How can you tell if Rickey Henderson was a better left fielder then Joe Rudi ?

4for4

What stat do you use ? Or is it just from watching both play day in and day out ?

Sure Rickey had a great burst of speed, but at 6’2 to 5’10 Joe’s longer legs and longer reach can help also.

Both were above average defensively, but what would you base your persuasion on ?

Same with two of the most acrobatic third basemen ever. How do we “know” that either Brooks or Nettles was better than Mike Lowell, who was as steady or even more steady then those two. Is there a way to know ?

craig44

fielding metrics are not very accurate/valuable in my opinion. Most metrics are heavily weighted towards attempts, which is translated into range. now, the problem is that we dont know if SS A had more chances than SS B because he was more physically gifted and ran to more, if his coaching staff positioned him wisely, he knew tendencies and positioned himself wisely, if his pitching staffs were groundball pitchers and he got more attempts that way, If his staffs were Left handed heavy so there were more right-handed batters who pulled more balls into the hole. And etc. etc.

there are so many variables involved in the number of attempts a player gets that I just do not see a lot of definitive value in current fielding metrics.

I suppose the very top rated fielders according to the current metrics could be considered great, and the very worst rated fielders could be considered terrible. But, the ones in-between? I am not confident that the metrics can differentiate between them accurately.

1948_Swell_Robinson

@craig44 said:
fielding metrics are not very accurate/valuable in my opinion. Most metrics are heavily weighted towards attempts, which is translated into range. now, the problem is that we dont know if SS A had more chances than SS B because he was more physically gifted and ran to more, if his coaching staff positioned him wisely, he knew tendencies and positioned himself wisely, if his pitching staffs were groundball pitchers and he got more attempts that way, If his staffs were Left handed heavy so there were more right-handed batters who pulled more balls into the hole. And etc. etc.

there are so many variables involved in the number of attempts a player gets that I just do not see a lot of definitive value in current fielding metrics.

I suppose the very top rated fielders according to the current metrics could be considered great, and the very worst rated fielders could be considered terrible. But, the ones in-between? I am not confident that the metrics can differentiate between them accurately.

Well said.

4for4

@craig44 said:
fielding metrics are not very accurate/valuable in my opinion. Most metrics are heavily weighted towards attempts, which is translated into range. now, the problem is that we dont know if SS A had more chances than SS B because he was more physically gifted and ran to more, if his coaching staff positioned him wisely, he knew tendencies and positioned himself wisely, if his pitching staffs were groundball pitchers and he got more attempts that way, If his staffs were Left handed heavy so there were more right-handed batters who pulled more balls into the hole. And etc. etc.

there are so many variables involved in the number of attempts a player gets that I just do not see a lot of definitive value in current fielding metrics.

I suppose the very top rated fielders according to the current metrics could be considered great, and the very worst rated fielders could be considered terrible. But, the ones in-between? I am not confident that the metrics can differentiate between them accurately.

Very well said.
It’s also amazing how swell Robinson always seems to show up immediately after you post something.

It’s almost like clockwork.

craig44

@4for4 said:

@craig44 said:
fielding metrics are not very accurate/valuable in my opinion. Most metrics are heavily weighted towards attempts, which is translated into range. now, the problem is that we dont know if SS A had more chances than SS B because he was more physically gifted and ran to more, if his coaching staff positioned him wisely, he knew tendencies and positioned himself wisely, if his pitching staffs were groundball pitchers and he got more attempts that way, If his staffs were Left handed heavy so there were more right-handed batters who pulled more balls into the hole. And etc. etc.

there are so many variables involved in the number of attempts a player gets that I just do not see a lot of definitive value in current fielding metrics.

I suppose the very top rated fielders according to the current metrics could be considered great, and the very worst rated fielders could be considered terrible. But, the ones in-between? I am not confident that the metrics can differentiate between them accurately.

Very well said.
It’s also amazing how swell Robinson always seems to show up immediately after you post something.

It’s almost like clockwork.

If you are insinuating that myself and Swell are the same person, you would be mistaken.

1948_Swell_Robinson

@4for4 said:

@craig44 said:
fielding metrics are not very accurate/valuable in my opinion. Most metrics are heavily weighted towards attempts, which is translated into range. now, the problem is that we dont know if SS A had more chances than SS B because he was more physically gifted and ran to more, if his coaching staff positioned him wisely, he knew tendencies and positioned himself wisely, if his pitching staffs were groundball pitchers and he got more attempts that way, If his staffs were Left handed heavy so there were more right-handed batters who pulled more balls into the hole. And etc. etc.

there are so many variables involved in the number of attempts a player gets that I just do not see a lot of definitive value in current fielding metrics.

