I got goosebumps reading the Kepner article - can't wait until some of these guys start making appearances for the big club.

Not that I'm rooting for us not to make the playoffs this year, but I wouldn't be too disappointed to see some of these guys getting some innings in September.

Lousy All-Star game, depriving me of baseball for three days. And depriving EDSP of three days of work. I hope he's pitching in his kids little league games or something to "stay sharp."

AS I said in the last thread, i find it funny and fitting that Kepner's article is side by side from an article praising the Sox's (two) prospects...

Is it wrong that I was giggling over this comment (esp. the 2nd to last line & grade?)

"Kyle Farnsworth: Can't pitch back-to-back days. Can't go more than one inning. Can't retire the side in order. Can't control his speed. Throws teammates and manager under the bus. May not be a Yankee by July 31. F"

Wang, Hughes, Kennedy, Chamberlain, and pray for rain?

4 "Kyle Farnsworth: Can't pitch back-to-back days... Throws teammates and manager under the bus."

Well, at least he can pitch something back-to-back...

4 I still don't believe it, but by one statistical measure at least (BP's WXRL), Kyle has been the second-best reliever on the Yanks (behind Mo, of course). (This has changed since some of us talked about it on Friday: http://tinyurl.com/2tkvk4.)

Still, I patiently wait for him to be dealt somewhere (Philly for Pat Burrell, or Cincinnati for Adam Dunn), along with some of the B-pitching prospects (like Chase Wright).

Missed yesterday's game, went up to Greenfield Village (at the Henry Ford Museum) to see the Nationals defeat the La-De-Dahs 16-15. Real interesting to watch 19th cent. baseball. (They used the 1867 rules.) It definitely was baseball, even with some different terminology (striker for batter, tally for run, etc.), and the lack of gloves (the use of which the announcer roundly derided as unmanly) no pitching mound and really no basepaths. The most fundamental difference was that in those days the hurler was supposed to pitch in such a way as to allow the striker to strike the ball. One could strike out, or draw a walk in certain circumstances, but the main objective was to put the ball in play. No working the count, or trying to strike a guy out, no worry about OBP, just hit the ball and let the fielders make the play.

There was even a brass band (saxhorn, actually) that played during at bats.

If anyone ever gets a chance to see ye olde tyme baseball, go for it.

Oh, and the 16-15 nine inning game was over in just over two hours. If that were the final score of a Yankees - Orioles game I bet it would take five hours.

"Posada's gotta get a day off anyway."
--Yankees manager Joe Torre on the Wil Nieves-Mike Mussina battery.

(Hat tip to Alex Carnevale at BP.com: http://tinyurl.com/2el22h)

9 And Derek Jeter, on statistical representation of his defense:

"The computer stuff? It's impossible to figure out defense with a mathematical equation. You can't do it. You've got different people pitching, you've got different people running, you've got different people hitting. You can use a mathematical equation if everything is the same, but it's impossible to do it when everything is different."

Sounds like he's got a good grasp on the problems with ZR, RATE, etc. You can't knock him for not getting balls in a pre-determined zone if he purposefully starts in a different place than the other shortstops.

Putting how bad the AL East is in perspective, the Sox record at the break this year is WORSE than it was last year, where they led by 5 games and finished in 3rd. So for all the hype that Theo has gotten etc, his team is actually WORSE than it was last year (well, sorta) :)

Man oh man, Phil Hughes pitches tonight, dear Lord can I not wait for him to return in 3 or so weeks!

11 and where does Iggy Stardust go when Phil gets back?

12 Probably the White Sox. You know how the story goes: expensive Yankee import, total bust, gets discarded to Chicago, when suddenly... World Series, blah, blah, blah...

I was slightly curious about the E@$% series, but now I'm not. If it's true that they did not consult the principals in this story ("We felt strongly that to maintain the objectivity of the story line, we get equal input from all of the key characters, or none of them") then why bother? Money isn't everything, especially on TV.

I know they're ratings conscious, but honestly, do they have any real competition? Why would you not do due diligence in researching a story that has good potential? If you choose to work with the printed material AFTER having interviewed as many key personnel as possible, then fine; there was an implied effort to make the story as authentic as possible. Being a production head myself, it absolutely sickens me when I see producers cut corners in key areas for any reason other than death. ("so we relied on our advisers and consultants, including Reggie's best friend on the team, Fran Healy.") As Dimelo often says, WTF???

If you can't take the time to research all areas when producing a film or show about a true-to-life event, then don't do it; or at least don't try to pass it off as an objective retelling. This is plain bullshyt.

Well, sorry for that; I should never expect anything other than that from E@$%, but it had to be said.

13 Heh... (But just wait a year or two after that >;)

14 I'd still urge you to check it out, Chyll, if for no other reason than that John Turturro is a phenomenal actor. "Historical accuracy" notwithstanding, the clips I've seen look like pretty solid drama.

Not quite as subtle as the Sopranos or Deadwood, but still evocative and engaging.

Turturro's a master, you should watch it just to see him, imo.

Iggy should, and will, go back to AAA to continue to work. Its really the only thing that makes sense at this point, as there will be no spot for him in the rotation, and his presence in the BP isn't needed and the time off won't help his mechanics...

14 If it makes you feel better, they did have their BBTN @ All-Star game rights revoked.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/allstar/2007-07-08-espn-baseball-tonight_N.htm

Funny but I don't expect they'll be explaining why they're in the studio.

10 By Jeter's logic, you can figure out if he's a better hitter than Cairo, cause:

You've got different people pitching, you've got different people running, you've got different people [fielding].

And with all those differences who can ever know a .300 hitter from a .250 hitter?

14 FWIW, I did see that Nettles was consulting on the project as well.

regarding DJ's defense, a couple of posts from the discussion of the same article over at BBTF:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think that the study of defense is going to be most impacted by use of video technology. I saw a story--maybe it was here--which quoted a Baseball Info Solutions guy as saying that video of the Yankees showed the Jeter reacts more slowly to hit balls than any other Yankee, if you use a wide angle shot from behind the defense. The guy said that even on balls hit to Jeter, other fielders were reacting better initially. IOW, Mientkiewicz was moving to 1b to get ready to catch the throw before Jeter started going after the ball.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But, as I alluded to, the case against Jeter's defense is not reliant on the stats. If you get a replay at a high angle from behind home plate, watch to see when Jeter reacts to a batted ball. Unless it's a slow-hit ball, he always "waits" to move until the ball gets to or past the pitching mound. This is generally untrue of infielders, as far as I can tell.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yanks at Baltimore a couple of weeks ago was my first real chance to watch Jeter from a good angle live. And on the single that scored Baltimore's first run, I was STUNNED at how horribly he reacted to the ball. Watching all the other shortstops who had played at Camden while I was scoring, I thought it would be a base hit, but close. And Jeter was not even remotely close to that ball.

I thought, "how could anyone watch that play and think Jeter is a good defensive shortstop, let alone Gold Glove caliber?"

Oh, I love Tutturro the actor, trust me. That said, I'm a Reggie fan and I also sympathize with his complaint. Personally; and there's northing wrong with you if you do, I don't watch movies just because it has a good actor in it, and Tuturro is the principal reason I had a slight interest in it to begin with. Seeing as that they couldn't even cast a relative body-type for Reggie, this has ball-drop written all over it.

JL25and3: the link you asked tommyl for in the last thread, about the open letter to the M's pitching coach about King Felix, is http://tinyurl.com/28qcmk

The open letter came from, of course, the guys at USS Mariner.

21 With apologies to the late Charles Schultz: "There are three things I have learned never to discuss with people: religion, politics, and Derek Jeter's defense." Most people just cannot approach the topic of Jeter's defense objectively, which is a shame.

19 Incorrect. Hitting is measurable because everyone is doing the same thing at the same time. We can accurately adjust for things like ballpark factor and seeing if a hitter is lucky by looking at his BABIP. But with fielding, the statistics are either using an untestable assumption of how many balls a given fielder "should" see (RATE), or are based upon where a given fielder "should" stand and therefore get to certain balls (ZR). RATE, in my view, is like calculating a player's slugging percentage by counting his home runs. ZR, meanwhile, has a hard time dealing with middle infielders and their different roles- what if the Yankees routinely make the second baseman cover the bag when other teams use the shortstop? Wouldn't that sway the "zone" to which a shortstop can reach?

What I do think Jeter would say though, is that hitting statistics have the flaw that they look at the big picture rather than take into account game situations. Jeter would point out that over time OPS shows that Jeter is a good hitter, but it does not say anything about Jeter's ability to hig singles to right field with runners on base. This, too, is a valid argument.

20 I am shocked, shocked to find prevarication in their press statement! >;)
All or nothing with the consulting, yet Nettles is listed(?) as one. That's like saying that saying their's no peanuts in our peanut butter (yunnow, for people who are allergic to peanuts and all...)

21 that was 3 separate posters, btw, the last one was from Mahnken over at RLYW

25 On the other hand, note that Peanut M&Ms have the warning: "Caution, may contain peanuts."

I would certainly hope so!

18 Thanks for that, JD. Sugar in the coffee I don't drink, but it's still sugar >;)

19 Jeter point is valid because even more sophisticated defense metrics are still dependent on teammate contribution. Think about it...after years of relying on RBIs and runs to measure run production, slowly, more sophisticated analysis has identified these metrics as team dependent. Instead, stats like OPS, RC, VORP, etc. remove the assistance from teammates from the equation to isolate the individual's contribution. Because defense relies so much on positioning, you really can't remove the impact that teammates have (kind of like quantifying the RB/offensive line contribution to rushing yards. Absent very sophisticated technology like that mentioned in 21, I still don't put too much faith in defensive metrics.

21 Jeter's reaction time on balls hit up the middle is his greatest weakness. It is compounded by the awkward way he dives for balls since he dislocated his shoulder and his lanky posture that makes getting down for balls more difficult than shorter short stops. It also seems as if Jeter positions himself deeper in the hole than most others, which I suspect is the reason he is able to get to and convert so many of his jump throws. While I think Jeter's range deficiencies prevent him from truly being a gold glove defender, his steadiness on routine plays as well as his superior ability at catching pops brings him toward the center of the curve. I think those who use statistical analysis to claim he is the worst fielder in MLB, do so overzealously in an attempt to poke holes in his Teflon reputation.

"I'm really bad now, and it's hard for me to get four strikes."
--Greg Maddux to the home plate umpire in Sunday night's game against the Braves. (ESPN)

I can't stop laughing.

27 It's the uncertainty that makes it an intriguing buy for most people, I guess... I never could trust those kids selling the Peanut M&Ms on the subway, "not for no basketball team or nothin, but just to put a little money in their pockets..."

Does E@$% come with a similar warning?

Personally, what I find bizarre about Jeter is that when he muffs a play, he oftens seems to act as if he's hurt, or quizzically looking around on the ground for some sort of obstruction that caused him to miss the ball.

24 Uh...I was using Jeter's logic: How can you ever step in the same river twice?

And you can not only show, using those fancy computers, that Jeter higs singles to RF with runners on base but how often and under which game conditions.

His logic just doesn't apply to reality. With increasing sample size, the stats are as good as we'll ever get - no matter the offense or defense.

21 Unfortunately, I fear there are only two ways, Jeter moves from SS:

1) He gets so bad, even he can no longer deny it.; or

2) A new manager sees the light of day.

#1 would take a few years - 2009 or 2010, but maybe even 2012. #2 could be as soon as next year (please God), but then it was take a well-established manager (Bobby V, Pinella, etc) to be so bold and probably not in their first year.

So a few more years from Jeter at SS then we'll see what we've been missing.

29 Eloquently said, re: Jeter's defense. A very fine assessment.

29 "his steadiness on routine plays"

How do his 13 errors in a half a season show steadiness?

The only thing I'll give you is his ability to go back on pops. Probably why he'd make a great OF. If he keeps the bat going, he'd be a fine LF.

