defensive statistics, Burke

[NeilT]

I read somewhere years ago that the problem with defensive statistics was twofold:  first that unless you have a system that quantifies every possible play--a Platonic system if you will--it was skewed by the player's ability; if a player couldn't make an attempt, it wouldn't have an effect. If a player made an attempt and failed, it would have a negative effect.  Second that even with a real difference in ability, the number of plays in which that ability would be meaningful--the opportunity margin--was so small that it was impossible to quantify in a meaningful way.  Which also raised the question of how truly meaningful it might be--not of course because it couldn't be quantified but because it had less effect on the outcome of games than other aspects of the game.

The ultimate test of individual defensive value, in my mind, was the Jeremy Giambi experiment in MoneyBall.  Beane thought that no matter how bad Giambi was defensively, he could play left, and his offense would make up for it.  If I remember the book right, it was an utter failure.  Giambi may have stopped hitting, I can't remember, but he was also an utter defensive failure in left.  So there's some point that individual defense is so bad that nothing makes up for it.

But for the most part it seems to me the difference in successful marginal opportunities for the best major league player and the average major league player is probably very small, and on an individual basis probably doesn't affect the game very often.  If you told me that Adam Everett was making 5 plays more than Jeter per game, I'd be stunned.  If you told me he was making 1 more play every  20 games I wouldn't be in the least surprised.  What I'd also expect is that the result of those plays for the most part would be more singles allowed by Jeter than by Everett, and rarely Jeter would allow a run that Everett wouldn't allow.

And that's the sort of thing you could quantify, but what struck me last night was that even though those runs allowed could be quantified, it wasn't really what was important.  Unlike the other parts of baseball, pitching or batting, defense is a team sport. If you were going to measure defense, whether by words or numbers, you had to think about the result of the team's collective ability to make plays.  You don't build defense at shortstop, you build defense up the middle.  Or throughout the diamond.  Individual marginal plays aren't particularly important on an individual basis, but collective marginal plays are.

I've probably read that somewhere, probably here, but it had just never struck me as strongly.  If I were the Yankees, would I trade Jeter for Everett?  Are you nuts?  But I'd surely want a better defensive team than I've got.

As an aside, the Astros are still telling us we're likely to see Burke at short a bit:
The Link

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
I've probably read that somewhere, probably here, but it had just never struck me as strongly.  If I were the Yankees, would I trade Jeter for Everett?  Are you nuts?  But I'd surely want a better defensive team than I've got.

I think when defense is discussed in a vaccum, it tends to lead to these types of extreme statements.  When defense is talked about in terms of pitching, parks, team makeup and league, it takes on a whole different meaning.  Ask this question to yourself and perhaps it would affect your notion a bit:

If I were in the *National League* (no DH), had the best pitching staff in the league, played in Chavez Ravine and knew that I had excellent offense up and down my lineup and just needed a good defensive shortstop, would Derek Jeter be my *first* choice?

[astro pete]

Quote:

Quote:
I've probably read that somewhere, probably here, but it had just never struck me as strongly.  If I were the Yankees, would I trade Jeter for Everett?  Are you nuts?  But I'd surely want a better defensive team than I've got.

I think when defense is discussed in a vaccum, it tends to lead to these types of extreme statements.  When defense is talked about in terms of pitching, parks, team makeup and league, it takes on a whole different meaning.  Ask this question to yourself and perhaps it would affect your notion a bit:

If I were in the *National League* (no DH), had the best pitching staff in the league, played in Chavez Ravine and knew that I had excellent offense up and down my lineup and just needed a good defensive shortstop, would Derek Jeter be my *first* choice?

My list:

Alex Rodriguez
Miguel Tejada
Rafael Furcal
Jimmy Rollins
Derek Jeter

[No? in Austin]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
I've probably read that somewhere, probably here, but it had just never struck me as strongly.  If I were the Yankees, would I trade Jeter for Everett?  Are you nuts?  But I'd surely want a better defensive team than I've got.

I think when defense is discussed in a vaccum, it tends to lead to these types of extreme statements.  When defense is talked about in terms of pitching, parks, team makeup and league, it takes on a whole different meaning.  Ask this question to yourself and perhaps it would affect your notion a bit:

If I were in the *National League* (no DH), had the best pitching staff in the league, played in Chavez Ravine and knew that I had excellent offense up and down my lineup and just needed a good defensive shortstop, would Derek Jeter be my *first* choice?

My list:

Alex Rodriguez
Miguel Tejada
Rafael Furcal
Jimmy Rollins
Derek Jeter

*Defensive* shortstops?

[astro pete]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
I've probably read that somewhere, probably here, but it had just never struck me as strongly.  If I were the Yankees, would I trade Jeter for Everett?  Are you nuts?  But I'd surely want a better defensive team than I've got.

I think when defense is discussed in a vaccum, it tends to lead to these types of extreme statements.  When defense is talked about in terms of pitching, parks, team makeup and league, it takes on a whole different meaning.  Ask this question to yourself and perhaps it would affect your notion a bit:

If I were in the *National League* (no DH), had the best pitching staff in the league, played in Chavez Ravine and knew that I had excellent offense up and down my lineup and just needed a good defensive shortstop, would Derek Jeter be my *first* choice?

My list:

Alex Rodriguez
Miguel Tejada
Rafael Furcal
Jimmy Rollins
Derek Jeter

*Defensive* shortstops?

Yup.  They'd have gloves and everything.

[Jacksonian]

Quote:

Quote:
I've probably read that somewhere, probably here, but it had just never struck me as strongly.  If I were the Yankees, would I trade Jeter for Everett?  Are you nuts?  But I'd surely want a better defensive team than I've got.

I think when defense is discussed in a vaccum, it tends to lead to these types of extreme statements.  When defense is talked about in terms of pitching, parks, team makeup and league, it takes on a whole different meaning.  Ask this question to yourself and perhaps it would affect your notion a bit:

If I were in the *National League* (no DH), had the best pitching staff in the league, played in Chavez Ravine and knew that I had excellent offense up and down my lineup and just needed a good defensive shortstop, would Derek Jeter be my *first* choice?

If you're trying to cover all the relevant details, given you've got a top staff and excellent offense, you've probably got a high payroll.  If you're looking for a lower cost shortstop, ie lighter hitting better defending one, then I'd go with Everett or Wilson.

[astro pete]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
I've probably read that somewhere, probably here, but it had just never struck me as strongly.  If I were the Yankees, would I trade Jeter for Everett?  Are you nuts?  But I'd surely want a better defensive team than I've got.

I think when defense is discussed in a vaccum, it tends to lead to these types of extreme statements.  When defense is talked about in terms of pitching, parks, team makeup and league, it takes on a whole different meaning.  Ask this question to yourself and perhaps it would affect your notion a bit:

If I were in the *National League* (no DH), had the best pitching staff in the league, played in Chavez Ravine and knew that I had excellent offense up and down my lineup and just needed a good defensive shortstop, would Derek Jeter be my *first* choice?

If you're trying to cover all the relevant details, given you've got a top staff and excellent offense, you've probably got a high payroll.  If you're looking for a lower cost shortstop, ie lighter hitting better defending one, then I'd go with Everett or Wilson.

Apparently we play in Chavez Ravine.  ie- high payroll.

[David in Jackson]

Quote:

Unlike the other parts of baseball, pitching or batting, defense is a team sport. If you were going to measure defense, whether by words or numbers, you had to think about the result of the team's collective ability to make plays.  You don't build defense at shortstop, you build defense up the middle.  Or throughout the diamond.  Individual marginal plays aren't particularly important on an individual basis, but collective marginal plays are.

I agree defense is more of a team effort than offense.  A good 1b can save a lot of throwing errors.  Obviously, there's an individual element, too.  Giambi in the OF, for example.  The biggest example of how teamwork effects defense, it seems to me, is pitching (ground ball v. fly ball rates and number of base runners, etc.).

There is some element of teamwork in offense, too.  For example, it's often said that Adam Everett is a good bunter, can move runners over, has decent speed.  All of these secondary skills can help the team if he's in a lineup that doesn't rely him to do things he can't.

[NeilT]

Quote:

Quote:
I've probably read that somewhere, probably here, but it had just never struck me as strongly.  If I were the Yankees, would I trade Jeter for Everett?  Are you nuts?  But I'd surely want a better defensive team than I've got.

I think when defense is discussed in a vaccum, it tends to lead to these types of extreme statements.  When defense is talked about in terms of pitching, parks, team makeup and league, it takes on a whole different meaning.  Ask this question to yourself and perhaps it would affect your notion a bit:

If I were in the *National League* (no DH), had the best pitching staff in the league, played in Chavez Ravine and knew that I had excellent offense up and down my lineup and just needed a good defensive shortstop, would Derek Jeter be my *first* choice?

I guess what struck me last night was that in that s'pose there's an unstated assumption:  the excellent offense in your line-up can't be made up of Jeremy Giambis.  If they're not at least average defensive players as well, then it wouldn't matter if you reincarnated Honus Wagner and spliced in Ozzie Smith's genes, one good defensive shortstop wouldn't make much difference.  But I think we're saying the same thing:  analyzing a team defensively doesn't make sense individually.  It results in the kind of absurdity I stated with Jeter.

I'd really like to see the Bill James essay in that defense book.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
I've probably read that somewhere, probably here, but it had just never struck me as strongly.  If I were the Yankees, would I trade Jeter for Everett?  Are you nuts?  But I'd surely want a better defensive team than I've got.

I think when defense is discussed in a vaccum, it tends to lead to these types of extreme statements.  When defense is talked about in terms of pitching, parks, team makeup and league, it takes on a whole different meaning.  Ask this question to yourself and perhaps it would affect your notion a bit:

If I were in the *National League* (no DH), had the best pitching staff in the league, played in Chavez Ravine and knew that I had excellent offense up and down my lineup and just needed a good defensive shortstop, would Derek Jeter be my *first* choice?

If you're trying to cover all the relevant details, given you've got a top staff and excellent offense, you've probably got a high payroll.  If you're looking for a lower cost shortstop, ie lighter hitting better defending one, then I'd go with Everett or Wilson.

While I would agree Everett and Wilson would present definite defensive upgrades, Wilson ain't so cheap no more!

 web page

[NeilT]

Quote:

Quote:

Unlike the other parts of baseball, pitching or batting, defense is a team sport. If you were going to measure defense, whether by words or numbers, you had to think about the result of the team's collective ability to make plays.  You don't build defense at shortstop, you build defense up the middle.  Or throughout the diamond.  Individual marginal plays aren't particularly important on an individual basis, but collective marginal plays are.

I agree defense is more of a team effort than offense.  A good 1b can save a lot of throwing errors.  Obviously, there's an individual element, too.  Giambi in the OF, for example.  The biggest example of how teamwork effects defense, it seems to me, is pitching (ground ball v. fly ball rates and number of base runners, etc.).

There is some element of teamwork in offense, too.  For example, it's often said that Adam Everett is a good bunter, can move runners over, has decent speed.  All of these secondary skills can help the team if he's in a lineup that doesn't rely him to do things he can't.

Good point. Maybe you could say that while hitting may be mostly individual, scoring runs certainly is not? The other thing that ocurred to me is that pitching/catching is kind of a team activity as well:  a bad catcher will certainly hurt a good pitcher, a great catcher can certainly help any pitcher.  That's why the Astros invest in Ausmus in the battery.  The reason other teams don't is because there just aren't many Ausmuses.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
My list:

Alex Rodriguez
Miguel Tejada
Rafael Furcal
Jimmy Rollins
Derek Jeter

Quote:
*Defensive* shortstops?

Quote:
Yup.  They'd have gloves and everything.

