Master Index of Archived Threads


Holliday, Bay, and Defense (Split from Who's Your Guy?)

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Nov 11 2009 04:42 PM

I'll say it one more time, and then I'll sez it no more:* A)Jason Bay is much, MUCH worse defensively than Matt Holliday, according to virtually every defensive metric out there (DEWAN, Fangraphs' UZR, the Fielding Bible's numbers), and as per the end-of-year numbers, he has been so for the better part of the last half-decade. (2006 was the one exception.) It's a good bet that he will continue to be significantly worse (high-profile liners off the babymaker included). B)Call it Coors (it's not, but whatevs), call it the NL-AL talent gap (which would only come into play regarding portions of the last two years, but whatevs), but Matt Holliday has been a good amount more effective at the plate as well. Bay strikes out more without a marked increase in power in trade, and has been slightly-to-significantly worse in wOBA (weighted On-Base Average, a Frankenstat that takes into account both slugging prowess and OBP, doing so more equitably than OPS does) during 4 of the last 5 years. C) Bay and Holliday are both probably beginning-- if not having already begun-- their (hopefully) slow decline. But Bay's likely closer to his-- he's two years older. I disagree that Lackey's a good, safe bet, but I can understand some of the thinking behind that opinion. But if you want Jason Bay (or what you think he represents) as a Met... assuming the costs for both are within shouting distance of each other, you really want Matt Holliday. *This post has a margin of error of 2.5 "I told you sos." **Oh hell-- let's talk parks: Bay's played in a superior-for-righties park over the last year-and-a-third. He's put up slightly worse non-counting offensive numbers over that time.

metirish Nov 12 2009 07:24 AM Re: Who's your guy?

I voted for Matt Holliday , could have easily voted for Halladay or Lackey(really liked what I saw of him this post-season) , I'm expecting a bounce back season from Ollie and no I don't think it will be on par with Halladay or Lackey but enough to be good enough....I feel this team needs that bat just as much if not more than anything else.

Ashie62 Nov 12 2009 07:56 AM Re: Who's your guy?

[quote="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]I'll say it one more time, and then I'll sez it no more:* A)Jason Bay is much, MUCH worse defensively than Matt Holliday, according to virtually every defensive metric out there (DEWAN, Fangraphs' UZR, the Fielding Bible's numbers), and as per the end-of-year numbers, he has been so for the better part of the last half-decade. (2006 was the one exception.) It's a good bet that he will continue to be significantly worse (high-profile liners off the babymaker included). Bay had no errors and a 1.000 fielding percentage...DEWEAN etal. are also "designer stats" it comes down to errors and fielding percentage B)Call it Coors (it's not, but whatevs), call it the NL-AL talent gap (which would only come into play regarding portions of the last two years, but whatevs), but Matt Holliday has been a good amount more effective at the plate as well. Bay strikes out more without a marked increase in power in trade, and has been slightly-to-significantly worse in wOBA (weighted On-Base Average, a Frankenstat that takes into account both slugging prowess and OBP, doing so more equitably than OPS does) during 4 of the last 5 years. Bay hit 36 HR's last season C) Bay and Holliday are both probably beginning-- if not having already begun-- their (hopefully) slow decline. But Bay's likely closer to his-- he's two years older. Possibly I disagree that Lackey's a good, safe bet, but I can understand some of the thinking behind that opinion. But if you want Jason Bay (or what you think he represents) as a Met... assuming the costs for both are within shouting distance of each other, you really want Matt Holliday. I agree with Lackey, not so with the latter *This post has a margin of error of 2.5 "I told you sos." **Oh hell-- let's talk parks: Bay's played in a superior-for-righties park over the last year-and-a-third. He's put up slightly worse non-counting offensive numbers over that time.

Edgy DC Nov 12 2009 08:01 AM Re: Who's your guy?

It does not come down to errors or fielding percentage. A statue --- a literal statue --- can stand out in left and, unless a player gets lucky and hits him with a batted ball, make no errors. Fielding is much more nuanced and "designer" stats (aren't they all?) are designed to illuminate what has been shrouded.

Ashie62 Nov 12 2009 08:22 AM Re: Who's your guy?

I think the analogy of a statue is a bit extreme. The Bay "statue" caught 310 balls and threw out 15 baserunners In the Pre-90's or when we didn't have metrics to amplify fielding abililites, or lack there of would there be a discussion of Bay vs. Holliday to this pointed extent? My preference is Jason Bay...

Edgy DC Nov 12 2009 08:34 AM Re: Who's your guy?