And with a guy like Jeter and the many teammates he's had over the many games, isolating his defense is easier than for most. I buy what stat folks say. That said, he's still very valuable as a SS - even the worst one defensively in the league.

BTW: For all you non-stat believers of defense quality, I'll use the old Goldman logic:

What would you replace it with right now?

Cause if the answer is: I don't trust defensive metrics, therefore I can trust my own eyes.

Then you better be damn sure to watch every play in every baseball game. Use TIVO and every waking moment, and you might have a good understanding of who the best defenders are.

Me, I'll trust the defensive metrics even as I know there's room for improvement.

Well, I'm a theoretical physicist by trade. I don't plan on giving Jeter fielding tips since he knows a lot more than I do. I also feel confident in saying that Jeter's knowledge of mathematics and statistical analysis isn't really up to snuff.

Everyone who does these sorts of things, be it for baseball, or determining the curvature of the Universe admits you can never get things completely perfect. What you can do, is get to some reasonable approximation and state where you are uncertain. Statistics is built for these sorts of things. I'll go with the stats, with the caveat that defensive metrics are still in their infancy.

This should warm the cockles of many a blogger's heart:
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2007/07/blog-gets-throu.html

36 Even TiVo won't help you, because it doesn't show the whole field. How does Jeter react? Do some of his spectatular plays look that way because he's slow to a ball? or does he get to more than you would have thought? Just because someone dives doesn't mean it was a great or outstanding play. It means the guy doing it is athletic, but a better positioning or reaction, or just flat out range could make that play look routine.

36" Me, I'll trust the defensive metrics even as I know there's room for improvement."

JD --> Harry Callahan (Magnum Force)

29 You mean "the worst fielding shortstop in MLB", not the worst fielder.

IMHO, Jeter's tired cliches about winning have created far bigger holes in his teflon reputation that anything anyone else has written or said about him.

28 Dan Patrick is leaving E@$#, if that brings you any more good feelings, Chyll.

Huh? Wha?

Damn, you fools woke me up again, and for what? Another discussion of Jeter's defense -- and Reggie's upset about a made-for-TV-movie that will air on some anti-Yankee basic cable channel?

THIS IS WHY YOU JACKASSED JACKASSES (REDUNDANCY INTENDED!) WON'T LET ME REST?!!

Oh well, while I'm up, how'd "The Sopranos" end? Is the war still going? and more importantly, is Paris still in jail?
Oh, and most importantly, Miguel Cairo isn't still the first baseman, is he? Nah, couldn't be...

37 Well said. I agree with everything but "infancy". Defensive stats are more in their adolescence. Using only errors was their infancy.

38 Wow. Think Cashman would read my letter entitled "Why you should die in a fire?"

43 C'mon Jim, you know you want to write an open letter about BUC, we all know you do.

36 except that as i was alluding to in 21 watching games on tv is a nearly worthless exercise in terms of making a relatively informed decision about someone's defensive ability, since the standard television shot angle gives almost no information on anything other than the pitcher and the hitter. there's no way to tell about positioning and reaction, which are critically necessary to really form an educated "eyes only" opinion of defense ...

39 You are correct, sir! Okay, for those of you with eyes, the mission is to attend every MLB game in person. Get back to me with the results.

(Except the Stats Inc folks are already doing exactly that and with two people at each game.)

39 I expect that some of the more progressive organizations know their guys' strengths and weaknesses better than we can ever hope to. They have critical information we lack - where every fielder is positioned for every pitch, and why. (Or at least you hope they do.) That information alone could improve defensive metrics a great deal.

IIRC, John Dewan's +/- in his Fielding Bible tries to take positioning into account, but I don't know how accurate their methods are. Anyone have a copy of a Fielding Bible handy?

43 That would be on the list of fiery reasons. Thankfully Jorge hasn't gotten hurt yet.

BTW: What happens if the Yanks miss out on a playoff sport by 1 to 5 games. What are most folks going to blame? Sure, it depends on how Abreu and Damon finish up, but I can see them putting up an average year for themselves. After that? The pitching injuries? 1B? The bench? The bullpen?

29 a nice discussion of UZR and the methodology and consideration used in calculating it, as well as a long discussion of shared responsibility and accounting for it...

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/primate_studies/discussion/lichtman_2003-03-14_0/

If Jeter was this bad all along, how does he make that Flip Play among others? People have been dogging his defense even before he made it to the majors, so to me it's similar to a Matt Groening cartoon where the unseen narrator follows Binky through his entire life, telling him to give up before something terrible happens, then jubilantly claimed to be correct after he died of old age. I get what you're saying, but that appears to come at the expense of what he's contributed to winning teams, which is what I don't understand.

37 Do you subscribe to the theory that the universe is shaped like a donut?

45 That's what I'm talking about - teams have got to have that kind of information, right? Right?

51 i'd bet my 401k that the A's do, I know that they rely on their own proprietary defensive metrics and, IIRC, it's mentioned in Moneyball that when Beane watches every game, he doesn't use the standard TV feed, he watches the game from an overhead view camera ...

50 I totally disagree. Jeter clearly has a high baseball "IQ" and a good intuitive sense of what to do, hence he could make that flip play (which was outstanding). Neither of those change that he is say poor going to his left on routine grounders. The two are mutually exclusive. Honestly, I'm less interested in the specifics of Jeter as an example than in the overall argument. You simply cannot claim someone is a great defender because you watch them make some great plays. Hey, I saw Scutaro hit a clutch, walk-off ninth inning HR against the greatest reliever of all time. He must be one of the greatest clutch power hitters ever, right?

No on the donut.

51 too bad our scouts don't think it's that important...

How can they call it a Home Run Derby if nobody is running?

Buncha big fellas hitting a ball as far as they can, standing there watching it like Manny Ramirez.

No, thank you.

That, my friends, is no derby.

51 Some do, some don't, know idea who utitilizes it. Also, can you really see Torre using information from advanced defensive metrics? He might use hit charts for a given batter, but I'd be surprised (and pleasantly so) if he realizes that Jeter sucks going to his left to cheats a bit for that.

50 IMO, Jeter has some strengths as a defender, and some weaknesses.

His strengths are things that he does as well, or better than, his peers at SS - going back on pop ups, the jump throw from deep short, and wide-field of vision plays (the Flip being the greatest example). Not coincidentally, these plays also make great highlights. Comparing him to other shortstops based just on such plays makes him seem like a phenomenal defender. That we've all seen the Flip Play, and the diving in the stands play vs the Sox, replayed a million times, just helps drive that belief home.

It also ignores Jeter's weaknesses, which are primarily on routine plays (like getting to balls a foot to his left) that almost every other shortstop makes. Because they are routine, there are almost no highlights involved. And no sports highlights package I've ever seen bothers to point out when a guy fails to make routine plays, over and over and over, unless there is some comedic error involved.

Does being a poor fielder make Jeter any less of a great ballplayer? Well sure, somewhat, but the bat makes up for an awful lot of it, and that's why the Yanks gladly tolerate being served pasta almost every game - pasta divingJeter, that is.

55 If anyone knows about a derby, it'd be you, wouldn't it.

56 You're probably right, but I doubt Torre worries about positioning the fielders. I don't know who's doing it, but I could see Tony Pena making use of such info, Mattingly too. And I'll bet even "old schoolers" Torre and Bowa care about it when Wang pitches, given his worm-killing.

53 Fair enough. The flip play is certainly part of a small sample size and to metric-readers it's akin to blasphemy to suggest past performance in small sample sizes equals great performer overall. In that case. was there ever a season that you would find Jeter adequate to your expectations of the position?

I don't believe the donut theory either, but I do believe if everything in our solar system were to come to a complete halt, we'd fall directly into the sun like something dropped from a building. Of course, nothing would reach the surface before that happened, but it's good to believe in the laws of physics, considering the alternatives... as JD implied, it's all we've got for now >;)

59 Sorry, why wouldn't anything reach the surface? To be fair the sun would fall a bit towards us as well ;).

Ok, back to D-branes.

35 Jeter had a much heralded defensive slump in April. That aside, Jeter's fielding % is pretty much on par with most SS, which I think suggests that he is solid on routine plays.

36 The notion that every statistic is better (and more objective) than observation is silly. Based on the very significant number of baseball games I have watched (probably 95% of Jeter's career games and over 100 from my perch in Section 4 of the Tier), I am pretty comfortable relying on what I see. Now, as you pointed out, it is difficult to make relative comparisons without getting to observe other short stops with similar depth, but that doesn't mean you can't draw general conclusions.

41 Do you see where Shaun is going with his comment? Someone has to be the worst defensive SS in MLB, but that doesn't mean that particular SS is bad. Imagine if you had 30 Ozzie Smith clones, but each one was a tiny fraction better than the other. That would leave one pretty amazing worst SS in the major leagues.

29 I agree with this pretty much spot on. My problem with individual stat ratings is that the sum of the parts doesn't seem to equal the whole. For example- which of the Yankees defenders would you consider to be above average? A-Rod, certainly, and Melky. Most of the others are considered below average or worse on defense.

How, then, can you explain that the Yankees' team FRAA is third best in the majors? This is calculated pretty simply- by taking the number of non-homer batted balls that are converted into outs, and adjusting it based on ballpark factors. The Yankees are third in the majors in turning batted balls into outs. How can that be if Jeter and Cano and Abreu and Matsui and Phelps are so awful on defense, as measured by ZR and RATE?

61 But fielding percentage is just the percentage of balls he gets to that he doesn't boot. It says nothing about balls he should have gotten to.

36 37 It's fine to say you'll go with stats, but which ones? Otherwise, I guess you'd have to agree that Jason Tyner had a great season last year because he hit .312, and Ozzie Smith and Jeter are comparable SS because they have similar field percentages.

62 Ahem, having a pitcher like Wang who induces weak grounder after weak grounder probably helps. What's the Yankees staff BABIP?

64 Whichever stats correlate greatest to wins, or runs. That's quantifiable. Look, no one is saying that defensive stats are completely perfect, I admitted that myself a few posts back, but I certainly think they are more useful than saying, "Wow, that Jeter sure makes a nice jump throw!"

62 Wang

57 The problem with the jump throw is exactly why Jeter says he came up with it. It gave him more time, probably because he has always been so poor at picking up balls off the bat and in generating a strong throw. The jump throw became an athletic necessity to his defensive failings at SS.

In fact, I'd argue that the jump throw saved him as a SS. Cause if got to those balls and couldn't plant and throw, then he'd be exposed as a useless SS. Meanwhile, notice how he never gets to balls up the middle? If he got to those balls, he'd never get enough on them. Nothing is more embarassing than busting your butt to get to a ball then fail to fire strong enough. There's no equivalent to a jump throw up the middle. You have to have the speed and instincts to get to the ball and the arm to throw it with very little footing. So it gives him even more reason to cheat towards the hole.

And Jeter has really improved with A-Rod on his right. Even if it means he can cheat toward 2nd just one more step, he's going to get many more balls than he used to. That's what we're seeing.

That said, great instincts have helped him alot (flip play, stands) and he's still a great SS because he can be passable and a huge offensive contributor. Sadly, he'll play the position long after he should, esp. if Bernie in CF is any indication.

Meanwhile, the offensive advantage offered by his bat is "balanced" by the blackhole they've had at 1B that last two years... :)

59 Speaking of physics, gravity is just a theory...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTqyU-bEE1M

55 I know someone who'd like to show you a real derby (or maybe you've already met?)

http://tinyurl.com/24ylvv

63 My point was that he was solid on routine plays and Jim refuted that statement by citing his error total. Such a statement allows FPCT to enter the equation. I don't think FPCT is a useful defensive metric at all, but it does tell you that Jeter isn't prone to making mistakes on balls that he gets to. There is some value in that....just ask Jose Offerman.

58 Oh, I know from derbies, and I'll tell ya what else irks me, baseball guy:

the use of "workhorse" by these blathering announcers. "So and so is such a workhorse for the Yankees. Pitches every day." Whatever.