We disagree then.  Of those on your list, only Rollins would crack a top five *defensive* list for me.  And he wouldn't be in the top three either.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
If you're trying to cover all the relevant details, given you've got a top staff and excellent offense, you've probably got a high payroll.  If you're looking for a lower cost shortstop, ie lighter hitting better defending one, then I'd go with Everett or Wilson.

I didn't mention payroll, but all the other factors are still there.  What I was trying to get to in essence is defensive needs in a team are measured by many factors *beyond* just the ability.  Thanks for capturing the essence of what I meant.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
But I think we're saying the same thing:  analyzing a team defensively doesn't make sense individually.  It results in the kind of absurdity I stated with Jeter

I think I wasn't clear that I agreed with you on the first post and most definitely agree with you now, most especially on the absurdity of making comparative statements ("I'd take Jeter over Everett *every day* of the season!").

[Jacksonian]

Quote:

Quote:
If you're trying to cover all the relevant details, given you've got a top staff and excellent offense, you've probably got a high payroll.  If you're looking for a lower cost shortstop, ie lighter hitting better defending one, then I'd go with Everett or Wilson.

I didn't mention payroll, but all the other factors are still there.  What I was trying to get to in essence is defensive needs in a team are measured by many factors *beyond* just the ability.  Thanks for capturing the essence of what I meant.

One factor you didn't mention specifically, perhaps only implied, was the effect on the pitcher's confidence to throw anything, anywhere (within reason).  I imagine Pettitte enjoys looking at shortstop each start and knowing that his shortstop is going to not only make the regular plays regularly but also the difficult plays regularly.  On the otherhand, I think he thinks very differently when he looks at second.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
If you're trying to cover all the relevant details, given you've got a top staff and excellent offense, you've probably got a high payroll.  If you're looking for a lower cost shortstop, ie lighter hitting better defending one, then I'd go with Everett or Wilson.

I didn't mention payroll, but all the other factors are still there.  What I was trying to get to in essence is defensive needs in a team are measured by many factors *beyond* just the ability.  Thanks for capturing the essence of what I meant.

One factor you didn't mention specifically, perhaps only implied, was the effect on the pitcher's confidence to throw anything, anywhere (within reason).  I imagine Pettitte enjoys looking at shortstop each start and knowing that his shortstop is going to not only make the regular plays regularly but also the difficult plays regularly.  On the otherhand, I think he thinks very differently when he looks at second.

Yes!  Eggszactly!!

As I've said before in this here very forum even... if you're going to invest your dollars and most especially your team's success by building a pitching rich team and then care nothing about putting a defense behind them, you're an organization that is playing a little loose with your prime investment.

It is a difference of putting Craig Biggio in centerfield  because you think you can win this way and changing him out with Carlos Beltran before the season ends.  Roy Oswalt almost fainted at the mere thought that someone actually was paying attention.

[NeilT]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
If you're trying to cover all the relevant details, given you've got a top staff and excellent offense, you've probably got a high payroll.  If you're looking for a lower cost shortstop, ie lighter hitting better defending one, then I'd go with Everett or Wilson.

I didn't mention payroll, but all the other factors are still there.  What I was trying to get to in essence is defensive needs in a team are measured by many factors *beyond* just the ability.  Thanks for capturing the essence of what I meant.

One factor you didn't mention specifically, perhaps only implied, was the effect on the pitcher's confidence to throw anything, anywhere (within reason).  I imagine Pettitte enjoys looking at shortstop each start and knowing that his shortstop is going to not only make the regular plays regularly but also the difficult plays regularly.  On the otherhand, I think he thinks very differently when he looks at second.

Yes!  Eggszactly!!

As I've said before in this here very forum even... if you're going to invest your dollars and most especially your team's success by building a pitching rich team and then care nothing about putting a defense behind them, you're an organization that is playing a little loose with your prime investment.

It is a difference of putting Craig Biggio in centerfield  because you think you can win this way and changing him out with Carlos Beltran before the season ends.  Roy Oswalt almost fainted at the mere thought that someone actually was paying attention.

But the reverse of that would be true as well, wouldn't it?  I can throw more aggressively because I know that if I give up a run, my offense will get it back.  That's a problem when your offense is handing you shut outs.

What a great game.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
But the reverse of that would be true as well, wouldn't it?  I can throw more aggressively because I know that if I give up a run, my offense will get it back.  That's a problem when your offense is handing you shut outs.

What a great game.

Two words: Kevin Brown (circa 1998).  Now tell me again about offense in that context, especially if you're a pitcher.

(BTW - I never disavowed offense at all.  I mentioned the parameters of chosing an Adam Everett over a Derek Jeter and it most certainly centered around a good offensive team already in place)

[NeilT]

You just ruined my day.

[astro pete]

Quote:

Two words: Kevin Brown (circa 1998).  Now tell me again about offense in that context, especially if you're a pitcher.

(BTW - I never disavowed offense at all.  I mentioned the parameters of chosing an Adam Everett over a Derek Jeter and it most certainly centered around a good offensive team already in place)

You asked a loaded question.  You asked (essentially): if you have great pitching and a great lineup and all you need is a great defensive shortstop, who would you choose?  My problem with the question is it assumes what you set out to prove: that an Adam Everett-type is the guy.  But, you can't assume that a great defensive shortstop is "all you need."  How do you know?

So, if the question asked is more along the lines of: you already have great pitching and a great lineup, who would you like to play shortstop?  My answer, and I know you disagree, remains the same.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:

Quote:

Two words: Kevin Brown (circa 1998).  Now tell me again about offense in that context, especially if you're a pitcher.

(BTW - I never disavowed offense at all.  I mentioned the parameters of chosing an Adam Everett over a Derek Jeter and it most certainly centered around a good offensive team already in place)

You asked a loaded question.  You asked (essentially): if you have great pitching and a great lineup and all you need is a great defensive shortstop, who would you choose?  My problem with the question is it assumes what you set out to prove: that an Adam Everett-type is the guy.  But, you can't assume that a great defensive shortstop is "all you need."  How do you know?

So, if the question asked is more along the lines of: you already have great pitching and a great lineup, who would you like to play shortstop?  My answer, and I know you disagree, remains the same.

Given the difference in offensive value between Rodriguez and Everett, I can think of only a few contexts in which I would rather have Everett. Here are two:

(1) Rodriguez forgets that he's back at shortstop, and keeps setting up at third base, leaving a big hole between second and third.

(2) Rodriguez loses one of his arms in a farming accident.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
You asked a loaded question.

Not really, I asked a question that had parameters (or context) so that the quick answer of "gimme Jeter (or A-Rod)" wouldn't be so previlent.

Quote:
You asked (essentially): if you have great pitching and a great lineup and all you need is a great defensive shortstop, who would you choose?

Why did Jacksonian have little to no problem with the essence of the question?  Or is that a *loaded* question as well?

Quote:
My problem with the question is it assumes what you set out to prove: that an Adam Everett-type is the guy.

Again, not really.  If you look at what I was responding to in Neil's statement (and I provided it for context sake as well), I wasn't trying to make a case for AE, but to provide why a shortstop like AE would be rated higher than Jeter in a contextual manner.  Sorry I wasn't clear enough on my attempt to provide said scenario where choices in what type of player could very well prove out a need for a certain type of player instead of a blanket statement of "gimme Jeter over Everett" pablum.

Quote:
But, you can't assume that a great defensive shortstop is "all you need."  How do you know?

I wonder how the 1927 Yankees knew what they needed in a short stop?  (Are you serious with this question or is it loaded?)

Quote:
So, if the question asked is more along the lines of: you already have great pitching and a great lineup, who would you like to play shortstop?  My answer, and I know you disagree, remains the same.

And I still disagree with your list.  So what?

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
Given the difference in offensive value between Rodriguez and Everett, I can think of only a few contexts in which I would rather have Everett. Here are two:

(1) Rodriguez forgets that he's back at shortstop, and keeps setting up at third base, leaving a big hole between second and third.

(2) Rodriguez loses one of his arms in a farming accident.

OF COURSE he *hits* better than AE (who said he didn't?).  That *really* makes him a great choice for *shortstop* (or a #3 hitter in a lineup)?  However, what if A-Rod hit equal to AE, is he *still* the choice?  Scott Boras awaits your answer.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:

Quote:
Given the difference in offensive value between Rodriguez and Everett, I can think of only a few contexts in which I would rather have Everett. Here are two:

(1) Rodriguez forgets that he's back at shortstop, and keeps setting up at third base, leaving a big hole between second and third.

(2) Rodriguez loses one of his arms in a farming accident.

OF COURSE he *hits* better than AE (who said he didn't?).  That *really* makes him a great choice for *shortstop* (or a #3 hitter in a lineup)?  However, what if A-Rod hit equal to AE, is he *still* the choice?  Scott Boras awaits your answer.

If they hit the same, then the judgment would be chiefly based on defensive ability.  But they don't hit the same.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
If they hit the same, then the judgment would be chiefly based on defensive ability.  But they don't hit the same.

So *why* would he be rated higher than Everett *on defense*?  Because he *hits* better?

[Bench]

Quote:

Quote:
If they hit the same, then the judgment would be chiefly based on defensive ability.  But they don't hit the same.

So *why* would he be rated higher than Everett *on defense*?  Because he *hits* better?

Absolutely. A-Rod won two gold gloves at shortstop because he hits better.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:

Quote:
If they hit the same, then the judgment would be chiefly based on defensive ability.  But they don't hit the same.

So *why* would he be rated higher than Everett *on defense*?  Because he *hits* better?

I never said he should be rated higher on defense because he hits better.

I said I would pick A-Rod over Everett to be my shortstop.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
If they hit the same, then the judgment would be chiefly based on defensive ability.  But they don't hit the same.

So *why* would he be rated higher than Everett *on defense*?  Because he *hits* better?

Absolutely. A-Rod won two gold gloves at shortstop because he hits better.

Eggszactly!

[astro pete]

Quote:

Quote:
If they hit the same, then the judgment would be chiefly based on defensive ability.  But they don't hit the same.

So *why* would he be rated higher than Everett *on defense*?  Because he *hits* better?

You didn't ask who was the better defensive player, you asked who you'd rather have at shortstop. Do shortstops not hit in this hypothetical as well?

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
I never said he should be rated higher on defense because he hits better.

Is it really that hard to say (or type) "Adam Everett is a better defensive shortstop than A-Rod"?

Quote:
I said I would pick A-Rod over Everett to be my shortstop.

Again, providing the context of *defensive need* was key to the query at hand.  Nobody would argue with you that A-Rod is a better overall choice for shortstop *because offensively he's spectacular*.  Do you think we... or I... is that crazy?

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
You didn't ask who was the better defensive player,

Let's review what I asked, shall we...

If I were in the *National League* (no DH), had the best pitching staff in the league, played in Chavez Ravine and knew that I had excellent offense up and down my lineup and just needed a good defensive shortstop, would Derek Jeter be my *first* choice?

You then provided a list of shortstops, to which I replied...

*Defensive* shortstops?

So where did I fail to ask about defense in your list?  BTW, you replied to my question about *defensive* shortstops with an affirmative.  Now you're backpeddling seriously (or so it seems).

Quote:
you asked who you'd rather have at shortstop.

Ahum, no I didn't.  It is the very point of what I was asking, how discussions like this tend to be in a vaccuum because fans tend to view things in said vaccuum.

Quote:
Do shortstops not hit in this hypothetical as well?

When they're playing defense, no they don't!

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:

Quote:
I never said he should be rated higher on defense because he hits better.

Is it really that hard to say (or type) "Adam Everett is a better defensive shortstop than A-Rod"?

Quote:
I said I would pick A-Rod over Everett to be my shortstop.

