@dallasactuary said:
Point Shares and GSAA are both good stats, and a whole lot better stats than Save %, but they still suffer from the same drawbacks as all hockey (and football) stats do - individual stats can't capture value completely in a team game. No goalie stat is worthless, but none are worth much by themselves; the more you look at, the better you'll see the whole picture. And, like football, the game and equipment has changed a lot over the years. So much so that no matter how many stats you look at you will never, ever, be able to compare Martin Brodeur to Terry Sawchuk.
I agree. Baseball is by far the best because it is a discrete game. That is, it is possible to document what happens on every play. All other major sports are continuous which poses a whole host of problems.
I agree. Baseball is by far the best because it is a discrete game. That is, it is possible to document what happens on every play. All other major sports are continuous which poses a whole host of problems.
Absolutely. The "team" element of baseball comes down to maybe 1% of the game, probably less than that. It is almost entirely individuals performing discrete tasks which are entirely unaffected by anyone else. In team sports like hockey and football, and basketball to a degree somewhere in between, it almost always matters, all of the time, what everyone on the team is doing. And in both sports, to a very large degree, the success of the team depends as much or more on the weakest performer as the strongest performer. You put Tom Brady behind a line with a terrible guard or tackle and he'll get sacked a lot more often than he throws a TD pass. You put Martin Brodeur in net with a terrible defenseman in front of him and he'll be facing more shots from 3 feet than from 30 feet.
Which is, I think, why QBs and goalies get so much more credit than they deserve on good teams. You don't notice good linemen and good defensemen, you only notice these guys when they screw up. QB gets sacked, winger scores a goal? Lineman or defenseman screwed up! QB throws a TD, goalie makes a save? QB or goalie is great! It's heads I win, tails you lose for the QB and the goalie; good plays are credited to them, bad plays are blamed on someone else. We notice TDs, long runs, goals, and big saves for the "skill" players, and we give them all the credit. The others get noticed when they commit penalties or get beat and someone runs/skates right past them.
For a QB, and I've given up caring if people don't agree so I'm not trying to restart an old debate, his value to an average team will be somewhere in the 4% to 7% range. The only way for him to get much higher than that is (1) to be great, and (2) to be on an otherwise terrible team. On a good team, and especially on a great team, there is simply not enough "space" to make more difference than that. Same general idea for goalies, although they get, and deserve, far more credit than QBs because of the smaller roster, and the much greater playing time.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
This video is for those of you who never saw goalie greatness in action. Sorry Dominik. Sorry Patrick. Sorry Marty. Sorry Roberto, Henrik, Bernie, Tony, Ben, Tuukka and others. You never could perform on this level. You guys were great, but you never achieved this kind of greatness. In other words, you never did anything like this to put you over the top.
Tim Thomas during a Stanley Cup playoff run where he set every playoff record for a goalie. Just sit back, watch, and enjoy.
I love his "save" at 4:10. That was so heads up and just showed how innovative he was. Only Ron Hextall may have made a "save" like that.
At 3:15 , he shows why anyone who says Tony Esposito, Ken Dryden and the old goalies were as good as today's goalies are out of their minds.
The skates back then didn't allow them to make saves like this. They didn't have the mobility that today's goalies have.
Bobby Orr was the only player from that era where the poor equipment didn't bother him. Bobby just played on a whole
different level. The goalies of Bobby's era couldn't move laterally the way today's goalies can. It wasn't a part of their training.
Fielding percentage may actually be more valid than the number of assists a fielder gets. While it is true that fielding percentage does not measure how many balls you get to, it measures how well you do field a ball that is expected to be turned into an out. It is also almost 100% directly measuring the fielder and his ability to 'process' a ground ball.
Assists on the other hand 'may possibly' measure your range, but it is also measuring the simple fact that more balls may have simply been hit your way. Luck and your pitching staff are as big of elements in that measurement as is range.
Errors are not given on balls where players make diving attempts, or or long ranging attempts, so the old saying, "he makes more errors because he gets to tougher balls" isn't really true because errors are not typically given on mis-plays of those balls.
Ryne Sandberg is concrete in his fielding percentage being superior to Bill Mazeroski. That is almost 100% measuring what THEY do. Hit 1,000 ground balls to them in game action, Sandberg is going to process them at a higher rate than Mazeroski.
Mazeroski is said to have great range and elite ability to turn a double play, but those measurements are greatly dependent on luck, your pitching staff, and your double play partner. Mazeroski's replacements on his teams did just as good as he did when they replaced him on their teams. So those measurements do in part measure those abilities, but they are also severely clouded by luck and your pitching staff.
The eye test 100% backs up Sandberg having outstanding range and getting to many balls as good as anyone else, so the fact that his assists and double plays are up and down on a year to year basis like the Dow Jones, you are seeing the result of just sheer dumb luck and pitching staff greatly influencing those measurements.
When given the chances in 1983, Sandberg turned 126 double plays. In 1991 in the same amount of games he only turned 66. So he forgot how to do it? Back to turning 94 the following year? Every game I saw, he did just fine processing the double plays. He just didn't get the same opportunities.
Or how does Sandberg go from 550 assists in 1984 down to 466 in 1989? That is a huge difference. Sheer dumb luck of opportunities is the answer because a few years later he was back up to 539.
@Goldenage said:
How do you say 0.967 in French Canadian ?
This video is for those of you who never saw goalie greatness in action. Sorry Dominik. Sorry Patrick. Sorry Marty. Sorry Roberto, Henrik, Bernie, Tony, Ben, Tuukka and others. You never could perform on this level. You guys were great, but you never achieved this kind of greatness. In other words, you never did anything like this to put you over the top.
Tim Thomas during a Stanley Cup playoff run where he set every playoff record for a goalie. Just sit back, watch, and enjoy.
Roy was better in the 1993 playoffs than Thomas was in the 2011 playoffs. Anyway, it is ridiculous to say that someone is the best of all time because he played 25 really good games in a row. Hank Aaron never had a stretch like Dale Long did from 19-28 May 1956. That doesn't make Long the best of all time, or even better than Aaron.
Thomas had a great 2011 playoff run. It was his only one. Roy had 4 great runs that resulted in 4 Cups and 3 Conn Smythes. Not too shabby.
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Roy was better in the 1993 playoffs than Thomas was in the 2011 playoffs. Anyway, it is ridiculous to say that someone is the best of all time because he played 25 really good games in a row. Hank Aaron never had a stretch like Dale Long did from 19-28 May 1956. That doesn't make Long the best of all time, or even better than Aaron.
The title of this thread should be nominated for the most preposterous of all time.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
Fielding percentage may actually be more valid than the number of assists a fielder gets. While it is true that fielding percentage does not measure how many balls you get to, it measures how well you do field a ball that is expected to be turned into an out. It is also almost 100% directly measuring the fielder and his ability to 'process' a ground ball.
Assists on the other hand 'may possibly' measure your range, but it is also measuring the simple fact that more balls may have simply been hit your way. Luck and your pitching staff are as big of elements in that measurement as is range.
Errors are not given on balls where players make diving attempts, or or long ranging attempts, so the old saying, "he makes more errors because he gets to tougher balls" isn't really true because errors are not typically given on mis-plays of those balls.
Ryne Sandberg is concrete in his fielding percentage being superior to Bill Mazeroski. That is almost 100% measuring what THEY do. Hit 1,000 ground balls to them in game action, Sandberg is going to process them at a higher rate than Mazeroski.
Mazeroski is said to have great range and elite ability to turn a double play, but those measurements are greatly dependent on luck, your pitching staff, and your double play partner. Mazeroski's replacements on his teams did just as good as he did when they replaced him on their teams. So those measurements do in part measure those abilities, but they are also severely clouded by luck and your pitching staff.