My gradpappy was a workhorse, stood over 21 hands high at his withers, weighed over 3,000 pounds. He could pull a brewery dray thirty miles uphill without breaking a sweat, before plowing 100 acres.

THAT's a workhorse. Not Scott Proctor.

Grandpappy's fastball had more than a little movement, too... and he never set fire to nuthin'. Just sayin'...

60 (whispering) I assumed we'd be burnt to ashes by then, and what remains of solar wind would scatter those ashes to oblivion. To morbid to mention out loud on a baseball blog, yunnow >;)

70 The point was only: He's not solid on routine plays - maybe average. If you want to argue "He's average on the balls he gets to" - that's technically correct. The problem is: He gets to many fewer balls than he should. And of those he DOES get to, he's merely okay. So:

(Average at converting outs for balls he reaches) + (well below average for getting to balls) = well below average SS

66 I agree that "Wow, that Jeter sure makes a nice jump throw!" isn't very useful, but then again, neither is citing defensive metrics that are derived without a sound basis. After all, sometimes, poorly conceived statistics are more misleading than the human eye.

72 Eh, I routinely come up with solutions that involve universes a lot crappier than that outcome, trust me.

69 This Oddjob fellow throws a nasty derby from the windup, but from the stretch he's soft as a lamb's fleece I tell ya...

74 There you go again, Gipper. The defense stats have much more sound bases than anything you'll come up with from your eyes.

74 Specifically which stats are you referring to? Why are they misleading? Why is your "eye" better?

73 Jeter's career FPCT is slightly above average and his career range factor is slight below average. Based on two stats that measure relaibilty and range, Jeter rates as average...not well below average and near useless as you suggest. Now, I don't think FPCT and Range Factor are very useful stats at all, but I am also not very fond of metrics like Zone and RATE, which brings me back to my original point: I'll trust my eyes until a worthwhile stat is developed.

79 Well my eyes tell me that Jeter is the worst SS I have ever seen going to his left and only average going to his right. He's certainly plus on those popups.

Still that's not the point, if you want to rely on your eyes, fine. What evidence do you have that this is better?

78 Gravity hasn't been explained sufficiently, so I'll trust that the Earth is the center of the universe. After all, that's what my eyes tell me.

81 That's a flat earth I take it?

78 Would you rather watch a player play 100 games or look at his FPCT to determine whom to pick for your team? If you answer the former, then you are acknowledging that merely being a "stat" doesn't make the information provided more useful than observation.

82 That's what my eyes tell me.

79 Actually, there's another problem with relying on the "eyes" approach. You say Jeter is average or great, someone else says he sucks. You both watch him a lot, which one is right?

65 The Yankees' pitchers' BABIP would be the inverse of its Defensive Efficiency (which is .717, eighth in the majors). Individually, the Yankees don't have a whole lot of pitchers below .300 in BABIP: Proctor (.248), Viz (.255), Wang (.258) Igawa (.277- but plenty of his Batted Balls are not In Play), and Mussina (.290). If you replaced Wang's 104 IP with a "normal" pitcher, do you really think their Defensive Efficiency would suffer as much? Wang has thrown less than 1/7 of all of the Yankees innings this year.

For comparison, look at Arizona, who rank smack in the middle of the pack (18th) with a Defensive Efficiency of .694 despite having another pitcher who famously induces many weak ground balls (Brandon Webb).

The Mets, meanwhile, have zero pitchers in the top 50 for G/F ratio (by Minaya's design), and yet rank first in the majors in Defensive Efficiency.

Sheesh, can y'all agree to disagree about Jeter's defense?

I'd like to get a little shuteye before that Joe Buck starts in with his incessant yapping.

Rather have horseshoes nailed to my knees than listen to that blowhard all night...

Is the debate here now about the usefulness of stats, or the purpose?

FPCT at least provides one metric that compares all players at the position.

Your 100 games only provides analysis of that one player - unless you watch 100 games for all players at said position.

Meanwhile, FPCT was the infancy of fielding stats. Smarter people than I are well beyond that. I'll trust them, over your eyes or mine, any day of the week plus Sunday.

83 What is your point? That some stats aren't great predictors? Sure, I acknowledge that. If I want the best hitter for my team, do I only look at how many times he strikes out? I said before, FPCT is a crappy stat, there are a bunch of other ones out there, some good, some not so good.

If you are skilled you can look at a lot of them and develop an overall picture of a player. Lets take Jeter, his FPCT is pretty good, his range factor and rate are so so. What does that tell me? That Jeter is likely a guy who doesn't get to as many balls as he should, but when he does he usually makes the play. There ya go, I just used stats and its a reasonable conclusion, and that was the coarsest analysis I can do.

85 Indeed, that's what this discussion would devolve into otherwise. And that's what drove me to learn more about the fielding stats. I was sick of hearing that Mghdjgh was great.

86 Honestly, I don't know its a good question. What is the swing on DE? If I had time and motivation it'd be interesting to replace Wang and Mo say (who also gets a lot of dribblers) with a league average pitcher, do some kind of averaging analysis and see what happens. The spread on DE is probably not that high from team to team, but I'm just guessing there.

Mike Emeigh has covered the Jeter topic for Baseball Primer in some detail. Here are some of his opinions (which leave room for varied conclusions) quickly culled from the web:

Item A)
"One might not realize this from looking at Emeigh's recent work. Last year, he completed an exhaustive study of Jeter's defense in an eight-part series of articles on Baseball Primer. Emeigh says that he picked Jeter for his study because there was such a large gap between conventional analysts who see Jeter as a great defensive player, and stat people who see him as such a poor defender. What did Emeigh discover? Jeter is not as good as conventional analysts would like to believe and not as bad as many statisticians believe. Part of Emeigh's conclusion was drawn from the extraordinarily few number of attempts Jeter has had a chance to make on balls throughout his career. According to Emeigh, when statisticians look at data that reveal Jeter has not made many plays, it often helps to convince them that he has poor range. However, Emeigh found that it is not always that Jeter is not getting to balls, but that sometimes balls are not getting to him. He is not sure why this is the case, but suggests that perhaps the Yankees realize Jeter is not a very good fielder and set their defense to minimize his number of attempts"

http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/PrintFriendly?oid=20279

Item B) Scott said:
"I think you'll find that his defensive metrics improved once Alex Rodriguez started playing 3B. With fantastic range to his left, he allows Jeter to cheat up the middle a little more - Jeter's range to his left is appalling, and Rodriguez helps him compensate."
Actually, they didn't, with the exception of 2004.
Yankee 3Bs have played off the line, and Jeter has cheated up the middle, since at least 1999, which is the first season for which I have complete data. Contrary to popular opinion, the Yankees w/ Jeter have been below-average on balls toward the SS hole in every year for which I have data; until last year they were close to average on balls going up the middle.
Posted by: Mike Emeigh at April 3, 2006 01:01 PM

These are just two anecdotal examples, but they do illustrate how different statistical analysis can come to different conclusions. That is why statistics only really become useful in debate when they reach some level of general acceptance.

85 The same problem exists for statistics. You say FPCT is a bad stat and someone else says it is a good one. Who is right?

89 Do you need to see every woman in the world to tell who is beautiful? Or taste every dish in the world to know what is delicious? Then why would you need to see every SS in the majors to know which ones can play the position well. I think anyone who has vast experience with the game can indentify what skills are needed to play the position. You don't need to be the best to be good enough (especially when degrees of being better are usually much more marginal among the qualified than the difference between those that are and those that aren't).

88 I think both. But we're still in the middle of the stats revolution - for baseball and society at-large. What so interesting about Moneyball is it took an economics (cost/benefit) approach to analyze baseball success. If you did that with everything in society, we'd have a much better world.

The problem is that computing power (sensors, databases, algorithms) had been very expensive up to very recently. Now the problem is one of people: Getting folks to be slaves to stats across the board is going to take generations. It's the difference between "Cause I said so" and "What does the evidence show?". Unfortunately, I bet most of us have heard the former in our lifetimes many more time than the latter.

88 Sure wish I knew.

So, how about that home run 'contest' tonight (how's that for you, Deadhorse)? I prefer to watch it with the volume muted, using TiVo, so I can skip all the dead time in between. It might take almost 3 hours in real time, but with TiVo it can take just an hour or so. =)

94 With no rock-solid studies, based on factual evidence, in the public domain, you guys can debate the value of fielding stats for a long time, without resolution.

Good luck with that. =)

Does anyone actually plan on watching the Derby?

Also, when RLYW started the A-Rod cover counter, did anyone expect it to turn out like this?

94 People vote. Again, more reliable than one pair of eyes.

95 I don't care how many woman you've seen or dishes you've eaten, they're no where close to the number of baseball games that might have watched. That's an eggs and planets comparison.

But yeah, if you had seen as many SS as women, then you might know something.

92 The swing this year is from .661 (TB) to .727 (Mets). The Yankees have had 1,746 balls in play this year, and if we take that as an average (it's not, the Yankees have given up fewer homers and struck out far fewer hitters than other teams), then the difference between a .727 team and a .661 team is 100 hits, or roughly one hit every seven innings.

Last year was the same deal, from .718 (Padres) to .676 (Pittsburgh) with the Yankees in fourth.

Pre-Wang, though, the 2005 Yankees were towards the bottom of the pack. So maybe there is something there. And you may also have a point, as the difference between the Yankees and the middle of the pack may be a hit every other game...

88 I think the debate isn't about statistics in general, but about the merits of specific merits, especially when some of them rely on observation in their calculation. Being a slave to stats can often be just as bad as ignoring them altogether.

94 Like I said, one can do correlation studies on various stats. The one that correlates best with wins or runs is better. While the situation is never perfect it can improve with more work and data. That's science.

However, your approach of the "eyes" can never be improved upon, nor can the argument be settled.

Anyone (i.e. Mike Plugh) know anything about Kosuke Fukudome? Fannation over at CNNSI has the Yankees interested in "... Kosuke Fukudome, one of the premier sluggers in Japan who becomes a free agent (with no posting fee) at the end of the season."

100 Hmmm....that is interesting. I wish someone a bit better at stats than me would do that analysis. I do recall that Wang has a very low BABIP and there were questions about how well he could mantain that.

102 Well said.

100 Considering that's more than the difference between a .270 hitter and a .300 one, I'd be willing to guess that.

103 I was wondering the same thing from Mike.

His stats look alot like Matsui before he came over - same power and avg, little less obp. Supposedly stronger arm - thus RF. But he'll be two years older when he comes over (31 yo) and he doesn't help much with lineup balance (LH).

I suppose the Yanks like him because he'll be cheaper than Abreu but only if they can get him for 3 years (prob 30-36 million). After that, they start running into the same sunk cost problem of the whole OF.

103 I know Mike has written about Fukudome over at BaseballProspectus.com, though the article I'm thinking of might be subscribers-only. IIRC, he's got a great eye (ie, high OBP), some power, and a rifle arm.

104 Wang has a BABIP of .258 this year and .277 last year- this year's is below average, last year was about average. They also have a stat called Component ERA, which is a prediction of a pitchers' ERA based on the raw numbers. In 2006, Wang's CERA and ERA matched up exactly, suggesting that Wang was not particularly lucky to have such a low ERA.

103 Here's the Fukudome page at Japanese baseball:

http://japanesebaseball.com/players/player.jsp?PlayerID=1064

And Godzilla's page:

http://www.japanesebaseball.com/players/player.jsp?PlayerID=163

109 Apparently I recall incorrectly, still since nearly ever ball is going into play against him how does he not give up more runs?

109, mehmattski, where are you getting .258 for Wang this year? I have his BABIP as .277. Last year he was at .292. League average is around .300 this year. Wang has been lower than expected here, because ground balls are more likely to be hits so you would not expect an extreme ground ball pitcher to be that much better than average.

111, Wang doesn't give up runs because he excels at preventing extra-base hits, especially HRs (career SLG against of around .370), and he has better than average control. Combine that with his ability to get double plays, and you've got Wang.