Again, providing the context of *defensive need* was key to the query at hand.  Nobody would argue with you that A-Rod is a better overall choice for shortstop *because offensively he's spectacular*.  Do you think we... or I... is that crazy?

I don't think I ever declined to say that I think Adam Everett is a better defensive shortstop then Alex Rodriguez, although I have not examined the issue that closely.  Adam Everett is a very good defensive shortstop.  Alex Rodriguez was a good defensive shortstop, but he hasn't played there in awhile.

There aren't any reasonable contexts, even of defensive need, that come to mind where I would take Adam Everett over Alex Rodriguez.

[astro pete]

Quote:

Again, providing the context of *defensive need* was key to the query at hand.  Nobody would argue with you that A-Rod is a better overall choice for shortstop *because offensively he's spectacular*.  Do you think we... or I... is that crazy?

Right.  It was essential to the query; it was also flawed.  I think this is the only point where we disagree.

[astro pete]

Quote:


So where did I fail to ask about defense in your list?  BTW, you replied to my question about *defensive* shortstops with an affirmative.  Now you're backpeddling seriously (or so it seems).

Nope.  Alex Rodriguez is still atop my list.  I also don't think he's the best defensive shortstop in the league.  I just assumed that the hypothetical you presented pertained to baseball, where my shortstop is also in the lineup.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
I don't think I ever declined to say that I think Adam Everett is a better defensive shortstop then Alex Rodriguez, although I have not examined the issue that closely.

Pete provided a list of *defensive* shorstops, topped by A-Rod.  I disagreed with his assesment.  Then you jumped in.  And you didn't jump in to provide anything about the defense but about offense.  Why is defense so hard to talk about?

Quote:
Adam Everett is a very good defensive shortstop.  Alex Rodriguez was a good defensive shortstop, but he hasn't played there in awhile.

Adam Everett is probably the best shortstop in majors, but that is debateable as well.  But he is one of the best.

Quote:
There aren't any reasonable contexts, even of defensive need, that come to mind where I would take Adam Everett over Alex Rodriguez.

Jacksonian provided one, that of money.  I provided others, including supporting your pitching with the defense up the middle to keep them at thier best.  The St. Louis Cardinals a few years back had perhaps the best defensive team (that could hit as well) I had seen in awhile.  The staff of pretty good starters became a staff of pretty great pitchers almost instantly.  So if you had an offense that was great already and wanted to support your pitchers, why would you not consider a defensive minded shortstop.  Especially at the most crucial spot on the field given defensive needs?  Sure you could pick A-Rod over AE if you'd like, no problem with that choice at all.  Even Jeter.  But I can think of context to pick AE as well, and to get back to Neil's point (in my view): Vaccuum filled "gimme Jetah ovah Everett any day" are somewhat silly and very surface level thinking.

IMHO of course.

In fantasy baseball, you can certainly build a *team* this way.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
I also don't think he's the best defensive shortstop in the league.

And he's the top of you list of *defensive shortstops* because....?

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
Right.  It was essential to the query; it was also flawed.

So say it's flawed and be done with.  But to provide a list of *defensive* shortstops and then crab your way back out of it is not the best way to prove the point.

Quote:
I think this is the only point where we disagree.

Fine with me.

[Jacksonian]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Two words: Kevin Brown (circa 1998).  Now tell me again about offense in that context, especially if you're a pitcher.

(BTW - I never disavowed offense at all.  I mentioned the parameters of chosing an Adam Everett over a Derek Jeter and it most certainly centered around a good offensive team already in place)

You asked a loaded question.  You asked (essentially): if you have great pitching and a great lineup and all you need is a great defensive shortstop, who would you choose?  My problem with the question is it assumes what you set out to prove: that an Adam Everett-type is the guy.  But, you can't assume that a great defensive shortstop is "all you need."  How do you know?

So, if the question asked is more along the lines of: you already have great pitching and a great lineup, who would you like to play shortstop?  My answer, and I know you disagree, remains the same.

Given the difference in offensive value between Rodriguez and Everett, I can think of only a few contexts in which I would rather have Everett. Here are two:

(1) Rodriguez forgets that he's back at shortstop, and keeps setting up at third base, leaving a big hole between second and third.

(2) Rodriguez loses one of his arms in a farming accident.

(3) Team doesn't have $25 mil. to spend on 1 player.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
(3) Team doesn't have $25 mil. to spend on 1 player.

In fantasy baseball, you don't worry about this sort of thing!

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
Pete provided a list of *defensive* shorstops, topped by A-Rod.  I disagreed with his assesment.  Then you jumped in.  And you didn't jump in to provide anything about the defense but about offense.  Why is defense so hard to talk about?

It's not so hard to talk about defense. Here's what I have to say about it in this case: I've seen nothing in the defensive performances of Everett and Rodriguez to make me think that Everett over Rodriguez in the field would give a team, any team, a defensive advantage that would come close to outweighing the offensive advantage of having Rodriguez over Everett in the line-up. Rodriguez created approximately 97 more runs offensively last year than Everett did.  Maybe if you put two Everetts out there they might cover enough ground to make up that difference.

Quote:
Adam Everett is probably the best shortstop in majors, but that is debateable as well.  But he is one of the best.

I won't quibble with you on this point.

Quote:
Jacksonian provided one, that of money.  I provided others, including supporting your pitching with the defense up the middle to keep them at thier best.  The St. Louis Cardinals a few years back had perhaps the best defensive team (that could hit as well) I had seen in awhile.  The staff of pretty good starters became a staff of pretty great pitchers almost instantly.  So if you had an offense that was great already and wanted to support your pitchers, why would you not consider a defensive minded shortstop.  Especially at the most crucial spot on the field given defensive needs?  Sure you could pick A-Rod over AE if you'd like, no problem with that choice at all.  Even Jeter.  But I can think of context to pick AE as well, and to get back to Neil's point (in my view): Vaccuum filled "gimme Jetah ovah Everett any day" are somewhat silly and very surface level thinking.

IMHO of course.

In fantasy baseball, you can certainly build a *team* this way.

I'll concede the money point.  But in terms of defensive context, 97 runs is a huge amount to make up.  The Astros allowed 609 runs last season.  I cannot see that with Rodriguez instead of Everett that they would instead have allowed 706 runs, which would be the approximate order of magnitude that would be necessary to make me forget about the difference in the line-up.

A-Rod is an extreme example, however.  If we start to narrow it down to the more mortal universe of shortstops, then I think the context is not so overshadowed, and there are contexts where the importance of getting the glove onto the field exceeds the importance of getting the stick into the line-up.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
It's not so hard to talk about defense.

Cool, let's do it.

Quote:
Here's what I have to say about it in this case: I've seen nothing in the defensive performances of Everett and Rodriguez to make me think that Everett over Rodriguez in the field would give a team, any team, a defensive advantage that would come close to outweighing the offensive advantage of having Rodriguez over Everett in the line-up.

*sigh*... Well, again, you're basing your assessment of *defensive ability* on offense.  Why?  Let's do it this way, very simply put: Is Everett better than A-Rod defensively, yes or no? (I thought you *WANTED* to talk defense???)

Quote:
Rodriguez created approximately 97 more runs offensively last year than Everett did.

Context: Hitting third in a loaded lineup in the DH league.

Quote:
Maybe if you put two Everetts out there they might cover enough ground to make up that difference.

Cute.

Quote:
I won't quibble with you on this point.

Thanks, this is the closest I've gotten you to say "Adam Everett is a better defensive shortstop than A-Rod".  We're making progress.

Quote:
I'll concede the money point.

Really?  Why?  Because you can *actually* have context to value a player beyond how well he hits?  OMG!

Quote:
But in terms of defensive context, 97 runs is a huge amount to make up.

Context: Hitting third in a loaded lineup in the DH league.

Quote:
The Astros allowed 609 runs last season.  I cannot see that with Rodriguez instead of Everett that they would instead have allowed 706 runs, which would be the approximate order of magnitude that would be necessary to make me forget about the difference in the line-up.

Are we still discussing *defensive prowess*?  Yes or no.

Quote:
A-Rod is an extreme example, however.  If we start to narrow it down to the more mortal universe of shortstops, then I think the context is not so overshadowed, and there are circumstances where the importance of getting the glove onto the field might exceed the importance of getting the stick into the line-up.

And making a *list* of defensive shortstops to choose from as well.

[astro pete]

Quote:

So say it's flawed and be done with.  But to provide a list of *defensive* shortstops and then crab your way back out of it is not the best way to prove the point.

Then I haven't been clear. I'm not crabbing out of anything. You asked for a list, I gave you my list. You asked if these were *defensive shortstops*, and I submitted that I'd give them gloves and everything. You never once asked for a list of the best defensive shortstops.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
Then I haven't been clear.

You said "Yup. They'd have gloves and everything." Ahem... what in heavens name do you *think* gloves are for when asked about defense?

Quote:
I'm not crabbing out of anything.

Could've fooled me.  I keep hearing the Sebastian song from Little Mermaid with every post you make.

Quote:
You asked for a list,

Ahum... no I didn't.  I asked if anyone would have Derek Jeter at the top of a list of defensive shortstops (given the context of what I was saying when I mentioned *defense* at the very start of my statements).  You provided *A* list of shortstops, I asked for the qualifier of *defensive* shortstops, you replied "with gloves and everything", Sebastian.

Quote:
I gave you my list. You asked if these were *defensive shortstops*, and I submitted that I'd give them gloves and everything. You never once asked for a list of the best defensive shortstops.

Tis right, I asked about Jeter, you're the one who decided it was time for your typical Hetero-Doxy lite replies.  And might I say you still have a very long way to be anywhere near the efficiency and prowess of HD.  Most of your stuff is actually pathetically boring, but you do continue to bring it as if you think it's getting better.

Stay gold, Sebastian.

[astro pete]

Apparently accusing someone of crabbing out of an argument has become, at least in this instance, as useful/appropriate as point by point refutation.  You created a bizarre, flawed premise where shortstops don't hit in some vain attempt to prove that Adam Everett--at least on one mystical baseball team--is somehow more desirable than Derek Jeter.  Then, in typical Noe fashion, you get defensive when told your idea sucks.  Same story, different day.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
Apparently accusing someone of crabbing out of an argument has become, at least in this instance, as useful/appropriate as point by point refutation.

Especially when the person is crabbing his way out of what they thought was a cute response.

Quote:
You created a bizarre, flawed premise where shortstops don't hit

Silly point... I was talking about defense and when talking about defense, you don't talk about hitting.  But we've been through this before already.  Odd that Neil would use "defensive statistics" in his title, eh?

Quote:
in some vain attempt to prove that Adam Everett--at least on one mystical baseball team--is somehow more desirable than Derek Jeter.

Actually, the point was more about making vaccum statements of value from one player to another who play the same position.  All lost to you because you don't seem to understand defense as a value.  At least not when asked about it.

Quote:
Then, in typical Noe fashion, you get defensive when told your idea sucks.  Same story, different day.

Sucks for you, huh?  Want a pacifier to soothe the pain, Sebastian?

[NeilT]

What's odd about this to me is that I--maybe incorrectly--would guess that A-Rod is in fact a pretty spectacular defensive shortstop.  I always thought he was a gold glove ss who probably deserved it.  The same for, say, Rollins. Is Everett really that much better defensively than A-Rod?  I'm not watching the Yankee's everyday for nothing or nobody.

[astro pete]

Quote:
What's odd about this to me is that I--maybe incorrectly--would guess that A-Rod is in fact a pretty spectacular defensive shortstop.  I always thought he was a gold glove ss who probably deserved it.  The same for, say, Rollins. Is Everett really that much better defensively than A-Rod?  I'm not watching the Yankee's everyday for nothing or nobody.

