Morning links: Time out for fun

I am a big stathead. I love myself some OPS and VORP, and I'm adamantly opposed to such stats as wins, losses, saves, and even errors to a certain degree. That being said, anyone who thinks Nate McClouth is anything less than at least an above average fielder needs to put down the calculator and turn on their TV to actually watch him play. People openly admit that fielding metrics have a ways to go before they can catch up with batting metrics. So in Nate McLouth, I give you exhibit A.

meestro, i don't agree with your asessment of Nate being an above average CF and I'm not one of those stats guys.  I've seen too many balls that should have been caught fly over Nate's head.  He has done an adequate job in CF but my opinion is that he is an average CF.  I would make an above average corner outfielder.

I've watched nearly every game and Nate McLouth is an EXCELLENT centerfielder.  WWDM Say?  He said Nate is in a class of CFs that he's seen one notch below Torii Hunter and he said that was not a knock on Nate.  Torii is a group all is own, one of the best defensively all-time.  No offense, bucfan, but I'll take Doug's assessment on it.    

The worst part about that statistical article is that while Nate graded out as the worst CF, Jody freaking Gerut graded out the best.  Are you kidding me?  That's the most stupid article ever written.  

How stupid was that article? How much time did that person waste on that research?  Good thing he learned the VLookup to cut back on research time. So all year long we have been bashing the pitching when in reality the ERA is so high b/c Nate is a terrible CF.  I can't believe that Alphonso Soriano wasn't rated the best LF in that research. Shows you how stupid stats can be.

This guy has too much free time on his hands and obviously doesn't use it all that well.

Regarding Tabata...that link just says that he may join the Curve soon. I am going to the game tonite, so hopefully he is there. I'd love to see him.

Btw, there is a video of Freeman on Youtube. He is clubbing a bunch of HRs in some sort of competition.

McLouth is an above average center fielder when you include his hitting, but a below average fielder in center.  It's not just one methodology that's showing this, but a number of different pieces of data revealing the same information (baseballanalysts.com/.../deefense_deefen_1.php).

Dejan, it is entirely possible that all the things you wrote are true, and he's still a bad defensive centerfielder.  He can be fundamentally sound and still get to less balls then data indicates he should.  He can catch everything that he gets to and make great catches, but still miss balls out of his limited range.

The thing about Nate's alleged limited range is that, in this case, we don't have to take the statheads' word for it: as Dejan reported, our own PBC took a close look at Nate's D in the offseason, looking at every single play he made (and didn't). This is the same methodology, more or less, employed by those who make the range stats; they don't have access to data that the Bucs don't, and in fact have less, since the Pirates have their own cameras for at least some games. The Pirates - whose talent evaluation under NH has proven excellent - determined that Nate was, in fact, a better CF than Morgan, whose range is obviously spectacular.

Now, obviously, Morgan doesn't always take the best routes, etc. But the point is that the conviction that Nate's a good CF isn't based on some "baseball lore vs. statistical analysis" battle. The Pirates <i>looked</i> at what the statheads are looking at, and came to a different conclusion. There's no reason to privilege one conclusion over the other - although the side that thinks Jody Gerut is a great CF has a little more to prove, I would think.

I have watched over 90% of the games this year as well and I was a centerfielder at a Division I school in my playing days. Nate is an above average centerfielder no doubt. I had not heard what Dougie Baseball had said about him, but really that should sum it because Doug has been around and played with/against some of the best out there today. DK said it right, just watch the game and you will see that he is a quality centerfielder: good jumps, good coverage, not an overly strong arm but a very accurate arm, makes smart decisions and will make the spectacular play as well. Nate is the complete ballplayer...and Jim Tracy should be punched in the face as many times as Nate homers this year for not seeing the potential in this All-Star.

Anyway, it's a moot point, because next year he'll be in LF, with McCutcheon in CF and whoever in RF.

PS - one more note on defensive stats: not only do they show Bay a worse LF than Manny, which Bostoners would already dispute, but they also show Bay *significantly* worse this year than last. Does anyone who watched Bay hobble last year and glide this year think that's possibly correct?