I think that some people make the mistake of fixating on K rate as the only thing that matters for a pitcher. That's just not true. Pitchers control three things directly. BB rate, K rate, and HR rate. You can get by being deficient in one area if you are strong in the other two. Wang has bumped up his K rate this year, while also improving his walk rate (as a percentage of batters faced compared to the league). His HR rate is up a touch, but still way better than league average.

His peripherals say he should have an ERA of around 4, but I think if you factor in his double-play skill, an ERA around where he ended up last year is a reasonable expectation. If he can keep improving his K rate, there's no reason he won't be one of the top ten pitchers in the AL for a while.

112 Thanks, nice analysis.

Of course, you did use those pesky stats ;)

112 I've been getting my BABIP numbers from ESPN: http://tinyurl.com/yqpoex

This is annoying, because this particular number (listed under the "Sabermetric" category) are not listed on an individual player's page. The Stats glossary lists thier BIPA stat as: "Balls In Play Average. Batting Average Against, not including home runs or strikeouts."

If you know a better way to get these stats (BR.com doesn't have it and neither does BP in-season), I'd be much appreciative.

114 ESPN? The Great Satan? Boo.

I use the Hardball Times instead. They don't show BABIP, they show a pitchers DER against, but you just subtract that from 1 to get their BABIP. Plus you can get a list of all pitchers in baseball in their summary stat page if you want to do your own calculations.

Wang's HBT page: http://tinyurl.com/2s9c9u

HBT AL pitcher stats for 2007: http://tinyurl.com/2le7we

114 BR.com you have to go to the yearly splits.

115 116 Thanks guys. The advantage of ESPN in this case is being able to limit for the numbers of innings pitched. But yeah normally I try to avoid The Great Satan. And I do wonder why their numbers are so inaccurate.

102 You are missing my point completely. Until enough studies can be done to determine a defensive metric that accurately defines performance, it doesn't make sense to simply rely on the best that is available. Sometimes, the imperfect use of observation is preferrable until an accurate metric can be created.

What is the defensive stat you rely on and can you point to any correlation studies that indicate its accuracy?

John Kruk, on the National League lineup: "No you're not going to pitch around Barry Bonds, this lineup is full of All-Stars." Now there's an argument by definition...

119 Are you a masochist?

118 Let's assume that the only offensive statistic you had access to was batting average. Would you rather base your opinion on a player's offensive ability on your eyes and whether they have "good at bats", or would you take batting average, knowing it has limitations, but also knowing it's better than nothing?

120 The remote's too far away, I'm in the kitchen making some homemade tomato sauce and the TV is just on in the background.

118 And you're missing the point: What's the alternative?

121 An excellent point. And what's the old James maxim about AVG and our ability to detect the difference between a .250 and .300 hitter? Isn't it like 2 or 3 hits a week?

121 Are you the SG at RLYW?

122 Uh huh. Suuuure...

121 If it was simply trying to determine if a player was poor, average or good, I'd rather use my eyes. I think I could see that Arod was a very good hitter without access to any stats. Similarly, I would like to think I wouldn't be fooled into thinking that Jason Tyner was a good hitter because he hit .312 last year.

If I was asked to rank 50 hitters and could either have significant sample size BAs or watch a few games, I'd go with the stats.

I think Ortiz is ready for tonight...check out this YouTube video of Big Papi putting balls into McCovey Cove this morning before the home run derby. Ortiz went down to AT&T Park and hung out with some local San Fran kids, gave them hitting pointers and let them pitch to him while he took shots at a floating version of his new Reebok cleat that he's debuting at the All Star game.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbthfFewxrU

Enjoy!

123 The alternative is a combination of observation (personal and consensus of other opinions) and stats. Right now, some stats have Jeter at poor to average, my observation has him around average and other opinions rate him from average to very good. In other words, the evaluations are varied, so I would tend to dismiss the extremes. As a result, I don't accept that Jeter is a Gold Glover, nor do I agree with your stat-based conclusion that he is near useless as a short stop.

124Yep, I guess my notoriety has preceeded me.

129 Or I get around.

Thanks for all the good stuff you guys do over there. It's become part of my daily visit around the blogdom. I have yet to post, but maybe one of these days I'll be so inspired. I know folks around here would be happy to be rid of me. Thanks again for the good reads.

128 And what would your eyes tell you of Lord Mghdfjkg? Or of Julio Womack?. Or Hanley R down in Florida?

Meanwhile, how can you determine an average if you don't know the range and estimates of all involved. To declare Jeter average based on your observations assumes you made the same observations of every other SS in the game.

See: Average = Sum/(N)umber of items

N is easy enough to define. But how do you get that sum from your observations alone?

Face the facts, sir: At some point your eyes just aren't enough. As soon as you're ready to admit that, your ready for the stats. All I can do is show you the door. You have to swallow the pill down the rabbit hole. :)

48 If the Yankees miss the playoffs by any number of games, I'm blaming Jeter's D, and Cashman's obtuse-i-osity.

In that order.

132 And also Joe Morgan. And then A-Rod.

102 Which is why pitching wins is an insane way to judge a pitcher. I once ran correlation coefficients for a ton of stats against pitching wins, and the hands down, far and away most strongly correlated variable to pitching win.....Run Support.

128 BTW: I don't think Jeter is well below average as a SS. He's pretty darn valuable given his defensive limitations. Even Neyer admits that. But we're approaching the season where that isn't true anymore, especially when the team carries a Mghdjiyr at 1B.

Under those circumstances, move Matsui to DH and Jeter to the OF, get a glove for SS, and a decent bat at 1B (or hell even play Giambi there). That will at least help the team more defensively (with Jeter in LF and a glove at SS) than having Jeter at SS, Matsui in LF and Mghfji at 1B. And note there's no loss of production. That's where you can increase by a few wins just by improving the defense all around (well, except for Giambi).

But after the last two years, I don't expect that thinking from the current Yankee management.

129 You bet it has - you're one of the best Yankee stat guys out there! I especially like that you make use of Palmer's linear weights. I tend to prefer the BP advanced metrics to Palmer's stuff, but I like seeing other advanced stats to help provide some context and balance. I also love all those tables, and your work quantify the Yanks' performance, especially the defense.

127 Who are you, and why are you talking about Big Papi on a Yankees blog? Papi is not even a home run derby participant (http://tinyurl.com/33l2p4).

Oh - you are a publicist (http://tinyurl.com/37rmeh). Never mind.

130 Average doesn't have to be a mathematical term. If you look through a dictionary, you'll come across definitions such as typical, common and ordinary. One doesn't need to see every element in a population to come to a reasonable conclusion that one is "average". Based on my collective observation, Jeter rates as an average SS. Now, maybe I haven't seen enough SS' to satsify your requirement or don't have the observation skill needed to process what I am seeing, but the idea the one must see everything to make general conclusions is absurd.

I think I'll stick to using stats that I can define (and which have proven accuracy). When such stats don't exist, I have no problem relying on my observation and understanding of the game. If you feel the need to surrender completely to stats, regardless of whether they are relevant, I won't try to change your mind. Next time Joe Morgans cites wins as the basis for who is a better pitcher, though, don't complain. After all, his argument is based on a stat (and what correlates more to winning than wins anyway).

Phil Hughes about to start his first rehab game in Tampa, FYI

135 Just don't try to have him censored, or we'll get a belly full of Reader1174...

134 That assumes that Jeter can play LF and that you can find a glove at SS better than Jeter who will hit enough to justify his being on the team. I'd much rather leave Jeter at SS and find a very good bat for LF. Simply moving people around the diamond like chess pieces might work well on paper, but reality does factor in at some point.

138 Maybe he IS Reader1174...Hmmm, conspiracy????

139 David Eckstein and Neifi! Perez are both free agents after this season ;-)

Cashman should sign them both, and assemble the grittiest team in history!

134 Jeter in LF? Hmmm. My first instinct was he doesn't have enough power, and his power numbers are going to drop as he ages. But the average AL LF in 2007 is only hitting .265/.329/.410/.739, while Jeter is at .336/.408/.463/.871.

Something's bugging me about that idea, though. I've got to think about it a little more.

135 Reader1174 is funny. This "mikehayes19" seems to be nothing more than a (paid, I'm guessing) schill for Reebok. Which is fine, but identify yourself as such. And why try to get hits from a Yankees blog? Not cool, AFAIC.

141 That's not funny.

139 That's what bugged me. Thanks.

136 You, sir, can not be serious! To make any claim of average, typical, even ordinary, you have to have some estimate of the range of possibilities. Right now, unless you've watched even five games of 20 SS in the game - you just don't know.

Now you could say: Jeter sometimes makes great plays and sometimes makes ordinary plays and sometimes doesn't make plays.

That would at least be an accurate assessment of what you truly know.

In understanding stats, you can transcend your eyes! Take the blue pill!

135 Excellent detective work regarding 127!

139 You mean a SS that hits better than Mgfhjkg or Cairo? Meanwhile, even if they hit just like them, you still pick up wins because of the defensive improvement involved (SS and LF).

141 Exactly the solution Cashman would come up with if given the opportunity.

In case anyone cares: Up and down first inning for Prince Philip, obviously rusty:
* Anthony Hatch walks.
* Carlo Cota grounds into a force out, pitcher Phil Hughes to shortstop Reegie Corona. Anthony Hatch out at 2nd. Carlo Cota to 1st.
* With Kyle Phillips batting, Carlo Cota steals (5) 2nd base.
* Kyle Phillips walks.
* Josh Kreuzer called out on strikes.
* Eric Nielsen reaches on fielding error by third baseman Marcos Vechionacci. Carlo Cota scores. Kyle Phillips to 2nd.
* Cory Patton strikes out swinging.

145 I really hope you're joking on that last part.

147 And would I have been joking if I said a year ago that Mfghdsj would be the starter at 1B in 2007? And Cairo after him?

BTW: Eckstein the last four years is about the same hitter as Mhdjfg.

Hughes with an uneventful 2nd, not sure about the other two outs, but one was a K. Still not hits

148 On November 12 last year, you said:

"I got nothing from the free agent list - maybe Hillenbrand or Mientkiewicz?"

https://bronxbanter.baseballtoaster.com/archives/553577.html#39

Note also that the week of the Sheffield trade you said "I like Cashman more and more these days."

Hat tip to yankz from two days ago, in a post that earned him an invite for dinner at OldYanksFan's house.

148WRT150

I've always wanted to do this....

Ahem....

"pwned"

149 Is it online somewhere?

150 Damn right it did!

151 Hey, that pwned belongs to me!

JK. Spread the wealth.

I'm shocked no one's made a big deal of this:

Mariano Rivera: "The team when I came here had a lot of veteran guys, like we have. But a lot of guys that were—how had I phrase this?—they weren't just players, they lived the game, enjoyed the game. That doesn't mean these guys don't do that. It's just different."

From the LoHud Q&A yesterday.

That speaks volumes to me. It seems pretty clear that The Mariano Rivera is trying to say that this team doesn't live and die for winning like the dynasty teams did. It's true, stats can explain everything, but there's definitely a "passion" element in sports. At least, the little kid baseball fan in me still thinks so.

154 And by "It's true" I mean "It's kind of true."

150 Read the context, tough guy. It was based on the FA list. That in no way meant I was endorsing the move.

As for Sheff, I've already said I was wrong especially if Cashman knew Sanchez would need TJ and what he was going to do with the rest of the off-season. But yeah, at that point in the off-season I thought Cashman had turned a corner.

Silly me.

But let's troll the archive and see how many thought Mghggth could be "carried". By the time he was signed, I sure as heck didn't. Cairo either. Or the big zero that was the Big Unit deal.

I was happy with my assessments this winter. But thanks for playing along.

156 Do you reckon you opened yourself up to that sort of thing by being so obsessively critical and sanctimonious?

But that's just me, I wanted Cashman to sign Neifi! this winter.

134 When has Yankee management ever focused on improving defense? It seems unfair to point out the last two years in what has been an consistent mode of management.

Yanks have always tried to get good offense and pitching positions. If those guys could play defense, then all the better. But I don't ever remember the Yankees leading the league in defense.