I suppose the very top rated fielders according to the current metrics could be considered great, and the very worst rated fielders could be considered terrible. But, the ones in-between? I am not confident that the metrics can differentiate between them accurately.

Very well said.
It’s also amazing how swell Robinson always seems to show up immediately after you post something.

It’s almost like clockwork.

Very odd take.

I read @craig44 posts as they are worthwhile. We've had long debates before and even talked some sports smack too.

I don't understand the take here, lol.

craig44

@1948_Swell_Robinson said:

@4for4 said:

@craig44 said:
fielding metrics are not very accurate/valuable in my opinion. Most metrics are heavily weighted towards attempts, which is translated into range. now, the problem is that we dont know if SS A had more chances than SS B because he was more physically gifted and ran to more, if his coaching staff positioned him wisely, he knew tendencies and positioned himself wisely, if his pitching staffs were groundball pitchers and he got more attempts that way, If his staffs were Left handed heavy so there were more right-handed batters who pulled more balls into the hole. And etc. etc.

there are so many variables involved in the number of attempts a player gets that I just do not see a lot of definitive value in current fielding metrics.

I suppose the very top rated fielders according to the current metrics could be considered great, and the very worst rated fielders could be considered terrible. But, the ones in-between? I am not confident that the metrics can differentiate between them accurately.

Very well said.
It’s also amazing how swell Robinson always seems to show up immediately after you post something.

It’s almost like clockwork.

Very odd take.

I read @craig44 posts as they are worthwhile. We've had long debates before and even talked some sports smack too.

I don't understand the take here, lol.

I may be wrong, but I think 4for4 is insinuating that you are an alt of my account.

As an aside, I enjoy reading your posts as well, even the ones I may not 100% agree with. You make well-reasoned arguments.

1948_Swell_Robinson

@craig44 said:

@1948_Swell_Robinson said:

@4for4 said:

@craig44 said:
fielding metrics are not very accurate/valuable in my opinion. Most metrics are heavily weighted towards attempts, which is translated into range. now, the problem is that we dont know if SS A had more chances than SS B because he was more physically gifted and ran to more, if his coaching staff positioned him wisely, he knew tendencies and positioned himself wisely, if his pitching staffs were groundball pitchers and he got more attempts that way, If his staffs were Left handed heavy so there were more right-handed batters who pulled more balls into the hole. And etc. etc.

there are so many variables involved in the number of attempts a player gets that I just do not see a lot of definitive value in current fielding metrics.

I suppose the very top rated fielders according to the current metrics could be considered great, and the very worst rated fielders could be considered terrible. But, the ones in-between? I am not confident that the metrics can differentiate between them accurately.

Very well said.
It’s also amazing how swell Robinson always seems to show up immediately after you post something.

It’s almost like clockwork.

Very odd take.

I read @craig44 posts as they are worthwhile. We've had long debates before and even talked some sports smack too.

I don't understand the take here, lol.

I may be wrong, but I think 4for4 is insinuating that you are an alt of my account.

As an aside, I enjoy reading your posts as well, even the ones I may not 100% agree with. You make well-reasoned arguments.

Thank you.

Very strange take by 4 for 4. Might have to call him 4 for 5 now.

BLUEJAYWAY

Card sales? They represent opinions via their sales. So fans may express their beliefs that way.

dallasactuary

@craig44 said:
I may be wrong, but I think 4for4 is insinuating that you are an alt of my account.

4for4 outright stated that SDsportsfan and daltex were alts of my account. Very strange dude.

And I'll agree with your well-stated point; there really is no way to know that Henderson was better than Rudi since neither one was either great or terrible. But I'm pretty confident saying that Henderson was better. All of the stats, traditional or modern, have their flaws and looking at any one of them doesn't get you very close to an answer. But if you look at all of them they pretty much all point towards Henderson, and while that still isn't conclusive it's fairly good evidence.

I will disagree with one of the OP's points. I don't see any evidence at all that either Henderson or Rudi was "above average defensively". They may have been above average defensively for left fielders, but being above average in left field doesn't change the fact that you've been relegated to left field because everyone else on the team, except maybe the first baseman, plays defense better than you do.

4for4

@craig44 said:

@4for4 said:

@craig44 said:
fielding metrics are not very accurate/valuable in my opinion. Most metrics are heavily weighted towards attempts, which is translated into range. now, the problem is that we dont know if SS A had more chances than SS B because he was more physically gifted and ran to more, if his coaching staff positioned him wisely, he knew tendencies and positioned himself wisely, if his pitching staffs were groundball pitchers and he got more attempts that way, If his staffs were Left handed heavy so there were more right-handed batters who pulled more balls into the hole. And etc. etc.

there are so many variables involved in the number of attempts a player gets that I just do not see a lot of definitive value in current fielding metrics.