The eye test 100% backs up Sandberg having outstanding range and getting to many balls as good as anyone else, so the fact that his assists and double plays are up and down on a year to year basis like the Dow Jones, you are seeing the result of just sheer dumb luck and pitching staff greatly influencing those measurements.
When given the chances in 1983, Sandberg turned 126 double plays. In 1991 in the same amount of games he only turned 66. So he forgot how to do it? Back to turning 94 the following year? Every game I saw, he did just fine processing the double plays. He just didn't get the same opportunities.
Or how does Sandberg go from 550 assists in 1984 down to 466 in 1989? That is a huge difference. Sheer dumb luck of opportunities is the answer because a few years later he was back up to 539.
I hope the following two points put paid to the idea that fielding percentage is a useful statistic once and for all.
First: a thought experiment. Imagine two teams. One has the 2020 version of J.P. Crawford playing shortstop. The other has the 2010 version of David Ortiz. We all know that even the most poorly selected gold glove shortstop (not offering an opinion of Crawford, just selected a gold glover at random) will be vastly better than Ortiz would have been at defense, and yet Ortiz' fielding percentage would likely have been higher. How does it make sense to penalize Crawford for throwing the ball in the dirt at first or diving for a ball hit two feet to his right and deflecting it into center field, but ignoring the plays where Ortiz just held on to the ball or watched the ball hit two feet to his right go by? In all cases the batter ends up on first.
Second: the player with the worst dWAR of all time at shortstop is Michael Young. I'm not going to claim that dWAR is a definitive measure of defensive value, just that if two players are not close in dWAR at the same position, the one with the higher dWAR is likely to be better. Let's stick a finger in the air and say that there is a 98% chance that a player 5 dWAR higher than another is a better fielder. I wouldn't commit to either of those numbers without a lot more study, but I'll bet they're a reasonable starting place. Further note two things: of the top 500 shortstops of all time by JAWS (that is everyone better than Josh Wilson and then some), only six are within 5 dWAR of Young. Second, Young won a Gold Glove is his best season, when his Defensive Runs Saved was all the way up at -4. After that season Young played a total of six games at Short. Anyway, here is my point. To four decimal places Young's fielding percentage is exactly the same as the best fielder of all time, Mark Belanger. .9767.
I'll also say that I've never heard anyone say that the (raw) number of assists a player has determines who the better defender is. Basic counting stats (putouts, assists, errors, and double plays) do a terrible job of measuring defense.
@perkdog said:
Interesting I always thought Roy and Brodeur were in the best ever conversation. But I know very little about hockey
They are. Roy won FOUR Stanley Cups and Marty won 3. Roy's number is retired in 2 organizations. Marty went to the postseason 17 times. They were both incredibly consistent and achieved tremendous success.
@Justacommeman said:
Thomas had a great 2011 playoff run. It was his only one. Roy had 4 great runs that resulted in 4 Cups and 3 Conn Smythes. Not too shabby.
m
You would think you would back the only high school goalie from the state of Michigan to ever make the NHL Stanley Cup finals.
Patrick Roy's Conn Smythe Trophies
1- 1986 final vs. Calgary. Mike Vernon posts a terrible .894 save percentage in the Stanley Cup final to give the Canadians and Patrick Roy the victory. If you're under .900 as a goalie then you just plain suck. Patrick Roy posts a .904 save percentage in the Stanley Cup final.
Conclusion.....If Patrick Roy faced Tim Thomas in the 1986 Stanley Cup final you can all but take away Patrick's first Conn Smythe trophy. Mike Vernon handed it to him on a silver platter. Patrick's save percentage is 0.05 away from the suck range. LOL at Patrick's first Conn Smythe.
2- The 1993 season (Patrick's 2nd Conn Smythe) saw Patrick post an .894 save percentage during the regular season. Another suck job by the "greatest" goalie of all time. Patrick redeemed himself during the postseason posting a .929 save percentage. He still would have lost to Thomas if he faced him in a series. Sorry Patrick.
A side note about the 1993 series. The Buffalo Sabres stayed with Grant Fuhr during the postseason while Fuhr posted a .875 save percentage. Fuhr was terrible. Fuhr played 8 games for Buffalo. Dominik Hasek was only given 1 start by the Sabres and stopped 23 out of 24 shots for a .958 save percentage. Do you think if Hasek was Canadian that he would have ever saw the bench again ? LOL
3- Patrick earned his last Conn Smythe trophy (even though he would have lost if he faced Tim Thomas). Instead he faced a NJ Devils goalie who just sucked his way through the whole final to give the Avalanche a 4-3 series win. Marty Brodeur did the impossible in posting a .870 save percentage in the final. MARTY BRODEUR SUCKED MORE THAN GRANT FUHR DID in 1993. Sorry Patrick. If you had faced Tim Thomas in net for the Devils instead of sucky Marty, you would have been denied
your 3rd Conn Smythe trophy.
Here is a picture of Patrick when asked by a reporter if he would have won any Conn Smythe trophies if he faced Tim Thomas in any of the Stanley Cup finals.
@Goldenage said:
How do you say 0.967 in French Canadian ?
This video is for those of you who never saw goalie greatness in action. Sorry Dominik. Sorry Patrick. Sorry Marty. Sorry Roberto, Henrik, Bernie, Tony, Ben, Tuukka and others. You never could perform on this level. You guys were great, but you never achieved this kind of greatness. In other words, you never did anything like this to put you over the top.
Tim Thomas during a Stanley Cup playoff run where he set every playoff record for a goalie. Just sit back, watch, and enjoy.
Roy was better in the 1993 playoffs than Thomas was in the 2011 playoffs. Anyway, it is ridiculous to say that someone is the best of all time because he played 25 really good games in a row. Hank Aaron never had a stretch like Dale Long did from 19-28 May 1956. That doesn't make Long the best of all time, or even better than Aaron.
Now you guys are just getting plain ridiculous. Was Dominik Hasek not that good in 1993 because the Sabres decided to put a sucky Grant Fuhr in net more than Hasek ? Please answer this question for me. Because you guys are starting to sound stupid.
The question is was Dominik Hasek great or bad in the 1993 playoffs. Simple question. He was only given 1 game by his coaches (because he wasn't Canadian) and Grant Fuhr was.
Tim Thomas was given an opportunity by his coaches. He had absolutely no control over that. When given the chance, he proved that he was the greatest shot stopper all time in the postseason. He had over 50 starts in his career, which is more than enough to qualify to be the greatest all time. No one even comes close to him.
And to say that Patrick Roy's performance was better than Thomas in the postseason is just plain stupid.
Please post the video of all the impossible saves Patrick made. I already posted the saves Tim made.
Roy was better in the 1993 playoffs than Thomas was in the 2011 playoffs. Anyway, it is ridiculous to say that someone is the best of all time because he played 25 really good games in a row. Hank Aaron never had a stretch like Dale Long did from 19-28 May 1956. That doesn't make Long the best of all time, or even better than Aaron.
The title of this thread should be nominated for the most preposterous of all time.
I'm still waiting for a coherent retort from you, but being that you are unable, you can only resort to attacks.
This happens when someone does not have valid evidence to refute the truth.
@perkdog said:
Interesting I always thought Roy and Brodeur were in the best ever conversation. But I know very little about hockey
They are. Roy won FOUR Stanley Cups and Marty won 3. Roy's number is retired in 2 organizations. Marty went to the postseason 17 times. They were both incredibly consistent and achieved tremendous success.
Welcome mynamespat. Perhaps you are patrick roy himself ?
In 1993 Dominik Hasek made one start for Buffalo and stopped 23 out of 24 shots for an incredible .958 save percentage.