156 - you wrote at the time on the question of 1b options, "Slim pickings there." Which was in my opinion correct. If you had then said something like, "We should punt, give Phelps or Phillips a shot, and spend the money wisely elsewhere; but if we take Metc it won't make a big difference", and stuck to that, you would have added a lot more to the conversation.

157 To what? Second guessing of things I've said but taken out of context?

Puh-lese.

Cashman has had plenty of defenders around here. And as soon as I opened my mouth in criticism of him, I heard from each and every one of them.

Except they look at lot less smart then me these days.

Unit trade same deal.

Shef - there were others at the time arguing against it. I've come around to see their point of view. And I have no problem saying I was wrong.

How that for sanctimonious, Steeeeeveeee?

158 That's absolutely correct.

159 Slim pickings in only the FA market. I was VERY consistent in saying they needed to bring in a prospect - for the last two years (yankz - check the records). The Unit deal was the perfect opportunity for it. And if they were will to sign Mghkdgf, they should have held onto Unit at least until Spring when he showed he was healthy. His value would have only improved.

160 The Yanks would be much better off with Randy Johnson's bad back and $13mn salary? Is that why you didn't like the Big Unit deal? While you may think the Yankees could have had their pick of prospects across the game, I think it has become pretty clear that teams have become far less willing to part with young talent for overpriced old guys.

159 BTW: I absolutely hated the Mghdskg when it happened (yankz - again, have fun checking the quotes). And the Cairo signing. And Nieves. And the Unit trade - I don't think I liked that one either - but I can't remember.

Indeed, I said the whole off-season was downhill after Sheff and Pettitte (yankz - again - get on it - then get me coffee).

160 "How that for sanctimonious, Steeeeeveeee?"

Off the charts. Congrats.

160 It's not quite as sanctimonious as usual, but I'm quite certain you'll rebound.

And look Dim Jean, you really might want to consider getting more sleep or switching to decaf or something along those lines, because while I probably agree with 90% of your baseball related arguments, you are 100% incapable of taking any form of criticism. And when someone establishes themselves (quite intentionally I suppose) as a "standout voice" in a public forum, they might want to consider temering their strident opinions with enough self confidence that they don't need to get pissy anytime someone challenges them.

I'm breathlessly awaiting not only your response but your next humourous caricature of my screen name.

162 But most here seemed to love the pitchers they got back where I saw scrubs. What you fail to understand is the Dbacks had exactly Webb and Livan for their rotation. They would have come around. If not another team would have when he showed he was healthy.

Meanwhile Chris Carter (.332 .395 .500 - 346 AB) still hasn't sniffed the major leagues yet.

165 Better 166?

165 Oh, and if I wanted criticism I'd call my mother.

Otherwise, you'll be happier the sooner you realize I'm always right.

163 STFU, not only are you a backtracking idiot, you're also not funny.

168 BTW: Anyone else reading 168 only applies to Steeeeeeeveeeeeeee.

Otherwise, feel free to disagree. That's the big part of the fun. Doesn't mean I'll agree, but it will be interesting if nothing else.

This got very tiresome very quickly.

166 We already hashed out Carter a few months ago, but even if he is a future star, what makes you think he was available? For me, the bottom line with the RJ deal is they cleared his salary, picked up a marginal prospect and (what I thought was going to be a useful) middle reliever, and also cleared the way for bring Roger Clemens back on board. From everything I have read, the Yankees had two partners: the D'backs and the Padres. While the D'backs did need RJ, I think you overestimate their urgency to win.

172 You missed it. One day, Jim actually proposed that the Yankees trade Eric Duncan for Carter straight up. It was LOL funny.

171 True dat. My life doesn't need any Jim Dean Nonsense in it. Goodbye, unless someone wants to discuss the A-Rod cover counter.

169 Ooooh, that doesn't sound too friendly. Nah, but I'm the only one that can't take criticism.

Does that mean I'm not invited to diner in New Hampshire?

167 Lovely.

I'm not sure if you've been asked this question but let's say that two years from now Sanchez is recovered from his TJ, and turns out to be a strong set up type guy for the Yankees. Does that change your evaluation of the deal at all?

I've taken a ride on the Cashman coaster this past year. After the Abreu trade I thought the guy was a genius.

When he got Igawa I was not happy about the move, when we did not do anything at catcher I was upset, because having a 36 year old catcher backed up by a string of incompetents doesn't make a ton of sense to me.

But lately, I'm starting to think Cashman is just looking at things through a longer lens that typical fans. And that may cost us the playoffs this year. But I'd rather miss the playoffs one year, in order to make sure I was building a foundation for years to come, than to just throw dollars and prospects at some team to get some mediocre backstop.

The jury is definitely still out in my mind.

One thing I think the Yankees have done a terrible job of this year, is managing expectations. They should have started seeding the whole..."We are building the next dynasty" story this year. That way, missing the playoffs wouldn't look like such a colossal failure, and if they make the playoffs it would look like the team really overachieved.

You also can't discount the fact that they are underdelivering their Pythag Record to the tune of 12 games.

Cashman had reason to believe this team could get the job done, despite the fact that they had a bunch of clowns at 1st and Catcher (behind Posada.)

I don't know, time will tell.

168 Dude, I just talked to your mother. She said not to worry about it.

174 I can take criticism. If someone points out where I'm being hypocritical, I'll agree to it. You, clearly, won't.

No, the "not funny" part was referring to the "coffee" thing. Get over yourself. You'll enjoy life more. Ask your mom.

173 Duncan is two years younger. Maybe before the season...

The point is: When's the last time Cashman acquired a position prospect in a trade?

172 Who knows? But you can't argue now that they got anything useful to the 2007 Yankees in return. That's all I wanted if they were going to trade Unit, especially when they didn't have to and his value was at the absolute lowest it was ever going to be.

Where's the DeadHorse?

178 Where I disagree with you is that I think clearing RJ's salary was inherently useful (especially when you consider his absence made Clemens' presence possible).

175 Of the Sheffield trade? Maybe, maybe not. What happens in the meantime? They miss the playoffs by two games in 2007? and in 2008? For a decent relief pitcher? When they already have five?

Me, I think Cashman is exceedingly good at keeping his job. As soon as this team started to suck, we kept hearing about all the pitching prospects.

Meanwhile, how about trading a Marquez or a Horne for a Carter? If pitching is so damn valuable why do the Yanks have so much of it but no position prospects?

Time has already told. Finding a decent prospect at 1B and BUC is not rocket science. Or CF three years ago. Or RF within the last two years.

It's called planning ahead. And except for this dearth of pitching, I haven't seen it from Cashman.

177 Don't pull quotes out of context and ask me to admit to being hypocritical. By the way, what were the the three things I listed before #4? Anything to do with a UIF or BUC? When you're right, I'll be happy to say so. :)

179 If they didn't sign Igawa - that's 50 million there.

And nothing said they couldn't trade Unit in April when he proved he was healthy.

178 He acquired the Attorney General in a trade, and, even if he isn't a great prospect, hes a prospect...Besides, Action Jackson and Tabata are about another month or more away from AA, Miranda is tearing up AA and will be in AAA in a month or so, and Hilligoss is back after an injury in A and will be in A+ in a month. Those are all positional prospects, and that doesn't even factor in Carmen Angelini and the other draftees...

And I agree with the others, JD. Sometimes you have good comments that add to the discussion. A lot of the time we even agree. But most of the time you are ranting and roaring the same old things. So be it...

180 God, I hate when this happens. Your comment is so easy to respond to. But, I'm not going to, and I could care less if you believe me or not. Why? Because I have a million times. Because you'll bust out some (not funny) insult, and I'll be tempted to stoop to your level.

Read the bottom of 177.

The Prince Phil update form Pete Abe (This is the type of thing hes great at, and needs to stick to doing)
hil Hughes pitched in his first game since May 1 tonight when be faced the Dunedin Blue Jays at Legends Field.

He went two innings, allowing one unearned run and no hits. He walked two, struck out three. Hughes retired five of the last batters he faced, three on strikeouts.

I have not received word on when Hughes will pitch again. But figure on it being this weekend for Trenton, probably for four innings. The Yankees will proceed cautiously with him to make sure he is OK.

UPDATE, 8:52 p.m.: The Yankees PR machine is reporting that Hughes threw 36 pitches, 20 for strikes. That makes sense. They would want him to go up 15 or 20 each time.

So 55-60 for Trenton

Then 75-80 for Scranton

Then 95-100 for the Yankees.

I would expect the AP to move some quotes later on. I'll post those when they become available.

180 The Yankees seem to overdraft pitchers because they are more likely to drop in the draft due to injury concerns and signability risk. Because the Yankees picks are so low, the risk/reward seems to favor overloading on pitching. I don't think you can blame Cashman for not drafting position player prospects because until this season, the Yankees looked far more stable on offense.

181 But that ignores the risk that he wouldn't prove healthy, in which case you wouldn't have a marginal prospect like Ohlendorf, but would have Johnson's brooding personality and $13mn salary.

180 Don't tell Jim Dean. But the Yanks just signed a catching prospect, Chinese player named Zhang Zhenwang.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2907982

182 AG is? That why they just dropped him down to Trenton? At the ripe age of 24?

Here's his line on the year:

.223 .266 .318 - 296 AB

Jackson and Tabata need to prove they can hit for power in A+ first. Since Jackson just got there he'll be there all season.

Miranda is 24 yo and hit .264 with a .812 OPS in A+ (250 AB). Let's not get ahead of ourselves.

And Hilligoss has a .764 OPS in low-A. I don't think it worth another minute talking about him in the Bronx.

Sorry, but they have not one position prospect that will help the Yanks this year (or probably next year). That's what I mean by the need to acquire them.

185 Really? Three years ago they knew they needed a 1B, CF, and a C. Two years ago it was a RF.

And it's not like the draft is the only way to acquire prospects.

Where are the trades for them? What's the use of all this pitching by itself?

And I refuse to believe Dorf is a prospect of any sort (still rooting for you!). Any case they take a risk based on the fact that the guy managed to pitch 430 innings in his two years here. The prices were only going to go up.

And if he couldn't pitch then they get nothing. Surprise! That's what they got.

186 Yup. Problem solved!

Jim, I only slightly regret the flame war I started. Recapping- I joked about Team Grit, you- venomous Cash critic- retorted including what if someone joked about having Minky on the 2007 Yankees. I replied with a quote of yours that stated just that- what if the Yankees signed Minky out of a shallow 1B pool.

And for the record, I didn't take the quote out of context- the context was people discussing the 1B situation, and you suggested Minky.

Further, and more seriously- the reason the Yankees don't have position player prospects is that they take way longer to develop than pitching prospects (and remember, TINSTAAPP). Cashman has admitted that as recently as 2001 they didn't really care about the amateur draft, and the lack of position player prospects in the high minors is the result. In 2004, the Yankees decided to change their strategy and use their resources to get players with "signability issues." The result was three consecutive drafts rated highly by the experts.

With that in mind, here's the list of 1st round position player draft picks who have reached the majors since 2004:

2006 None
2005 Troy Tulowitzki
2004 Stephen Drew

2nd Round

2004 None
2005 None
2004 Dustin Pedroia

2003, meanwhile, is ripe with major league position player talent, including Delmon Young, Ricky Weeks, Andre Ethier, Nick Markakais, Conor Jackson. So I think its safe to say that 1) it takes at least four years before you can evaluate a draft with regards to position players and 2) the Yankees lack of high-minors position prospects is due to the strategy prior to 2004.

If you check the low minors, the prospects are coming: Tabata, Jackson, Hilligoss, Miranda. While the pitchers who came about from the change in strategy are close to major-league ready, the position players are further off.

There's my thesis on position player talent- it's too soon to judge Cashman's development of position player prospects considering the franchise strategy of ignoring the amateur draft prior to 2004.

