Brandon Inge to Participate in Home Run Derby

[tiger337]

Originally Posted by will the thrill

No difference, that's the point. A fielding metric is going to tell you Everett is miles ahead of Jeter (at least thats what I hear) but Jeter is apparently good enough to the people who see him day in and day out that they believe he's just as good as Everett. When I've read any articles critisizing Jeter, they all come off like the test was done just to prove Jeter wasn't as good as people think, which to me skews the results because they went into it wanting certain results

This is complete BS. Statisticians don't design studies to make Jeter look bad. They design studies to try to find measures which will evaluate fielding in an unbiased way. The work they have done is very sophisticated and some of these people have been hired by Major League teams because of their work.

[will the thrill]

I'm surprised it took a big study to show the results they came up with, I can simply look at innings played and chances and tell you that Everett will get to 75 more balls per year(162 gm avg) than Jeter (768-693) and Clint Barmes who he said was number 1 will get to 72 more than Everett (840-768). Jeter and Everett are identical in F% at .975 and Barmes is a bit lower at .967. Ozzie Smith's career number is 860 or .59 chances per inning.

[The Truman Show]

Originally Posted by will the thrill

No difference, that's the point. A fielding metric is going to tell you Everett is miles ahead of Jeter (at least thats what I hear) but Jeter is apparently good enough to the people who see him day in and day out that they believe he's just as good as Everett. When I've read any articles critisizing Jeter, they all come off like the test was done just to prove Jeter wasn't as good as people think, which to me skews the results because they went into it wanting certain results

Why do you think anyone in the statistical community has it out for Derek Jeter? Don't you think the people who play with him have WAY more bias for him, than someone like Tom Tango does against him? And like someone said previously, the difference is way too subtle for someone to notice just by watching one shortstop play. It would take some hardcore scouting to really break down the film of Jeter playing short vs. Everett playing short and compare their ranges and notice a significant difference. His teammates aren't going to waste their time with that, nor should they because they have better things to worry about. So, they look at his terrific hitting, his flashy jump play, and just go "well Jeter's a great player" without really giving it a second thought. Any lawyer or judge can tell you that person's visual impression and memory are very unreliable sources of information, that's the reason statistical analysis exists in the first place.

The main reason these studies became popularized as a focus on Jeter, was because when A-rod was traded to the Yankees, lots of people wanted to find out who was the better of the two in the field. People wrote those articles talking about how the metrics prove that A-rod was a much better fielding SS than Jeter, but the metrics existed before those articles. No one is going out of their way to make up a faulty metric just to disparage Jeter; if they did, their peers would pick up on the poor methodology used, and discredit that metric. No one in a statistical community is going to put their credibility on the line just to take pot shots at a player, and there sure as heck isn't some grand conspiracy designed to promote Adam Everett. Heck, you don't think some stats guys might be Yankee fans?

[will the thrill]

Originally Posted by tiger337

This is complete BS. Statisticians don't design studies to make Jeter look bad. They design studies to try to find measures which will evaluate fielding in an unbiased way. The work they have done is very sophisticated and some of these people have been hired by Major League teams because of their work.

All i said was the articles I've read on it came off as trying to prove Jeter was bad, probably more the writer than the study, but made it harder for me to take everything for what it's worth

[The Truman Show]

Originally Posted by will the thrill

I'm surprised it took a big study to show the results they came up with, I can simply look at innings played and chances and tell you that Everett will get to 75 more balls per year(162 gm avg) than Jeter (768-693) and Clint Barmes who he said was number 1 will get to 72 more than Everett (840-768). Jeter and Everett are identical in F% at .975 and Barmes is a bit lower at .967. Ozzie Smith's career number is 860 or .59 chances per inning.

UZR goes much, much deeper than looking at total chances and fielding %.

[will the thrill]

Originally Posted by The Truman Show

UZR goes much, much deeper than looking at total chances and fielding %.

