.

Just looking at his advanced fielding stats, they have him killing it at SS and 3B, but pretty damn bad at 2B. Any theories on this or is it solely sample size?

Defensive stats are absolutely meaningless. The only good tool to judge defenders is your eyes.

Defensive stats are absolutely meaningless. The only good tool to judge defenders is your eyes.

 

Well that's absolutely wrong.

At what point do we start taking something? I want it said here and now, so we'll be able to move forward one day.

As long as he makes progress over a full season, that is all i care about. I haven't seen anything to think you should write him up. This guy is an accomplished prospect and will likely be a good major leaguer. Any calls to dump him are just ludicrous. Beckham has had numerous major league seasons to show that he isn't very good.

Defensive stats are absolutely meaningless. The only good tool to judge defenders is your eyes.

I don't agree that they're "absolutely" meaningless, but like all stats they fail to take into account unquantifiable variables, like weather, field condition, the speed at which a ball is traveling, defensive positioning (good coaching) and minor injuries that probably contribute a lot more to defensive range than even a 3-year average statistic will ever be able to measure. Like you, I prefer the eye test when it comes to defense. But there must be some validity to UZR since it seems to be used more and more in professional evaluation.

I've been told by people here who know way more than me that defensive metrics, as they currently stand, generally need 1.5 to 2 seasons to yield a reliable number (and even that's debatable). Specifically, UZR.

Fortunately, UZR and it's inherent crappiness should fade into memory as the new tracking system is implemented. Not soon enough.

Just looking at his advanced fielding stats, they have him killing it at SS and 3B, but pretty damn bad at 2B. Any theories on this or is it solely sample size?

 

You need 150 or so games in order for them to be reasonably confident that he wasn't just getting awesome bounces or too many opportunities or anything else flukey. Note that that's a different thing than "are they real?" So, he has been killing it at SS/3B and bad at 2B, but we haven't seen nearly enough to be able to use that as information regarding how "good" he really is in terms of true talent, defined as how well he's likely to do going forward.

Edited April 21, 201411 yr by Eminor3rd

I've been told by people here who know way more than me that defensive metrics, as they currently stand, generally need 1.5 to 2 seasons to yield a reliable number (and even that's debatable). Specifically, UZR.

 

It's actually more like 3 unfortunately, to be really safe. The problem is that window is big enough to encompass skill decline, lol.

 

The reason UZR isn't useless is that it does a decent job as a descriptor at much lower samples than that, it's just hard to make it a predictor. So when people say stuff like "MOUSTAKAS sucks all his value came on defense and defense stats are meanignless," they're both right and wrong. They're wrong in arbitrarily refusing to award him the value of his performance (he DID have a great defensive season and it DID matter) but they're right to question his ability to repeat it (by the time we can account for most of the randomess, he will be a different player).

Well that's absolutely wrong.

 

Derek Jeter is the greatest defensive shortstop of all time.

Defensive stats are absolutely meaningless. The only good tool to judge defenders is your eyes.

 

What makes you say this? Your opinion is fine, but you've got to back it up for people to take it seriously.

 

Not trying to be a jerk, just need an actual argument for why they are meaningless in order to refute all of the research that shows otherwise.

What makes you say this? Your opinion is fine, but you've got to back it up for people to take it seriously.

 

Not trying to be a jerk, just need an actual argument for why they are meaningless in order to refute all of the research that shows otherwise.

No I actually don't need an argument to prove this. 100 years of baseball proves it. Defense has always been judged by the eye test. The burden of proof is on you and your stats, not me and my eyes. I can watch a guy like Avi Garcia for 5 minutes and tell you he's a horrible defender. I don't need stats for that.

No I actually don't need an argument to prove this. 100 years of baseball proves it. Defense has always been judged by the eye test. The burden of proof is on you and your stats, not me and my eyes. I can watch a guy like Avi Garcia for 5 minutes and tell you he's a horrible defender. I don't need stats for that.

Because I can watch someone make a great play in one game, not watch their next 5 games where they have errors in each game, and walk away thinking they are great.

 

The eye test is great, for when you actually get to see many full games. Considering how long the season is, how long games are, and how many players out there it's just not reasonable at all to say the eye test is the only measurement because youre going to be lucky to see 1% of all baseball plays. Stats help supplement what you don't see.

No I actually don't need an argument to prove this. 100 years of baseball proves it. Defense has always been judged by the eye test. The burden of proof is on you and your stats, not me and my eyes. I can watch a guy like Avi Garcia for 5 minutes and tell you he's a horrible defender. I don't need stats for that.

 

For 100 years of baseball, they thought runs batted in and wins were important statistics in determining the quality of a player too. Are you going to try and make arguments for those too?

 

I'm not saying that the eye test is useless, but to suggest that defensive stats are useless because "they've been doing the eye test forever" is also incredibly wrong.

Because I can watch someone make a great play in one game, not watch their next 5 games where they have errors in each game, and walk away thinking they are great.

 

The eye test is great, for when you actually get to see many full games. Considering how long the season is, how long games are, and how many players out there it's just not reasonable at all to say the eye test is the only measurement because youre going to be lucky to see 1% of all baseball plays. Stats help supplement what you don't see.

Defensive metrics try to prove what your eyes are showing you. They're meaningless. No, I won't see 1% of baseball plays because I actually watch the games. Errors are meaningless too. I can tell you that L Garcia is plus defender because he has insane range. Bobbling a couple balls doesn't change that. Is there a stat that proves Alexei is the most underrated Sox player of my life?

For 100 years of baseball, they thought runs batted in and wins were important statistics in determining the quality of a player too. Are you going to try and make arguments for those too?

 

I'm not saying that the eye test is useless, but to suggest that defensive stats are useless because "they've been doing the eye test forever" is also incredibly wrong.

RBI's and Wins have absolutely nothing to do with this conversation. Nice strawman, homie.