189 Why stop at 1st round talent? Kurt Suzuki (C), 2nd round, 2004 - now thriving in Oakland.

And even if you go back to 2004 - the Yanks knew at least then that they needed a CF, C, and 1B. Even if a prospect from 2004 wasn't "ready" now they'd at least be better than Mghsjgk or Cairo.

Meanwhile, see 188 for my views on the "prospects". Short story: Only Tabata and Jackson have shown they deserve the label.

But why has no one answered this simple question: What ever happened to trading prospects for prospects? DeSalvo, Horne, Marquez, Rasner? What good are all these pitching prospects? Not all of them can make it to the big club - especially not with JC and IK showing their stuff. Why not move some of the rest now? Or this past off-season? So they can keep Scranton stocked with ptiching for the next six years even as they're starting the likes of Nieves, Mghjdg, and Cairo?

Buelller? Bueller?

146 149 184 Thanks for the Hughes updates, Zach. I wondered how he was doing, but I didn't even think to check LoHud.

183 Well said. It is hard to not respond, isn't it? Lord knows I couldn't help myself too many times earlier in the year, and in the offseason. I wish I had been able to shut up earlier.

184 More from Pete Abe about Hughes:

"Hughes will start Saturday for Trenton at Waterfront Park against Binghamton at 7:05. Also, word is that Jeff Karstens will start Thursday for Staten Island at home against Auburn at 7:10."

He's got quotes to, but you'll have to go over there to read them. =)

Its times like these, I wish I still lived in upstate NY, and that the Yanks' affiliates were in Oneonta (not Staten Island) and Albany (not Trenton).

Another show-stopping performance, eh JD?

190One answer would be that having six major league ready pitching prospects is better than having six AA ready pitching prospects, and that waiting one year makes them more valuable on the trade market.

Another answer would be the BP philosophy of TINSTAAPP- trade Horne and Marquez and then Hughes turns into Mark Prior II and Chamberlain busts his shoulder. The conclusion by the prospect experts is that the only way to get major league young pitching is to have a LOT of minor league young pitching.

Yet another answer is that prospect-for-prospect deals are a thing of the past. Before you challenge Cashman to trade pitching prospects for position prospects, show me where that has happened with any club in the last five years. In fact, show me five trades in the last five years where a team has received position player prospects who have gone on to help the major league team.

At the core, we differ in philosophy- I have no problem sacrificing 2007 to benefit 2008 and beyond. If hoarding pitching prospects is going to help the team long-term, that's great news, and the further the Yanks get from the philosophy of "spend-on-aging-vets," the better.

What a boring derby.

191 It's tough, but 194 can handle it...

193 I dedicate it to your honor. And yankz will get you a cup of coffee if you ask nicely.

194 Let us count:

Hughes
Joba
Ian
Karstens
Rasner
DeSalvo
Clippard
Horne
Marquez
White
Jones
Smith

That's 12!!! Listed in order of perceived value, it's silly to suggest they need to hold on to all of them while Mghdkg and Cairo and Nieves start for the big club. Yet, that's what Cashman is getting away with - do nothing.

Plus, they have two pitchers (Wang and Moose) signed for next year plus the likelihood of Pettitte. That means there's maybe 2 or 3 slots. Add another three prospects for emergency duty, and they still have twice as many as they'll need.

As for your question: How about Barfield for Kouzmanoff?

That's one - and five in two years would be easy. I just have to get some sleep.

"If hoarding pitching prospects is going to help the team long-term, that's great news, and the further the Yanks get from the philosophy of "spend-on-aging-vets," the better."

Cashman (not the Tampa cabal) did just sign Damon. How's that getting away from that philosophy? You think RF next is going to be any different?

Again, pitching prospects won't help if they don't score runs. And hoarding them while many (Jones, Smith, White, Marquez, DeSalvo) are likely at their highest value isn't helping the team today or even next year.

Here's the problem: Cashman is terrified of trading any prospect of value and then looking dumb. That's why he's never done it in a prospect for prospect deal. Vazquez is the closest he's come, and there's been nothing since. He'd rather overpay for free agent crap or go without. As we've seen for Mgjfk and Cairo.

195 The State Farm Home Run Derby, or the same old same old here at the Banter?

Or both?

193 None better. BTW, sucks about the Portuguese-speaking spammer you had at SC. (Yeah, I'm lurking there. =) When do we get some Chyll Will comics?

194 I understand why you responded, but did you really have to?

198 I did promise you that >;) I'm working on a project now, but I'll start putting up classics as soon as next week. Then again, I promised Fearless Leader a Christmas present and unless it's "Frosty's Christmas in July", I'm having some issues with that.

Who here hasn't been "Rodrigoed" yet? >;)

197 Sweet. But as we all know, I prefer Yoo-Hoo. I drink to all present >;)

"pasta divingJeter". Fantastic!
You know all those deli's that name sandwiches after famous athletes?
Someone with an Itialian restaurant simply must name a dish "pasta divingJeter".

Wow, I go off the play soccer and come back to a full on war here. Easy guys, we can all be friends, its the all star break and its baseball.

I don't think Cashman is perfect but I think he's doing a pretty good job. I like the way the team is moving towards building prospects for more than trade bait and I fear that if Cash goes down half those guys will be traded for a crappy MLer for one year. Seriously, does no one remember Raul Mondesi?

Yes, I'd like to see a few more position prospects, but as others have pointed out with the Yankees lower draft slots its tough to find them. Instead, they have focused on pitchers who dropped because of either signability or some risk. I don't think that's a bad strategy. Note also, that in the international market they have made a much bigger play for some position players. Signing a catcher and a few outfielders, including one highly touted guy in DeLong (I think that's his name).

As for building at the ML level. Well, we had one of the greatest teams of all time in the late 90s and then we traded a lot of players away trying to hold onto that. Is there really any easy way to replace all of those guys, keep winning at the ML level and not give up the farm to some extent? We're reversing that now, but you have to be patient. Its easy to say just replace so and so, but many of them are homegrown superstars, or at the very least very good to great players. People like Bernie Williams (circa '98) and the next Jorge Posada aren't just lying under rocks.

Every other team in baseball has weaknesses here and there. Even this year's Sox have a crappy 5th starter and are getting little to nothing from people like Lugo. I'm upset as anyone about the 2007 Yankees, but I'd rather see this team stink if the tradeoff is another dynasty. Just think about how fans in Detroit felt a few years ago.

Let me also add one more thing. I'm sick of the Yankees fans who feel entitled to having a great team every single year. Its really, really hard to do that. I'm relatively young, but I remember the mid 80's through to the early to mid 90's. It took a lot to make those '95 and '96 teams. Fans everywhere else have good and bad years. I think this team can be a lot better than it is, with some easy moves (e.g. swapping Britton and Henn for Farnsworth and Myers), but more and more I get the feeling that people don't just expect to win every year, they feel entitled to it. That's a bad attitude.

200 Chyll, nice job on your blog. Thanks for sharing such a personal story (if you ever do get around to writing that book, let me know. I'd read it).

What have we learned today:

John Turturro will ride in on a DeadHorse wearing OddJob's derby to save the season for the Yanks and bring Jim Dean a cup of coffee...
;-)

I'm out...

83 William... look at the 13 other starting SS's in the AL. Based on defense and range, which would you say are worse then Jetes? For Jetes to be near average, you should be able to find 5 who are worse. (HA!)

Jetes is near the top in popups, and near the top in cutoffs and throws. But purely on turning groundballs into outs, who (or whom?) are worse?

195 It's like watching a slam dunk contest between Chuck Nevitt, Uwe Blaab, Greg Kite, and Bill Wennington.

...only, not as fun.

201 I cannot take credit for "pasta divingJeter"; I read it many times here before I ever used it. But it sure fits like a glove.

As for the dish - I envision a long, thin, pile of cavatelli on one side of a plate, surrounded by a sea of tomato sauce, with a lone cavatelli on the other side. Now I'm hungry!

204 Me too. And no rush on the comics, Chyll - I'm a busy dude myself. I guess I'm really saying, there's definitely an audience (me) for the comics when you have the time. I am very patient. =)

I thought about going through the problems with Dean's "assessment" of the prospects, but then I thought better of it and will instead eat a bowl of ice cream and enjoy the fact that Phil Hughes is now two more starts away from the majors again :)

210 Me too! Except I watched Talib light it up on Chappelle's Show instead of the ice cream.

Anyone actually watching Bronx is Burning? I wasn't alive in 1977, just wondering what some more aged Yankees fans thought of the portrayal of Martin and Jackson.

212 I caught it, mehmattski.

I was four in 1977, so I can't answer your question, but I will note that the show is poorly paced.

212 Surprisingly, I actually rather enjoyed the first installment tonight (tacky stock footage and all), though the whole Son of Sam subplot seemed a bit disjointed.

214 Yes, it did seem disjointed, and the scenes of the two murders seemed staged for no better reason than to float some New Yorkers from Central Casting a bit of work.

I haven't read the book, but the show seems to based more on newspaper articles than a deeper sense of history, narrative or character.

Sort of like a glorified scrapbook or high school yearbook.

For all that, though, I did find it entertaining.

Back to the HR derby: was anyone brave enough to watch the ENTIRE thing?

I had it on in the background while I was putting together my desk. Then, I left to meet some friends out for dinner and returned over an hour later, and, holy crap, it was still going strong! I turned it off about four hours ago, but for all I know, it's still on.

God bless those of you who can listen to Joe Morgan AND Chris Berman for more than an hour at a time.

216 I caught about five minute bits of it during the commercials for the Sopranos as I was waiting for Bronx is Burning.

Insufferable.

216 Hell f'ing no. I saw Vlad swing twice, then changed the channel. The TV was on mute the whole time.

And yeah, God bless. You're braver souls than I.

Oh, and you guys are up late...Shit, it's really late, and I have to work tomorrow. Goodnight.

216 I TiVo'd it, and haven't finished yet (though I know who won). I skipped when they went to the studios in Bristol, but I actually enjoyed listening to Morgan and Dusty Baker, who were fun for a change. They told interesting stories, noticed when hitters changed their swing, and really made it enjoyable. Berman even had fewer back-back-backs than usual.

It was actually the best HR derby I've seen since Big Mac hitting bombs onto the Mass Pike in 1999.

216 I watched it for the first time ever, and found it enjoyable in a goofy spectacle kind of way. I did curse at Joe Morgan a few times though. I picked Rios to win!

206 This season, Jeter ranks 8/13 in FPCT; 4/13 in RF; and 12/13 in ZR. If you equally rated those rankings, you get an average of 8/13, which is just about average.

Of course, I wasn't making a literal, mathematical statement. By calling Jeter average, I was making a relative comparison based on what I have seen of both Jeter and other short stops around baseball. Conservatively, I would estimate that I have watched many, many thousands of games on TV and probably 400-500 games in person. While I agree that I would never rely solely on observation to make a precise assessment, I am confident in coming to the general conclusion that Derek Jeter has skills on par with the typical short stops I have seen over the years. I am not saying anything more revolutionary than that.

206 Also, just because one is below average, doesn't mean they are bad. When the sample population is limited to major leaguers playing the games most difficult position, "below average" needs to be taken into context. Just imagine that the best 14 short stops in the game's history were all playing in the league at one time. Some of them would be, by definition, below average.

I watched the beginning of the Bronx is Burning, but it came on too late and I was tired. One thing did catch my attention though. In the scene where Reggie and Big Stein were walking through the park, was that Giambi as the cab driver yelling to Reggie? Anyone else notice?

224 Yes...it was...he had a cameo.

225 His New York accent was horrible :)

225 Word Up! (you might not get that one if you are under thirty...)

Driving a cab cannot be good for plantar fasciitis...

I heard that a Daily News article today places odds on A-Rods 2008 destination. Does anyone have a link?

222 Good data Willy, but you dodged the assignment. Name 4 or 5 AL SS's 'less average' then Jeter.

223 This is silly Willy (I made a rhyme!)
Any MLB player would be worshiped if they played on our softball team. But as you well know, all player comparisons here are based on a pool of 750-900 current MLB players. 'Average' is not absolute, but a term relative to the rest of the playing field.