I know, that was my point, that you get the same results from simply dividing total chances by innings played

[The Truman Show]

Originally Posted by will the thrill

I know, that was my point, that you get the same results from simply dividing total chances by innings played

In this instance, sure. But I'd bet you'd get a lot of unreliable results if you tried to use that in every case. Barmes in particular is skewed because Colorado makes an effort to use ground ball pitchers specifically, for once example.

[will the thrill]

The report I read on Jeter listed Barmes as the top guy over that particular time frame.

[will the thrill]

Originally Posted by The Truman Show

In this instance, sure. But I'd bet you'd get a lot of unreliable results if you tried to use that in every case. Barmes in particular is skewed because Colorado makes an effort to use ground ball pitchers specifically, for once example.

True, you can't do it with someone who has played one season or 2 and get the same kind of result you can for guys like jeter, Ozzie, Cal, etc.. Guys that have played 15+ season are going to even out over time. With the exception of Ozzie being on Turf his whole career

[tiger337]

Originally Posted by will the thrill

I'm surprised it took a big study to show the results they came up with, I can simply look at innings played and chances and tell you that Everett will get to 75 more balls per year(162 gm avg) than Jeter (768-693) and Clint Barmes who he said was number 1 will get to 72 more than Everett (840-768). Jeter and Everett are identical in F% at .975 and Barmes is a bit lower at .967. Ozzie Smith's career number is 860 or .59 chances per inning.

Ultimate Zone Rating, Probabilistic Model of Range and Plus/Minus go way way beyond what you are describing.

[tiger337]

Originally Posted by will the thrill

I know, that was my point, that you get the same results from simply dividing total chances by innings played

No, you don't. Some of the results will come out the same with simpler methods but there are many discrepancies between the old methods and the new ones. I think you need to learn more about the statistical methods being used if you are going to criticize them. The methods are not perfect and there are valid criticisms to be made but you can't make them if you don't understand the methods.

[tiger337]

Originally Posted by will the thrill

True, you can't do it with someone who has played one season or 2 and get the same kind of result you can for guys like jeter, Ozzie, Cal, etc.. Guys that have played 15+ season are going to even out over time. With the exception of Ozzie being on Turf his whole career

If you have more years of data, any statistic will work better even a crude one like range factor (which is what you are describing) or pitcher win/loss record. There will still be discrepancies between the crude stats and more accurate ones though.

Also, the first thing that is going to happen when someone uses a simple method is everyone is going to say:"That doesn't work. You need to consider this, that and those" The more advanced as the simpler method, there is now additional evidence that the conclusions are valid.

[pyrotigers]

If you just watch Derek Jeter play it's clear he's a bad defender, everyone who isn't the national media or a Yankees fan would probably agree

PAST A DIVING JETER is a catch phrase for a reason

[Corky]

Originally Posted by tiger337

If you have more years of data, any statistic will work better even a crude one like range factor (which is what you are describing) or pitcher win/loss record. There will still be discrepancies between the crude stats and more accurate ones though.

Here is a graphic I use in my Research Methods class. As there are more cases (this increases the denominator) error decreases.

[DTroppens]

I haven't read any of these posts because I've not been around for a bit, but I'm hoping anti-Inge fans didn't bash him and no one pro-Inge felt the need to overly defend him.

It was a HR derby. Big deal. It doesn't take anything away from what he's done and (hopefully) will continue to do the second half of the season. In a few years he'll just turn a little red when it's brought up, but be able to say "I was part of a HR derby at the All-Star game." I'm glad he was able to participate regardless what happened.

[tiger337]

Originally Posted by Corky

Here is a graphic I use in my Research Methods class. As there are more cases (this increases the denominator) error decreases.

statisticians do it randomly.

[tiger337]

Originally Posted by DTroppens

I haven't read any of these posts because I've not been around for a bit, but I'm hoping anti-Inge fans didn't bash him and no one pro-Inge felt the need to overly defend him.

.

nah, we bashed and defended Jeter instead.