I suppose the very top rated fielders according to the current metrics could be considered great, and the very worst rated fielders could be considered terrible. But, the ones in-between? I am not confident that the metrics can differentiate between them accurately.

Very well said.
It’s also amazing how swell Robinson always seems to show up immediately after you post something.

It’s almost like clockwork.

If you are insinuating that myself and Swell are the same person, you would be mistaken.

If you are assuming I was, then you would be mistaken, and 4for4 was just issued a base on balls. Pitcher couldn’t locate the strike zone.

craig44

@4for4 said:

@craig44 said:

@4for4 said:

@craig44 said:
fielding metrics are not very accurate/valuable in my opinion. Most metrics are heavily weighted towards attempts, which is translated into range. now, the problem is that we dont know if SS A had more chances than SS B because he was more physically gifted and ran to more, if his coaching staff positioned him wisely, he knew tendencies and positioned himself wisely, if his pitching staffs were groundball pitchers and he got more attempts that way, If his staffs were Left handed heavy so there were more right-handed batters who pulled more balls into the hole. And etc. etc.

there are so many variables involved in the number of attempts a player gets that I just do not see a lot of definitive value in current fielding metrics.

I suppose the very top rated fielders according to the current metrics could be considered great, and the very worst rated fielders could be considered terrible. But, the ones in-between? I am not confident that the metrics can differentiate between them accurately.

Very well said.
It’s also amazing how swell Robinson always seems to show up immediately after you post something.

It’s almost like clockwork.

If you are insinuating that myself and Swell are the same person, you would be mistaken.

If you are assuming I was, then you would be mistaken, and 4for4 was just issued a base on balls. Pitcher couldn’t locate the strike zone.

what were you insinuating then? I am genuinely curious.

4for4

@craig44 said:

@4for4 said:

@craig44 said:

@4for4 said:

@craig44 said:
fielding metrics are not very accurate/valuable in my opinion. Most metrics are heavily weighted towards attempts, which is translated into range. now, the problem is that we dont know if SS A had more chances than SS B because he was more physically gifted and ran to more, if his coaching staff positioned him wisely, he knew tendencies and positioned himself wisely, if his pitching staffs were groundball pitchers and he got more attempts that way, If his staffs were Left handed heavy so there were more right-handed batters who pulled more balls into the hole. And etc. etc.

there are so many variables involved in the number of attempts a player gets that I just do not see a lot of definitive value in current fielding metrics.

I suppose the very top rated fielders according to the current metrics could be considered great, and the very worst rated fielders could be considered terrible. But, the ones in-between? I am not confident that the metrics can differentiate between them accurately.

Very well said.
It’s also amazing how swell Robinson always seems to show up immediately after you post something.

It’s almost like clockwork.

If you are insinuating that myself and Swell are the same person, you would be mistaken.

If you are assuming I was, then you would be mistaken, and 4for4 was just issued a base on balls. Pitcher couldn’t locate the strike zone.

what were you insinuating then? I am genuinely curious.

If I said it’s amazing how a male squirrel always shows up in my yard immediately after a female rabbit does, what am I insinuating?

Answer - absolutely nothing.

Just amazed that it frequently happens.

1948_Swell_Robinson

@4for4 said:

@craig44 said:

@4for4 said:

@craig44 said:

@4for4 said:

@craig44 said:
fielding metrics are not very accurate/valuable in my opinion. Most metrics are heavily weighted towards attempts, which is translated into range. now, the problem is that we dont know if SS A had more chances than SS B because he was more physically gifted and ran to more, if his coaching staff positioned him wisely, he knew tendencies and positioned himself wisely, if his pitching staffs were groundball pitchers and he got more attempts that way, If his staffs were Left handed heavy so there were more right-handed batters who pulled more balls into the hole. And etc. etc.

there are so many variables involved in the number of attempts a player gets that I just do not see a lot of definitive value in current fielding metrics.

I suppose the very top rated fielders according to the current metrics could be considered great, and the very worst rated fielders could be considered terrible. But, the ones in-between? I am not confident that the metrics can differentiate between them accurately.

Very well said.
It’s also amazing how swell Robinson always seems to show up immediately after you post something.

It’s almost like clockwork.

If you are insinuating that myself and Swell are the same person, you would be mistaken.

If you are assuming I was, then you would be mistaken, and 4for4 was just issued a base on balls. Pitcher couldn’t locate the strike zone.

what were you insinuating then? I am genuinely curious.