Country wide, Jeter is 1 in 10,000,000 when judging his fielding skills. But compared to the 30 or so most elite SS's in MLB, he's probably... well average at best, and methinks slightly below.

With 14 SS's in the AL, below average would put him in the bottom 5.

So... "Your mission Bill, should you decide to accept"... is to name the 5 WORST AL starting SS's of the 14 possible choices.

However, while I don't agree with your aversion to Stats, I do agree that they are not near as absolute as some here think. The formula's for most, are intended to be approximations. There are many variables to esoteric to compute. They could be pretty far off for a small portion of players. And while many of us would agree that 2 + 2 = 4, the question is what does '4' mean? How do you interpret the resulting Stat?

And with defensive Stats, there is often human judgement involved in the data collection. And many specific combinations of variables that aren't accounted for. A pitcher is throwing a changeup to a RH batter, Jeter knows, and is leaning towards the hole. The batter hits it up the middle. Because Jeter was both leaning and anticipating, he loses a step, and maybe a point on the ZR scale.

Stats are a good tool and should be considered. But they are not a holy grail, and defensive stats in particular, are full of holys (I made ANOTHER funny!).

222 Given some of the shortstops that have played for the Yanks over the years, that may be damning with faint praise ;)

227 Thanks, got that stuck in my head now...

228 http://tinyurl.com/27n3z5

I didn't catch a whole lot of the Bronx is Burning (don't have much interest in it, actually), but Platt sounded a lot like Steinbrenner, IMO. I was suprised.

I refuse to get drawn for another day, but since it's obvious my view is being made into a strawman...

222 Actually that math is pretty easy, even for me:

8/13 + 4/13 + 12/13 = 24/39 = 8/13

6.5/13 = Average

8/13 = Below Average

Jeter = Below Average.

229 I'm happy if defensive stats can tell me who's:

1) Above average
2) Average
3) Below Average

Jeter is nicely shown as #3 defensively with the simple averaging of FPCT, RF, and ZR (which surely has problems). But that's all I need, especially cause the stats do better than mere eyes alone.

Meanwhile, who are the 5 "worse" than Jeter just based on FPCT, RF, and ZR (to make it easy)?

Oh, and who's worse for ZR? If that's what some folks prefer, then it's obvious why many say he's the worst SS in the game defensively.

If anyone is interested, Goose is chatting at ESPN.com in a couple of minutes:

http://tinyurl.com/2sg88s

229
(1) Why do you always refer to me as Willy? It comes across has having some implied connotation, but I am not sure what.

(2) In the AL, I'd definitely take Jeter over Michael Young, Brendan Harris and Peralta. I'd also probably take him over Lugo, and don't think Guillen and Tejada are much ahead, if at all.

(3) Your point is silly because it ignores mine..."just because one is below average, doesn't mean they are bad." Because average is relative is precisely why you can't simply use context-less stats to claim Jeter is a bad short stop. Having said that, as I previously stated, "average" can be defined in more than just mathematical terms. Check the dictionary.

(4) I am not averse to stats…just ones that haven't been proven to be accurate or useful. Everyone keeps referring to "defensive stats", but no one has really stated which one they are using. You have raised several questions that many defensive metrics don't address. Also, what about park adjustments? Could it be that lefties try to pull more in Yankee Stadium and righties try to go the other way? That short porch is pretty tempting, so who knows. If so, perhaps that would result in more groundballs to the second base side. When you consider all of the scrutiny given to offense/pitching stats, it surprises me that defensive metrics are often accepted no questions asked.

234 "When you consider all of the scrutiny given to offense/pitching stats, it surprises me that defensive metrics are often accepted no questions asked."

That's plain wrong.

232 ZR is an observation-based stat, which makes it ironic that you should throw it out there. Jeter has fluctuated in ZR over the years. In 2006, he was 7/10; in 2005, he was 5/10; and in 2004, he was 6/11. In some years, the percenatges are pretty close, to make ranking less meaningful. All I know is I'm glad I don't have to risk anything on a decision based on ZR.

236 Uh, so are errors (upon which FPCT is based).

The point is: I'll trust a summation of a bunch of people (official scorers, Stats Inc guys sitting the stands of every game, etc) much more than any one set of eyes. Always.

And based on the sloppy averaging of three defensive metrics - Jeter still comes out as below average. That don't mean bad or worst (I'll leave to others to argue that) - just below average. That's good enough for me, and argues strongly against what most singular sets of eyes would say, esp in Yankee fandom.

I'm done for today. Enjoy life.

237 In other words, you can't cite one defensive metric that you fully understand to support your conclusion. Also, you don't seem bothered by how most defensive metrics do not adjust for very obvious factors that most offensive stats now do.

I think you just made my argument perfecttly. Thanks.

237 Being as you seem to be ok with a sloppy average of flawed defensive metrics (and you disputed my claim that defensive metrics are accepted sight unseen [which for RATE is literal]), you might be suprised to know that method rated Jeter well below average in 2006 (.74); well above average in 2005 (.30); and just about average in 2004 (.55). If you combined the three seasons, Jeter comes out about average.

Also, if you are willing to "trust a summation of a bunch of people", why do you dispute the relevance of what "most singular sets of eyes would say"?

Very long post alert. I missed yesterday's
discussion of fielding stats, and I've only skimmed through it today. So some of my points will undoubtedly be redundant, for which I apologize in advance.

Tommyl, you make a comparison with the measurements and statistics you use in physics: "...you can never get things completely perfect. What you can do, is get to some reasonable approximation and state where you are uncertain." OK, but fielding stats give absolutely no hint of where they are uncertain, or how uncertain - in fact, they don't even necessarily tell us what
information they're actually providing or exactly how it's derived.

There are no operational definitions of any kind. ("Making the play" is not an operational definition.) What's a "hard" "grounder" "in the hole?" Hitting and pitching statistics are built from components that everyone agrees on: hits, walks, home runs, strikeouts, stolen bases, earnes runs. Other than fielding percentage, range factor is the only fielding stat that does
that - and the man who originated range factor disavowed it long ago as unreliable. In other fielding stats, judgments and assumptions are made without sufficent explanation - and certainly
without being verifiable.

In fact, I'd suggest that individual fielding stats are entirely untestable, because there's no external criterion to match them against. (I actually think team fielding is on much more solid ground.) You can correlate hitting stats with runs scored, pitching stats with runs allowed - but
what do you do with fielding stats? I suppose runs allowed is a function of fielding, but pitching is so much more powerful a determinant that it's probably almost impossible to correlate it with
individual fielding stats. (If someone's actually done that, I'd be interested to know it. I'd also want to know if the correlation is significant - but statistical significance isn't ever considered.)

Furthermore, as has been pointed out, all hitters do the same thing and all pitchers do the same thing. That gives you any number of ways to test assumptions. You can see if team stats accurately predict runs scored (or runs allowed), because team stats are a summation of exactly comparable individual stats. You can also use computer modeling effectively. If your stat says that Derek Jeter was a "better hitter" than Justin Morneau last year, just have the computer play a lineup of nine Jeters against a league average pitcher, and do the same with Morneau - a million times each.

But none of that works with fielding stats. Team fielding stats may be useful, but they represent a sum of individual stats that are not comparable, because the fielders aren't doing the same thing. And you certainly can't have a computer put nine Derek Jeters in the field to test his effect on runs scored.

It also seems to me that the fielding stats often don't agree with each other. Where they disagree, there's absolutely no way to know why they disagree, much less which one is "more accurate" (without definitions, I'm not even sure what that means).

Tommyl, I can't believe that a physicist would put any stock in statistics that were that shoddy. No operational definitions, no tests of significance or reliability or basic validity, no correlation with any external measure, no nothing. We don't know what they're measuring, what assumptions are made, what happens if you change those assumptions a little, if they're stable, what the range of error is, or anything else. Explain to me again why that's better than no stat at
all?

But Jim Dean will say, Ah, but what do youpropose as an alternative? As Goldman says about Rodriguez and others, what would I replace it with? The arguments aren't at all analogous, though, for one huge reason: the Yankees have to have someone playing third base and batting in the lineup. I don't have to have a system for rating fielders - it's not an either/or proposition. Decades ago, I realized that fielding percentage was a silly stat, and I freely ignored it without having to propose any alternative. I don't feel any more need now than I did then. My alternative is that I don't argue much about fielding at all. I trust my eyes when I've seen a player often enough, but I don't need to rely on a bad stat in other cases. I can tell you about Jeter's fielding in great detail, but I don't pretend to be able to say if he's "better" than Cesar Isturiz. To
the extent that I listen to any outside source, I'm more likely to pay attention to scouting reports - because those are people who do see many, many fielders over many, many games. Scouting reports, as much as stats, are summaries of observations.

Similarly, when people argue about which fielder is "better" using those stats, I ignore the argument. Jim, with all due respect, you've shown me that your enthusiasm for stats vastly outstrips your understanding of them. Being able to cite a number means nothing unless the number itself means something - and there are ways to know if the number is meaningful. As it stands now, the individual fielding stats provide no useful information that I can glean.

Whoa-ho-hoooooo, Nelly! Still with the Jeter's defense thingy?

Just so I know what to expect, how many times are you going to kick me today? I'm not requesting a precise figure, but if you could give me a ballpark guess'timate as to how many times you're going to flog this deadhorse...

Slightly off topic, I was going to wear my Cynthia Rodriguez style "F You" tank top to the All-Star game tonight. Good idea? I'll do just about anything to get some facetime on Fox!

241 I'm pretty sure if you sit next to a "celebrity" appearing on a Fox show, you are all set...

234 Because nothing rhymes with williamnyy23?

241 Hey, it's my first contribution to this particular discussion. I had to make up for lost time. Besides, it's not my fault. They started it.

You'll have to put the shirt on backwards.

243 Billiamnyy23, Pilliamnyy23, Quilliamnyy23...

240 "As it stands now, the individual fielding stats provide no useful information that I can glean."

For someone writing a magnum opus about not caring about defensive stats (whatever their form), making a statement like that just shows your chosen state of ignorance.

238 I could and they do. Do your homework then go to bed.

239 I'm only okay with using a sloppy average with sloppy people. Jaffe helped us to understand more, but only if we choose to do the intellectual heavy lifting.

You choose not to.

"Also, if you are willing to "trust a summation of a bunch of people", why do you dispute the relevance of what "most singular sets of eyes would say"?"

Sure, leave out the "bunch" that I refernce in parentheses - you know the ones that get paid to watch every game (i.e. not the ones paying to watch that same game)

Your eyes tell you the earth is flat. Your eyes are right (from a certain point of view). And Cairo is a "great contact hitter". Have fun!

243 Fair enough...although I have noticed it before sans rhyme. I guess I only pointed it out because I hate Willy as a nickname.

242 Thanks for the tip! Speaking of Fox celebrities, I've always wondered are Keifer Sutherland and Joe Buck the same actor? I ask because I associate both names with intense hostage drama and gratuitous violence, plus they're both blond aren't they?

244 Oh, so you're my stylist all of a sudden? Why do I have to wear the shirt backwards? Ya know, I might not even wear it thanks to all the Banter bruises I'm getting around here.

245 You'd have to wear it backwards because that's the only way you'll get face time. The phrase was printed on the back.

I was only trying to help.

246 And your response didn't address any of his points with a suitable answer. Much more of the "I know you are but what am I" response. It's fine to just say, "Well that's how you feel but I feel this way, so be it" and be done with it. But then you can't try to force the stats back on people as definitive proof of a point, you have to realize that just because you cite someone's ZR or RATE or whatever, it doesn't PROVE anything, it just gives you a perspective.

Or you can actually try to defend your arguments with new and insightful points.

Ah, and here I was looking forward to a nice discussion of the complexity that is the home run derby and the All star game...

246 You can't and they don't. Thanks for not trying. I enjoy the personal insults though...that's become your M.O. when your grasp on a credible argument starts slipping.