And, indeed, here's evidence that it's not, from mattenat's link:

"*One major assumption is being taken here. That is that the number of in zone chances a player gets also reflects the number of out of zone chances he’ll have. Since we don’t know exactly how many OOZ chances anyone actually has, we have to estimate this number somehow. Some people believe innings or total balls in play or something else would be a better proxy, but I’m using in zone chances here."

In other words, they simply guess how many balls were hit out of a defender's zone, and compare that with how many the defender reaches. That's not statistics, that's conjuring. And considering that OFs often get only a couple chances a game, the numbers don't necessarily balance out - there might be 50 balls that Hunter reaches and Nate doesn't, but there could just as well be 20 - the statheads don't know, they guess.

I'm sure there is a good argument against the Defensive Runs Saved statistic; however, I'm also sure it doesn't involve Errors.

Any beancounter or someone with average Excel spreadsheet skills can manipulate the numbers anyway they want. Actions speak louder than words or in this case numbers.

For what it is worth (and I know it has become a popularity contest) Nate is an All-Star and he played well in that show case event. I can't really call it a game anymore

Wow, I must admit I'm kind of hoping the Spikes get killed...that would be funny.

Hey, I realize this stuff's a week old now, but did anyone out there see this video interview with the Boston cabbie who took JBay to Fenway?

I've watched it a half-dozen times to try to figure out if he's saying Bay tipped him $15 or $50, but it's really hard to tell with his foreign accent.

I'm a pizza delivery guy so I'd be kind of amazed if he gave him the minor league tip, or big league tip.

Here's the video: www.youtube.com/watch

Nice day to all

@jroth you're reading that slightly incorrectly.  The in-zone and out-of-zones aren't guessed at.  In-zone is determined as the zones where the average player at the position makes over 50% of the plays on balls hit there.  Out-of-zone is anything else.  The issue is with out-of-zone chances (not plays made).  There's no way to determine the number of out-of-zone chances because there's no way to determine which out-of-zone balls are truly catchable (in theory, every ball including a ground out to the third basemen is an out-of-zone chance).  This doesn't change the validity of stats based on in-zone balls.  The point is that creating a rate stat (success per chance, for instance) isn't 100% possible for out-of-zone plays.  Hope this clears things up.

Something to keep in mind:  A lot of teams now have proprietary defensive statistical measures.  These are probably much more sophisticated than anything some fan site can put together.  I don't know whether the Pirates do, but I don't doubt they have access to information that's more reliable than what's available to us, like their study of McLouth and Morgan.  And Huntington is a very stat-friendly guy who'd no doubt be looking to take advantage of any useful defensive stats he could locate if he had confidence in them.  The Bucs don't seem to have a huge problem playing McLouth in CF, so I'm willing to assume they have a reason.

"Does anyone who watched Bay hobble last year and glide this year think that's possibly correct?"

Yeah.  He's extremely tentative, often pulling up on balls in front of him that look catchable, or slowing down as he nears the wall or foul territory.  It looks to me like he's letting a lot of catchable balls drop.  I've also read, although I can't provide a link, that GMs around baseball consider him horrible defensively now.  Maybe it's a psychological thing left over from the knee problem, but in his case I more or less believe the stats, except maybe the worse-than-Manny part.  Fenway may skew the stats some because there's so little territory to cover in LF there.

@jroth Just because McLouth is a better defensive center fielder then Morgan doesn't mean he's good.  It might mean Morgan is bad.  You say Morgan has obviously spectacular range, but we don't know that's really true (he's certainly fast, but his routes and jumps might preclude him having elite range).  

Really good point on the McLouth vs. Morgan thing, though.  It's clear the Buccos are looking at these things and they even made allusion to using advanced stats in figuring out which trades to make at the deadline.  McLouth is certainly net positive in CF and clearly the best CF they have on the roster.  Just because he's not a great fielder doesn't mean they have a better option (even if we assume that, say, Morgan is a better fielder, it doesn't mean the better fielder + worse hitter would be adequate to displace one of the corner guys).  Also good point about McCutchen being in CF next year.  It's been a revelation that McLouth has hit well enough to play a corner outfield spot.  Thanks for the cite.

@WTM Almost every single article I've ever seen that discusses outfield defense says that Boston's left fielder's stats pretty much have to be thrown out because of the Green Monster.  Good call.