Thomas faced 798 shots in the 2011 Stanley Cup playoffs and posted a .967 save percentage.
If you do the math, that means Tim Thomas had plenty of 24 out of 25's during that entire playoff !!! When we asked
Patrick if he ever performed like Hasek or Thomas during the postseason or regular season, this was his response him versus the
1 and #4 all time NHL regular season save percentage leaders.
Roberto Luongo was #9 all time in regular season save percentage. Brodeur was #41 and Patrick Roy wasn't even in the top 50.
Roberto Luongo in the 2011 Stanley Cup final posted an .891 save percentage. The Canadian boy was feeling the pressure of staying with the great Tim Thomas. So Vancouver put in the American Cory Schneider. What did Schneider do ? He posted a Dominik Hasek like .951 save percentage in the two games he was given an opportunity.
So let's see here. Luongo posted an .891 in the final in his first three games. Schneider posted a .951 in his two games.
So what do the Canucks do ? Of course, they pull a Grant Fuhr and put Luongo back in net in game 7. Does it matter ?
No, it does not. Thomas shuts out Vancouver again in a 4-0 Bruins win. Luongo lets in four goals to keep his save percentage in the pathetic range. Good try Roberto.
I'll also say that I've never heard anyone say that the (raw) number of assists a player has determines who the better defender is. Basic counting stats (putouts, assists, errors, and double plays) do a terrible job of measuring defense.
The defensive war stats are simply a product of those counting stats, assists, putouts, errors, double plays. They just create a formula to try and put an exact number on it...but don't be fooled, the number of assists is indeed one of the biggest factors in those measurements. The same can be said for pretty much any defensive stat.
The best way to put it is that the raw measurements of assists, putouts, and double plays are equivalent to a six inch long turd. The defensive War measurements simply takes that turd, throws it on a bun, and then covers it with peppers and onions.
There are no video play by play analysis of each play of Mazeroski or Sandberg.
As to your other point about Ortiz playing shortstop, a player like him would not even be playing shortstop in the minor leagues. Any SS who makes it to the major league level has proven he can process the routine play and the medium routine play. It is typically the extreme plays that separate those players and those plays may only happen 12-15 times a year...because don't forget, even the 'worst' MLB shortstop makes highlight plays too.
It is pure luck and chance, and the pitching staff, that determines who gets the most balls...as pointed out with Sandberg and Mazeroski(and his replacements who did just as good as the proclaimed all time best fielder).
In my example, I used Ryne Sandberg and Mazeroski, and Sandberg indeed made far ranging plays into the outfield grass, so your entire point doesn't apply.
Roy was better in the 1993 playoffs than Thomas was in the 2011 playoffs. Anyway, it is ridiculous to say that someone is the best of all time because he played 25 really good games in a row. Hank Aaron never had a stretch like Dale Long did from 19-28 May 1956. That doesn't make Long the best of all time, or even better than Aaron.
The title of this thread should be nominated for the most preposterous of all time.
I'm still waiting for a coherent retort from you, but being that you are unable, you can only resort to attacks.
This happens when someone does not have valid evidence to refute the truth.
Your position on your (preposterous) OP has been destroyed so many times, I see no reason to bother.
It makes no sense to argue with people that have no understanding of a subject. It has been pointed out by every single poster that you are wrong.
It's so obvious that you are insanely wrong, I figured you MUST simply have posted to inflame people and see where the debate goes.
Of the guys you mentioned at the beginning, Hasek is the only one who was truly great.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
In Marty Brodeur's "sensational" career, 144 of his wins came when he had a save percentage below 0.90 for each of those games he won. LOL
If Marty Brodeur is the best goalie ever, why did he only lead the league ONCE in his career in save percentage ?
Why did he suck so bad against Colorado in the Stanley Cup playoffs ?
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
It is pure luck and chance, and the pitching staff, that determines who gets the most balls...as pointed out with Sandberg and Mazeroski(and his replacements who did just as good as the proclaimed all time best fielder).
You did in fact "point it out", but that doesn't make it true. Mazeroski's replacements were all excellent fielders in their own right, but they did not do "just as good" as Mazeroski. I'm sure they did some things "just as good" and you're probably making a Goldenage style argument that you can use some relatively meaningless stat to prove how good a fielder a player was.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
It is pure luck and chance, and the pitching staff, that determines who gets the most balls...as pointed out with Sandberg and Mazeroski(and his replacements who did just as good as the proclaimed all time best fielder).
You did in fact "point it out", but that doesn't make it true. Mazeroski's replacements were all excellent fielders in their own right, but they did not do "just as good" as Mazeroski. I'm sure they did some things "just as good" and you're probably making a Goldenage style argument that you can use some relatively meaningless stat to prove how good a fielder a player was.
They did just as well, and if they are all good defenders(like 99% of players that make it to MLB), then that can't quite make Mazeroski hands down the best fielder ever, when others do the same thing as him.
How does Sandberg's double plays fluctuate so much on a yearly basis?? He forgets then remembers how to turn them? I don't think I ever saw him botch an attempt with any frequency. They go up and down based on the opportunites...just like most defensive measurements. 99% of MLB tested defenders convert those opportunities.
The one thing that measures the fielder most directly, converting ground balls into outs, Sandberg has Mazeroski beat. The other stuff is born mostly from having more or less opportunities.
The advanced fielding measurements that are treated as gospel and put on the same level as the offensive ones are nothing but a dressed up turd. It is a turd that is simply placed in a bun, doused with sauce, covered with peppers and onions....and some enjoy taking bites out of them.
Your argument that 99% of MLB second basemen are all identically equal in ability is compelling and you have convinced me. No need for you to post on this topic (baseball) ever again.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@dallasactuary said:
Your argument that 99% of MLB second basemen are all identically equal in ability is compelling and you have convinced me. No need for you to post on this topic (baseball) ever again.
Probably a wise choice. Still don't have an answer to that Sandberg question?? Yes, 99% convert those opportunities. How does Sandberg who ranges into the outfield to convert ground ball outs, and he catches everything hit, somehow not have as much range as someone like Mazeroski? Less opportunities, not less range. He 100% has better hands than Mazeroski.
Show me where Sandberg was failing to convert double plays where it made him have less than Mazeroski, and go from 126 to 66 in a flash, and back to 96 in a flash. Show me.
You're entire basis of making mazeroski better is because he had more double plays and assists. Entire. It is a mirage. A dressed up turd on a bun. So you pack up and go home because of it.
@dallasactuary said:
You misunderstood me. I was serious. I am convinced. There is no need for you to post on the topic of baseball ever again. Ever.
Good try. Show me where Sandberg was failing to convert all those double plays that made him have so many less than Mazeroski. Show me how Sandberg, who was ranging into the outfield to convert ground balls into outs, had less range than Mazeroski simply because Mazeroski had more assists?
I certainly didn't see all those balls going past Sandberg. I didn't see him muffing double plays or not converting them.
Show me.
You're entire basis is based on a mirage. A dressed up turd on a bun. It isn't as gospel as you are making it out to be.
Your methods also give players who sit on a couch more value than players holding down every day jobs in MLB. That should make you pause and re-think some of the methods.
You may need to adjust your tag line. Scratch Mazeroski off. Scratch the Rice one off. You think Tenace was better than Rice. Tenace sitting on a couch being better than Rice? A joke.
And thank goodness the NFL players don't agree with your assessment of FOurnette being more responsible than Tom Brady for winning the Super Bowl. Fournette doesn't agree either.
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
It is pure luck and chance, and the pitching staff, that determines who gets the most balls...as pointed out with Sandberg and Mazeroski(and his replacements who did just as good as the proclaimed all time best fielder).
