I would use stats as just one variable in the decision. Is there value in them, yes, but not the only factor. The eye test does work, also, although I don't claim to be an expert such as a professional scout. I am just your average fan. He looks to me defensively the best in baseball and has been for the last several years. Is he worth what he is being paid? He looks to be to me. However, I would think there would be huge interest and I have not heard that. I have heard the Reds want to move him. If it is his diminished skills then it will be hard for a team to take his contract and give something good in return. If it is clubhouse issues, most teams will take that on for a player that he seems to be.

 

Time will tell, but I would not move him without some real prospects in return. I don't see anyone better or even close on the 40 an roster. Winning will solve all clubhouse problems, if they exist. As I have stated before about a comment I read somewhere. 100-120 games in MLB are pretty much decided with most teams you will win half and lose half just because of the state of the game, the duration of the season, and the parity there is. Really not much strategy involved, your pitcher or hitters are lights out or not in those games and really the players you have or the managerial decisions made are just not a factor. It's those 40-60 games where it does matter and would weigh big. BP can make the difference in some of those games. I believe he has and will. I'd keep him or at the least not give him away.

Here's the problem that I have relying solely on statistics in the example you gave...there's no context. With statistics, it's simply a black and white, binary 1 or zero, yes or no type of world. Either he makes the play or he doesn't. But, in the real world, it helps to know if you've got someone at the plate with Billy Hamilton-like speed, or if they're lumbering down Ryan Hannigan-esque. Also, who's playing shortstop? A 10 year veteran with a couple of Gold Gloves under his belt, or a journeyman who's been with the team for only a year? How about the first baseman? Hands/feet of stone? Or one that's able to pick one out of the dirt and bail his teammate out?

 

Listen, we're talking about Major League talent here. Probably 90% of the players can make 90-95% of the plays in their sleep. I mean, they're in the big leagues for a reason here. They can usually make even the hard plays look easy. But, it's that other 5-10% of the plays that separate the best from the rest. It's when you see a line drive ball hit in the gap that, in the brief split second you think that it's a sure base hit, suddenly the fielder gets to it and turns that hit into an out. Or when you see someone flying down the line (a la Hamilton) and a third baseman come in and bare hand the ball and get him by a foot. It's the ultimate in the eye-test. Because not all outs (or even opportunities) are created equal...and therefore are hard to be converted statistically.

 

I understand that, and think you have a point, but at the same time, remember that at the time of Moneyball, the Oakland Athletics had Harvard grads working under Beane. These types have only increased as organizations shift toward stats.

 

I'm guessing that most teams have scouting notebooks on a guy like Hamilton that go back to his time in the minors (maybe even college and high school). They probably factor in the time it takes him run to first, or give some kind of weight to the number of bases he steals (which probably also factors in the frequency in which he is caught, the number of times he attempts a steal compared to his team, other players at his position, etc.).

 

Also, a guy like Hamilton is an outlier who you'll have one or two sample points for as compared to the 50 or 60 you have for the compilation of every other player, so that kind of takes care of itself as well.

I would use stats as just one variable in the decision. Is there value in them, yes, but not the only factor. The eye test does work, also, although I don't claim to be an expert such as a professional scout. I am just your average fan. He looks to me defensively the best in baseball and has been for the last several years. Is he worth what he is being paid? He looks to be to me. However, I would think there would be huge interest and I have not heard that. I have heard the Reds want to move him. If it is his diminished skills then it will be hard for a team to take his contract and give something good in return. If it is clubhouse issues, most teams will take that on for a player that he seems to be.

 

Time will tell, but I would not move him without some real prospects in return. I don't see anyone better or even close on the 40 an roster. Winning will solve all clubhouse problems, if they exist. As I have stated before about a comment I read somewhere. 100-120 games in MLB are pretty much decided with most teams you will win half and lose half just because of the state of the game, the duration of the season, and the parity there is. Really not much strategy involved, your pitcher or hitters are lights out or not in those games and really the players you have or the managerial decisions made are just not a factor. It's those 40-60 games where it does matter and would weigh big. BP can make the difference in some of those games. I believe he has and will. I'd keep him or at the least not give him away.

 

I agree there needs to be a combination for the best most accurate results, but here's my question to you. You mention that to you he looks defensively like the best in baseball....How many Reds games do you watch a year? How many Cubs games? How many Red Sox games? Point is, if you watch Phillips play 140 times a year, but guys like Pedroia and Barney only 5-10 times, how can you really have an accurate assessment?