It's a bizarre argument.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
What's odd about this to me is that I--maybe incorrectly--would guess that A-Rod is in fact a pretty spectacular defensive shortstop.

When he played in Seattle, in astroturf, A-Rod was fantastic as a shortstop.  He lost just a tad (IMHO) when he went to grass in Arlington.  Not much, but he certainly wasn't the same as he was *defensively* in Seattle.  I would rate him at top ten, but couldn't really tell you where he would rank in that top ten right now.  He's been a third baseman for two years now, so that hinders how I would rate him.

Quote:
I always thought he was a gold glove ss who probably deserved it.  The same for, say, Rollins.

Rollins has gotten better, top five material in my book.  But his penchant for leaving his feet a little too much would probably be something I would think most baseball men would want him to work on.  Make the play by reading the ball off the bat better sort of thing instead of relying heavily on talent (great talent at that).  Analogous to Jim Edmonds in centerfield... sorta.

Quote:
Is Everett really that much better defensively than A-Rod?  I'm not watching the Yankee's everyday for nothing or nobody.

Right now, I would say most definitely.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
It's a bizarre argument.

Why?

[astro pete]

Quote:

Sucks for you, huh?  Want a pacifier to soothe the pain, Sebastian?

Pain of suffering through your unreadable posts?  I'm fine, really.  I chuckle at all the smiley faces and *sighs* and *EMPHASIS*.

I also appreciate the irony here. First you're creating a team (a baseball one), then you're evaluating shortstop strictly for their defense.  Crab, crab, crab.  Blah, blah, blah.

[NeilT]

I don't think it's bizarre, but maybe a bit flawed.  What Noe tried to do was posit a circumstance where you would clearly choose defense, and I think his impulse is right:  you have to create a context or you can't discuss it.  For me it's flawed because I can't tell the difference between A-Rod and Everett defensively.  That said, I could certainly understand that all things considered, money, the peculiarities of MMPUS, our pitching, and his offensive upside, Everett is exactly the right ss for us.  Even if he's going to be giving up playing time to Burke because down the line Burke is going to be in our infield.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
Pain of suffering through your unreadable posts?

Masochistic much?

Quote:
I'm fine, really.

I'm glad.  Hate for you to put me on the ignore list and save yourself all that pain you covet.

Quote:
I chuckle at all the smiley faces and *sighs* and *EMPHASIS*.

*GREAT*!  

Quote:
I also appreciate the irony here. First you're creating a team (a baseball one), then you're evaluating shortstop strictly for their defense.

And you can't hang with it, must talk fantacrap baseball!  Or just being HD-lite that you aspire to provide to this forum.

Quote:
Crab, crab, crab.  Blah, blah, blah.

That's "whap, whap, whap, whap, whap".  Get it *RIGHT* (oops, sorry) please!

[astro pete]

Quote:

Why?

Because you can't create a premise for constructing a baseball team that eliminates only the parts of the argument (offense) that are inconvenient for you.  This was my problem with this thread to begin with.  

We can call each other names all afternoon.  But, if you're constructing a baseball team for the purpose of actually winning baseball games, you have to do so in a realistic baseball context (ie-a shortstop hits and fields).  If this is not what you wanted to do in the first place--if you just wanted to look at shortstops in a defensive vacuum--why do so in the context of putting together a team?

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
Because you can't create a premise for constructing a baseball team that eliminates only the parts of the argument (offense) that are inconvenient for you.  This was my problem with this thread to begin with.

Actually it was about value, plain and simple.  And if value in terms of defense can be introduced into a surface argument of said value.  

Quote:
We can call each other names all afternoon.

HD-lite was a name you claimed a long time ago.  I merely used it because it was appropriate in this thread.

Quote:
But, if you're constructing a baseball team for the purpose of actually winning baseball games, you have to do so in a realistic baseball context (ie-a shortstop hits and fields).

But not every player in your lineup has to be Babe Ruth, some can be Mark Koenig or Davey Concepcion or even Ozzie Smith.  Construction of a *team* has intristic value, not just the ascribed value of fantasy baseball.  It has been a lost to most fans lately because of the over-emphasis of offense in terms of value.  Hence why a value judgement is quick and easy for many to jump to Jeter while not evaluating *team* needs.  In fact, construction of high dollar, all-star at every position (in terms of hitting) doesn't seem to have as big an effect on *success* (or winning) as perhaps thought.  The emphasis on defense and pitching (or vice versa if you'd like) seems to have made a slight climb back into the minds of the neo-baseball men in the mlb.  The ChiSox and Astros were certainly not the poster children for "offense wins pennants" last year to prove it.

Quote:
If this is not what you wanted to do in the first place--if you just wanted to look at shortstops in a defensive vacuum--why do so in the context of putting together a team?

Because I laid out the parameters (context) for what I would be looking for (and Jacksonian certainly provided the best reason that I did not... damn I hate him!).  You decided to be cute.  So be it.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
That said, I could certainly understand that all things considered, money, the peculiarities of MMPUS, our pitching, and his offensive upside, Everett is exactly the right ss for us.

Blasphemy!

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
*sigh*... Well, again, you're basing your assessment of *defensive ability* on offense.  Why?  Let's do it this way, very simply put: Is Everett better than A-Rod defensively, yes or no? (I thought you *WANTED* to talk defense???)

To repeat myself, regarding Everett vs. Rodriguez: "I don't think I ever declined to say that I think Adam Everett is a better defensive shortstop then Alex Rodriguez, although I have not examined the issue that closely. Adam Everett is a very good defensive shortstop. Alex Rodriguez was a good defensive shortstop, but he hasn't played there in awhile."

To also repeat myself, regarding talking about defense: "I've seen nothing in the defensive performances of Everett and Rodriguez to make me think that Everett over Rodriguez in the field would give a team, any team, a defensive advantage that would come close to outweighing the offensive advantage of having Rodriguez over Everett in the line-up."

That is talking about their defense.  If the offensive context bothers you, let me be more unequivocal: I think Everett is likely a better defensive shortstop than Rodriguez, but I don't think Everett would save anywhere near 97 more runs than Rodriguez would at shortstop.

Quote:
Context: Hitting third in a loaded lineup in the DH league.

The runs created approximation is irrespective of line-up and whether the American league has a designated hitter.  It's a matter of Rodriguez's own OBP and slugging percentage. Rodriguez has posted similar runs created numbers in most of the last 10 seasons for three different teams.  Let's say context were the difference, how much is that difference?  Let's say you switched Rodriguez and Everett in their respective line-ups.  Would the gap narrow from 97 runs to 90 runs, 80 runs, 70 runs?  It's still an almost unimaginably large gulf between them offensively.

Quote:
Thanks, this is the closest I've gotten you to say "Adam Everett is a better defensive shortstop than A-Rod".  We're making progress.

The closest I got is what I wrote earlier today and re-posted up above: "I don't think I ever declined to say that I think Adam Everett is a better defensive shortstop then Alex Rodriguez, although I have not examined the issue that closely. Adam Everett is a very good defensive shortstop. Alex Rodriguez was a good defensive shortstop, but he hasn't played there in awhile."

Quote:
Really?  Why?  Because you can *actually* have context to value a player beyond how well he hits?  OMG!

Because almost no team can or will pay for a $25 million player, so it would be foolish for me to argue that they would.  Just like virtually every team in baseball would take Rodriguez over Everett if price were no consideration.

Quote:
Context: Hitting third in a loaded lineup in the DH league.

See above.  Context does not close a 97-run gap.

Quote:
Are we still discussing *defensive prowess*?  Yes or no.

Sure.  Everett's defensive prowess doesn't save 97 runs per season over what Rodriguez's defensive prowess would.

Quote:
And making a *list* of defensive shortstops to choose from as well.

I never made a list of defensive shortstops.  That's not the issue to me here.  The issue to me is whether there are defensive contexts that would make a team choose Everett over Rodriguez.  Given that both of them have to bat as well as take the field, I am pretty sure there is no team in baseball that would take Everett over Rodriguez if price were not an issue. So, basically, the only reason I can see a team that had a choice between the two of them take Everett over Rodriguez is because the team has no interest or ability to pay Rodriguez's salary.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
But not every player in your lineup has to be Babe Ruth, some can be Mark Koenig or Davey Concepcion or even Ozzie Smith.  Construction of a *team* has intristic value, not just the ascribed value of fantasy baseball.  It has been a lost to most fans lately because of the over-emphasis of offense in terms of value.  Hence why a value judgement is quick and easy for many to jump to Jeter while not evaluating *team* needs.  In fact, construction of high dollar, all-star at every position (in terms of hitting) doesn't seem to have as big an effect on *success* (or winning) as perhaps thought.  The emphasis on defense and pitching (or vice versa if you'd like) seems to have made a slight climb back into the minds of the neo-baseball men in the mlb.  The ChiSox and Astros were certainly not the poster children for "offense wins pennants" last year to prove it.

1. Is there any historical evidence that the Yankees put Koenig at shortstop because of defensive context, rather than because who cares who the shortstop is when you have Ruth, Gehrig, Lazzeri and Meusel in your line-up?

2. The Astros and White Sox are two of the most anamalous pennant-winners in four decades. Only the 1973 Mets ranked as low in runs scored and still won the National League pennant, and only the 1985 Royals ranked lower in runs scored and still won the American League pennant.

[mihoba]

Quote:
1. Is there any historical evidence that the Yankees put Koenig at shortstop because of defensive context, rather than because who cares who the shortstop is when you have Ruth, Gehrig, Lazzeri and Meusel in your line-up?

Shame on you Arky. How can you site Murderer's Row and not mention the Kentucky Colonel, Hall of Famer Earle Combs? Here's a Pie Traynor in your eye.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:

Quote:
1. Is there any historical evidence that the Yankees put Koenig at shortstop because of defensive context, rather than because who cares who the shortstop is when you have Ruth, Gehrig, Lazzeri and Meusel in your line-up?

Shame on you Arky. How can you site Murderer's Row and not mention the Kentucky Colonel, Hall of Famer Earle Combs? Here's a Pie Traynor in your eye.

I am humbled.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
To repeat myself, regarding Everett vs. Rodriguez: "I don't think I ever declined to say that I think Adam Everett is a better defensive shortstop then Alex Rodriguez, although I have not examined the issue that closely. Adam Everett is a very good defensive shortstop. Alex Rodriguez was a good defensive shortstop, but he hasn't played there in awhile."

Cool.

Quote:
To also repeat myself, regarding talking about defense: "I've seen nothing in the defensive performances of Everett and Rodriguez to make me think that Everett over Rodriguez in the field would give a team, any team, a defensive advantage that would come close to outweighing the offensive advantage of having Rodriguez over Everett in the line-up."

Offense?

Quote:
That is talking about their defense.  If the offensive context bothers you, let me be more unequivocal: I think Everett is likely a better defensive shortstop than Rodriguez, but I don't think Everett would save anywhere near 97 more runs than Rodriguez would at shortstop.

You and I and a major league scout are sitting at a bar discussing *defense*.  Any conversation about *offense* would muddy the waters in terms of the value of *defense* at that moment.  I value offense as well, in fact, the team I was constructing was *already* an offensively loaded team and I decided in my scenario I wanted to support my good pitching with a defensive minded shortstop.  In *THAT* context, I would fail to see where I would vault a run production in the conversation.

Quote:
The runs created approximation is irrespective of line-up and whether the American league has a designated hitter.

Apples and oranges then.  Adam Everett is in the National League and hits #7.  The chances he gets to produce equal to A-Rod is not there, even if the talent drop off (conceded) is great between the two in terms of offensive talent.  But because you decided to use the actual number of 97 between the two, then I ask you to provide for me the equality of chance for the two.

Quote:
It's a matter of Rodriguez's own OBP and slugging percentage. Rodriguez has posted similar runs created numbers in most of the last 10 seasons for three different teams.