I didn't say that Bay was a statue. I said that it does not come down to errors or fielding percentage. You bring up total putouts and assists now, which suggests you don't believe it all comes down to fielding percentage and errors either. I have nothing bad to say about Bay or Holliday, and I'm not claiming to have analyzed their defensive prowess. I just think it takes more than errors and fielding percentage to do so.

Vince Coleman Firecracker Nov 12 2009 08:34 AM Re: Who's your guy?

[quote="Ashie62":1fg7xnw0]In the Pre-90's or when we didn't have metrics to amplify fielding abililites, or lack there of would there be a discussion of Bay vs. Holliday to this pointed extent? My preference is Jason Bay...[/quote:1fg7xnw0] I like this argument, which boils down to: "If we didn't know any better, it wouldn't matter. So I'll pick the worse player, cuz it doesn't matter." Maybe we can go back to a time before offensive statistics were devised, too. Then we could just sign Willy Mo Pena or someone else for league minimum. Or some dude off the street who might do it for free.

Ashie62 Nov 12 2009 09:06 AM Re: Who's your guy?

Fielding percentage is a result of putouts and errors..It is my personal opinion that many of the newer fileding metrics are overrated..I'm old skool on these things..Geez, I don't even hear about slugging percentage anymore I must be ready for the dog track I guess Firecracker..Wily Mo Pena? I not talking about throwing anyone out there..geez, Muffy could do that. It's only friggin LF..I've seen "Looks like Jesus, throws like Mary" Damon suggested in this forum. Bay and Holliday are Strat-O-Matic "3's lastly, I'd be THRILLED to have either Holliday or Bay as a 2010 Met

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Nov 12 2009 11:30 AM Re: Who's your guy?

DEWAN, UZR and the like are FAR from perfect. But the reason there's been a relative explosion in attempts to quantify defensive prowess-- however much stat noise may leak into them-- is because the old stats miss so much. Fielding percentage and errors pretty much measure how you do with what's hit right at you. AN EXAGGERATION FOR EFFECT: Given a full-time slot and relatively good health, Endy Chavez would likely have an excellent season defensively in any OF position. He might still commit an error or two, and would therefore have a fielding percentage in the high .980s-.990s. Given a full-time slot and relatively good health, Legless Endy Chavez may have an error-free season-- hitting everything that's hit to him-- and a fielding percentage of 1.000. He would NOT, however, be a superior fielder... he would just be a legless dude who catches everything that's hit to him, draws endless fan ire for allowing inside-the-parkers and gets called "gritty" a lot by Joe Morgan-types. Range factor's a little better stab at measuring players' defensive prowess, but has the same underlying problem-- vastly underestimating the effect of range on defensive effectiveness (ironically enough). I'm not sure why-- I haven't begun to look at their individual defensive techniques, apart from fleeting glances during Sox/Cards/Rockies games I've caught over the years-- but Holliday seems to have the ability to get to more balls in the outfield than Bay does. Therein lies the difference between 'em. (Having an everyday LF with decent range may also help an increasingly-creaky Beltran stay on the field, and stay superlative in CF.) And yeah-- defense isn't everything. Damon's good enough offensively-- especially this year-- that his contributions with the stick seem to outweigh whatever deficiencies he has with the glove/arm... But that doesn't mean he doesn't have deficiencies with the glove/arm.

Edgy DC Nov 12 2009 11:44 AM Re: Who's your guy?

It's got to at least in part be due to Holliday having a lot more outfield to pursue balls in, though, while Bay has a wall halting his pursuit, doesn't it?

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Nov 12 2009 12:07 PM Re: Who's your guy?

[quote="Edgy DC":34r61jsg]It's got to at least in part be due to Holliday having a lot more outfield to pursue balls in, though, while Bay has a wall halting his pursuit, doesn't it?[/quote:34r61jsg] Fair point regarding the last year-and-a-third, but he was worse in PNC.

Vince Coleman Firecracker Nov 12 2009 01:01 PM Re: Who's your guy?

[quote="Ashie62":1s6ra52g]Geez, I don't even hear about slugging percentage anymore[/quote:1s6ra52g] It's the S in OPS.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 12 2009 01:29 PM Re: Who's your guy?

[quote="Vince Coleman Firecracker":lu1wnbc5][quote="Ashie62":lu1wnbc5]Geez, I don't even hear about slugging percentage anymore[/quote:lu1wnbc5] It's the S in OPS.[/quote:lu1wnbc5] How am I supposed to nominate Bullets of Cool now?

willpie Nov 12 2009 01:35 PM Re: Who's your guy?

I dunno. I'm not over the moon about any of them, but I like all of them. I think I went with Bay, but now I'm thinking Halladay.

Ashie62 Nov 12 2009 10:02 PM Re: Who's your guy?