If I said it’s amazing how a male squirrel always shows up in my yard immediately after a female rabbit does, what am I insinuating?

Answer - absolutely nothing.

Just amazed that it frequently happens.

So now you are calling me a squirrel? Just kidding. No worries.

4for4

@1948_Swell_Robinson said:

@4for4 said:

@craig44 said:

@4for4 said:

@craig44 said:

@4for4 said:

@craig44 said:
fielding metrics are not very accurate/valuable in my opinion. Most metrics are heavily weighted towards attempts, which is translated into range. now, the problem is that we dont know if SS A had more chances than SS B because he was more physically gifted and ran to more, if his coaching staff positioned him wisely, he knew tendencies and positioned himself wisely, if his pitching staffs were groundball pitchers and he got more attempts that way, If his staffs were Left handed heavy so there were more right-handed batters who pulled more balls into the hole. And etc. etc.

there are so many variables involved in the number of attempts a player gets that I just do not see a lot of definitive value in current fielding metrics.

I suppose the very top rated fielders according to the current metrics could be considered great, and the very worst rated fielders could be considered terrible. But, the ones in-between? I am not confident that the metrics can differentiate between them accurately.

Very well said.
It’s also amazing how swell Robinson always seems to show up immediately after you post something.

It’s almost like clockwork.

If you are insinuating that myself and Swell are the same person, you would be mistaken.

If you are assuming I was, then you would be mistaken, and 4for4 was just issued a base on balls. Pitcher couldn’t locate the strike zone.

what were you insinuating then? I am genuinely curious.

If I said it’s amazing how a male squirrel always shows up in my yard immediately after a female rabbit does, what am I insinuating?

Answer - absolutely nothing.

Just amazed that it frequently happens.

So now you are calling me a squirrel? Just kidding. No worries.

I place peanuts in my front yard for them.

craig44

@4for4 said:

@craig44 said:

@4for4 said:

@craig44 said:

@4for4 said:

@craig44 said:
fielding metrics are not very accurate/valuable in my opinion. Most metrics are heavily weighted towards attempts, which is translated into range. now, the problem is that we dont know if SS A had more chances than SS B because he was more physically gifted and ran to more, if his coaching staff positioned him wisely, he knew tendencies and positioned himself wisely, if his pitching staffs were groundball pitchers and he got more attempts that way, If his staffs were Left handed heavy so there were more right-handed batters who pulled more balls into the hole. And etc. etc.

there are so many variables involved in the number of attempts a player gets that I just do not see a lot of definitive value in current fielding metrics.

I suppose the very top rated fielders according to the current metrics could be considered great, and the very worst rated fielders could be considered terrible. But, the ones in-between? I am not confident that the metrics can differentiate between them accurately.

Very well said.
It’s also amazing how swell Robinson always seems to show up immediately after you post something.

It’s almost like clockwork.

If you are insinuating that myself and Swell are the same person, you would be mistaken.

If you are assuming I was, then you would be mistaken, and 4for4 was just issued a base on balls. Pitcher couldn’t locate the strike zone.

what were you insinuating then? I am genuinely curious.

If I said it’s amazing how a male squirrel always shows up in my yard immediately after a female rabbit does, what am I insinuating?

Answer - absolutely nothing.

Just amazed that it frequently happens.

gotcha. no problem, just wondering.

I do like peanuts!!

4for4

@craig44 said:

@4for4 said:

@craig44 said:

@4for4 said:

@craig44 said:

@4for4 said:

@craig44 said:
fielding metrics are not very accurate/valuable in my opinion. Most metrics are heavily weighted towards attempts, which is translated into range. now, the problem is that we dont know if SS A had more chances than SS B because he was more physically gifted and ran to more, if his coaching staff positioned him wisely, he knew tendencies and positioned himself wisely, if his pitching staffs were groundball pitchers and he got more attempts that way, If his staffs were Left handed heavy so there were more right-handed batters who pulled more balls into the hole. And etc. etc.

there are so many variables involved in the number of attempts a player gets that I just do not see a lot of definitive value in current fielding metrics.

I suppose the very top rated fielders according to the current metrics could be considered great, and the very worst rated fielders could be considered terrible. But, the ones in-between? I am not confident that the metrics can differentiate between them accurately.

Very well said.
It’s also amazing how swell Robinson always seems to show up immediately after you post something.

It’s almost like clockwork.

If you are insinuating that myself and Swell are the same person, you would be mistaken.

If you are assuming I was, then you would be mistaken, and 4for4 was just issued a base on balls. Pitcher couldn’t locate the strike zone.

what were you insinuating then? I am genuinely curious.