In the American League, hitting third (or second) in three very offensive constructed teams.   Is this *equal* to what AE has experienced in his career?

Quote:
Let's say context were the difference, how much is that difference?  Let's say you switched Rodriguez and Everett in their respective line-ups.  Would the gap narrow from 97 runs to 90 runs, 80 runs, 70 runs?

I dunno, two *different* players.  But *defensively*, two equal players.

Quote:
It's still an almost unimaginably large gulf between them offensively.

Sure, but who was saying A-Rod was not a great offensive player?  Or even a bad defensive player?  I merely wanted to know, given that both players are shortstops (*in the case of one, used to be a shortstop), can we compare them (*position-wise*)?  You introduced offensive stats as if the two were *also* equal in that respect as well.

Quote:
The closest I got is what I wrote earlier today and re-posted up above: "I don't think I ever declined to say that I think Adam Everett is a better defensive shortstop then Alex Rodriguez, although I have not examined the issue that closely. Adam Everett is a very good defensive shortstop. Alex Rodriguez was a good defensive shortstop, but he hasn't played there in awhile."

Cool.  My bad.

Quote:
Because almost no team can or will pay for a $25 million player, so it would be foolish for me to argue that they would.  Just like virtually every team in baseball would take Rodriguez over Everett if price were no consideration.

But if they had a stacked lineup already (offensively) and were paying for it, and then decided they would consider a defensive minded shortstop to support the pitching, A-Rod's name wouldn't be at the top of the list *defensively*.  Cost effectiveness is a good argument put forth by Jacksonian, better than any context I've provided.  But I was merely trying to provide the point that context plays a role in the construction of a team and thus evaluation of value for a player is based on that context.

A vaccuum would be to say "gimme Jeter over Everett every day" and that is a seriously surface level assessment in my opinion.  One that devalues how to see a player for his worth.

Quote:
See above.  Context does not close a 97-run gap.

Well, I beg to differ.  In a lab, they'd ask you to make *all things equal* before you give results like that as the assement of prowess.  Talent certainly is a dropoff, I agree with that, but role and lineup also play a role, as well as league and team makeup.

Quote:
Sure.  Everett's defensive prowess doesn't save 97 runs per season over what Rodriguez's defensive prowess would.

Odd remark.

Quote:
I never made a list of defensive shortstops.

My bad, I was talking about someone else.

Quote:
That's not the issue to me here.

Your introduction to this thread included my comments that were based on the construction of said list.

Quote:
The issue to me is whether there are defensive contexts that would make a team choose Everett over Rodriguez.

*IF* you decided that you wanted a defensive minded shortstop, you certainly could make a case for both players and your choice would not be bad either way.  But AE is better, even if it is slighty better or way better.  But I wouldn't discount AE in that context because that is what this judgement is all about... making a contextual evaluation.  

Quote:
Given that both of them have to bat as well as take the field, I am pretty sure there is no team in baseball that would take Everett over Rodriguez if price were not an issue.

Okay, if price were not an issue is not my argument, that is Jacksonians.  However, I would consider AE over A-Rod under certain context.  If I had a team that was offensively stacked, say like the 1927 Yankees or the 1975 Reds, choosing a defensive wizzard at short like Concepcion or Koenig would be something I wouldn't blink an eye at.  But that is just me.  I happen to value pitching very highly that I could and would make such a choice.

Pitching (and I may be soooo outdated in this) is the key to winning baseball.  Has been for as long as I've been a fan, a player and an observer of baseball.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
1. Is there any historical evidence that the Yankees put Koenig at shortstop because of defensive context, rather than because who cares who the shortstop is when you have Ruth, Gehrig, Lazzeri and Meusel in your line-up?

OMG Arky, are you okay?  Did you really say *who cares who you put at short?*  Isn't this a *flawed* argument of sorts, to have *context* for your choice at short?

Quote:
2. The Astros and White Sox are two of the most anamalous pennant-winners in four decades. Only the 1973 Mets ranked as low in runs scored and still won the National League pennant, and only the 1985 Royals ranked lower in runs scored and still won the American League pennant.

They won.  And the subway series between the Yanks and Mets was rated as the two worse participants in statistical measures to participate in the championship.  Odd, but I'm sure the ChiSox and Astros will humble those stats and there will have to be a new wing of ineptitude ascribed to these two teams to overtake the Yanks and Mets of 2000.

All these teams did was win with pitching and defense.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:

Quote:
1. Is there any historical evidence that the Yankees put Koenig at shortstop because of defensive context, rather than because who cares who the shortstop is when you have Ruth, Gehrig, Lazzeri and Meusel in your line-up?

Shame on you Arky. How can you site Murderer's Row and not mention the Kentucky Colonel, Hall of Famer Earle Combs? Here's a Pie Traynor in your eye.

There was a book that I don't remember the name of off-hand on the top 10 teams of all time.  In reading the evaluation of the 1927 Yankees, the author made a passionate case for the success of the 1927 Yankees as being:

Pitching (there was no such thing as relievers back then, so starters and guys who came off the bench to spot start on occasion).

I laughed, but then I re-read over and over what he had to say.  I still laughed.  Then I read again.  And then I started to think.  And he made more sense the more I *allowed* the premise to take hold.  He also talked about the defensive prowess of the 1927 Yankees.  The offense certainly overshadowed the prowess in all facets of the game for that team.  Offense was ungodly, even to the point of making the pitching and defense a thing most overlooked.

Sorry I can't remember the name of the book.  Very good read.

[mihoba]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
1. Is there any historical evidence that the Yankees put Koenig at shortstop because of defensive context, rather than because who cares who the shortstop is when you have Ruth, Gehrig, Lazzeri and Meusel in your line-up?

Shame on you Arky. How can you site Murderer's Row and not mention the Kentucky Colonel, Hall of Famer Earle Combs? Here's a Pie Traynor in your eye.

There was a book that I don't remember the name of off-hand on the top 10 teams of all time.  In reading the evaluation of the 1927 Yankees, the author made a passionate case for the success of the 1927 Yankees as being:

Pitching (there was no such thing as relievers back then, so starters and guys who came off the bench to spot start on occasion).

I laughed, but then I re-read over and over what he had to say.  I still laughed.  Then I read again.  And then I started to think.  And he made more sense the more I *allowed* the premise to take hold.  He also talked about the defensive prowess of the 1927 Yankees.  The offense certainly overshadowed the prowess in all facets of the game for that team.  Offense was ungodly, even to the point of making the pitching and defense a thing most overlooked.

Sorry I can't remember the name of the book.  Very good read.

The '27 Yanks were dominant in all phases. First in runs per game w/ 6.29 (2nd place was 5.43), first in runs allowed per game w/ 3.86 (2nd place was 4.63), and just behind the leader in fielding pct.

Edit: I *think* I have that book buried somewhere, Noe.

[astro pete]

Quote:
However, I would consider AE over A-Rod under certain context.  

I hope that context is the one Arky presented: A-Rod's arms fell off.

[astro pete]

Quote:

Quote:
Because you can't create a premise for constructing a baseball team that eliminates only the parts of the argument (offense) that are inconvenient for you.  This was my problem with this thread to begin with.

Actually it was about value, plain and simple.  And if value in terms of defense can be introduced into a surface argument of said value.  

It was about defensive value to the exclusion of everything else.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:

Quote:
However, I would consider AE over A-Rod under certain context.  

I hope that context is the one Arky presented: A-Rod's arms fell off.

Sure. (what an idiot!)

[No? in Austin]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Because you can't create a premise for constructing a baseball team that eliminates only the parts of the argument (offense) that are inconvenient for you.  This was my problem with this thread to begin with.

Actually it was about value, plain and simple.  And if value in terms of defense can be introduced into a surface argument of said value.  

It was about defensive value to the exclusion of everything else.

Sure (what an idiot!)

[astro pete]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
However, I would consider AE over A-Rod under certain context.  

I hope that context is the one Arky presented: A-Rod's arms fell off.

Sure. (what an idiot!)

Yeah, the idiot who prefers Adam Everett to Alex Rodriguez.

[astro pete]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Because you can't create a premise for constructing a baseball team that eliminates only the parts of the argument (offense) that are inconvenient for you.  This was my problem with this thread to begin with.

Actually it was about value, plain and simple.  And if value in terms of defense can be introduced into a surface argument of said value.  

It was about defensive value to the exclusion of everything else.

Sure (what an idiot!)

Exactly!

[No? in Austin]

Quote:

The '27 Yanks were dominant in all phases. First in runs per game w/ 6.29 (2nd place was 5.43), first in runs allowed per game w/ 3.86 (2nd place was 4.63), and just behind the leader in fielding pct.

Edit: I *think* I have that book buried somewhere, Noe.

I wish I remembered the name of the book.  Where the 1927 Yanks were considered "average" was in the catching department.  All the rest was well above average, including Koenig, who was considered a superior defensive shortstop to go with the outstanding defense played at all 7 positions behind the pitcher.

Hoyt (I think that was his name, going by memory) was the Roger Clemens of his day, a powerful lefty and second in pay draw on that team next to Ruth.  I now wish I could find that book again, it was really well written.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
However, I would consider AE over A-Rod under certain context.  

I hope that context is the one Arky presented: A-Rod's arms fell off.

Sure. (what an idiot!)

Yeah, the idiot who prefers Adam Everett to Alex Rodriguez.

Thank you.  Bye.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Because you can't create a premise for constructing a baseball team that eliminates only the parts of the argument (offense) that are inconvenient for you.  This was my problem with this thread to begin with.

Actually it was about value, plain and simple.  And if value in terms of defense can be introduced into a surface argument of said value.  

It was about defensive value to the exclusion of everything else.

Sure (what an idiot!)

Exactly!

Good night.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
You and I and a major league scout are sitting at a bar discussing *defense*.  Any conversation about *offense* would muddy the waters in terms of the value of *defense* at that moment.  I value offense as well, in fact, the team I was constructing was *already* an offensively loaded team and I decided in my scenario I wanted to support my good pitching with a defensive minded shortstop.  In *THAT* context, I would fail to see where I would vault a run production in the conversation.

It's not just run production.  What they do in the field prevents runs from scoring against their teams.  All else being equal, do you think a team with Rodriguez at shortstop would allow 97 more runs than a team with Everett at shortstop?  90 more runs?  80?  70?  60?  50?

Quote:
Apples and oranges then.  Adam Everett is in the National League and hits #7.  The chances he gets to produce equal to A-Rod is not there, even if the talent drop off (conceded) is great between the two in terms of offensive talent.  But because you decided to use the actual number of 97 between the two, then I ask you to provide for me the equality of chance for the two.

In the American League, hitting third (or second) in three very offensive constructed teams.   Is this *equal* to what AE has experienced in his career?

Assuming for the sake of argument that Rodriguez created approxmately 97 more runs offensively than Everett did last year, how much of that do you think is attributable to their places in the batting order, the teams they played for and the leagues they played in?  90 runs?  80?  70?  60?  50?

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
OMG Arky, are you okay?  Did you really say *who cares who you put at short?*  Isn't this a *flawed* argument of sorts, to have *context* for your choice at short?

When you win the pennant by 19 games and 243 net runs over a second-place team that has seven Hall of Famers on it, you can probably make due with the difference.

So I guess I can say that if I were the 1927 Yankees, I would not worry much if I had Everett instead of Rodriguez.  I'd still take Rodriguez if price were no object, however.  It would be neat to win 120 games.

Quote:
They won.  And the subway series between the Yanks and Mets was rated as the two worse participants in statistical measures to participate in the championship.  Odd, but I'm sure the ChiSox and Astros will humble those stats and there will have to be a new wing of ineptitude ascribed to these two teams to overtake the Yanks and Mets of 2000. All these teams did was win with pitching and defense.

