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......
Guerrero finished with the most errors 7 straight seasons in the NL during his prime. He then went to the AL and led the American League in errors in RF 3 out of 4 years. The other year? He slumped and finished second in errors. Those numbers don't lie no matter how they are spun.
Using your reasoning Aaron was a better home run hitter than Ruth because he hit more total home runs.
The number of errors is only important if the player has a corresponding low fielding %.
Vlad's fielding % compared to the rest of the leagues RF was horrible in 97,98 and 99. He got better. After that he was slightly below the league average. From 2000-2003 he was .014 worse than the others. In 2005 he was slightly above the league average.
Far from the worst RF of all time. Slightly below average for his time.
That's not what I said at all.
True or false.
Vlad led NL right fielders in errors seven straight seasons. He then came over to the American League and led right fielders in errors 3 out of 4 subsequent seasons. The other season he finished second.
Show me one other right or left fielder who can duplicate this feat.
mark
TRUE! I didn't dispute that (how could you?).
What I said (or should have said) was that looking at his fielding % is a better way to measure how bad he was compared to the rest of the league. He was much worse his first three years and he got better, but still wasn't very good. Some of the other fielding statistics indicate he was better than average, range factor indicates he was about average.
I don't like to look at just one number and declare a player the best or the worst.
Theoretically a fielder (no, not Vlad) could lead the league in errors every year and be the best fielder.
Over the course of his career he was a little worse than the league average. Throw out his first three years when he was learning, and he was probably at the league average.
Your earlier post claimed; "He may have been the worst fielding right fielder of his time or anybody elses for that matter."
I agree his fielding was a bit subpar, his speed (before injuries) and strong arm should mitigate that some. I just don't think he was the worst of all time, as your post suggests.
It may seem like I am "worked up" about it, but I am not. It would be pretty boring if we all agreed on everything here!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
I'm not worked up about it all either. It's just when someone leds the league in errors for 10 out of 11 years in succession covering both leagues there is a good bet he couldn't field very well.
Next debate ;
Mark
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......
Originally posted by: Justacommeman I'm not worked up about it all either. It's just when someone leds the league in errors for 10 out of 11 years in succession covering both leagues there is a good bet he couldn't field very well.
Next debate ;
Mark
ok
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Originally posted by: craig44Player a is clearly better than player b. In your example, u use rice and davis. You are comparing those players using expectations/projections/speculation.
No. Again, you're mixing two independent things. When I say Davis was better than Rice I'm just comparing what they actually did. Davis had a much higher OPS+, he was a better fielder, he ground into fewer DPs, etc. The expectations/projections/speculation only enter the picture in the hypothetical switching places situation. Key to that speculation is the fact that Davis' stats were better in his actual park (the stats under his control, not team stats like RBI) than Rice's were in his actual park, but the speculation follows from the facts in the same way the determination that Davis was better than Rice followed from the same stats. They're related, but they're separate.
If you were actually able to switch the two players, there are just too many variables in play for you to assume that their RsBI % would stay constant. Switching stadiums, coast's, teammates divisions and leagues to name a few. You know what davis did in San Fran, but those statistics don't just slide over to Boston in the real world like you would hope they would. Again, these guys are not robots.
True, and I already acknowledged that this is true. Return the favor and address what I've been saying and repeating for half a dozen posts now. While we can't know what would happen if they switched places, we can, using the facts we do have, develop an expectation of what would happen. We can develop an infinite number of possibilities, from the probable to the insanely unlikely, and the possibility that is the most likely, based on what we do know, is the expected result. The expected result if they switched parks is that their RBI totals would also approximately switch. Do you see that? Will you at least acknowledge that I've asked the question?
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I completely understand what you are saying about expectations. It is within the realm of possibilities that davis could have knocked in 120 runs that year. It may or may not have happened. That is where we differ. I am looking at what actually happened. And I understand there RsBI % and the difference in runners in scoring position and all of that. The difference between us is that you speculate that if they were to switch places, all of those percentages would continue to hold true. When in fact, there are too many extraneous factors in play to be able to make that assumption. Maybe in the media pressure cooker of Boston, davis would have wilted. We just don't know, therefore, you cannot make the definitive statement that davis is better than rice because of a speculative projection. All we know for sure is what each player did in their respective era and place. That is why it is so difficult to compare players across time and space.
Originally posted by: craig44It is within the realm of possibilities that davis could have knocked in 120 runs that year. It may or may not have happened. That is where we differ.