[quote="Vince Coleman Firecracker":3cml49hh][quote="Ashie62":3cml49hh]Geez, I don't even hear about slugging percentage anymore[/quote:3cml49hh] It's the S in OPS.[/quote:3cml49hh] slugging percentage by its' lonesome self

smg58 Nov 13 2009 04:09 PM Re: Who's your guy?

[quote="Edgy DC":l9ssxze1]It's got to at least in part be due to Holliday having a lot more outfield to pursue balls in, though, while Bay has a wall halting his pursuit, doesn't it?[/quote:l9ssxze1] I would think the opposite is true if anything, as Bay would have a smaller zone to work with which presumably would increase the percentage of fly balls in the zone that he can get to.

Edgy DC Nov 13 2009 08:33 PM Re: Who's your guy?

Well, I was responding to "Holliday seems to have the ability to get to more balls in the outfield than Bay does. Therein lies the difference between 'em." So I was understanding we were talking then, specifically, about a total, rather than a percentage, though I understand we are talking generally in this thread about a host of comparative data.

Nymr83 Nov 14 2009 05:02 PM Re: Who's your guy?

it comes down to errors and fielding percentage the earth is flat. flat i tell you!

Ashie62 Nov 14 2009 09:43 PM Re: Who's your guy?

It's not?

Edgy DC Nov 18 2009 11:44 AM Re: Who's your guy?

The Holiday-Bay Defense Quandry hits ESPN: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hotstove0 ... id=4666623

metirish Nov 18 2009 11:52 AM Re: Who's your guy?

[quote="Edgy DC"]The Holiday-Bay Defense Quandry hits ESPN: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hotstove0 ... id=4666623

Interesting read...something new for me here

The modern defensive metrics have limitations. They don't account for positioning, so a player might benefit from an astute infield or outfield coach and superior advance scouting. Milwaukee GM Doug Melvin has also observed that it's easier to assess defense for teams that play straight up than for those that employ shifts in the field.

Never thought much about that

Edgy DC Nov 18 2009 11:54 AM Re: Who's your guy?

Yeah, and good hitting performances are due in part to good coaching too.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 18 2009 12:10 PM Re: Who's your guy?

I don't understand.... is this sarcasm being directed at those who are skeptical of defensive statistics? Cuz, not that I distrust them, but I'm very skeptical and all about recognizing limits of a systems that, for example, would punish a right fielder for letting ball drop in front of him ifor a single with a man on first in a tie game and reward the same guy for a high-risk diving catch in the same situation. Um, not that advanced defensive metrics make that kind of error. Oh look who's sarcastic now?

Edgy DC Nov 18 2009 12:38 PM Re: Who's your guy?

I agree with that, though I also think it can be weaved into the system. Look not just at the number of plays, but how much does a play increase the win likelihood? That would also reward a guy for correctly postiioning himself (assuming it is correct) say, for guarding the lines in a late-and-close situation. The same can be true of batting and pitching. Reward them statistically not just for performing independent of the situation, but for advancing the winning cause in the context of the situation. It's certainly a way to reconcile the value of a starter and closer.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 18 2009 12:44 PM Re: Who's your guy?

So you were being sarcastic?

metirish Nov 18 2009 12:45 PM Re: Who's your guy?

I think he was towards me in fact....bollox...

Vince Coleman Firecracker Nov 19 2009 07:53 AM Re: Who's your guy?

[quote="John Cougar Lunchbucket":vwwc4mxo]I'm very skeptical and all about recognizing limits of a systems that, for example, would punish a right fielder for letting ball drop in front of him ifor a single with a man on first in a tie game and reward the same guy for a high-risk diving catch in the same situation.[/quote:vwwc4mxo] Wait- you object to a defensive system that punishes a fielder that doesn't get to the ball and rewards one that does? You know the fielder gets punished for missing the diving catch, right? You want something to be able to measure a player's ability to assess risk and, at the same, time determine his ability to assess his ball-catching skills, right? In the scenario you suggest, the player that has made the spectacular catch has correctly assessed the balance between the risk inherent in the situation and his own ability to catch the ball. The player that flubs the diving catch has not done this correctly, and would be punished for it.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 19 2009 10:01 AM Re: Who's your guy?

Sorry, I was trying to say I understood one system or the other made little distinction between the diving miss vs. the safe pullup in terms of punishment, since they both "missed" the ball even if one is a single and the other a game-tying triple. Mostly though I'm a neanderthal who trusts Eyewitness Defense first, then what the figures tell me.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Nov 19 2009 10:27 AM Re: Who's your guy?