The Yankees and Mets both had average or better-than-average offenses. The Astros and White Sox were both below-average offensively.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
It's not just run production.  What they do in the field prevents runs from scoring against their teams.  All else being equal, do you think a team with Rodriguez at shortstop would allow 97 more runs than a team with Everett at shortstop?  90 more runs?  80?  70?  60?  50?

You need some way to *measure* defense, I want to *talk* about defense.  See the difference?

Quote:
Assuming for the sake of argument that Rodriguez created approxmately 97 more runs offensively than Everett did last year, how much of that do you think is attributable to their places in the batting order, the teams they played for and the leagues they played in?  90 runs?  80?  70?  60?  50?

I dunno.  Sorry.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
When you win the pennant by 19 games and 243 net runs over a second-place team that has seven Hall of Famers on it, you can probably make due with the difference.

Really, so the scenario I *originally* put forth as context applies?

Quote:
So I guess I can say that if I were the 1927 Yankees, I would not worry much if I had Everett instead of Rodriguez.

But it really is not about Everett or Rodriquez per se.  It's about team construction, value on defense, value of pitching and supporting that pitching, etc.  It is a point that takes away the surface level statements of "Jeter over Everett, no doubt!".

Quote:
I'd still take Rodriguez if price were no object, however.  It would be neat to win 120 games.

What is funny to me is the subtlety of defensive lapses that could cost a pennant and/or a championship moreso than a missed strike or scoring opportunity.  (And for sake of clarity, this is not about A-Rod at all, just a principle of the point I'm trying to make).  For example, in 2004, the Houston Astros were one game away from their first NL Pennant.  They had Roger Clemens, arguably their ACE pitcher in 2005, on the mound and the Cardinals had their third best pitcher, Jeff Suppan facing off with him.

That game turned on two *defensive* plays: one that was made and one that was not.  The one that was made just so happened to be Jim Edmonds laying out to snag a dying gapper that was a sure double for none other than the maligned offensive black hole on the Houston Astros, Brad Ausmus (irony is so cool sometimes).  Had Edmonds not made that play, the general feeling by the Astros players is that they win that game going away.

The play *not* made was Jeff Kent allowing a three hopper to his right skip into centerfield for a single by Cedeno, the Cardinals speediest man.  Clemens was throwing hard for four innings up to that time and he was clinging to a 2-1 lead.  Cedeno's three hopper up the middle was disheartening, in fact Clemens showed his disgust for the lack of a major league play not being made behind him by his second baseman, that he just lost his composure and the lead for good that very inning.  What many would focus in on was Pujols driving a double down the line or Rolen parking one in the seats, but the reality is this (and it's old as baseball itself):

Baseball is about putting the ball in play, force the *other* team to *make* the play.

Defensive play made, defensive play not made... and a pennant goes away for one team and is secured for another.  So the place is there for having a team concept in place to make the plays as well as score the runs.  And generally speaking, if scoring runs is about putting the ball in play (and then it's out of your hands), then an emphasis of having a player or group of key players *make* plays for your teams is very necessary.  I don't know how that is translated into runs scored or run production or runs saved, because the good ones... nay, the really good to great ones, really make plays seem more routine than they really are.  So that said, I'd take my chances with a Ruthian lead offense with a Ozzie Smith defense to go beyond just being great.  It would mean I would be building the *greatest* team ever.  IMHO of course.

Quote:
They won.  And the subway series between the Yanks and Mets was rated as the two worse participants in statistical measures to participate in the championship.  Odd, but I'm sure the ChiSox and Astros will humble those stats and there will have to be a new wing of ineptitude ascribed to these two teams to overtake the Yanks and Mets of 2000. All these teams did was win with pitching and defense.

The Yankees and Mets both had average or better-than-average offenses. The Astros and White Sox were both below-average offensively.



Not according to some measurements conjured up by some out there.  The subway series was woeful in terms of participants in their estimation.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:

Quote:
It's not just run production.  What they do in the field prevents runs from scoring against their teams.  All else being equal, do you think a team with Rodriguez at shortstop would allow 97 more runs than a team with Everett at shortstop?  90 more runs?  80?  70?  60?  50?

You need some way to *measure* defense, I want to *talk* about defense.  See the difference?

No, I don't see the difference.  How does contemplating the empirical measurements that might be applied to defense not constitute talking about defense?  Is it somehow less authentic than what you are saying?

Everett's defense is worth something tangible in terms of runs that are not scored against his team due to his performance. Same for Rodriguez.  Whether we can establish that number with exactness is questionable, but trying to get a rough idea of what that number might be is very much a discussion of their defense.

Quote:

Quote:
Assuming for the sake of argument that Rodriguez created approxmately 97 more runs offensively than Everett did last year, how much of that do you think is attributable to their places in the batting order, the teams they played for and the leagues they played in?  90 runs?  80?  70?  60?  50?

I dunno.  Sorry.

Do you think Adam Everett might double or even triple his offensive performance if he were in Rodriguez's circumstances?

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:

Quote:
When you win the pennant by 19 games and 243 net runs over a second-place team that has seven Hall of Famers on it, you can probably make due with the difference.

Really, so the scenario I *originally* put forth as context applies?

The context doesn't affect whether I would prefer Rodriguez to Everett.  I still would.  The context does affect how concerned I am with whether I get my preference. In the case of the 1927 Yankees, I would not be concerned much if I did not get my way.  This is not the same thing as saying that the circumstances of the 1927 Yankees would make me prefer Everett over Rodriguez.

Quote:

Quote:
So I guess I can say that if I were the 1927 Yankees, I would not worry much if I had Everett instead of Rodriguez.

But it really is not about Everett or Rodriquez per se.  It's about team construction, value on defense, value of pitching and supporting that pitching, etc.  It is a point that takes away the surface level statements of "Jeter over Everett, no doubt!".

I still have no doubt that I would prefer Rodriguez over Everett, even for the 1927 Yankees.

Quote:

Quote:
I'd still take Rodriguez if price were no object, however.  It would be neat to win 120 games.

What is funny to me is the subtlety of defensive lapses that could cost a pennant and/or a championship moreso than a missed strike or scoring opportunity.  (And for sake of clarity, this is not about A-Rod at all, just a principle of the point I'm trying to make).  For example, in 2004, the Houston Astros were one game away from their first NL Pennant.  They had Roger Clemens, arguably their ACE pitcher in 2005, on the mound and the Cardinals had their third best pitcher, Jeff Suppan facing off with him.

That game turned on two *defensive* plays: one that was made and one that was not.  The one that was made just so happened to be Jim Edmonds laying out to snag a dying gapper that was a sure double for none other than the maligned offensive black hole on the Houston Astros, Brad Ausmus (irony is so cool sometimes).  Had Edmonds not made that play, the general feeling by the Astros players is that they win that game going away.

The play *not* made was Jeff Kent allowing a three hopper to his right skip into centerfield for a single by Cedeno, the Cardinals speediest man.  Clemens was throwing hard for four innings up to that time and he was clinging to a 2-1 lead.  Cedeno's three hopper up the middle was disheartening, in fact Clemens showed his disgust for the lack of a major league play not being made behind him by his second baseman, that he just lost his composure and the lead for good that very inning.  What many would focus in on was Pujols driving a double down the line or Rolen parking one in the seats, but the reality is this (and it's old as baseball itself):

Baseball is about putting the ball in play, force the *other* team to *make* the play.

Defensive play made, defensive play not made... and a pennant goes away for one team and is secured for another.  So the place is there for having a team concept in place to make the plays as well as score the runs.  And generally speaking, if scoring runs is about putting the ball in play (and then it's out of your hands), then an emphasis of having a player or group of key players *make* plays for your teams is very necessary.  I don't know how that is translated into runs scored or run production or runs saved, because the good ones... nay, the really good to great ones, really make plays seem more routine than they really are.  So that said, I'd take my chances with a Ruthian lead offense with a Ozzie Smith defense to go beyond just being great.  It would mean I would be building the *greatest* team ever.  IMHO of course.

This does not take into account the thousands of other offensive and defensive events that took place to get the Astros to the point where making those two defensive plays would have put them in the World Series.  Sometimes there are big forests grown up around one or two trees.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
They won.  And the subway series between the Yanks and Mets was rated as the two worse participants in statistical measures to participate in the championship.  Odd, but I'm sure the ChiSox and Astros will humble those stats and there will have to be a new wing of ineptitude ascribed to these two teams to overtake the Yanks and Mets of 2000. All these teams did was win with pitching and defense.

The Yankees and Mets both had average or better-than-average offenses. The Astros and White Sox were both below-average offensively.

Not according to some measurements conjured up by some out there.  The subway series was woeful in terms of participants in their estimation.

By their runs scored over the course of the season, the Yankees and Mets were better-than-average offensively and the Astros and White Sox were below-average offensively. That is the measurement I was relying on, and it seems like the most basic and primary measurement applicable to their offenses.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
No, I don't see the difference.

Too bad.

Quote:
How does contemplating the empirical measurements that might be applied to defense not constitute talking about defense?

Because it deals *more* with measurement than it does with defense in my mind.

Quote:
Is it somehow less authentic than what you are saying?

No, just different.  Did what I said seem to you that I was saying measurement is less authentic?

Quote:
Everett's defense is worth something tangible in terms of runs that are not scored against his team due to his performance. Same for Rodriguez.

But I feel really comfortable talking about defensive prowess without the need to quantify it with numbers.  That is just me though.  Different from you, no?  That is all I was saying.

Quote:
Whether we can establish that number with exactness is questionable, but trying to get a rough idea of what that number might be is very much a discussion of their defense.

For you.  I, again, feel comfortable talking about their defensive prowess without need for measurement.  Probably made a whole bunch of sabrematricians faint with that statement, eh?

Quote:
Do you think Adam Everett might double or even triple his offensive performance if he were in Rodriguez's circumstances?

I dunno.  Sorry.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
The context doesn't affect whether I would prefer Rodriguez to Everett.

Whoa, slow down charlie... my *original* statement and scenario was to see if there could be context to value an Adam Everett.  Somehow I keep getting this feeling that I am being called out because I want to *de-value* A-Rod.  I don't.  But I will say it again, you can actually find a scenario where you could build a dynasty baseball club with Adam Everett at shortstop because his defensive prowess would provide an excellent contribution to that dynasty.  Same with A-Rod.  Conversely, you could also build a loser of a team with either man at short as well.  Construction of a team isn't surface level pablum to me.  It is contextual evaluations of needs and where you want to accent your *team's* strengths.  If it's pitching that anchors your team, it makes a ton of sense to me to get an excellent glove man at the most vital defensive position on the field.

I have nothing against A-Rod in that vein, but still say that in a rating system for defense, AE would be higher on the list.  Where this is heading about A-Rod is not what I was talking about, I mentioned Jeter.  I reacted to a list and then you jumped in.

Quote:
I still would.

So would I.  Did I say A-Rod sucks anywhere that you can find?  I merely tried to provide a context where you can value AE or if you'd like, keep people from saying "AE sucks!".

Quote:
The context does affect how concerned I am with whether I get my preference. In the case of the 1927 Yankees, I would not be concerned much if I did not get my way.  This is not the same thing as saying that the circumstances of the 1927 Yankees would make me prefer Everett over Rodriguez.

Not prefer, but value Everett for what he can contribute as well as A-Rod.  I keep getting told that "all things being equal... yadda, yadda, yadda".  Of course, all things being equal... but my point has always been about an intrinsic value for AE within a team concept and a contextual need.  *IN* that sense, and all things are never equal, AE has value... and strictly speaking on defense, a higher value than A-Rod.