I still don't know where we differ because you won't answer my question. The question is what would you expect to happen if they switched parks. You say you're looking at what actually happened, but so am I. You're looking at absolute numbers and I'm looking at percentages; they both actually happened, so if you're implying that where we differ is that you're looking at what actually happened and I'm not then you're wrong. If you're implying that where we differ is that you think Davis knocking in 120 runs (or so) is within the realm of possibilities and I'm saying it's certain, you're wrong in that case, too. What I'm saying is that among the many possibilities, Davis knocking in 120 runs (or so) is the expected result; where we differ up to now is that you won't address that point. You'll have to answer the question for me to know where else we differ.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
What would I expect to happen if they were able to change parks? Well, I have no earthly idea what would have happened. That's what I have been trying to explain to you for the last dozen posts. And if you are honest with yourself, you don't know what would have happened either. you have an expectation as to what might have happened, but it is speculation. An educated guess at best. When you are basing a comparison on an expectation/educated guess, you cannot make definitive statements as you are so want to do. Yes, percentages happened, as did counting numbers, we are in agreement there. But when you assume you can apply your percentages across time or space, you enter the realm of speculation. When you are speculating, you cannot definitively say one player was better than another. You just can't.
Originally posted by: craig44 What would I expect to happen if they were able to change parks? Well, I have no earthly idea what would have happened. That's what I have been trying to explain to you for the last dozen posts. And if you are honest with yourself, you don't know what would have happened either. you have an expectation as to what might have happened, but it is speculation. An educated guess at best. When you are basing a comparison on an expectation/educated guess, you cannot make definitive statements as you are so want to do. Yes, percentages happened, as did counting numbers, we are in agreement there. But when you assume you can apply your percentages across time or space, you enter the realm of speculation. When you are speculating, you cannot definitively say one player was better than another. You just can't.
How many coins would you expect to come up heads if you flipped one ten times? Your answer - "I have no earthly idea" - is not true. You don't "know" how many heads you'd get, but that wasn't the question. You do have "an idea" of how many heads you'd get: 5 would be most likely, 4 or 6 would be less likely, etc.
I'll phrase it this way and if you choose to dodge this question, too, then I'll stop asking.
You and I are sitting around bored and decide to bet on how many heads will come up when I flip a coin ten times. We each get to pick a number and you get to go first. What number would you pick? (If you picked any number other than 5, we can stop here and get you the medical attention you need.)
The next day we're sitting around bored again when the craziest thing happens. There's a bright flash of light in the sky and time seems to stand still for a few seconds. When it's over, we realize that it's 1984 again and everything is exactly the same except for one thing: the Red Sox have traded Jim Rice to the Giants for Chili Davis and the season is about to start. Nobody but the two of us realizes that 1984 has already happened. First, we go bet everything we own on Ben Crenshaw to win the Masters, then we decide to bet each other on how many RBI Chili Davis will have for the Red Sox. We each get to pick one number and we have to get it exactly right to win. You get to go first again because I'm such a gentleman - what number do you pick? Oh, one last thing, if you miss by more than 10 RBI or don't choose at all you die.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I'm not dodging any questions. You are asking me to speculate. There is no right answer to your question. You think there is, but there isn't. Far too many things would influence the answer, it is not as simple as you would like it to be. You just cannot enter .32 into your calculator as you want so badly to be able to do. When we deal with how real live human beings perform, there are many many factors in play. You either don't understand , or refuse to acknowledge that fact. The players are not chess pieces that can be interchanged and turn out the same result. How many disappointing free agents are there every year (the answer is quite a few) the reason for that is that try as we may, it is really really really hard to project performance. If the greatest minds in baseball continually make mistakes every year in free agency and at the trade deadline, we are certainly not going to be able find the magical elixir. Think of the factors that could influence performance that we can't quantify: stress (of moving your family, home, city, team, teammates, home park, league, coast, possibly leaving loved ones behind) you are inserted into a new lineup, facing pitchers you have never faced, a new coaching staff, manager, front office. These are just the ones I could think of quickly while typing this out. So, there are way to many variables factoring into this formula for you to be able to slide your .32 in to arrive at 120. You are delusional if you really think you can definitely state davis would have had as many or more RsBI as rice in 1984. You are speculating, plain and simple.
Originally posted by: dallasactuary ...what number do you pick? Oh, one last thing, if you miss by more than 10 RBI or don't choose at all you die.