[DGTigers]

Originally Posted by DTroppens

I haven't read any of these posts because I've not been around for a bit, but I'm hoping anti-Inge fans didn't bash him and no one pro-Inge felt the need to overly defend him.

It was a HR derby. Big deal. It doesn't take anything away from what he's done and (hopefully) will continue to do the second half of the season. In a few years he'll just turn a little red when it's brought up, but be able to say "I was part of a HR derby at the All-Star game." I'm glad he was able to participate regardless what happened.

I think there was some disappointment but for some reason it turned into a Derek Jeter debate. haha.

I wish Inge would have won the derby but it doesn't matter one way or another that he didn't. The people that didn't want him to do it in the first place were scared that he would screw up his swing, and based on watching him in the derby, it's safe to say that Inge wasn't up there TRYING to hit home runs as it didn't look like he swung any harder than he does any other day of the week.

[will the thrill]

Originally Posted by DGTigers

I think there was some disappointment but for some reason it turned into a Derek Jeter debate. haha.

I wish Inge would have won the derby but it doesn't matter one way or another that he didn't. The people that didn't want him to do it in the first place were scared that he would screw up his swing, and based on watching him in the derby, it's safe to say that Inge wasn't up there TRYING to hit home runs as it didn't look like he swung any harder than he does any other day of the week.

I redirected the thread so Brandon wouldn't log in and get his feelings hurt

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

Originally Posted by will the thrill

The confidence isn't in themselves, it's in that they have confidence their teammate will make the play (even if a stat head says he doesn't)

But how does my having confidence that Inge can make a difficult play at third impact what I am doing at shortstop or in LF or C? Pitchers really can't contol all that well where balls are hit, so I don't see how they are more effective with this 'confidence' either.

BTW, whenever I played baseball, I just concentrated on the catcher's signs and the batter when I was in the field. I was also cognizant of the game situation. I never thought about how good the shortstop was or how bad the 3B was, or whatever just before the pitch. Never once. It must be nice to have the mind to keep track of all those things and concentrate on the game, because I know I don't have such a mind.

Originally Posted by will the thrill

How much more confident are the tigers players if it's bases loaded in the ninth and Cabrera is up vs Ordonez being up?

It doesn't matter if Gerald Laird is confident when Cabrera comes up. Laird's confidence has no impact on Miguel's or Magglio's hitting.

Originally Posted by will the thrill

How much more confident is a tigers pitcher when Inge is playing third? that's the confidence I'm talking

My guess is the pitcher is far more focused on what is (and isn't) working that game for him combined with the given batters strengths / weakness and game situation to devote much, if any thought on Inge's amazing fielding. I'd suggest a typical MLB pitcher's abilities to divorce himself from his emotions and focus on the task at hand is really quite high, and is more or less a prerequisite to do the job successfully.

Originally Posted by will the thrill

I'm not at all saying these guys aren't confident in themselves, but in baseball confidence in your teammates to do what they are supposed to allows you to focus on yourself

Professional baseball players play with other highly skilled professional baseball players who make the play a super high percentage of the time. I suspect an overwhelming percentage of players trust their teammates to make plays. I also do not think Clete Thomas or Miguel Cabrera or Ramon Santiago play defense markedly better or worse after a great Inge play or error, respectively.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Mr. Bigglesworth

How much more confidence does Jeter instill relative to, say, Adam Everett?

Originally Posted by will the thrill

No difference, that's the point.

If there is no difference in the amount of confidence Jeter instills in his teammates as another ss, like Everett, then why are you giving Jeter credit for instilling confidence in his teammates when you claim Everett does the same?

In other words, if Jeter instills as much credit in his teammates as a typical MLB shortstop, then he provides no extra value (WRT to instilling confidence) to his team relative other shortstops. So it isn't worth talking about in a discussion about his worth as a shortstop relative other MLB shortstops.

So is it that all MLB shortstops instill confidence in their teammates at roughly equivalent amounts, or do Jeter and Everett do this better than all other shortstops? If it is the latter, please provide a rough rank ordered list of shortstops ability to instill confidence in their teammates.