To those who have come to bury Nate, not to praise him...All of these "new" fielding matrixes utilize specious math and science.  They are unable to adequately factor ballparks, ball flights,  playing conditions (temperature, wind, glare), outfield range of infielders and adjacent outfielders, official scoring, defensive positioning, and game situations to name a few.  For example, playing from behind for most of the season, Pirates outfielders have been forced to play deep more often in an attempt to limit extra base hits and keep the defecit in range.  It also inhibits aggression, i.e. chances a player can take on a marginal opportunity.  

Common sense takes it a little further: according to the data in Dejan's link, Willy Tavares is not only better than Nate, he's 9 times better!  Ridiculous.  If this data is to be believed, Pirates fans should be covering their eyes anytime a ball is hit to centerfield!  I'm not here to pronounce Nate the best centerfielder in the league.  He's not.  But actual observation indicates he's darn good and certainly not the obvious liability these defensive statistics would have one believe.

For those who remain unconvinced, rejoice!  Your desire to see Nate as a corner outfielder comes courtesy of Andrew McCutchen in April, 2008.

Baywatch,

the cab driver definitely says "$50", and you can especially tell because of the grin he gives as he says it....

thats an awesome video, thanks for the link!

Well, Nate got in as a Manager's Pick/Player's Vote.  I tend to think the two parties know something about baseball ability and I will take their word for it.

Even if Nate isn't the best CF(which I disagree with), who cares?  He certainly isn't a defensive liability out there.  Where as Chris Duffy and company were all liabilities at plate, and all weren't that much better then Nate in the field, if they were at all.

I think that guy just made a blind stab on numbers without ever seeing the man play.  The fact that he rates Jason Bay as worse this year than last year just proves that.

Nate was in the allstar game on a player's vote, which means the OTHER PLAYERS think hes a good centerfielder... that means more than stats

Just a thought: It shouldn't be automatic that McCutchen will be the center fielder. I have seen him five times this year and even though it was just five games, I saw enough to know he looks a little lost at times out there. He would or should be a candidate to be a corner outfielder, at least until he matures more in the field. Nate has been nothing short of great while roaming center.

@maddamma Does actual observation take those into account, too?  How about for every single team in the league?  For ever single play?  Everytime you watch McLouth play you're factoring all that information in?  Just because any given defensive stat is not 100% perfect doesn't mean it's 100% wrong.

As for Willy Taveras, I clicked through and saw the link had him worth -1.4 runs and McLouth worth -14.6 runs.  That means, to this point in the season, McLouth's defense is about 13 runs worse then Taveras.  I have no idea where "9 times" comes from, but nothing about those stats indicates Taveras is any "times" better then McLouth.

CullenH -

Yeah, I noticed the look on his face, too, and thought the same thing.

As a pizza delivery driver, a $15 tip as a pizza delivery driver would earn that look and nod from me, but I don't think it would from a cab driver who is stopping and going and burning a lot more gas.

Mattenat - misinterpreted the runs factor.  Regardless, the short answer is yes.  I believe it is easier to assess what is actually happening on any given play when you are able to use your senses.  Ever been to a game and see the wind take a ball into the gap?  How does that affect a player's OOZ?  What about game situations?  That has a decided impact on fielding.  I, too, have seen balls that Nate might have had a chance at, but he has to consider what happens if he misses.  You're already behind in the game.  you have to play it safe.  your team can't afford to give up a triple.  How do you qualify smart in a statistic.  Like i said, Nate isn't the best in the league, but he's not the worst either - my eyes and experience have shown me that.  I'm not looking for perfect stats - just reliable ones and there are too many variables that have yet to be accurately factored in to make fielding statistics reliable.

Probably because if you multiply 1.4 times 9, you get about 14...

@maddamma I agree that all of those things go into making an evaluation, but they also go into the stats.  The same wind that makes it hard for McLouth, makes it hard for the opposing outfielder that night.  The nice thing about looking at this in August is that enough of the season has gone by that a lot of those situational/weather issues kinda shake out in the noise.

Does the home field and situational defense have an effect?  Absolutely.  Have defensive stats been traditionally less reliable then hitting and pitching?  Without a doubt.  The more advanced stats are getting a lot better, though.  And it does tell me something when the comparison of many different methodologies shows similar results.