@dallasactuary said:
You misunderstood me. I was serious. I am convinced. There is no need for you to post on the topic of baseball ever again. Ever.
Dallas, some of YOUR famous claims:
When you have baseball theories that make players who sit at home on the couch as superior to players playing everyday, you need to rethink your self proclaimed baseball knowledge.
When you proclaim Gene Tenace(who is a part time player)as a better hitter than Jim Rice, you need to re-think your baseball knowledge.
When you proclaim Leonard Fournette as being of higher value to winning than Tom Brady....you need to find another hobby.
I'll also say that I've never heard anyone say that the (raw) number of assists a player has determines who the better defender is. Basic counting stats (putouts, assists, errors, and double plays) do a terrible job of measuring defense.
The defensive war stats are simply a product of those counting stats, assists, putouts, errors, double plays. They just create a formula to try and put an exact number on it...but don't be fooled, the number of assists is indeed one of the biggest factors in those measurements. The same can be said for pretty much any defensive stat.
The best way to put it is that the raw measurements of assists, putouts, and double plays are equivalent to a six inch long turd. The defensive War measurements simply takes that turd, throws it on a bun, and then covers it with peppers and onions.
There are no video play by play analysis of each play of Mazeroski or Sandberg.
As to your other point about Ortiz playing shortstop, a player like him would not even be playing shortstop in the minor leagues. Any SS who makes it to the major league level has proven he can process the routine play and the medium routine play. It is typically the extreme plays that separate those players and those plays may only happen 12-15 times a year...because don't forget, even the 'worst' MLB shortstop makes highlight plays too.
It is pure luck and chance, and the pitching staff, that determines who gets the most balls...as pointed out with Sandberg and Mazeroski(and his replacements who did just as good as the proclaimed all time best fielder).
In my example, I used Ryne Sandberg and Mazeroski, and Sandberg indeed made far ranging plays into the outfield grass, so your entire point doesn't apply.
Since it somehow wasn't clear, you know and I know and everyone knows that it would take a monumentally bad high school team that would have the 2010 version of David Ortiz play short (he'd be far more likely to pitch). Nonetheless, if a major league team did put him there for some reason, he'd likely have a better fielding percentage than a gold glover.
Regarding advanced defensive metrics, it is clear that you need to read a book before discussing them.
@Goldenage said:
How do you say 0.967 in French Canadian ?
This video is for those of you who never saw goalie greatness in action. Sorry Dominik. Sorry Patrick. Sorry Marty. Sorry Roberto, Henrik, Bernie, Tony, Ben, Tuukka and others. You never could perform on this level. You guys were great, but you never achieved this kind of greatness. In other words, you never did anything like this to put you over the top.
Tim Thomas during a Stanley Cup playoff run where he set every playoff record for a goalie. Just sit back, watch, and enjoy.
Roy was better in the 1993 playoffs than Thomas was in the 2011 playoffs. Anyway, it is ridiculous to say that someone is the best of all time because he played 25 really good games in a row. Hank Aaron never had a stretch like Dale Long did from 19-28 May 1956. That doesn't make Long the best of all time, or even better than Aaron.
Now you guys are just getting plain ridiculous. Was Dominik Hasek not that good in 1993 because the Sabres decided to put a sucky Grant Fuhr in net more than Hasek ? Please answer this question for me. Because you guys are starting to sound stupid.
The question is was Dominik Hasek great or bad in the 1993 playoffs. Simple question. He was only given 1 game by his coaches (because he wasn't Canadian) and Grant Fuhr was.
Tim Thomas was given an opportunity by his coaches. He had absolutely no control over that. When given the chance, he proved that he was the greatest shot stopper all time in the postseason. He had over 50 starts in his career, which is more than enough to qualify to be the greatest all time. No one even comes close to him.
And to say that Patrick Roy's performance was better than Thomas in the postseason is just plain stupid.
Please post the video of all the impossible saves Patrick made. I already posted the saves Tim made.
I'll make a prediction. You can't find one. LOL.
You state elsewhere that Hasek was given only one start in the 1993 playoffs. Of course you know that's not true. Fuhr started all eight games, but he was yanked after the first period in game four against Boston. It's interesting that you suggest racism was in play for that choice (to start Fuhr eight times), but show me any coach who would have gone with an inexperienced backup in the postseason over a goalie who had already won four Cups and was well on his way to a HoF career. Fuhr lost his job due to injury in the regular season, but you've absolutely got to go with your best goalie in the postseason, even if he's Canadian, and while Hasek was very, very good that year, he didn't have the body of work to show that he was better, in a postseason environment, than Fuhr.
Not better in the postseason, though he was, just better in each player's best postseason. Thomas wasn't very good in 2009, and was downright bad in his other postseason play. Again: one magical postseason (even if you overstate how magical) is not enough to make a player a good goalie (which no doubt Thomas was) let alone the best of all time (which Thomas wasn't close to). Highlight-reel saves have exactly as much value towards showing a goalie's greatness as my video-editing ability does. I submit that every goalie by the time he makes it to the NHL has an impressive highlight reel.
When you have baseball theories that make players who sit at home on the couch as superior to players playing everyday, you need to rethink your self proclaimed baseball knowledge.
I claimed this, and I stand by the claim I made, only when the player playing every day is worse than any random minor leaguer the team could have brought up to replace him. When a player falls below replacement level but continues to play, the blame falls on the manager, but the negative runs produced go into the bad players totals. Retiring is "better" because the team will win more games without the awful player than with him.
When you proclaim Gene Tenace(who is a part time player)as a better hitter than Jim Rice, you need to re-think your baseball knowledge.
Me, Bill James, and every other source I've ever read that commented on the issue. The case is laid out here and elsewhere on the web; I could lay it out again but (1) it would bore everyone here who has heard it before and understands it, and (2) it would mystify you since you wouldn't understand it. But, importantly, I did not proclaim that Tenace was a better hitter than Rice, I proclaimed that he was a better player than Rice.
When you proclaim Leonard Fournette as being of higher value to winning than Tom Brady....you need to find another hobby.
He was more valuable, in one game. If you think the QB is the MVP of every game then you need to find someone, a small child will do, to explain to you what football is.
But carry on. Those points are enjoyable to read.
I will carry on. I'm glad you enjoy my posts, but I would genuinely prefer that you learn something from them, because, dear Lord, do you have a lot to learn.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@Goldenage said:
How do you say 0.967 in French Canadian ?
This video is for those of you who never saw goalie greatness in action. Sorry Dominik. Sorry Patrick. Sorry Marty. Sorry Roberto, Henrik, Bernie, Tony, Ben, Tuukka and others. You never could perform on this level. You guys were great, but you never achieved this kind of greatness. In other words, you never did anything like this to put you over the top.
Tim Thomas during a Stanley Cup playoff run where he set every playoff record for a goalie. Just sit back, watch, and enjoy.
Roy was better in the 1993 playoffs than Thomas was in the 2011 playoffs. Anyway, it is ridiculous to say that someone is the best of all time because he played 25 really good games in a row. Hank Aaron never had a stretch like Dale Long did from 19-28 May 1956. That doesn't make Long the best of all time, or even better than Aaron.
Now you guys are just getting plain ridiculous. Was Dominik Hasek not that good in 1993 because the Sabres decided to put a sucky Grant Fuhr in net more than Hasek ? Please answer this question for me. Because you guys are starting to sound stupid.
The question is was Dominik Hasek great or bad in the 1993 playoffs. Simple question. He was only given 1 game by his coaches (because he wasn't Canadian) and Grant Fuhr was.