As for the bunch, well, scouts, managers, opposing players, broadcasters, etc. are among the sets of eyes that you don't trust. Instead, you put faith in "Stats Inc" guys. Do you know the qualifications of the typical Stats, Inc guy? I used to work for Sportticker a while back, and if Stats operation is any similar, well, I wouldn't put as much faith in what they see as you do.

Again, another contradiction that you can't explain away.

246 "For someone writing a magnum opus about not caring about defensive stats (whatever their form), making a statement like that just shows your chosen state of ignorance."

Honestly, I don't even know what that means. I see glaring flaws in the current stats that make them unreliable. I don't see how that's a state of ignorance.

And by the way, I'm not inherently against defensive stats in any form. I think the difficulties in fielding stats are enormous, and they have to be acknowledged and addressed before the stats are useful. I doubt whether that's possible, but I'm open to the idea. Just do it with a little rigor.

Maybe if you understood a little more about statistics, you'd be able to make a rebuttal that had some substance.

250 This is what happens when you have three days without baseball in midsummer. The All-Star break must be destroyed, for the sake of humanity.

249 I'm sorry I diva'ed out on you. That's a good style tip.

You'd think a deadhorse wouldn't have to fret so much to get on Fox... (sigh).. I mean look at Paula Abdul all up in that joint. She's got nothing that I don't!...
except for a job, of course, of course.

250 "Ah, and here I was looking forward to a nice discussion of the complexity that is the home run derby and the All star game..."

I thought Rios did a heck of a job in the second round. Darn event is way too long though. Here's a thought. Shorten the first two rounds to 8 outs each. For the final round, give each guy ten swings and, say, 15 balls (ie, non-swings). Once all the balls are gone, every pitch counts as a swing, even if they don't swing. And, for every HR they hit, they get another swing.

This way, if one or both are in a zone, they can keep going for a while, which is what the fans like to see. But if no HRs are being hit, like last night, it ends fast. The balls force guys to swing eventually, but take into account that sometimes the pitches aren't good.

If that doesn't work to shorten it, maybe adapt the swings/balls count for the second round, too.

255 and don't forget the running! Can't have a derby without the running now can we?

256 It's not the same when you beat your own deadhorse...

250 How many times do you want me to bang my head against a wall? There's plenty of evidence to suggest that defensive stats are better than they've ever been and are based on sound principles. But that's only for folks who take the time to look and educate themselves. Same deal with that flat earth thing.

williamnyy23 and JL25and3 refuse to become educated by doing the basest level of work. Again, good luck with that. It's not my interest to argue these points any further.

Some analysis of the different defensive metrics though? Stengths and limitations of each? I'm happy to learn with anyone else who's interested in the same.

251 And actually, I'd trust scouts who specialize in defense. We just can't get access to what they'd say. But none of managers, players, or broadcasters get paid to analyze defense.

BTW: Jeter is a fantastic SS becuase he makes fantastic plays!

And Mghfdjk = Fantastic 1B! The game's best - by far! Brilliant signing by Cashman!

Cairo = Best infielder since the Wizard!

Have fun trying to show the validity of any of those statements with only your eyes!

257 That sounds obscene.

258 They may be better than they've ever been, and they may be based on sound principles. That's a good starting point, but it doesn't mean that the end result is sound. Whatever the "plenty of evidence" is, it's not statistical. And if you're not willing to do the basic work to understand statistical principles - or to answer a single point with actual, y'know, information - then you shouldn't be throwing stones.

258 And once again: this isn't an either/or proposition. I'm saying that I mistrust the stats, but that doesn't mean I'm saying my eyes are more accurate. So stop putting those words in my mouth, please. Stop ridiculing my argument with another that I've never made.

258 It would be nice if such a strident advocate of defensive metrics would identify one that comes close to the accuracy of what we now have to evaluate offense and pitching. Of course, I now realize that you probably don't really understand any of them, so instead you deflect the argument. I have taken the time to educate myself on more than a few defensive metrics and have not yet been satisfied with one that is transparent, can be adjusted and is proven to correlate with some other desireable outcome. It would probably be easier to latch onto a number that I can't even explain, but I am probably more skeptical than you are.

260 How can you make statements like that when you admit you haven't done the intellectual work nor are interested in doing it?

And I have done enough work to know that the defensive stats are sound statistically and conceptually.

Besides which, the assumption that all these folks doing the work (Stats Inc, SABR, James) are hacks (but only for defense!) is simply appaling. I have no trouble, at all, trusting that lot.

But this skepticism of that authority (but only for defense!) is absurd.

261 You may be agnostic about what to believe, but then you add little besides that magnum opus of "I choose not to beleive anything".

257 Aww, hey, don't be so hard on yourself. You've only brought up "a derby needs to include running" two or three times in the last couple of days. That's nothing.

Including running might make it more interesting. It might also keep the number of home runs hit down, and tire the guys out, but running could be worked in. Say, every third swing in the final round, you have to run the bases. If its an out, you stop when its caught (or hits the ground). Otherwise, you run until you touch 'em all.

I was going to recommend some kind of skills competition, including footraces from home to first, first to third, and so on. But I don't think anyone would participate, because of the greater chance of getting injured. Sad, because it would be a lot of fun to watch.

262 Choose from among many:

RATE
UZR
The Fielding Bible
ZR

As for explication of them, there's this thing called the "internets".

I'm done now.

263 I don't think you understand enough about statistics to know if a stat is sound.

I start from a position of skepticism with all stats - as should everyone. Hitting and pitching stats have different characteristics from fielding stats - a point which has been made repeatedly by several people, and which you've ignored completely.

You obviously haven't understood anything I've said, becaus4e you've completely ignored every point of substance, and you've reduced a point-by-point argument to an absurd non sequiteur.

265 Ah. These are the stats. They're accurate because they're stats. If you want to know why they're so good, don't ask me.

266 I use stats every day in my job. I've published multiple papers (as the lead author) using stats. I know enough about stats to trust the defensive metric crowd. And I trust they know enough to tell me who's:

Above average
Average
Below average

And that's all I need to know.

Can they do better than that? I'm doubtful, but I think there's hope.

Peace. Love. Donuts.

266 I use stats every day in my job. I've published multiple papers (as the lead author) using stats. I know enough about stats to trust the defensive metric crowd. And I trust they know enough to tell me who's:

Above average
Average
Below average

And that's all I need to know.

Can they do better than that? I'm doubtful, but I think there's hope.

Peace. Love. Donuts.

262 I think one point has been made...you truly do not have an understanding of defensive metrics. I now agree that it is pointless to debate further as you are not equipped to defend a position about which you seemingly now so little.

262 I think one point has been made...you truly do not have an understanding of defensive metrics. I now agree that it is pointless to debate further as you are not equipped to defend a position about which you seemingly now so little.

270 "Know" so little.

Hooray! Does this mean the madness is over?

I haven't read the comments on Alex's newest post yet. I hope I don't need to scream when I do so.

For those interested:

Michael Humphreys' DRA and its comparison to UZR. He also gives the history of defensive stats along with links:
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/defensive-regression-analysis-complete-series/

UZR Pt. 1 :
http://www.baseballprimer.com/articles/lichtman_2003-03-14_0.shtml

UZR Pt. 2:
http://www.baseballprimer.com/articles/lichtman_2003-03-21_0.shtml

David Pinto's PMR:
http://www.baseballmusings.com/archives/004765.php

Clay Davenport's DFT:
http://baseball-analysis.com/article.php?articleid=73

David Gassko's RAA:
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/measuring-range/

Difference between PMR and UZR:
http://www.baseballmusings.com/archives/004776.php

Just want to clarify my view, without inciting a new storm of posts. I was not arguing that any one stat or set of stats for defense is better than this or that. What I am arguing about is the general approach. I just think throwing up your hands and saying there's too much human bias in stats so I'll trust my own eyes is giving up. Don't like the present metrics, well improve them.

Also, the argument that since there is human judgement involved the stats can't be trusted is just flat out wrong. While its not my specialty, any detector at a major particle collider employs exactly this. In a short amount of time, you rapidly get way too many collision events to analyze. Now, most of these are uninteresting events which can be thrown away and are by either the hardware or software of the detector, but what's your criteria? How do you know you're not missing something important? Its never perfect. Case in point is the latest round of neutrino experiments which seems to have possibly missed some effect (though its likely spurious) on the low end because they chucked away some data before doing the analysis. If you're unwilling to let a bit of human judgement enter, then you better stop relying on the Standard Model of particle physics and ignore any of the new results likely to come out of the LHC in the next few years.

273 Sorry, I was sleeping and then working so I wasn't around to defend my position.

276 No worries. You include stuff about particle physics and the LHC, and you can say whatever you want. That stuff fascinates me.

274 Those are great.

277 I'm not an experimentalist though so take what I say with a bit of salt grains :)

http://www.tangotiger.net/UZR0003.html
Jim... a 4 year UZR aveage shows DougOut as the 2nd best 1bman. Since you respect D-Stats, why do you keep claiming DougOut is so bad?

279 Well that's 4 years ending at 2003. I for one don't question that Mzxyz was a great fielding 1B. I'm just not sure that as he's aged, and with his back he continues to play at that level. Do they have any later data? say for 2005-2006?

279 I couldn't find any UZR data (anyone know where to look?) but looking at BPs card for him, his fielding seems to have dropped off quite a bit since 2003, and in the 4 year average you are quoting he was really, really good in 2001 and 2002 so that probably weighted the average a bit. I agree its not conclusive, but you can see quite a bit of a trend in the last few years.

280 Yeah... I know. I was just trying to give JD some shit (he thrives on it).

282 Ahhh, but I did all that googling!

275 Fair enough, Tommy. And without wanting another firestorm, either...

I don't insist that statistics should be formulated without any subjective elements. It's more a matter of transparency, accountability, and rigor. I want to know what the subjective criteria are, how they're determined, what happens if you change the assumptions, and so on. I wouldn't mind at least a passing nod at things like statistical significance.

Instead I read that, well, the STATS stringers seem to be pretty consistent, so we'll use their data. Or things along the lines of, "correlation of .39, that's not bad."

The work that's been done is impressive. They've thought things out, and come up with several very different ways of answering the same question. But all of them are just hypotheses at this point. The most important question that should be addressed now is: how do we test them?

284 Yeah, I also wish the LHC people would actually release some of their raw data, but its not gonna happen :). I don't think we're actually that far off from agreeing.

284 That DRA article isn't a bad read (not that I've managed to finish it yet, real work does intrude sometimes).

286 Yeah, i read the two UZR articles. As I said, it's impressive work, and it seems logical. Of course, I read someone else's work and it's also logical, just entirely different.

286 Actually, Tommy, I'd be interested in talking about those articles, bouncing around some thoughts about them. I have my own ides, but a little challenge helps me think things through a lot more clearly. If you're interested, feel free to e-mail me: jelitt@optonline.net.

288 Ah, not sure I have the time for that (I'm not ducking, I'm just busy) :).

281 UZR was Mitch Litchman's work and he stopped releasing the information once he was hired by St. Louis Cardinals.

Hence the work by others to have publicly available stats of the same quality.

Not sure if anyone is still checking here, but MGL recently released UZR numbers for 2003-2007. http://tinyurl.com/2c3a52

I'll post this in the other thread(s) just in case.

270 "I think one point has been made...you truly do not have an understanding of defensive metrics."

JFTR, while I find Jim Dean almost uniformly annoying and of very low useful information density, and I consider williamnyy23 to be a very positive addition to the commentariat here, the above is appalling. Resorting to baseless ad hom when you've lost the argument is counterproductive in every way.

284 What in the world would you do with LHC data? Apply your own alignment constants to the silicon and reconstruct the tracks with your own software, making sure to correctly remove the hot strips and ignore dead strips using the detector db? Apply your own particle id criteria? Develop your own procedure to distinguish overlapping minimum bias events?

292 Hm. I'm still waiting for a single substantive response to a series of serious questions or comments. The best I've gotten is to be called ignorant.