Originally posted by: craig44 {A bunch of stuff not related to picking a number.}
I'm sorry, you didn't pick a number. You preferred to die rather than pick a number. I have seen stubborn before, but now I have seen STUBBORN. I'm a man of my word - I will stop asking. But you and I both know that with an actual gun to your head you would have picked a number around 120.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Come on now, that is hyperbole and frankly, just a little immature. We are talking baseball, there are no guns to anyone's head here. You are asking me to basically make an educated guess, but nonetheless, a guess. You can make much more certain speculations when a player is signed to a long term contract and is in a stable environment. When we are teleporting players across leagues and the country, there are just too many variables to account for. If you think you can ACCURATELY predict how these players would have performed, you truly are certifiable, and we can find a nice comfortable place for you to live out your years and make your guesses.
Look at Josh Hamilton. When he left Texas for the Angels, he didn't even change divisions. He utterly tanked. You don't think people much more intelligent than yourself ran all the projections before signing him to a 100 million dollar contract???
There are far too many variables in play to make accurate projections. People have been trying and failing for decades. It is a fun exercise for fans to debate, but is steeped in speculation and is highly inaccurate in the real world. So, no sir, as much as you think you know about projecting performance, you really don't know what would have happened in 1984 either.
Originally posted by: craig44So, no sir, as much as you think you know about projecting performance, you really don't know what would have happened in 1984 either.
You keep using the word "know" in a way that implies that I said any such thing. Since I didn't, it's more than a little annoying. Do you ever make bets? It's in the nature of any bet that nobody "knows" what the actual outcome will be. I proposed a hypothetical bet, that's all; what would you have bet under the circumstances that I outlined? As I said, I'm a man of my word so I'm not asking that question again; I'm also not asking because I already know, and you already know, what your answer would be.
And I missed your shorter post earlier. The coin flip analogy works fine. I didn't propose a single coin flip, I proposed 10. In 10 coin flips there are 11 possible outcomes (0 through 10) and we don't know what the result will be; we would base our guess of the number of heads on the outcomes that we believed were more likely than the other outcomes. Exactly the same thing.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
As you can probably tell, I'm not a betting man. I like to deal in knowns as opposed to speculation. Ok, if your projections are in essence "hypothetical bets," as you say, you need to greatly temper your conclusions. As YOU say, you do not KNOW davis was a better RsBI man than rice, you hypothesize that is so. So you CANNOT definitely state that davis would have performed better. You only expect, or speculate such. I choose not to speculate. So it all boils down to you stating an personal OPINION as to what MAY have happened which is far less conclusive than you like to let on when you definitely state that player a is better than player b as you so often do as if it is gospel.
Comments
Love these heated debates
Dallas has mad typing skills to boot
mark
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......
Using your reasoning Aaron was a better home run hitter than Ruth because he hit more total home runs.
The number of errors is only important if the player has a corresponding low fielding %.
Vlad's fielding % compared to the rest of the leagues RF was horrible in 97,98 and 99. He got better. After that he was slightly below the league average. From 2000-2003 he was .014 worse than the others. In 2005 he was slightly above the league average.
Far from the worst RF of all time. Slightly below average for his time.
That's not what I said at all.
True or false.
Vlad led NL right fielders in errors seven straight seasons. He then came over to the American League and led right fielders in errors 3 out of 4 subsequent seasons. The other season he finished second.
Show me one other right or left fielder who can duplicate this feat.
mark
TRUE! I didn't dispute that (how could you?).
What I said (or should have said) was that looking at his fielding % is a better way to measure how bad he was compared to the rest of the league. He was much worse his first three years and he got better, but still wasn't very good. Some of the other fielding statistics indicate he was better than average, range factor indicates he was about average.
I don't like to look at just one number and declare a player the best or the worst.
Theoretically a fielder (no, not Vlad) could lead the league in errors every year and be the best fielder.
Over the course of his career he was a little worse than the league average. Throw out his first three years when he was learning, and he was probably at the league average.
Your earlier post claimed; "He may have been the worst fielding right fielder of his time or anybody elses for that matter."
I agree his fielding was a bit subpar, his speed (before injuries) and strong arm should mitigate that some. I just don't think he was the worst of all time, as your post suggests.
It may seem like I am "worked up" about it, but I am not. It would be pretty boring if we all agreed on everything here!
Next debate ;
Mark
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......
I'm not worked up about it all either. It's just when someone leds the league in errors for 10 out of 11 years in succession covering both leagues there is a good bet he couldn't field very well.