Tim Thomas was given an opportunity by his coaches. He had absolutely no control over that. When given the chance, he proved that he was the greatest shot stopper all time in the postseason. He had over 50 starts in his career, which is more than enough to qualify to be the greatest all time. No one even comes close to him.
And to say that Patrick Roy's performance was better than Thomas in the postseason is just plain stupid.
Please post the video of all the impossible saves Patrick made. I already posted the saves Tim made.
I'll make a prediction. You can't find one. LOL.
You state elsewhere that Hasek was given only one start in the 1993 playoffs. Of course you know that's not true. Fuhr started all eight games, but he was yanked after the first period in game four against Boston. It's interesting that you suggest racism was in play for that choice (to start Fuhr eight times), but show me any coach who would have gone with an inexperienced backup in the postseason over a goalie who had already won four Cups and was well on his way to a HoF career. Fuhr lost his job due to injury in the regular season, but you've absolutely got to go with your best goalie in the postseason, even if he's Canadian, and while Hasek was very, very good that year, he didn't have the body of work to show that he was better, in a postseason environment, than Fuhr.
Not better in the postseason, though he was, just better in each player's best postseason. Thomas wasn't very good in 2009, and was downright bad in his other postseason play. Again: one magical postseason (even if you overstate how magical) is not enough to make a player a good goalie (which no doubt Thomas was) let alone the best of all time (which Thomas wasn't close to). Highlight-reel saves have exactly as much value towards showing a goalie's greatness as my video-editing ability does. I submit that every goalie by the time he makes it to the NHL has an impressive highlight reel.
Thank you Daltex for proving me right. I can't thank you enough. You just proved that you agree that Marty Brodeur and Patrick Roy are the two most over rated goalies of all time. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
In 2008 and 2010 Tim Thomas led the league in every goaltender stat. Advanced stats and non-advanced stats. He won the Vezina Trophy both years.
But as you said, in 2009 he only had a .915 save percentage, and your exact words were, "Thomas wasn't very good".
So what can we say about Patrick Roy whose save percentage was below .915 in 14 of his 20 NHL seasons ?
So what can we say about Marty Brodeur whose save percentage was below .915 in 14 of his 20 NHL seasons ?
Basically what you've just said was that Marty and Patrick were not good in 2/3rds of their professional hockey career, which basically agrees with my original statement and post.
Thank you SO MUCH daltex for proving me right. We can now officially close this thread. Those trying to refute
my claims have proven me right.
When you have baseball theories that make players who sit at home on the couch as superior to players playing everyday, you need to rethink your self proclaimed baseball knowledge.
I claimed this, and I stand by the claim I made, only when the player playing every day is worse than any random minor leaguer the team could have brought up to replace him. When a player falls below replacement level but continues to play, the blame falls on the manager, but the negative runs produced go into the bad players totals. Retiring is "better" because the team will win more games without the awful player than with him.
When you proclaim Gene Tenace(who is a part time player)as a better hitter than Jim Rice, you need to re-think your baseball knowledge.
Me, Bill James, and every other source I've ever read that commented on the issue. The case is laid out here and elsewhere on the web; I could lay it out again but (1) it would bore everyone here who has heard it before and understands it, and (2) it would mystify you since you wouldn't understand it. But, importantly, I did not proclaim that Tenace was a better hitter than Rice, I proclaimed that he was a better player than Rice.
When you proclaim Leonard Fournette as being of higher value to winning than Tom Brady....you need to find another hobby.
He was more valuable, in one game. If you think the QB is the MVP of every game then you need to find someone, a small child will do, to explain to you what football is.
But carry on. Those points are enjoyable to read.
I will carry on. I'm glad you enjoy my posts, but I would genuinely prefer that you learn something from them, because, dear Lord, do you have a lot to learn.
You misunderstood. I liked them, because they are funny. I haven't been to a comedy show in a while, and your theories fill that void.
The fact that you double down on the misguided theories, is even funnier.
Bill James isn't God. Using his name means nothing. Doesn't add anything.
@dallasactuary said:
You misunderstood me. I was serious. I am convinced. There is no need for you to post on the topic of baseball ever again. Ever.
Or I just may be a recovering sabermetrician who doesn't want to be a part of the arrogance that comes with their faulty work that they treat as gospel, and then condemn anyone who disagrees. See how easy it was for you to go down that path?
Add a few dashes of 'meatheadness' to your methods, because those points of view come from a position of merit as well. You just have to look past your stat bias to find the value that average Joe is coming from as there most certainly is merit there.
Sabermetrics don't know how to treat the Ken phelps factor. Still don't after all these years. You don't know how to factor it in either. You try, but aren't there yet. I'm not fully there either.
The defensive measurements are Garbage. You yourself proclaim WAR as garbage...hmm. So the only things that are NOT garbage is what you believe in? Patchwork guessing.
Your backwardation method on defense of trying to fill it in is very faulty, even if it does 'measure up' to a degree. Only a small amount of common sense can see that. Unless you know exactly how many balls were hit and how fast they were hit, 15 feet to Sandberg's right and 15 feet to Mazeroskis right, you don't know anything about their true defensive ability as it still boils down to simply counting their assist totals and DP totals, and then adding the guess work in.
The ballpark factors, in which they paint one broad brush on everyone is terrible.
Their positional factors are guesses.
Their replacement value is a guess.
Yet they treat their 'numbers' and 'math' as if it is a supreme law.. It isn't. There is a lot of wiggle room in all of your lists.
The best offensive measurements are about 90 percent accurate. The best defensive about 50%. So take it easy on the people that don't agree with you, and I don't mean what you say to me. I have bigger fish to fry. This is my amusement. You are not as accurate as you portray. There is still a lot of room to grow.
I thought
no better way to end this thread then with this beautiful image we can all have in our heads when we lay our sweet little heads down at night.
I do think Tim Thomas did make the US Hockey HOF so he has that going for him at least.
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@Justacommeman said:
I do think Tim Thomas did make the US Hockey HOF so he has that going for him at least.
m
And the fact that his one "bad" season with a save percentage of .915 was better than 2/3rds of both Marty Brodeur and
Patrick Roy's entire career. For 2/3rds of Brodeur's and Roy's career they could not perform better than Tim's "bad" season.
LOL. Great job boys in proving that Brodeur and Roy are WAY over rated ! Drinks are on me !!!!
@Justacommeman said:
I do think Tim Thomas did make the US Hockey HOF so he has that going for him at least.
m
And the fact that his one "bad" season with a save percentage of .915 was better than 2/3rds of both Marty Brodeur and
Patrick Roy's entire career. For 2/3rds of Brodeur's and Roy's career they could not perform better than Tim's "bad" season.
LOL. Great job boys in proving that Brodeur and Roy are WAY over rated ! Drinks are on me !!!!
It sounds like you have been drinking enough for all of us. You have stopped making sense awhile ago. Good luck
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Yes. Mr. Reporter. 14 out of 20 seasons in the NHL I could not post better than a .915 save percentage.
I could not even break the Top 50 all time in save percentage. I had a couple of good seasons, but the rest of
my career was very average. I must admit the truth Mr. Reporter.
Just one final comment: no one should rely on any single stat, like save percentage or super bowl wins as a quarterback, to determine if one player was better than another. This is more obviously true if it is a worthless stat like fielding percentage, but even holds for advanced stats, like WAR, unless you truly believe that Sandy Koufax is somewhere between Jimmy Key and Jamie Moyer.
Comments
If only he were as good as Tim Thomas.
I agree. Baseball is by far the best because it is a discrete game. That is, it is possible to document what happens on every play. All other major sports are continuous which poses a whole host of problems.
