Holliday, Bay, and Defense (Split from Who's Your Guy?)

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

I'll say it one more time, and then I'll sez it no more:*

A)Jason Bay is much, MUCH worse defensively than Matt Holliday, according to virtually every defensive metric out there (DEWAN, Fangraphs' UZR, the Fielding Bible's numbers), and as per the end-of-year numbers, he has been so for the better part of the last half-decade. (2006 was the one exception.) It's a good bet that he will continue to be significantly worse (high-profile liners off the babymaker included).

B)Call it Coors (it's not, but whatevs), call it the NL-AL talent gap (which would only come into play regarding portions of the last two years, but whatevs), but Matt Holliday has been a good amount more effective at the plate as well. Bay strikes out more without a marked increase in power in trade, and has been slightly-to-significantly worse in wOBA (weighted On-Base Average, a Frankenstat that takes into account both slugging prowess and OBP, doing so more equitably than OPS does) during 4 of the last 5 years.

C) Bay and Holliday are both probably beginning-- if not having already begun-- their (hopefully) slow decline. But Bay's likely closer to his-- he's two years older.

I disagree that Lackey's a good, safe bet, but I can understand some of the thinking behind that opinion. But if you want Jason Bay (or what you think he represents) as a Met... assuming the costs for both are within shouting distance of each other, you really want Matt Holliday.

*This post has a margin of error of 2.5 "I told you sos."
**Oh hell-- let's talk parks: Bay's played in a superior-for-righties park over the last year-and-a-third. He's put up slightly worse non-counting offensive numbers over that time.

[metirish]

I voted for Matt Holliday , could have easily voted for Halladay or Lackey(really liked what I saw of him this post-season) , I'm expecting a bounce back season from Ollie and no I don't think it will be on par with Halladay or Lackey but enough to be good enough....I feel this team needs that bat just as much if not more than anything else.

[ashie62]

I'll say it one more time, and then I'll sez it no more:*

A)Jason Bay is much, MUCH worse defensively than Matt Holliday, according to virtually every defensive metric out there (DEWAN, Fangraphs' UZR, the Fielding Bible's numbers), and as per the end-of-year numbers, he has been so for the better part of the last half-decade. (2006 was the one exception.) It's a good bet that he will continue to be significantly worse (high-profile liners off the babymaker included).

Bay had no errors and a 1.000 fielding percentage...DEWEAN etal. are also "designer stats" it comes down to errors and fielding percentage

B)Call it Coors (it's not, but whatevs), call it the NL-AL talent gap (which would only come into play regarding portions of the last two years, but whatevs), but Matt Holliday has been a good amount more effective at the plate as well. Bay strikes out more without a marked increase in power in trade, and has been slightly-to-significantly worse in wOBA (weighted On-Base Average, a Frankenstat that takes into account both slugging prowess and OBP, doing so more equitably than OPS does) during 4 of the last 5 years.

Bay hit 36 HR's last season

C) Bay and Holliday are both probably beginning-- if not having already begun-- their (hopefully) slow decline. But Bay's likely closer to his-- he's two years older.

Possibly

I disagree that Lackey's a good, safe bet, but I can understand some of the thinking behind that opinion. But if you want Jason Bay (or what you think he represents) as a Met... assuming the costs for both are within shouting distance of each other, you really want Matt Holliday.

I agree with Lackey, not so with the latter

*This post has a margin of error of 2.5 "I told you sos."
**Oh hell-- let's talk parks: Bay's played in a superior-for-righties park over the last year-and-a-third. He's put up slightly worse non-counting offensive numbers over that time.

[Guest Edgy DC]

It does not come down to errors or fielding percentage.

A statue --- a literal statue --- can stand out in left and, unless a player gets lucky and hits him with a batted ball, make no errors.

Fielding is much more nuanced and "designer" stats (aren't they all?) are designed to illuminate what has been shrouded.

[ashie62]

I think the analogy of a statue is a bit extreme. The Bay "statue" caught 310 balls and threw out 15 baserunners

In the Pre-90's or when we didn't have metrics to amplify fielding abililites, or lack there of would there be a discussion of Bay vs. Holliday to this pointed extent?

My preference is Jason Bay...