Quote:
I still have no doubt that I would prefer Rodriguez over Everett, even for the 1927 Yankees.

Prefer?  No, *consider* is more like it.  Just like I cannot say that the 1927 Yankees are flawed as the greatest team ever assembled because Mark Koenig failed to produce offensively.  It's a erroneous statement within the team concept and a needs context.

Quote:
This does not take into account the thousands of other offensive and defensive events that took place to get the Astros to the point where making those two defensive plays would have put them in the World Series.  Sometimes there are big forests grown up around one or two trees.

You get to the dance first.  When you're at the dance, it's time to perform to show you're the best.  What happens in a marathon season is different in terms of mindset for players.  Playoffs is a different matter.  Defense and pitching have a high premium in the playoffs and just enough offense will get your far.

Quote:
By their runs scored over the course of the season, the Yankees and Mets were better-than-average offensively and the Astros and White Sox were below-average offensively. That is the measurement I was relying on, and it seems like the most basic and primary measurement applicable to their offenses.

Again, not my measurement or standards.  I merely toss that out to you to consider that *other* people use forumlas to make assessment on baseball.  The subway series in this statistician's mind, using his formula, proved the Mets/Yankees series produced two of the worse teams in the championship in the history of the game.

BTW - the same statistician produced a top 30 list of the best and worse teams ever in the history of the game.  The 1975 Big Red Machine did not crack his top 30 and that is crazy in my view.  I have no stats to dispute his contention no more than I do to discuss A-Rod vs. Everett by measurement standards with you.  I merely have my opinion based on my perception and insight.  Flawed as it may be and certainly frustrating as it may be to you, it is what it is.

The 1975 Big Red Machine was one of the top five greatest teams in all time in my estimation.  Go figure.

[Arky Vaughan]

To me, talking about measurements of defense is part of talking about defense.  I realize this is not the way you prefer to talk about defense.  It's not going to make me faint that you feel that way, though.  To each his own.

[Arky Vaughan]

I would rate Everett higher than Rodriguez on defense as well, for the reasons already discussed, including the fact that Rodriguez is no longer a shortstop.  But I also find the question of who is the better defensive shortstop to be separate and apart from who I would rather have on my team.  Who I would rather have on my team is also going to be driven by offense and defense, except for pitchers.

As for the Subway Series, recall that the Yankees won only 87 games that year, the Mets 94. That's a pretty low combined total.

The 1975 Big Red Machine allowed the third fewest runs in the league, adjusted for park effects, but they scored by far the most runs in the league, adjusted.  They won 108 games.  They were an offensive power house, with good pitching to boot.

[mihoba]

Quote:
The 1975 Big Red Machine was one of the top five greatest teams in all time in my estimation.  Go figure.

I would go as far as the say the 1976 Reds would be my 2nd greatest team of all time, just behind the '27 Yanks.

This  article is slightly biased, but a good read.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
To me, talking about measurements of defense is part of talking about defense.  I realize this is not the way you prefer to talk about defense.  It's not going to make me faint that you feel that way, though.  To each his own.

Cool.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
I would rate Everett higher than Rodriguez on defense as well, for the reasons already discussed, including the fact that Rodriguez is no longer a shortstop.  But I also find the question of who is the better defensive shortstop to be separate and apart from who I would rather have on my team.  Who I would rather have on my team is also going to be driven by offense and defense, except for pitchers.

As for the Subway Series, recall that the Yankees won only 87 games that year, the Mets 94. That's a pretty low combined total.

The 1975 Big Red Machine allowed the third fewest runs in the league, adjusted for park effects, but they scored by far the most runs in the league, adjusted.  They won 108 games.  They were an offensive power house, with good pitching to boot.

I think, and I have no tangible evidence to point to right now (I'll look for it later), that most rate the 1975 Big Red Machine as an offensive juggernaut, but not entirely a team great on pitching and defense.

While the 1975 team was not a pitching rich team, it was better than most give them credit for (IMHO of course).  Defensively, they made the pitching even that much better.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:

Quote:
The 1975 Big Red Machine was one of the top five greatest teams in all time in my estimation.  Go figure.

I would go as far as the say the 1976 Reds would be my 2nd greatest team of all time, just behind the '27 Yanks.

This  article is slightly biased, but a good read.

Notice how the pitching is ignored in that article.  However, they mention defense:

Granted, Gold Gloves were not awarded before 1957. But there is no way the Dodgers were a better defensive team than the Reds. Up the middle -- regarded as the defensive core of a baseball team -- the Reds won Gold Gloves at all four positions (catcher, shortstop, second base and centerfield) for four straight years (1974-77).

I think this is where the arguments against the Big Red Machine come into play (and I don't agree with the arguments against them either).  They don't talk about the pitching as a backbone of the team, but the defense was admired.  As if the defense made a very average pitching core at the very least above average.  My own opinion is it is similar to the 2004 St. Louis Cardinals.  Defense made the above average pitching (in both cases) really good (borderline great).

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
The 1975 Big Red Machine was one of the top five greatest teams in all time in my estimation.  Go figure.

I would go as far as the say the 1976 Reds would be my 2nd greatest team of all time, just behind the '27 Yanks.

This  article is slightly biased, but a good read.

Notice how the pitching is ignored in that article.  However, they mention defense:

Granted, Gold Gloves were not awarded before 1957. But there is no way the Dodgers were a better defensive team than the Reds. Up the middle -- regarded as the defensive core of a baseball team -- the Reds won Gold Gloves at all four positions (catcher, shortstop, second base and centerfield) for four straight years (1974-77).

I think this is where the arguments against the Big Red Machine come into play (and I don't agree with the arguments against them either).  They don't talk about the pitching as a backbone of the team, but the defense was admired.  As if the defense made a very average pitching core at the very least above average.  My own opinion is it is similar to the 2004 St. Louis Cardinals.  Defense made the above average pitching (in both cases) really good (borderline great).

They had two players at key defensive positions who you can make a reasonable argument were the greatest all time overall at their positions.  Generally speaking, if you have a top-five all-time catcher and second baseman, you're pretty solid.  Their pitching/fielding allowed the third fewest runs allowed in the league that year.  Not too shabby on that count, either.

[David in Jackson]

At the risk of mentioning his name, Rob Neyer's Baseball Dynasties is a good book on the subject.

The Link

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
They had two players at key defensive positions who you can make a reasonable argument were the greatest all time overall at their positions.  Generally speaking, if you have a top-five all-time catcher and second baseman, you're pretty solid.  Their pitching/fielding allowed the third fewest runs allowed in the league that year.  Not too shabby on that count, either.

I think it was HudsonHawk who once said in this here TZ that it is funny how you can find many a peripheral fan who knows Johnny Bench was the greatest catcher of all time and nary a one of them realize he was the greatest because he actually was outstanding on defense equal to his offensive prowess.

Jaw dropping actually.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:

Quote:
They had two players at key defensive positions who you can make a reasonable argument were the greatest all time overall at their positions.  Generally speaking, if you have a top-five all-time catcher and second baseman, you're pretty solid.  Their pitching/fielding allowed the third fewest runs allowed in the league that year.  Not too shabby on that count, either.

I think it was HudsonHawk who once said in this here TZ that it is funny how you can find many a peripheral fan who knows Johnny Bench was the greatest catcher of all time and nary a one of them realize he was the greatest because he actually was outstanding on defense equal to his offensive prowess.

Jaw dropping actually.

He and Morgan excelled both in the field and at the plate.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
At the risk of mentioning his name, Rob Neyer's Baseball Dynasties is a good book on the subject.

The Link

Eddie Epstein (co-author of the book) is one of the primary promoters of the 1927 Yankees being a very pitching and defense rich team equal to their well-known offensive prowess.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
They had two players at key defensive positions who you can make a reasonable argument were the greatest all time overall at their positions.  Generally speaking, if you have a top-five all-time catcher and second baseman, you're pretty solid.  Their pitching/fielding allowed the third fewest runs allowed in the league that year.  Not too shabby on that count, either.

I think it was HudsonHawk who once said in this here TZ that it is funny how you can find many a peripheral fan who knows Johnny Bench was the greatest catcher of all time and nary a one of them realize he was the greatest because he actually was outstanding on defense equal to his offensive prowess.

Jaw dropping actually.

He and Morgan excelled both in the field and at the plate.

Yes.  Bench is unequalled in defensive ability behind the plate, he is the greatest catcher of all time.  Yet defense has become a footnote to his greatness for some reason with a generation of baseball fans (peripheral if you will).  Again, jaw dropping that it is.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
They had two players at key defensive positions who you can make a reasonable argument were the greatest all time overall at their positions.  Generally speaking, if you have a top-five all-time catcher and second baseman, you're pretty solid.  Their pitching/fielding allowed the third fewest runs allowed in the league that year.  Not too shabby on that count, either.

I think it was HudsonHawk who once said in this here TZ that it is funny how you can find many a peripheral fan who knows Johnny Bench was the greatest catcher of all time and nary a one of them realize he was the greatest because he actually was outstanding on defense equal to his offensive prowess.

Jaw dropping actually.

He and Morgan excelled both in the field and at the plate.

Yes.  Bench is unequalled in defensive ability behind the plate, he is the greatest catcher of all time.  Yet defense has become a footnote to his greatness for some reason with a generation of baseball fans (peripheral if you will).  Again, jaw dropping that it is.

When Bill James first starting compiling SB and CS figures against catchers in the '70s, he found Bench's numbers to be even better than he had previously believed.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
They had two players at key defensive positions who you can make a reasonable argument were the greatest all time overall at their positions.  Generally speaking, if you have a top-five all-time catcher and second baseman, you're pretty solid.  Their pitching/fielding allowed the third fewest runs allowed in the league that year.  Not too shabby on that count, either.

I think it was HudsonHawk who once said in this here TZ that it is funny how you can find many a peripheral fan who knows Johnny Bench was the greatest catcher of all time and nary a one of them realize he was the greatest because he actually was outstanding on defense equal to his offensive prowess.

Jaw dropping actually.

He and Morgan excelled both in the field and at the plate.

Yes.  Bench is unequalled in defensive ability behind the plate, he is the greatest catcher of all time.  Yet defense has become a footnote to his greatness for some reason with a generation of baseball fans (peripheral if you will).  Again, jaw dropping that it is.

When Bill James first starting compiling SB and CS figures against catchers in the '70s, he found Bench's numbers to be even better than he had previously believed.

And the era of the pitching rich teams in the 70s was when speed and manufacturing a run via the base running (ie stealing bases) was very privilent.  Most if not all teams used speed as an offensive weapon (except the Baltimore Orioles) and Bench negated that aspect of the game to a scary level of excellence.

But his ability to handle pitchers, block the plate expertly, handle pitches in the dirt, frame pitches, have a steady mitt when recieving... I mean just everything he did was picture perfect.  Best of all time.

[NeilT]

Stupid thought, but I've always assumed Berra was a great defensive catcher.  I don't know why.  Maybe that's one reason meaningful defensive statistics would be nice to have around, so you could have some quick shorthand for figuring out what a player's defensive skills were like long after a player had quit playing.

[HudsonHawk]

Quote:
Who I would rather have on my team is also going to be driven by offense and defense, except for pitchers.

Why do pitchers get a free offensive pass?  They have to hit too.

[HudsonHawk]

Quote:
Stupid thought, but I've always assumed Berra was a great defensive catcher.  I don't know why.  Maybe that's one reason meaningful defensive statistics would be nice to have around, so you could have some quick shorthand for figuring out what a player's defensive skills were like long after a player had quit playing.

I never saw Berra play, of course, but he was reputed to be one of the better defensive catchers of his day.  But those same old timers will tell you he was no Johnny Bench.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
Stupid thought, but I've always assumed Berra was a great defensive catcher.  I don't know why.  Maybe that's one reason meaningful defensive statistics would be nice to have around, so you could have some quick shorthand for figuring out what a player's defensive skills were like long after a player had quit playing.