[will the thrill]

Originally Posted by Mr. Bigglesworth

But how does my having confidence that Inge can make a difficult play at third impact what I am doing at shortstop or in LF or C? Pitchers really can't contol all that well where balls are hit, so I don't see how they are more effective with this 'confidence' either.

BTW, whenever I played baseball, I just concentrated on the catcher's signs and the batter when I was in the field. I was also cognizant of the game situation. I never thought about how good the shortstop was or how bad the 3B was, or whatever just before the pitch. Never once. It must be nice to have the mind to keep track of all those things and concentrate on the game, because I know I don't have such a mind.



It doesn't matter if Gerald Laird is confident when Cabrera comes up. Laird's confidence has no impact on Miguel's or Magglio's hitting.



My guess is the pitcher is far more focused on what is working that game for him combined with the given batters strengths / weakness and game situation to devote much, if any thought on Inge's amazing fielding. I'd suggest a typical MLB pitcher's abilities to divorce himself from his emotions and focus on the task at hand is really quite high, and is more or less a prerequisite to do the job successfully.



Professional baseball players play with other highly skilled professional baseball players who make the play a super high percentage of the time. I suspect an overwhelming percentage of players trust their teammates to make plays. I also do not think Clete Thomas or Miguel Cabrera or Ramon Santiago play defense markedly better or worse after a great Inge play or error, respectively.

So you don't think they at all get excited and adrenaline flowing when there's bases loaded and two outs and Inge makes a great play to get them out of the inning? So nothing that happens anywhere effects the way they hit and field? SO they are like robots who can hit and catch? Last season when the tigers lost their first 7 games, you don't remember the team playing with zero emotion and looking like they were going through the motions every game?

So when a player is hitting everything and just rolling along, or struggling and can't get a hit to save his life, that's just his highly skilled professionalism at work, not at all the result of a confidence boost or unboost?

[tiger337]

Originally Posted by will the thrill

So you don't think they at all get excited and adrenaline flowing when there's bases loaded and two outs and Inge makes a great play to get them out of the inning? So nothing that happens anywhere effects the way they hit and field? SO they are like robots who can hit and catch? Last season when the tigers lost their first 7 games, you don't remember the team playing with zero emotion and looking like they were going through the motions every game?

So when a player is hitting everything and just rolling along, or struggling and can't get a hit to save his life, that's just his highly skilled professionalism at work, not at all the result of a confidence boost or unboost?

Sure, players are affected by psychological factors. The problem is that Jeter has made fewer plays than other shortstops throughout his career so what is he doing defensively to instill confidence in his pitchers? And if he is making a psychological contribution separate from his fielding, how do you as a fan know that his influence on teammates is more than that of Everett or any other shortstop?

[DTroppens]

Originally Posted by DGTigers

I think there was some disappointment but for some reason it turned into a Derek Jeter debate. haha.

Well that's good. I never even read the thread, figuring it was going to be a polarized battle.

[The Truman Show]

Originally Posted by will the thrill

So you don't think they at all get excited and adrenaline flowing when there's bases loaded and two outs and Inge makes a great play to get them out of the inning? So nothing that happens anywhere effects the way they hit and field? SO they are like robots who can hit and catch? Last season when the tigers lost their first 7 games, you don't remember the team playing with zero emotion and looking like they were going through the motions every game?

So when a player is hitting everything and just rolling along, or struggling and can't get a hit to save his life, that's just his highly skilled professionalism at work, not at all the result of a confidence boost or unboost?

That's not what he argued at all. Clearly, big plays can pump up a team the way bad plays can deflate a team. However, anyone at any time can make a big play, and that doesn't at all relate to a question of "who is a better defensive SS," or the question of "is Derek Jeter a good defense SS."