[Guest Edgy DC]

I didn't say that Bay was a statue. I said that it does not come down to errors or fielding percentage.

You bring up total putouts and assists now, which suggests you don't believe it all comes down to fielding percentage and errors either. I have nothing bad to say about Bay or Holliday, and I'm not claiming to have analyzed their defensive prowess. I just think it takes more than errors and fielding percentage to do so.

[Guest Vince Coleman Firecracker]

In the Pre-90's or when we didn't have metrics to amplify fielding abililites, or lack there of would there be a discussion of Bay vs. Holliday to this pointed extent?

My preference is Jason Bay...[/quote:1fg7xnw0]

I like this argument, which boils down to: "If we didn't know any better, it wouldn't matter. So I'll pick the worse player, cuz it doesn't matter."
Maybe we can go back to a time before offensive statistics were devised, too. Then we could just sign Willy Mo Pena or someone else for league minimum. Or some dude off the street who might do it for free.

[ashie62]

Fielding percentage is a result of putouts and errors..It is my personal opinion that many of the newer fileding metrics are overrated..I'm old skool on these things..Geez, I don't even hear about slugging percentage anymore

I must be ready for the dog track I guess

Firecracker..Wily Mo Pena? I not talking about throwing anyone out there..geez, Muffy could do that.

It's only friggin LF..I've seen "Looks like Jesus, throws like Mary" Damon suggested in this forum.

Bay and Holliday are Strat-O-Matic "3's

lastly, I'd be THRILLED to have either Holliday or Bay as a 2010 Met

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

DEWAN, UZR and the like are FAR from perfect. But the reason there's been a relative explosion in attempts to quantify defensive prowess-- however much stat noise may leak into them-- is because the old stats miss so much. Fielding percentage and errors pretty much measure how you do with what's hit right at you.

AN EXAGGERATION FOR EFFECT:
Given a full-time slot and relatively good health, Endy Chavez would likely have an excellent season defensively in any OF position. He might still commit an error or two, and would therefore have a fielding percentage in the high .980s-.990s.
Given a full-time slot and relatively good health, Legless Endy Chavez may have an error-free season-- hitting everything that's hit to him-- and a fielding percentage of 1.000. He would NOT, however, be a superior fielder... he would just be a legless dude who catches everything that's hit to him, draws endless fan ire for allowing inside-the-parkers and gets called "gritty" a lot by Joe Morgan-types.

Range factor's a little better stab at measuring players' defensive prowess, but has the same underlying problem-- vastly underestimating the effect of range on defensive effectiveness (ironically enough).

I'm not sure why-- I haven't begun to look at their individual defensive techniques, apart from fleeting glances during Sox/Cards/Rockies games I've caught over the years-- but Holliday seems to have the ability to get to more balls in the outfield than Bay does. Therein lies the difference between 'em. (Having an everyday LF with decent range may also help an increasingly-creaky Beltran stay on the field, and stay superlative in CF.)

And yeah-- defense isn't everything. Damon's good enough offensively-- especially this year-- that his contributions with the stick seem to outweigh whatever deficiencies he has with the glove/arm... But that doesn't mean he doesn't have deficiencies with the glove/arm.

[Guest Edgy DC]

It's got to at least in part be due to Holliday having a lot more outfield to pursue balls in, though, while Bay has a wall halting his pursuit, doesn't it?

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

It's got to at least in part be due to Holliday having a lot more outfield to pursue balls in, though, while Bay has a wall halting his pursuit, doesn't it?[/quote:34r61jsg]

Fair point regarding the last year-and-a-third, but he was worse in PNC.

[Guest Vince Coleman Firecracker]

Geez, I don't even hear about slugging percentage anymore[/quote:1s6ra52g]

It's the S in OPS.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Geez, I don't even hear about slugging percentage anymore[/quote:lu1wnbc5]

It's the S in OPS.[/quote:lu1wnbc5]

How am I supposed to nominate Bullets of Cool now?

[willpie]

I dunno. I'm not over the moon about any of them, but I like all of them. I think I went with Bay, but now I'm thinking Halladay.