Berra was great, but if I had to give a quick assessment (from observation and also reading history of baseball):

1. Johnny Bench
2. Carlton Fisk
3. Pudge Rodriquez
4. Mickey Cochrane
5. Bill Dickey
6. Yoggi Berra

[mihoba]

Quote:

Quote:
Who I would rather have on my team is also going to be driven by offense and defense, except for pitchers.

Why do pitchers get a free offensive pass?  They have to hit too.

And a few of them did. Consider Wes Ferrell of the Red Sox in 1935. He went 25-14, 3.52 on the mound and hit .347 with 7 HR and 32 RBI's in 150 AB's. 21 BB's and a mere 16 K's for a .960 OPS.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:

Quote:
Who I would rather have on my team is also going to be driven by offense and defense, except for pitchers.

Why do pitchers get a free offensive pass?  They have to hit too.

Because baseball teams have tended to be even more selective in choosing pitchers than they have in choosing shortstops.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:

Quote:
Stupid thought, but I've always assumed Berra was a great defensive catcher.  I don't know why.  Maybe that's one reason meaningful defensive statistics would be nice to have around, so you could have some quick shorthand for figuring out what a player's defensive skills were like long after a player had quit playing.

Berra was great, but if I had to give a quick assessment (from observation and also reading history of baseball):

1. Johnny Bench
2. Carlton Fisk
3. Pudge Rodriquez
4. Mickey Cochrane
5. Bill Dickey
6. Yoggi Berra

Based on what I've read I wouldn't put Fisk ahead of Cochrane or Berra, or Dickey ahead of Berra.

Berra and Campanella won three MVP awards apiece.

[mihoba]

Quote:

Quote:
Stupid thought, but I've always assumed Berra was a great defensive catcher.  I don't know why.  Maybe that's one reason meaningful defensive statistics would be nice to have around, so you could have some quick shorthand for figuring out what a player's defensive skills were like long after a player had quit playing.

Berra was great, but if I had to give a quick assessment (from observation and also reading history of baseball):

1. Johnny Bench
2. Carlton Fisk
3. Pudge Rodriquez
4. Mickey Cochrane
5. Bill Dickey
6. Yoggi Berra

For purely defensive skills, I would add Roger Bresnahan, Ray Schalk, and Jim Hegan to the catchers list, also just from reading the history books.

[HudsonHawk]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Who I would rather have on my team is also going to be driven by offense and defense, except for pitchers.

Why do pitchers get a free offensive pass?  They have to hit too.

Because baseball teams have tended to be even more selective in choosing pitchers than they have in choosing shortstops.

But we're not talking about baseball teams, we're talking about you.  You're saying that if you were putting a team together, offense matters from every defensive position but pitcher.  Why?  The pitcher's spot in the batting order is still 1/9th of the spots, same as the catcher or SS.  The argument "the SS still has to hit" carries little validity if you don't apply it to every defensive position.

[HudsonHawk]

Quote:

Quote:
Stupid thought, but I've always assumed Berra was a great defensive catcher.  I don't know why.  Maybe that's one reason meaningful defensive statistics would be nice to have around, so you could have some quick shorthand for figuring out what a player's defensive skills were like long after a player had quit playing.

Berra was great, but if I had to give a quick assessment (from observation and also reading history of baseball):

1. Johnny Bench
2. Carlton Fisk
3. Pudge Rodriquez
4. Mickey Cochrane
5. Bill Dickey
6. Yoggi Berra

I would not rate Rodriguez (the real Pudge you've got at #2) nearly so high, certainly not in the top 5, maybe not in the top 10 or 15.  Frankly, aside from his arm, I'm not all that crazy about Rodriguez's skills behind the plate all that much.

[davek]

[quoteBerra was great, but if I had to give a quick assessment (from observation and also reading history of baseball):

1. Johnny Bench
2. Carlton Fisk
3. Pudge Rodriquez
4. Mickey Cochrane
5. Bill Dickey
6. Yoggi Berra



Geeez Louise No?... Back away from that Shiner...

Berra 6th?...  Campanella not worth mentioning?...

I guess you can rate Bench the best of all time but anyone who says Bench in '75 was head and shoulders better than Campanella in '53 prolly has noodles for brains...

Or noodles in their chili...

Or something...

[tophfar]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Who I would rather have on my team is also going to be driven by offense and defense, except for pitchers.

Why do pitchers get a free offensive pass?  They have to hit too.

Because baseball teams have tended to be even more selective in choosing pitchers than they have in choosing shortstops.

But we're not talking about baseball teams, we're talking about you.  You're saying that if you were putting a team together, offense matters from every defensive position but pitcher.  Why?  The pitcher's spot in the batting order is still 1/9th of the spots, same as the catcher or SS.  The argument "the SS still has to hit" carries little validity if you don't apply it to every defensive position.

Well since a pitcher (starter) at best is going to play only 1/5 of the games through the season at best, and in those games get on average 2 AB's maybe 3 if he's rolling along.  so you are looking at 1/2 of 1/5 of the number of AB's of a position player.

so, i would tend to agree with the fact that the offensive production of a player that has 1/10 the AB's over the course of a season would not be in any way of use in an argument over every day position players.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
But we're not talking about baseball teams, we're talking about you.

And I'm talking about what I would do based on what baseball teams have done for the last 125 years.  I fail to see any problem with that.

Quote:
You're saying that if you were putting a team together, offense matters from every defensive position but pitcher.

It would matter not only to me if I were putting a team together. It has mattered historically to virtually anyone who has put baseball teams together.

Quote:
Why?  The pitcher's spot in the batting order is still 1/9th of the spots, same as the catcher or SS.

For one thing, there are more people who can hit reasonably well and play shortstop acceptably at the major-league level than there are people who can hit reasonably well and pitch acceptably at the major-league level.

Similarly, there are more people who can hit reasonably well and play first base acceptably at the major-league level than there are people who can hit reasonable well and play shortstop acceptably at the major-league level.  This is why first baseman as a group tend to hit much better than shortstops as a group.

For another thing, the cost of emphasizing a skill in addition to pitching in selecting pitchers for a team would be far greater than the cost of emphasizing a skill in addition to fielding in selecting shortstops for a team.

If you tried to form a baseball team following the rule that all players on the team must bat .250, you would have a much better chance of identifying an adequate-fielding  shortstop than you would of identifying an adequate-pitching rotation and bullpen. And the consequences of playing your .250-hitting shortstop full-time would likely be less severe than the consequences of sending a bunch of guys out to the mound who all bat at least .250.

Quote:
The argument "the SS still has to hit" carries little validity if you don't apply it to every defensive position.

The validity of the argument doesn't suffer at all. Baseball teams do tend to concern themselves at least somewhat with whether a player can hit, even if he is being selected to play shortstop. They do not tend to concern themselves with whether a player can hit if he is going to pitch.

Which is why shortstops as a group tend to hit much better than pitchers as a group.  And why there are pitchers in the Hall of Fame who batted .150 and no shortstops in the Hall of Fame who batted .150.

Please explain to me why pitchers as a group batted .150 last year, while shortstops as a group batted .263.  Is it sheer randomness, or does it have something to do with the fact that the shortstops are at least in part selected on offensive performance?

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
I would not rate Rodriguez (the real Pudge you've got at #2) nearly so high, certainly not in the top 5, maybe not in the top 10 or 15.  Frankly, aside from his arm, I'm not all that crazy about Rodriguez's skills behind the plate all that much.

I typed it, then thought to myself "Who am I kidding, I am not that crazy about his *overall* skills" and then I hit the continue button to post it.  I thought again about taking him off and leaving Berra at #5 and moving everyone else up one notch.  But I didn't because... well... I suck!

I agree with you, even though it was my list.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
Geeez Louise No?... Back away from that Shiner...

Berra 6th?...  Campanella not worth mentioning?...

Roy Campanella is in the top ten... ahead of Berra?  I could see it.  In fact, as mentioned above, I should've backed away from Pudge Rodriquez but didn't.  I'll take the hit more for the Pudge inclusion than leaving Campanella out of the top five.

Quote:
I guess you can rate Bench the best of all time but anyone who says Bench in '75 was head and shoulders better than Campanella in '53 prolly has noodles for brains...

I am biased because I watched him play and marvelled at his skills.  Campanella was out of baseball when I started to pay attention to baseball.

Quote:
Or noodles in their chili...

Or something...

Quite true.  BTW - I would probably include another contemporary of Fisk in Lance Parrish in a top ten list.  And if I knew more about Josh Gibson's skills as a reciever, he'd probably be up there as well... maybe a top five guy.  Got to read more on Gibson though.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
And if I knew more about Josh Gibson's skills as a reciever, he'd probably be up there as well... maybe a top five guy.  Got to read more on Gibson though.

Okay, read a little on Gibson and it is as I suspected.  His prowess as a catcher is not that great.  In fact, one website called him a "mediocre" reciever.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Stupid thought, but I've always assumed Berra was a great defensive catcher.  I don't know why.  Maybe that's one reason meaningful defensive statistics would be nice to have around, so you could have some quick shorthand for figuring out what a player's defensive skills were like long after a player had quit playing.

Berra was great, but if I had to give a quick assessment (from observation and also reading history of baseball):

1. Johnny Bench
2. Carlton Fisk
3. Pudge Rodriquez
4. Mickey Cochrane
5. Bill Dickey
6. Yoggi Berra

For purely defensive skills, I would add Roger Bresnahan, Ray Schalk, and Jim Hegan to the catchers list, also just from reading the history books.

And Gabby Hartnett too from what I've been reading.  I went to read about the three catchers you mentioned and it is interesting that Schalk and Bresnahan were voted into the Hall of Fame by the veterans committee because of their skills as defensive catchers.  Hegan, however, seemed to have a better reputation as a reciever.  The things Bob Lemon said of him reminds me of what is generally the attitude Astros pitchers have for Brad Ausmus.

[davek]

Quote:

Quote:
And if I knew more about Josh Gibson's skills as a reciever, he'd probably be up there as well... maybe a top five guy.  Got to read more on Gibson though.

Okay, read a little on Gibson and it is as I suspected.  His prowess as a catcher is not that great.  In fact, one website called him a "mediocre" reciever.

Whilst you're doing all that reading, check out a fellow by the name of Biz Mackey... He was Campanella's mentor with the Elite Giants and was reputed to be as fine a receiver as the Negro Leagues ever produced...

[HudsonHawk]

Quote:

Quote:
I would not rate Rodriguez (the real Pudge you've got at #2) nearly so high, certainly not in the top 5, maybe not in the top 10 or 15.  Frankly, aside from his arm, I'm not all that crazy about Rodriguez's skills behind the plate all that much.

I typed it, then thought to myself "Who am I kidding, I am not that crazy about his *overall* skills" and then I hit the continue button to post it.  I thought again about taking him off and leaving Berra at #5 and moving everyone else up one notch.  But I didn't because... well... I suck!

I agree with you, even though it was my list.

The other one I'm on the fence about is Cochrane.  I've heard many conflicting things about Cochrane's defensive skills.  On one hand, he was rumoured to be quite solid behind the plate, on the other, his own teammates openly complained about his weak arm.  Still, I guess he gets points for being an all around good guy.  Did you know Cochrane was the only one of Ty Cobb's former teammates to attend Cobb's funeral?

[Bench]

Quote:
I Did you know Cochrane was the only one of Ty Cobb's former teammates to attend Cobb's funeral?

He could of showed up just to make sure the old bastard was actually dead.

[JimR]

you fail "to see a problem" with any of your pronouncements.