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

Originally Posted by will the thrill

So you don't think they at all get excited and adrenaline flowing when there's bases loaded and two outs and Inge makes a great play to get them out of the inning? So nothing that happens anywhere effects the way they hit and field? SO they are like robots who can hit and catch? Last season when the tigers lost their first 7 games, you don't remember the team playing with zero emotion and looking like they were going through the motions every game?

So when a player is hitting everything and just rolling along, or struggling and can't get a hit to save his life, that's just his highly skilled professionalism at work, not at all the result of a confidence boost or unboost?

First, if there were two outs and a defender makes a great play to get an out, then I go to the bench. I probably am not all that excited 5 minutes later. So no, I don't think there is any ancillary defensive benefit beyond the play itself. Second, the type of play you described is highly rare. Basing your position on a hypothetical that isn't common does not seem terribly convincing to me. Third, what evidence is there that Jeter makes enough great plays to boost his teammates to offset the lack of plays overall to merit calling him a 'good' MLB shortstop defensively?

It would be nice if you could stick to an argument, because frankly I don't understand what your position is.

I thought your original claim was despite the fact that Jeter doesn't make as many plays as other shortstops, he is 'good' because he positions himself well / makes routine plays and instills teammates with confidence, which enables them to play better.

Have I mis-stated your position / claims?

If not, my counter-argument is:

a. You have no evidence Jeter instills more confidence in his teammates than other MLB shortstops instill in theirs,

b. even if Jeter does, in fact, instill more confidence than most other SS, it isn't clear what that is actually worth, and

c. it seems unlikely to me to be worth enough to offset the number of plays he typically fails to make over the course of the season relative to other MLB shortstops, such that his overall value defensively is enough over MLB average to be termed 'good' at the shortstop position.

If you cannot counter my position in a thoughtful manner, I would honestly appreciate it if you spared me the 'baseball isn't played by robots' commentary, because:

1. it isn't compelling,
2. doesn't address the points I have raised, and
3. is tired, frankly.

[will the thrill]

Originally Posted by Mr. Bigglesworth

It would be nice if you could stick to an argument, because frankly I don't understand what your position is.

I'm not sure on that one either, i guess hitting and missing the argument throughout the day led me to stray from what I was arguing in the first place. I'll take a loss on this one, I do see where Jeter's defensive stats make him worse than other shortstops, I still believe he's ok enough at his position that his offense makes him a better option than most shortstops in the league though.

[ToledoTigerFan]

If I were the GM of the Tigers and the Yankees GM approached me with a deal of Jeter for Everett, I'd bust bones and balls to finish the deal before he changed his mind.

[DTroppens]

I went to last Wednesday's Toledo game and they were plugging people to vote for Brandon Inge. I thought that was a nice touch.

[tiger337]

Originally Posted by will the thrill

I still believe he's ok enough at his position that his offense makes him a better option than most shortstops in the league though.

I agree with that. I think some people overrate him but his offense still makes him one of the top shortstops in the game overall.

[The Truman Show]

Originally Posted by will the thrill

I'm not sure on that one either, i guess hitting and missing the argument throughout the day led me to stray from what I was arguing in the first place. I'll take a loss on this one, I do see where Jeter's defensive stats make him worse than other shortstops, I still believe he's ok enough at his position that his offense makes him a better option than most shortstops in the league though.

Well, everyone believes that. The guy is going to get 3000 hits for heaven's sake. I don't know anyone who would argue that Jeter is a bad shortstop. He's just a bad defensive shortstop. Despite that, he's consistently a 4.5 win player every year. And despite making a crap-ton of money, he's been worth every penny.

[Robinson for MVP]

Originally Posted by will the thrill

I'm not sure on that one either, i guess hitting and missing the argument throughout the day led me to stray from what I was arguing in the first place. I'll take a loss on this one, I do see where Jeter's defensive stats make him worse than other shortstops, I still believe he's ok enough at his position that his offense makes him a better option than most shortstops in the league though.

That's fine. No one said defense is the only way you rate shortstops. There's a reason why Jeter is going to the Hall of Fame and Adam Everett isn't.