Next debate ;
Mark
ok
No. Again, you're mixing two independent things. When I say Davis was better than Rice I'm just comparing what they actually did. Davis had a much higher OPS+, he was a better fielder, he ground into fewer DPs, etc. The expectations/projections/speculation only enter the picture in the hypothetical switching places situation. Key to that speculation is the fact that Davis' stats were better in his actual park (the stats under his control, not team stats like RBI) than Rice's were in his actual park, but the speculation follows from the facts in the same way the determination that Davis was better than Rice followed from the same stats. They're related, but they're separate.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I still don't know where we differ because you won't answer my question. The question is what would you expect to happen if they switched parks. You say you're looking at what actually happened, but so am I. You're looking at absolute numbers and I'm looking at percentages; they both actually happened, so if you're implying that where we differ is that you're looking at what actually happened and I'm not then you're wrong. If you're implying that where we differ is that you think Davis knocking in 120 runs (or so) is within the realm of possibilities and I'm saying it's certain, you're wrong in that case, too. What I'm saying is that among the many possibilities, Davis knocking in 120 runs (or so) is the expected result; where we differ up to now is that you won't address that point. You'll have to answer the question for me to know where else we differ.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
What would I expect to happen if they were able to change parks? Well, I have no earthly idea what would have happened. That's what I have been trying to explain to you for the last dozen posts. And if you are honest with yourself, you don't know what would have happened either. you have an expectation as to what might have happened, but it is speculation. An educated guess at best. When you are basing a comparison on an expectation/educated guess, you cannot make definitive statements as you are so want to do. Yes, percentages happened, as did counting numbers, we are in agreement there. But when you assume you can apply your percentages across time or space, you enter the realm of speculation. When you are speculating, you cannot definitively say one player was better than another. You just can't.
How many coins would you expect to come up heads if you flipped one ten times? Your answer - "I have no earthly idea" - is not true. You don't "know" how many heads you'd get, but that wasn't the question. You do have "an idea" of how many heads you'd get: 5 would be most likely, 4 or 6 would be less likely, etc.
I'll phrase it this way and if you choose to dodge this question, too, then I'll stop asking.
You and I are sitting around bored and decide to bet on how many heads will come up when I flip a coin ten times. We each get to pick a number and you get to go first. What number would you pick? (If you picked any number other than 5, we can stop here and get you the medical attention you need.)
The next day we're sitting around bored again when the craziest thing happens. There's a bright flash of light in the sky and time seems to stand still for a few seconds. When it's over, we realize that it's 1984 again and everything is exactly the same except for one thing: the Red Sox have traded Jim Rice to the Giants for Chili Davis and the season is about to start. Nobody but the two of us realizes that 1984 has already happened. First, we go bet everything we own on Ben Crenshaw to win the Masters, then we decide to bet each other on how many RBI Chili Davis will have for the Red Sox. We each get to pick one number and we have to get it exactly right to win. You get to go first again because I'm such a gentleman - what number do you pick? Oh, one last thing, if you miss by more than 10 RBI or don't choose at all you die.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I'm sorry, you didn't pick a number. You preferred to die rather than pick a number. I have seen stubborn before, but now I have seen STUBBORN. I'm a man of my word - I will stop asking. But you and I both know that with an actual gun to your head you would have picked a number around 120.
Look at Josh Hamilton. When he left Texas for the Angels, he didn't even change divisions. He utterly tanked. You don't think people much more intelligent than yourself ran all the projections before signing him to a 100 million dollar contract???
There are far too many variables in play to make accurate projections. People have been trying and failing for decades. It is a fun exercise for fans to debate, but is steeped in speculation and is highly inaccurate in the real world. So, no sir, as much as you think you know about projecting performance, you really don't know what would have happened in 1984 either.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
You keep using the word "know" in a way that implies that I said any such thing. Since I didn't, it's more than a little annoying. Do you ever make bets? It's in the nature of any bet that nobody "knows" what the actual outcome will be. I proposed a hypothetical bet, that's all; what would you have bet under the circumstances that I outlined? As I said, I'm a man of my word so I'm not asking that question again; I'm also not asking because I already know, and you already know, what your answer would be.
And I missed your shorter post earlier. The coin flip analogy works fine. I didn't propose a single coin flip, I proposed 10. In 10 coin flips there are 11 possible outcomes (0 through 10) and we don't know what the result will be; we would base our guess of the number of heads on the outcomes that we believed were more likely than the other outcomes. Exactly the same thing.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.