If I said it’s amazing how a male squirrel always shows up in my yard immediately after a female rabbit does, what am I insinuating?

Answer - absolutely nothing.

Just amazed that it frequently happens.

gotcha. no problem, just wondering.

I do like peanuts!!

Congratulations on your 9000th post.
The healthiest part of the peanut is the brown flaky skin when we crack open the shell.

galaxy27

4for4 thinking that long-time peeps are the same person is one thing

but intimating that craig & swell are dating is too much for my nanoscopic brain to handle

4for4

@galaxy27 said:
4for4 thinking that long-time peeps are the same person is one thing

but intimating that craig & swell are dating is too much for my nanoscopic brain to handle

If you’ll notice I did not say the female rabbit was smoking a cigarette.

thisistheshow

This is a good thread. I like it.

countdouglas

Yes, Alex Gordon was a failed third baseman, but to say he was poor defensively relative to the other players on the field, because he was relagated to left field, is to admit that you never really watched Alex Gordon play left field.

Eight time gold glove winner.

Two time platinum glove winner.

Yes, the winner of the platinum glove is a fan vote. But to disparage Alex Gordon's defense because he played left field shows that you are not a fan of baseball. He got to balls that no one else would even try to get to. He dove for balls that lesser players let drop. He crashed full speed into walls that everyone else would pull up on. He gunned down runners when others' throws would be rainbows. He kept runners from advancing out of fear, that he would either embarrass them with his arm or miraculously make the catch, so they had to hold up.

This...
.

.
Not this...

craig44

@galaxy27 said:
4for4 thinking that long-time peeps are the same person is one thing

but intimating that craig & swell are dating is too much for my nanoscopic brain to handle

I just came back to this thread and saw your comment.

just because swell and I are not the same person doesnt mean we are not dating.

please do not tell my wife!

craig44

@4for4 said:

@craig44 said:

@4for4 said:

@craig44 said:

@4for4 said:

@craig44 said:

@4for4 said:

@craig44 said:
fielding metrics are not very accurate/valuable in my opinion. Most metrics are heavily weighted towards attempts, which is translated into range. now, the problem is that we dont know if SS A had more chances than SS B because he was more physically gifted and ran to more, if his coaching staff positioned him wisely, he knew tendencies and positioned himself wisely, if his pitching staffs were groundball pitchers and he got more attempts that way, If his staffs were Left handed heavy so there were more right-handed batters who pulled more balls into the hole. And etc. etc.

there are so many variables involved in the number of attempts a player gets that I just do not see a lot of definitive value in current fielding metrics.

I suppose the very top rated fielders according to the current metrics could be considered great, and the very worst rated fielders could be considered terrible. But, the ones in-between? I am not confident that the metrics can differentiate between them accurately.

Very well said.
It’s also amazing how swell Robinson always seems to show up immediately after you post something.

It’s almost like clockwork.

If you are insinuating that myself and Swell are the same person, you would be mistaken.

If you are assuming I was, then you would be mistaken, and 4for4 was just issued a base on balls. Pitcher couldn’t locate the strike zone.

what were you insinuating then? I am genuinely curious.

If I said it’s amazing how a male squirrel always shows up in my yard immediately after a female rabbit does, what am I insinuating?

Answer - absolutely nothing.

Just amazed that it frequently happens.

gotcha. no problem, just wondering.

I do like peanuts!!

Congratulations on your 9000th post.
The healthiest part of the peanut is the brown flaky skin when we crack open the shell.

I did not know that, about the skin. I always eat the skin!!

thank you. I hadnt been paying much attention to the post counts. I would imagine if there were a metric for posts, 75% off mine probably come in the fall/winter to coincide with football season.

holy cow, I think I am spending too much time here...

Applejacks

@countdouglas said:
Yes, Alex Gordon was a failed third baseman, but to say he was poor defensively relative to the other players on the field, because he was relagated to left field, is to admit that you never really watched Alex Gordon play left field.

Eight time gold glove winner.

Two time platinum glove winner.

Yes, the winner of the platinum glove is a fan vote. But to disparage Alex Gordon's defense because he played left field shows that you are not a fan of baseball. He got to balls that no one else would even try to get to. He dove for balls that lesser players let drop. He crashed full speed into walls that everyone else would pull up on. He gunned down runners when others' throws would be rainbows. He kept runners from advancing out of fear, that he would either embarrass them with his arm or miraculously make the catch, so they had to hold up.

This...
.

.
Not this...

Who was the punter for Nebraska that played outfield for the Angels ?
I know Gordon went to Nebraska years after him.