|
|
#41
08-23-2007, 11:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Would you rather play Omar Vizquel or Albert Pujols at shortstop?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I don't know baseball well and I've admitted it before. But I am pretty certain that those 3 players have good offensive numbers for their positions, but if you pretended that they were first basemen or other more offensive minded positions their numbers would no longer look that great. Assuming thats true, then I picked 3 players that perfectly described what I was talking about. Perhaps you can explain to me exactly why you feel they are bad examples. [/ QUOTE ] The only borderline guy you picked was Biggio. Piazza: .308/.377/.546 I mean, lol @ those stats from any position, really. Ripken: .276/.340/.447 Twenty years of this with ++++++++ defense at SS makes him easily one of the best players, plus all that durability stuff that we love to talk about here. Now that's not a great bat at first base, but even if you under-adjust for positional scarcity, those are very, very nice numbers, especially considering he played a ton of years while being legitimately not good. [/ QUOTE ] I don't know if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me here, and for the record I'm a huge Cal Ripken fan. True or false: If those 3 players were 1st basement who played average defense and put up the same numbers they did, then they would be much less highly regarded than they were. 
|
|
#42
08-23-2007, 11:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Would you rather play Omar Vizquel or Albert Pujols at shortstop?
but they all would have been excellent defensive 1b.
|
|
#43
08-23-2007, 11:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Would you rather play Omar Vizquel or Albert Pujols at shortstop?
The thing about "adjusting for position" is not that you give them an offensive bump because they're playing at a scarcer position, though. It's just adding defense into the discussion. Even a bad C usually has more defensive value than a decent 1B.
So yeah, Ripken would be considered less highly, but so would Ozzie Smith.
|
|
#44
08-23-2007, 12:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Would you rather play Omar Vizquel or Albert Pujols at shortstop?
I don't think Pujols would be that bad at SS, especially if you gave him an off-season to prepare. The guy is an incredible athlete, although he's huge. I mean, he'd still be the worst in the league, but I doubt he'd be 60 runs under replacement.
The only thing I wouldn't like about it is that he'd get injured more there.
|
|
#45
08-23-2007, 12:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Would you rather play Omar Vizquel or Albert Pujols at shortstop?
LaRussa being an idiot jokes aside, doesn't the fact that Pujols doesn't play SS right now say something? The Cards could always move him there and get a replacement level 1B to improve their offence. I mean, Vizquel is better than Eckstein, right?
|
|
#47
08-23-2007, 12:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Would you rather play Omar Vizquel or Albert Pujols at shortstop?
Three thoughts
1. Nobody has mentioned this, but I think the scariest part would be variance in Pujols' offensive production. If he goes into an ave/power slump for two or three weeks, this combined with the defensive liability could put lots of strain on the team. How many runs/wins does your team lose when he hits .220 and 2 homers in a three week stretch? Can the offence you gain when he is hot make up for that? 2. We have to keep in mind that in low scoring losses (e.g. 3/2, 2/1, 4/2) the defensive liability becomes huge, but in the big wins (e.g. 10/2, 7/3, 8/2), the extra offence may just be add-on runs that don't really matter. A one run win is the same as a seven run win, so I really think folks should look harder at the defensive costs as opposed to the offensive bonus. 3. Does anyone else think that this move favours Pujols more if the Cards were in the AL, as opposed to the NL. I think this move is slightly more +EV in the AL.
|
|
#49
08-23-2007, 12:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Would you rather play Omar Vizquel or Albert Pujols at shortstop?
[ QUOTE ]
True or false: If those 3 players were 1st basement who played average defense and put up the same numbers they did, then they would be much less highly regarded than they were. [/ QUOTE ] And if we made the proto-typical big stick, limited glove first baseman a below average hitter (which is comparable to what an average defensive first baseman is in the defensive range of skills), they wouldn't be in baseball. As Jack suggests, the correct way to adjust is to leave the hitting alone and add in defense. From a discussion on "The Book" blog by Tom Tango. [ QUOTE ] I agree with Clay’s premise that the adjustment shouldn’t come from the hitting stats. After all, that assumes that the avg 3B = avg 2B = avg 1B, etc. This makes no sense to blindly accept that. After all the avg QB does not equal the avg offensive tackle. Nor is it even true that the avg SS = avg 2B in high school. Therefore, what would make it so at the MLB level? (And, in 2006, the avg 3B was better than the avg 2B.) [/ QUOTE ] Good stuff on valuing defense
|
|
#50
08-23-2007, 01:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Would you rather play Omar Vizquel or Albert Pujols at shortstop?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I have no idea how many runs below replacement he would be, but I'm guessing it would more than offset anything he contributed with the bat. [/ QUOTE ] Thats brutal. But if he can't even play a really poor first base... He'd probably be worse than an avg high school kid or something. Its gotta be horrific. [/ QUOTE ] Find me one scouting report that says Pujols is defensively a bad 1st baseman.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