For the very statistically interested, here are some links that do nothing but compare modern defensive stats:

jinaz-reds.blogspot.com/.../player-value-part-3b-comparing-of.html

www.hardballtimes.com/.../comparing-the-fielding-stats-from-stats-and-bis

www.hardballtimes.com/.../how-to-calculate-outfield-dra

@cullenh If one hitter has 1 HR and another hitter has 9 HR would you say the second hitter is 9 times better?  If you multiply, that's what you come up with ... but that's not a terribly accurate description.  What about if one guy hit 1 HR over a season and another guy hit 2 HR over a season?  Is the second guy twice as good (or, in that last case, are they both equally bad)?

One thing DK said I'd agree with completely - trust your own eyes to tell you how good a defender is.  Those total fielding numbers are somewhat useful, and the basis stats like fielding percentage are useful, but the the real answer is somewhere in the middle.  And someone earlier in the thread, I'm sorry I don't remember who, said the Pirates did their own evaluation on the topic and came up with what looks like the right decision.  You can't rely too much on any set of numbers - that's why people like NH get paid the big bucks, to make the evaluations a computer can't.

I would point out regarding the zero errors this year that there was a game in the last homestand where a ball was hit over Nate's head, and he went back on it, got in position, but had the ball hit his glove and pop out.  Looked like an error to me but was scored a double.  So even raw numbers are subjective sometimes.

FinerKiner - please tell me that based on your suggestion that Mcutchen play a corner spot next year that you have another CF in the pirates system in mind to roam center?!  You're not joining DuffyNation are you??

Dejan, an interesting link you may want to check out from the Boston paper about what people thinking when they are traded to the Pittsburgh Pirates from Sean Casey.

www.boston.com/.../bay_having_a_field_day

How many guys really feel this way when they get to PBC-land.

Mattenat-

Im not saying I agree with the numbers thing... I hate stats, I think they tell half-truths... For example, how do Dirty Doug's stats compare to other bench guys around the league? Who cares, Id take DD over any of them...

I was only pointing out that earlier the numbers were -14.6 for nate and -1.4 for Taveras. If you divide 14.6 by 1.4, you get... well you get the idea... someone said taveras defense is "9 times better" than McLouth's. I most certainly do not agree with that, but that is probably where the "9 times better" came from....

Mattenat - no doubt fielding stats have evolved.  I imagine over the next few years they will improve.  Of course, generally, there is more to the game than raw data. and certainly I would question any data that has McClouth 20 runs worse than Jody Gerut at this point.  Some of the metrics being used are flawed and I think we can all agree on that.  Do they have some merit?  Yes.  However, the difference in runs between McClouth and the next player with at least 700 innings is so significant that it should be obvious.  Basically, every 8 games we should be noticing McCluoth cost the Pirates a run in comparison with the other centerfielders he plays against.  As an astute observer, I have not seen it.

@maddamma You make a very good point by breaking that down to a run every so many games.  I don't get to watch as many Buccos games as I'd like 'cause I don't currently live in the television area, so I can't make these claims as an astute observer, only as someone looking at the stats.  It is interesting to think about whether you'd expect to be able to notice a run every 8 games.  I tend to think you would, also ... but maybe not.  These runs aren't because he's dropping or bobbling balls.  Maybe it really isn't as obvious as we'd believe.  Because these are hits and not outs into the outfield, it might only be as many as 2 extra hits every 8 games.  I don't think it's terribly unreasonable that one might miss that watching closely.

Going into this season, most people thought McLouth was a 4th outfielder type because he hit like a center fielder and fielded like a corner guy.  The big revelation this year is that he's hit like a corner guy.  I don't think we should be terribly surprised he's still fielding as expected.  I tried to find some stats about where in the outfield he played in the minors as back up, but I couldn't.  My thought was to show if he hadn't been playing a lot of center in the minors, the expectation was never that he would project to a center fielder in the majors (anyone have those stats?).  We all remember that he played about as many games in the corners (if not more) as he has at center over the past few seasons, though.

Regarding the article/link at Boston.com: >>The Dodgers are getting ready to market Manny caps complete with dreadlocks.<<

We have truly come to the end of the world.