Absolutely. The "team" element of baseball comes down to maybe 1% of the game, probably less than that. It is almost entirely individuals performing discrete tasks which are entirely unaffected by anyone else. In team sports like hockey and football, and basketball to a degree somewhere in between, it almost always matters, all of the time, what everyone on the team is doing. And in both sports, to a very large degree, the success of the team depends as much or more on the weakest performer as the strongest performer. You put Tom Brady behind a line with a terrible guard or tackle and he'll get sacked a lot more often than he throws a TD pass. You put Martin Brodeur in net with a terrible defenseman in front of him and he'll be facing more shots from 3 feet than from 30 feet.
Which is, I think, why QBs and goalies get so much more credit than they deserve on good teams. You don't notice good linemen and good defensemen, you only notice these guys when they screw up. QB gets sacked, winger scores a goal? Lineman or defenseman screwed up! QB throws a TD, goalie makes a save? QB or goalie is great! It's heads I win, tails you lose for the QB and the goalie; good plays are credited to them, bad plays are blamed on someone else. We notice TDs, long runs, goals, and big saves for the "skill" players, and we give them all the credit. The others get noticed when they commit penalties or get beat and someone runs/skates right past them.
For a QB, and I've given up caring if people don't agree so I'm not trying to restart an old debate, his value to an average team will be somewhere in the 4% to 7% range. The only way for him to get much higher than that is (1) to be great, and (2) to be on an otherwise terrible team. On a good team, and especially on a great team, there is simply not enough "space" to make more difference than that. Same general idea for goalies, although they get, and deserve, far more credit than QBs because of the smaller roster, and the much greater playing time.
How do you say 0.967 in French Canadian ?
This video is for those of you who never saw goalie greatness in action. Sorry Dominik. Sorry Patrick. Sorry Marty. Sorry Roberto, Henrik, Bernie, Tony, Ben, Tuukka and others. You never could perform on this level. You guys were great, but you never achieved this kind of greatness. In other words, you never did anything like this to put you over the top.
Tim Thomas during a Stanley Cup playoff run where he set every playoff record for a goalie. Just sit back, watch, and enjoy.
I love his "save" at 4:10. That was so heads up and just showed how innovative he was. Only Ron Hextall may have made a "save" like that.
At 3:15 , he shows why anyone who says Tony Esposito, Ken Dryden and the old goalies were as good as today's goalies are out of their minds.
The skates back then didn't allow them to make saves like this. They didn't have the mobility that today's goalies have.
Bobby Orr was the only player from that era where the poor equipment didn't bother him. Bobby just played on a whole
different level. The goalies of Bobby's era couldn't move laterally the way today's goalies can. It wasn't a part of their training.
Fielding percentage may actually be more valid than the number of assists a fielder gets. While it is true that fielding percentage does not measure how many balls you get to, it measures how well you do field a ball that is expected to be turned into an out. It is also almost 100% directly measuring the fielder and his ability to 'process' a ground ball.
Assists on the other hand 'may possibly' measure your range, but it is also measuring the simple fact that more balls may have simply been hit your way. Luck and your pitching staff are as big of elements in that measurement as is range.
Errors are not given on balls where players make diving attempts, or or long ranging attempts, so the old saying, "he makes more errors because he gets to tougher balls" isn't really true because errors are not typically given on mis-plays of those balls.
Ryne Sandberg is concrete in his fielding percentage being superior to Bill Mazeroski. That is almost 100% measuring what THEY do. Hit 1,000 ground balls to them in game action, Sandberg is going to process them at a higher rate than Mazeroski.
Mazeroski is said to have great range and elite ability to turn a double play, but those measurements are greatly dependent on luck, your pitching staff, and your double play partner. Mazeroski's replacements on his teams did just as good as he did when they replaced him on their teams. So those measurements do in part measure those abilities, but they are also severely clouded by luck and your pitching staff.
The eye test 100% backs up Sandberg having outstanding range and getting to many balls as good as anyone else, so the fact that his assists and double plays are up and down on a year to year basis like the Dow Jones, you are seeing the result of just sheer dumb luck and pitching staff greatly influencing those measurements.
When given the chances in 1983, Sandberg turned 126 double plays. In 1991 in the same amount of games he only turned 66. So he forgot how to do it? Back to turning 94 the following year? Every game I saw, he did just fine processing the double plays. He just didn't get the same opportunities.
Or how does Sandberg go from 550 assists in 1984 down to 466 in 1989? That is a huge difference. Sheer dumb luck of opportunities is the answer because a few years later he was back up to 539.
Roy was better in the 1993 playoffs than Thomas was in the 2011 playoffs. Anyway, it is ridiculous to say that someone is the best of all time because he played 25 really good games in a row. Hank Aaron never had a stretch like Dale Long did from 19-28 May 1956. That doesn't make Long the best of all time, or even better than Aaron.
Thomas had a great 2011 playoff run. It was his only one. Roy had 4 great runs that resulted in 4 Cups and 3 Conn Smythes. Not too shabby.
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
The title of this thread should be nominated for the most preposterous of all time.
I hope the following two points put paid to the idea that fielding percentage is a useful statistic once and for all.
First: a thought experiment. Imagine two teams. One has the 2020 version of J.P. Crawford playing shortstop. The other has the 2010 version of David Ortiz. We all know that even the most poorly selected gold glove shortstop (not offering an opinion of Crawford, just selected a gold glover at random) will be vastly better than Ortiz would have been at defense, and yet Ortiz' fielding percentage would likely have been higher. How does it make sense to penalize Crawford for throwing the ball in the dirt at first or diving for a ball hit two feet to his right and deflecting it into center field, but ignoring the plays where Ortiz just held on to the ball or watched the ball hit two feet to his right go by? In all cases the batter ends up on first.
Second: the player with the worst dWAR of all time at shortstop is Michael Young. I'm not going to claim that dWAR is a definitive measure of defensive value, just that if two players are not close in dWAR at the same position, the one with the higher dWAR is likely to be better. Let's stick a finger in the air and say that there is a 98% chance that a player 5 dWAR higher than another is a better fielder. I wouldn't commit to either of those numbers without a lot more study, but I'll bet they're a reasonable starting place. Further note two things: of the top 500 shortstops of all time by JAWS (that is everyone better than Josh Wilson and then some), only six are within 5 dWAR of Young. Second, Young won a Gold Glove is his best season, when his Defensive Runs Saved was all the way up at -4. After that season Young played a total of six games at Short. Anyway, here is my point. To four decimal places Young's fielding percentage is exactly the same as the best fielder of all time, Mark Belanger. .9767.
I'll also say that I've never heard anyone say that the (raw) number of assists a player has determines who the better defender is. Basic counting stats (putouts, assists, errors, and double plays) do a terrible job of measuring defense.
They are. Roy won FOUR Stanley Cups and Marty won 3. Roy's number is retired in 2 organizations. Marty went to the postseason 17 times. They were both incredibly consistent and achieved tremendous success.
You would think you would back the only high school goalie from the state of Michigan to ever make the NHL Stanley Cup finals.
Patrick Roy's Conn Smythe Trophies
1- 1986 final vs. Calgary. Mike Vernon posts a terrible .894 save percentage in the Stanley Cup final to give the Canadians and Patrick Roy the victory. If you're under .900 as a goalie then you just plain suck. Patrick Roy posts a .904 save percentage in the Stanley Cup final.
Conclusion.....If Patrick Roy faced Tim Thomas in the 1986 Stanley Cup final you can all but take away Patrick's first Conn Smythe trophy. Mike Vernon handed it to him on a silver platter. Patrick's save percentage is 0.05 away from the suck range. LOL at Patrick's first Conn Smythe.