[ashie62]

Geez, I don't even hear about slugging percentage anymore[/quote:3cml49hh]

It's the S in OPS.[/quote:3cml49hh]

slugging percentage by its' lonesome self

[smg58]

It's got to at least in part be due to Holliday having a lot more outfield to pursue balls in, though, while Bay has a wall halting his pursuit, doesn't it?[/quote:l9ssxze1]

I would think the opposite is true if anything, as Bay would have a smaller zone to work with which presumably would increase the percentage of fly balls in the zone that he can get to.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Well, I was responding to "Holliday seems to have the ability to get to more balls in the outfield than Bay does. Therein lies the difference between 'em." So I was understanding we were talking then, specifically, about a total, rather than a percentage, though I understand we are talking generally in this thread about a host of comparative data.

[nymr83]

it comes down to errors and fielding percentage

the earth is flat. flat i tell you!

[ashie62]

It's not?

[Guest Edgy DC]

The Holiday-Bay Defense Quandry hits ESPN: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hotstove09/columns/story?columnist=crasnick_jerry&id=4666623

[metirish]

The Holiday-Bay Defense Quandry hits ESPN: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hotstove09/columns/story?columnist=crasnick_jerry&id=4666623

[Guest Edgy DC]

Yeah, and good hitting performances are due in part to good coaching too.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

I don't understand.... is this sarcasm being directed at those who are skeptical of defensive statistics?

Cuz, not that I distrust them, but I'm very skeptical and all about recognizing limits of a systems that, for example, would punish a right fielder for letting ball drop in front of him ifor a single with a man on first in a tie game and reward the same guy for a high-risk diving catch in the same situation.

Um, not that advanced defensive metrics make that kind of error. Oh look who's sarcastic now?

[Guest Edgy DC]

I agree with that, though I also think it can be weaved into the system. Look not just at the number of plays, but how much does a play increase the win likelihood? That would also reward a guy for correctly postiioning himself (assuming it is correct) say, for guarding the lines in a late-and-close situation.

The same can be true of batting and pitching. Reward them statistically not just for performing independent of the situation, but for advancing the winning cause in the context of the situation. It's certainly a way to reconcile the value of a starter and closer.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

So you were being sarcastic?

[metirish]

I think he was towards me in fact....bollox...

[Guest Vince Coleman Firecracker]

I'm very skeptical and all about recognizing limits of a systems that, for example, would punish a right fielder for letting ball drop in front of him ifor a single with a man on first in a tie game and reward the same guy for a high-risk diving catch in the same situation.[/quote:vwwc4mxo]

Wait- you object to a defensive system that punishes a fielder that doesn't get to the ball and rewards one that does? You know the fielder gets punished for missing the diving catch, right?

You want something to be able to measure a player's ability to assess risk and, at the same, time determine his ability to assess his ball-catching skills, right? In the scenario you suggest, the player that has made the spectacular catch has correctly assessed the balance between the risk inherent in the situation and his own ability to catch the ball. The player that flubs the diving catch has not done this correctly, and would be punished for it.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Sorry, I was trying to say I understood one system or the other made little distinction between the diving miss vs. the safe pullup in terms of punishment, since they both "missed" the ball even if one is a single and the other a game-tying triple.

Mostly though I'm a neanderthal who trusts Eyewitness Defense first, then what the figures tell me.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Sorry, I was trying to say I understood one system or the other made little distinction between the diving miss vs. the safe pullup in terms of punishment, since they both "missed" the ball even if one is a single and the other a game-tying triple.

Mostly though I'm a neanderthal who trusts Eyewitness Defense first, then what the figures tell me.[/quote:voe93xs5]

Conversely, that there may be such tremendous year-to-year fluctuations in numbers like UZR when nothing significant has changed with the player in question is a big honking red flag that there's a bunch of noise to root out with these metrics. (Their creators will own as much.) The fluctuations are much bigger than you'll see for offensive numbers (for instance, BABIP variances producing ripples in BA, OBP, and-- to a lesser extent-- slugging), but then, there hasn't been as much good work done in this area for as long.

That said, if you get the right crowd of Eyewitnesses-- namely, people who do watch virtually every inning of a particular team-- then they're pretty damn useful in evaluation of a particular player... and they tend to hew pretty close to most of the "objective" metrics systems' results. Comparison between players is still a bitch, though.

[metirish]

Heyman saying that Bay declines Boston's offer of four years and close to $60 million , that was never getting it done of course.