I agree there needs to be a combination for the best most accurate results, but here's my question to you. You mention that to you he looks defensively like the best in baseball....How many Reds games do you watch a year? How many Cubs games? How many Red Sox games? Point is, if you watch Phillips play 140 times a year, but guys like Pedroia and Barney only 5-10 times, how can you really have an accurate assessment?

 

We can watch Peyton and Tom Brady 2 times a year and watch Andy Dalton 16 times a year and know which one is better.

We can watch Peyton and Tom Brady 2 times a year and watch Andy Dalton 16 times a year and know which one is better.

 

That's a little bit different isn't it? In football the quarterback has the ball in his hands every single play and throws it 25-50 times a game. In baseball the second baseman might not have a difficult chance for 2-3 games in a row.

He wasn't a fan of the attention Hobbs received.

 

If he received 1/4 of the criticism that Votto got last year, he would have folded like a tent.

Since Texas traded Kinsler to Detroit, will Texas be interested in Brandon Phillips now?

Since Texas traded Kinsler to Detroit, will Texas be interested in Brandon Phillips now?

 

They have a prospect they are high on, not sure they will. Takes Tigers out of the BP Derby.

Since Texas traded Kinsler to Detroit, will Texas be interested in Brandon Phillips now?

 

Not a chance. Jurickson Profar is the crown jewel of the Rangers minor league system. He'll play second next year.

My money says he will be in pinstripes before the end of the year.

I really don't know how accurate it is, but I think the point of it all is that the larger the sample size, the higher the confidence interval for the stat you are using as a predictor. If you don't buy defensive sabermetrics, you should look at studies on how some catchers get a higher percentage of strikes called for their pitchers. Not a big Yadier Molina fan personally, but he's got a pretty good clip of doing this while Ryan Doumit is horrible at it. Point being, I think it's definitely an inexact science, but is a pretty good predictor, especially when compared to the ole' eyeball test.

 

Statistics can tell someone who doesn't know the last thing about you things that you probably don't even know about yourself. Know this isn't baseball, but here's a good example: Target was predicting when women were pregnant with remarkable accuracy based on their purchasing habits, often times before the women themselves had even told their husbands/significant others and family. I know pregnancy isn't baseball, but when a guy consistently can't turn a 4-6-3 double play when the leadoff man is on first and a left hander is batting and you have 100 points as a reference, it's probably a better thing than having the human mind try to recall all 100 instances and break down all the factors the way an algorithm could.

 

I definitely get what your saying, and I actually agree with using stats as one of the big things to make decisions on. However I just completely disagree with the stat on how many runs a guy saved. What all goes into that, I don't think anyone questions BP's range. Well how many times did he make a diving catch or just any great play with no one on base. That won't count as saving a run, but how do we know that it wouldn't have turned into a run if that guy did reach base? I venture to say BP probably did save a lot more runs than the stats say, and prevented possible big innings because of his range and the plays he made. Yet a lot of them might not have went down as runs saved, because those plays prevented guys from even getting on base or starting a big inning. That is just one case where I think its wrong to use stats, but there are many more ones that are very important to use the statistics.

I definitely get what your saying, and I actually agree with using stats as one of the big things to make decisions on. However I just completely disagree with the stat on how many runs a guy saved. What all goes into that, I don't think anyone questions BP's range. Well how many times did he make a diving catch or just any great play with no one on base. That won't count as saving a run, but how do we know that it wouldn't have turned into a run if that guy did reach base? I venture to say BP probably did save a lot more runs than the stats say, and prevented possible big innings because of his range and the plays he made. Yet a lot of them might not have went down as runs saved, because those plays prevented guys from even getting on base or starting a big inning. That is just one case where I think its wrong to use stats, but there are many more ones that are very important to use the statistics.

 

This post shows that you clearly have no idea how that stat is calculated...Every single play made or not made by a player is a part of their calculation. Example: BP makes a tremendous play with no one on and 2 outs to end an inning, it is entered into the equation and gives him a positive impact on his runs saved.

This post shows that you clearly have no idea how that stat is calculated...Every single play made or not made by a player is a part of their calculation. Example: BP makes a tremendous play with no one on and 2 outs to end an inning, it is entered into the equation and gives him a positive impact on his runs saved.

Do you agree that the stat is subjective?

Do you agree that the stat is subjective?

 

The stat itself is not subjective at all IMO. People's opinion on the validity and meaningfulness of it are.

The stat itself is not subjective at all IMO. People's opinion on the validity and meaningfulness of it are.

I think for that stat to be taken seriously, for instance, what about balls he gets to, has to eat because there are no outs to be made, but a runner stays at 3rd? I could go on, but you get the drift of my stance. And I'm not disregarding it at all. I'm simply saying that offensive stats are much less subjectively quantified.