[quote="John Cougar Lunchbucket":voe93xs5]Sorry, I was trying to say I understood one system or the other made little distinction between the diving miss vs. the safe pullup in terms of punishment, since they both "missed" the ball even if one is a single and the other a game-tying triple. Mostly though I'm a neanderthal who trusts Eyewitness Defense first, then what the figures tell me.[/quote:voe93xs5] Conversely, that there may be such tremendous year-to-year fluctuations in numbers like UZR when nothing significant has changed with the player in question is a big honking red flag that there's a bunch of noise to root out with these metrics. (Their creators will own as much.) The fluctuations are much bigger than you'll see for offensive numbers (for instance, BABIP variances producing ripples in BA, OBP, and-- to a lesser extent-- slugging), but then, there hasn't been as much good work done in this area for as long. That said, if you get the right crowd of Eyewitnesses-- namely, people who do watch virtually every inning of a particular team-- then they're pretty damn useful in evaluation of a particular player... and they tend to hew pretty close to most of the "objective" metrics systems' results. Comparison between players is still a bitch, though.

metirish Nov 19 2009 10:52 AM Re: Who's your guy?

Heyman saying that Bay declines Boston's offer of four years and close to $60 million , that was never getting it done of course.

Edgy DC Nov 19 2009 10:59 AM Re: Who's your guy?

I'm in no hurry to go higher (or longer) on Bay.

metirish Nov 19 2009 11:09 AM Re: Who's your guy?

[quote="Edgy DC":10adiphu]I'm in no hurry to go higher (or longer) on Bay.[/quote:10adiphu] I agree, but it does give a starting point...which will make Bay and his agent happy.

Frayed Knot Nov 19 2009 11:21 AM Re: Who's your guy?

He also wouldn't be the first guy to turn down an offer only to find that the expected better ones aren't necessarily out there. Bay's a nice hitter but, is already 31, plays a corner position (poorly), and doesn't have the really long track record that screams 'let's pay this guy cornerstone money into his mid/late-30s'

Vince Coleman Firecracker Nov 19 2009 12:34 PM Re: Who's your guy?

[quote="John Cougar Lunchbucket":34c3q78o]Sorry, I was trying to say I understood one system or the other made little distinction between the diving miss vs. the safe pullup in terms of punishment, since they both "missed" the ball even if one is a single and the other a game-tying triple. [/quote:34c3q78o] Gotcha. Cool. But while different, specific, situations might favor an action that metrics would consider unfavorable, I don't see this as a reason to toss out or ignore those metrics. We can imagine scenarios when offensive metrics would favor an action that would actually be detrimental to a team's ability to win- let's say you're losing an extra-innings game, with no one left on the bench. Your best hitter is at the plate with a runner on and a sub-replacement hitting catcher on deck followed by a relief pitcher. A walk in this situation would, in terms of metrics, reward your best hitter and, at the same time, hurt your team's chances of winning. Does that mean we should ignore OBP? And while there are many reasons to be skeptical of defensive metrics, there are also many serious reasons to be skeptical of our own perception of the game. And although each system has, as LWFS pointed out, its own set of red flags, we are lucky enough to have a ton of different systems available to us. In this case, the major defensive metrics have a consensus about Bay vs. Holliday's defensive ability, and I haven't seen any argument that persuades me of the opposite. BTW, this discussion might warrant a thread split.

Edgy DC Nov 19 2009 01:39 PM Re: Holliday, Bay, and Defense (Split from Who's Your Guy?)

For the record, I wasn't being sarcastic. I was acknowledging that good defensive statistics can in part be a product of good coaching, but it's not worth sorting out, as we don't try and sort out good coaching from other performances.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 19 2009 01:57 PM Re: Holliday, Bay, and Defense (Split from Who's Your Guy?)

And for the record I wasn't denouncing defensive stats, only those who'd be sarcastic in the face of their skeptics.

Farmer Ted Nov 19 2009 02:55 PM Re: Holliday, Bay, and Defense (Split from Who's Your Guy?)

Tatis filed for FA today. What's not to like?

Edgy DC Nov 21 2009 03:09 PM Re: Holliday, Bay, and Defense (Split from Who's Your Guy?)

The Angels and the Giants have each announced a lack of interest in the Holliday/Bay wars. I think Holliday is looking like the Mets' guy.

Ashie62 Nov 21 2009 09:46 PM Re: Holliday, Bay, and Defense (Split from Who's Your Guy?)

Boras is talking 180 million for Holliday...which may translate into 7/105 in reality It looks like Bay could very well be a Met. There seems to be more interest in the "180 million dollar man" Then again a double dip recession in January?? Who knows

Ashie62 Nov 21 2009 09:48 PM Re: Holliday, Bay, and Defense (Split from Who's Your Guy?)

Can the Obama Stimulus package have money assigned to Sterling Properties for player procurement?