2- The 1993 season (Patrick's 2nd Conn Smythe) saw Patrick post an .894 save percentage during the regular season. Another suck job by the "greatest" goalie of all time. Patrick redeemed himself during the postseason posting a .929 save percentage. He still would have lost to Thomas if he faced him in a series. Sorry Patrick.
A side note about the 1993 series. The Buffalo Sabres stayed with Grant Fuhr during the postseason while Fuhr posted a .875 save percentage. Fuhr was terrible. Fuhr played 8 games for Buffalo. Dominik Hasek was only given 1 start by the Sabres and stopped 23 out of 24 shots for a .958 save percentage. Do you think if Hasek was Canadian that he would have ever saw the bench again ? LOL
3- Patrick earned his last Conn Smythe trophy (even though he would have lost if he faced Tim Thomas). Instead he faced a NJ Devils goalie who just sucked his way through the whole final to give the Avalanche a 4-3 series win. Marty Brodeur did the impossible in posting a .870 save percentage in the final. MARTY BRODEUR SUCKED MORE THAN GRANT FUHR DID in 1993. Sorry Patrick. If you had faced Tim Thomas in net for the Devils instead of sucky Marty, you would have been denied
your 3rd Conn Smythe trophy.
Here is a picture of Patrick when asked by a reporter if he would have won any Conn Smythe trophies if he faced Tim Thomas in any of the Stanley Cup finals.
Now you guys are just getting plain ridiculous. Was Dominik Hasek not that good in 1993 because the Sabres decided to put a sucky Grant Fuhr in net more than Hasek ? Please answer this question for me. Because you guys are starting to sound stupid.
The question is was Dominik Hasek great or bad in the 1993 playoffs. Simple question. He was only given 1 game by his coaches (because he wasn't Canadian) and Grant Fuhr was.
Tim Thomas was given an opportunity by his coaches. He had absolutely no control over that. When given the chance, he proved that he was the greatest shot stopper all time in the postseason. He had over 50 starts in his career, which is more than enough to qualify to be the greatest all time. No one even comes close to him.
And to say that Patrick Roy's performance was better than Thomas in the postseason is just plain stupid.
Please post the video of all the impossible saves Patrick made. I already posted the saves Tim made.
I'll make a prediction. You can't find one. LOL.
I'm still waiting for a coherent retort from you, but being that you are unable, you can only resort to attacks.
This happens when someone does not have valid evidence to refute the truth.
Welcome mynamespat. Perhaps you are patrick roy himself ?
In 1993 Dominik Hasek made one start for Buffalo and stopped 23 out of 24 shots for an incredible .958 save percentage.
Thomas faced 798 shots in the 2011 Stanley Cup playoffs and posted a .967 save percentage.
If you do the math, that means Tim Thomas had plenty of 24 out of 25's during that entire playoff !!! When we asked
Patrick if he ever performed like Hasek or Thomas during the postseason or regular season, this was his response him versus the
1 and #4 all time NHL regular season save percentage leaders.
Roberto Luongo was #9 all time in regular season save percentage. Brodeur was #41 and Patrick Roy wasn't even in the top 50.
Roberto Luongo in the 2011 Stanley Cup final posted an .891 save percentage. The Canadian boy was feeling the pressure of staying with the great Tim Thomas. So Vancouver put in the American Cory Schneider. What did Schneider do ? He posted a Dominik Hasek like .951 save percentage in the two games he was given an opportunity.
So let's see here. Luongo posted an .891 in the final in his first three games. Schneider posted a .951 in his two games.
So what do the Canucks do ? Of course, they pull a Grant Fuhr and put Luongo back in net in game 7. Does it matter ?
No, it does not. Thomas shuts out Vancouver again in a 4-0 Bruins win. Luongo lets in four goals to keep his save percentage in the pathetic range. Good try Roberto.
The defensive war stats are simply a product of those counting stats, assists, putouts, errors, double plays. They just create a formula to try and put an exact number on it...but don't be fooled, the number of assists is indeed one of the biggest factors in those measurements. The same can be said for pretty much any defensive stat.
The best way to put it is that the raw measurements of assists, putouts, and double plays are equivalent to a six inch long turd. The defensive War measurements simply takes that turd, throws it on a bun, and then covers it with peppers and onions.
There are no video play by play analysis of each play of Mazeroski or Sandberg.
As to your other point about Ortiz playing shortstop, a player like him would not even be playing shortstop in the minor leagues. Any SS who makes it to the major league level has proven he can process the routine play and the medium routine play. It is typically the extreme plays that separate those players and those plays may only happen 12-15 times a year...because don't forget, even the 'worst' MLB shortstop makes highlight plays too.
It is pure luck and chance, and the pitching staff, that determines who gets the most balls...as pointed out with Sandberg and Mazeroski(and his replacements who did just as good as the proclaimed all time best fielder).
In my example, I used Ryne Sandberg and Mazeroski, and Sandberg indeed made far ranging plays into the outfield grass, so your entire point doesn't apply.
Your position on your (preposterous) OP has been destroyed so many times, I see no reason to bother.
It makes no sense to argue with people that have no understanding of a subject. It has been pointed out by every single poster that you are wrong.
It's so obvious that you are insanely wrong, I figured you MUST simply have posted to inflame people and see where the debate goes.
Of the guys you mentioned at the beginning, Hasek is the only one who was truly great.
In Marty Brodeur's "sensational" career, 144 of his wins came when he had a save percentage below 0.90 for each of those games he won. LOL
If Marty Brodeur is the best goalie ever, why did he only lead the league ONCE in his career in save percentage ?
Why did he suck so bad against Colorado in the Stanley Cup playoffs ?
LOL Marty Brodeur. Highly, highly over rated.
You did in fact "point it out", but that doesn't make it true. Mazeroski's replacements were all excellent fielders in their own right, but they did not do "just as good" as Mazeroski. I'm sure they did some things "just as good" and you're probably making a Goldenage style argument that you can use some relatively meaningless stat to prove how good a fielder a player was.
They did just as well, and if they are all good defenders(like 99% of players that make it to MLB), then that can't quite make Mazeroski hands down the best fielder ever, when others do the same thing as him.
How does Sandberg's double plays fluctuate so much on a yearly basis?? He forgets then remembers how to turn them? I don't think I ever saw him botch an attempt with any frequency. They go up and down based on the opportunites...just like most defensive measurements. 99% of MLB tested defenders convert those opportunities.
The one thing that measures the fielder most directly, converting ground balls into outs, Sandberg has Mazeroski beat. The other stuff is born mostly from having more or less opportunities.
The advanced fielding measurements that are treated as gospel and put on the same level as the offensive ones are nothing but a dressed up turd. It is a turd that is simply placed in a bun, doused with sauce, covered with peppers and onions....and some enjoy taking bites out of them.
Your argument that 99% of MLB second basemen are all identically equal in ability is compelling and you have convinced me. No need for you to post on this topic (baseball) ever again.
Probably a wise choice. Still don't have an answer to that Sandberg question?? Yes, 99% convert those opportunities. How does Sandberg who ranges into the outfield to convert ground ball outs, and he catches everything hit, somehow not have as much range as someone like Mazeroski? Less opportunities, not less range. He 100% has better hands than Mazeroski.
Show me where Sandberg was failing to convert double plays where it made him have less than Mazeroski, and go from 126 to 66 in a flash, and back to 96 in a flash. Show me.
You're entire basis of making mazeroski better is because he had more double plays and assists. Entire. It is a mirage. A dressed up turd on a bun. So you pack up and go home because of it.
You misunderstood me. I was serious. I am convinced. There is no need for you to post on the topic of baseball ever again. Ever.