In the same article: >>The Dodgers sold more than $125,000 worth of Manny jerseys before hitting the road. These are the same people who previously knew No. 99 only as Barbara Feldon or Anne Hathaway.<<

How quickly LA forgets that Wayne Gretzky played there for a few years.

@mattenat:  I think you are right on in the logic of your argument.  It is somewhat comical to listen to people on this site defend McLouth like he is their son and to totally disparage the writer as "some guy who has never seen him play."  Errors is a relatively useless statistic which any smart baseball fan will tell you.  And, you've provided good links to help educate people who don't understand the metrics.  People suggesting they don't take all those different factors are just wrong.  Can't argue with people who want to put their head in the sand.

As for Dejan say trust your eyes.  Well, that's has been an argument that scouts have used forever.  One's eyes shouldn't be discounted, but that doesn't mean you should augment that with other types of analysis.  As you said, McLouth may do all the things Dejan mentioned very well, but that doesn't overcome his limited range.  It doesn't make him a bad player, but let's not discount someone else's view because it doesn't coincide what we think.  And, yes, his offense has more than made up than whatever flaws he may have defensively.  He has been a very good player this year.

Mattenat - I've always enjoyed your posts because they really get me thinking.  No doubt that errors or the lack thereof are irrelevant.  With today's official scorers, one need only stand still to avoid an error.  There have been very few times that I thought McClouth should have gotten to a ball that, say, Chris Duffy would.  I will concede that the subtleties of the game combined with the limitations of two-dimensional TV can mask some of this.  However, situational and positional defense, in my view, has a decided impact that can not yet, and may never be, effectively measured.  It would be interesting, for example, to see what McClouth's numbers might be were the Pirates twenty games better at this juncture where they played the majority of games with a lead, etc.  I agree that McClouth will make a better corner outfielder and it certainly will be interesting to see if the fielding stats will reach the same conclusion.

I'm inclined to agree with dtoddwin about errors by outfielders. I think they represent a very limited statement about an outfielder's performance and, then, usually only in a negative way. If he has a lot, it's bad. If he has none, what does it mean? Typically, an OF is charged with an error only on either a bad throw or a ball he touches and mishandles. If the OF does not touch the ball before it hits the ground/wall, he will almost never be assigned an error by the official scorer.

I read DK's observations and all of the stats talk here with great interest because I live in Virginia and see only a handful of Pirate games each year. I have seen such a small sample size of McClouth's defense, I cannot say whether I think, defensively he's good or just average or below average. What I can say is he must be "good enough" when taken as the whole offensive/defensive package. And that's probably all that really matters until the Bucs have a 3-headed outfield combination that's stronger with someone else in center.

dtoddwin - I would like to think that Mattenat and I (and others) have been having a reasoned, respectful conversation and that no one has been "disparaged".  I also don't believe that the general tone and tenor of the various bloggers has quite reached the level of paternal concern over the centerfielder.  I apologize to anyone if my arguments have been misinterpreted.

@Matt Alexander: Certainly not. All I am saying is McCutchen, at this stage in his career, may not be better in center than McLouth. He's only 21 and has plenty of time to learn. I have seen him a few times In Indy and at Toledo and there are times it looks like he has trouble tracking the ball.

@ mad......It has been, generally, and that part wasn't directed at you.  It was more some of the vitriol directed at the guy who published the article that DK linked to.  Nobody likes to see their own criticized.  And Pirate fans have taken to Nate like few players in the last 15 years (Freddy two years ago, etc.).

Another thing to note about the statistics in the article is that players who are generally considered very good fielders grade very well, while those that aren't generally don't.  Maybe Nate is an outlier.  But based on one full season of data I'm not sure that there is quite enough to make an accurate assessment.  I would just mention that it seems foolish to discount the data because we don't believe it for Nate even though it matches up with what we "believe" for most other players.

@dtoddwin - thanks for the clarification. Glad I didn't offend.  Yea, I'll never understand people angry about the evidence.  I question its process, but certainly not the motives of its producer.  In the end, it is what it is.  I'm sure McClouth doesn't care and we can be certain that a poll of GM's about centerfielders wouldn't place him on the bottom.  To couple with people's affection for McClouth (an easy player to like, for sure), is the Pirates fan's general inferioirity complex as a result of all this losing.  When there is such a player to root for, these determinations and rankings can be perceived as a slight, I suppose.