***Official 2007-2008 MLB Offseason Thread***

rwperu34 · #1 11-30-2007, 11:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Reed Johnson is definitely a better fielder, but Lind was good in 2007.

[/ QUOTE ]

As much as I wish Lind was good in the field, he isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, fielding metrics disagree with you, and I am more inclined to believe them than someone who has watched a few games and is probably cherry-picking.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm too lazy to dig through my files, but as I recall, when Lind was coming up he was thought of as a guy who would hit but might not be able to hack it with the glove.

What I think is funny is, because fielding metrics said Lind had a good year in 2007, something that is debatable to begin with, people want to assume he's a good fielder. Same is going on in the Ryan Church discussion. Of course we know about this little thing called sample size, and 80 games or so is not enough for even the most reliable metrics. A good example of this would be to look at what the hitting metrics thought of Lind in 2007.

kyleb · #2 11-30-2007, 11:40 PM

All I know is that both PBP and Davenport translations like Lind in 2007 (and were netural in 2006), the only years that people would have seen him unless you guys go to a ton of minor league games that I don't know about.

It is possible to improve defensively, you know. Just because people thought he couldn't hack it doesn't mean he can't, and the only data we have on him shows that Lind is a average or plus fielder, so thinking that he is not a good fielder has pretty much no basis in reality at this point.

rwperu34 · #3 12-01-2007, 01:39 AM

[ QUOTE ]
It is possible to improve defensively, you know. Just because people thought he couldn't hack it doesn't mean he can't, and the only data we have on him shows that Lind is a average or plus fielder, so thinking that he is not a good fielder has pretty much no basis in reality at this point.

[/ QUOTE ]

That data point is suspect at best. I think the point is, Lind is all about projection at this point, both hitting and fielding. On his defense, I'd weigh the scouts at about 98% right now and the stats at about 2%. While it's possible he's improved, until I hear about it from baseball insiders or until he's amassed 500 games sample size, I'm going to assume that Lind is not a good fielder.

Thremp · #4 12-01-2007, 01:59 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is possible to improve defensively, you know. Just because people thought he couldn't hack it doesn't mean he can't, and the only data we have on him shows that Lind is a average or plus fielder, so thinking that he is not a good fielder has pretty much no basis in reality at this point.

[/ QUOTE ]

That data point is suspect at best. I think the point is, Lind is all about projection at this point, both hitting and fielding. On his defense, I'd weigh the scouts at about 98% right now and the stats at about 2%. While it's possible he's improved, until I hear about it from baseball insiders or until he's amassed 500 games sample size, I'm going to assume that Lind is not a good fielder.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but we're pretty sure you're like Aceshigh-lite so who [censored] cares what you think?

Vyse · #5 12-01-2007, 02:01 AM

Thremp treats people severely once he makes a judgment about them. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] I wonder what references Thremp would come up for someone like me on his totem pole then.

Thremp · #6 12-01-2007, 03:41 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Thremp treats people severely once he makes a judgment about them. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] I wonder what references Thremp would come up for someone like me on his totem pole then.

[/ QUOTE ]

I discussed you with another poster recently. You're starting to come around. The comment about defensive metrics was a little dense. But you got mentioned as a #2 improved poster. #1 was a pretty runaway candidate who's starting to make some pretty solid arguments in his case now.

That and you didn't say something like "Well your EV changes depending on the team you're on?"

If someone can explain to me how a summation of outcomes can change depending on the team you're on in baseball atleast in terms of value, I'd be quite interested to hear the explanation. Also, since I'm pretty sure this will be quoted. Can you explain why the Yankees wouldn't dump someone like Wang for a higher EV player like Evan Longoria if you're looking for the most +EV (summation of outcomes, I mean we're not making a team or anything are we?) option, right? Or maybe the utility of the player might matter? IE Longoria in a non-trade universe has limited value to the Yankees as he's blocked and will be a 1B (now) or a corner outfielder (later). But whatever.

bottomset · #7 12-01-2007, 04:09 AM

ESPN reporting the Yankees are willing to give up Hughes to get Santana

please make that happen, or get a good bidding war going between Boston/NYY that leads to Ellsbury or Cano coming over

rwperu34 · #8 12-01-2007, 05:17 AM

[ QUOTE ]
If someone can explain to me how a summation of outcomes can change depending on the team you're on in baseball atleast in terms of value, I'd be quite interested to hear the explanation.

[/ QUOTE ]

You put a different weight on different outcomes.

rwperu34 · #9 12-01-2007, 05:35 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Can you explain why the Yankees wouldn't dump someone like Wang for a higher EV player like Evan Longoria if you're looking for the most +EV (summation of outcomes, I mean we're not making a team or anything are we?) option, right? Or maybe the utility of the player might matter? IE Longoria in a non-trade universe has limited value to the Yankees as he's blocked and will be a 1B (now) or a corner outfielder (later). But whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're trading for Longoria and plan on playing him at 1b, you calculate his value as a 1b. This should be obvious.