Good try. Show me where Sandberg was failing to convert all those double plays that made him have so many less than Mazeroski. Show me how Sandberg, who was ranging into the outfield to convert ground balls into outs, had less range than Mazeroski simply because Mazeroski had more assists?
I certainly didn't see all those balls going past Sandberg. I didn't see him muffing double plays or not converting them.
Show me.
You're entire basis is based on a mirage. A dressed up turd on a bun. It isn't as gospel as you are making it out to be.
Your methods also give players who sit on a couch more value than players holding down every day jobs in MLB. That should make you pause and re-think some of the methods.
You may need to adjust your tag line. Scratch Mazeroski off. Scratch the Rice one off. You think Tenace was better than Rice. Tenace sitting on a couch being better than Rice? A joke.
And thank goodness the NFL players don't agree with your assessment of FOurnette being more responsible than Tom Brady for winning the Super Bowl. Fournette doesn't agree either.
you're probably making a Goldenage style argument
Lol. Care for a game of chess dallas ? Lol
Dallas, some of YOUR famous claims:
When you have baseball theories that make players who sit at home on the couch as superior to players playing everyday, you need to rethink your self proclaimed baseball knowledge.
When you proclaim Gene Tenace(who is a part time player)as a better hitter than Jim Rice, you need to re-think your baseball knowledge.
When you proclaim Leonard Fournette as being of higher value to winning than Tom Brady....you need to find another hobby.
But carry on. Those points are enjoyable to read.
Since it somehow wasn't clear, you know and I know and everyone knows that it would take a monumentally bad high school team that would have the 2010 version of David Ortiz play short (he'd be far more likely to pitch). Nonetheless, if a major league team did put him there for some reason, he'd likely have a better fielding percentage than a gold glover.
Regarding advanced defensive metrics, it is clear that you need to read a book before discussing them.
You state elsewhere that Hasek was given only one start in the 1993 playoffs. Of course you know that's not true. Fuhr started all eight games, but he was yanked after the first period in game four against Boston. It's interesting that you suggest racism was in play for that choice (to start Fuhr eight times), but show me any coach who would have gone with an inexperienced backup in the postseason over a goalie who had already won four Cups and was well on his way to a HoF career. Fuhr lost his job due to injury in the regular season, but you've absolutely got to go with your best goalie in the postseason, even if he's Canadian, and while Hasek was very, very good that year, he didn't have the body of work to show that he was better, in a postseason environment, than Fuhr.
Not better in the postseason, though he was, just better in each player's best postseason. Thomas wasn't very good in 2009, and was downright bad in his other postseason play. Again: one magical postseason (even if you overstate how magical) is not enough to make a player a good goalie (which no doubt Thomas was) let alone the best of all time (which Thomas wasn't close to). Highlight-reel saves have exactly as much value towards showing a goalie's greatness as my video-editing ability does. I submit that every goalie by the time he makes it to the NHL has an impressive highlight reel.
I claimed this, and I stand by the claim I made, only when the player playing every day is worse than any random minor leaguer the team could have brought up to replace him. When a player falls below replacement level but continues to play, the blame falls on the manager, but the negative runs produced go into the bad players totals. Retiring is "better" because the team will win more games without the awful player than with him.
Me, Bill James, and every other source I've ever read that commented on the issue. The case is laid out here and elsewhere on the web; I could lay it out again but (1) it would bore everyone here who has heard it before and understands it, and (2) it would mystify you since you wouldn't understand it. But, importantly, I did not proclaim that Tenace was a better hitter than Rice, I proclaimed that he was a better player than Rice.
He was more valuable, in one game. If you think the QB is the MVP of every game then you need to find someone, a small child will do, to explain to you what football is.
I will carry on. I'm glad you enjoy my posts, but I would genuinely prefer that you learn something from them, because, dear Lord, do you have a lot to learn.
Thank you Daltex for proving me right. I can't thank you enough. You just proved that you agree that Marty Brodeur and Patrick Roy are the two most over rated goalies of all time. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
In 2008 and 2010 Tim Thomas led the league in every goaltender stat. Advanced stats and non-advanced stats. He won the Vezina Trophy both years.
But as you said, in 2009 he only had a .915 save percentage, and your exact words were, "Thomas wasn't very good".
So what can we say about Patrick Roy whose save percentage was below .915 in 14 of his 20 NHL seasons ?
So what can we say about Marty Brodeur whose save percentage was below .915 in 14 of his 20 NHL seasons ?
Basically what you've just said was that Marty and Patrick were not good in 2/3rds of their professional hockey career, which basically agrees with my original statement and post.
Thank you SO MUCH daltex for proving me right. We can now officially close this thread. Those trying to refute
my claims have proven me right.
You misunderstood. I liked them, because they are funny. I haven't been to a comedy show in a while, and your theories fill that void.
The fact that you double down on the misguided theories, is even funnier.
Bill James isn't God. Using his name means nothing. Doesn't add anything.
Or I just may be a recovering sabermetrician who doesn't want to be a part of the arrogance that comes with their faulty work that they treat as gospel, and then condemn anyone who disagrees. See how easy it was for you to go down that path?
Add a few dashes of 'meatheadness' to your methods, because those points of view come from a position of merit as well. You just have to look past your stat bias to find the value that average Joe is coming from as there most certainly is merit there.
Sabermetrics don't know how to treat the Ken phelps factor. Still don't after all these years. You don't know how to factor it in either. You try, but aren't there yet. I'm not fully there either.
The defensive measurements are Garbage. You yourself proclaim WAR as garbage...hmm. So the only things that are NOT garbage is what you believe in? Patchwork guessing.
Your backwardation method on defense of trying to fill it in is very faulty, even if it does 'measure up' to a degree. Only a small amount of common sense can see that. Unless you know exactly how many balls were hit and how fast they were hit, 15 feet to Sandberg's right and 15 feet to Mazeroskis right, you don't know anything about their true defensive ability as it still boils down to simply counting their assist totals and DP totals, and then adding the guess work in.
The ballpark factors, in which they paint one broad brush on everyone is terrible.
Their positional factors are guesses.
Their replacement value is a guess.
Yet they treat their 'numbers' and 'math' as if it is a supreme law.. It isn't. There is a lot of wiggle room in all of your lists.
The best offensive measurements are about 90 percent accurate. The best defensive about 50%. So take it easy on the people that don't agree with you, and I don't mean what you say to me. I have bigger fish to fry. This is my amusement. You are not as accurate as you portray. There is still a lot of room to grow.
You're very well spoken swell. Nice to have you on the board.
Thank you. Nice to be a part of it.
I thought
no better way to end this thread then with this beautiful image we can all have in our heads when we lay our sweet little heads down at night.
I do think Tim Thomas did make the US Hockey HOF so he has that going for him at least.
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
And the fact that his one "bad" season with a save percentage of .915 was better than 2/3rds of both Marty Brodeur and
Patrick Roy's entire career. For 2/3rds of Brodeur's and Roy's career they could not perform better than Tim's "bad" season.
LOL. Great job boys in proving that Brodeur and Roy are WAY over rated ! Drinks are on me !!!!
It sounds like you have been drinking enough for all of us. You have stopped making sense awhile ago. Good luck
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Yes. Mr. Reporter. 14 out of 20 seasons in the NHL I could not post better than a .915 save percentage.
I could not even break the Top 50 all time in save percentage. I had a couple of good seasons, but the rest of
my career was very average. I must admit the truth Mr. Reporter.
Just one final comment: no one should rely on any single stat, like save percentage or super bowl wins as a quarterback, to determine if one player was better than another. This is more obviously true if it is a worthless stat like fielding percentage, but even holds for advanced stats, like WAR, unless you truly believe that Sandy Koufax is somewhere between Jimmy Key and Jamie Moyer.