Blue Jays Discussion: Off-Season Madness the 13th: Report - Dickey extended, trade just pending physicals

[cyris]

guessing the prospect will be a catcher such as camden maron or a ss/2b prospect above a ball

Not including TDA our number 2 and 3 positions prospects are catchers. I don't think we will be adding another one.

 

[TieClark]

I really don't get the righty/lefty thing in the rotation, honestly. It's not like a single game batting line up, there's no real issue with having the same hand pitching on consecutive days that I can see.

It forces the other team to change it up. Consecutive days is inevitable with 5 starters but when you have 2/3 split you don't roll them out in that order and allow other teams to capitalize

 

[weems]

He says the Jays aren't the favs to win the AL East because "pitching isn't everything".

Sid brings us the batting lineup, he says's its not perfect

Bob is great at what he does.

Says contraversial things to stir people up and start debate.

 

[Leafsdude7]

He says the Jays aren't the favs to win the AL East because "pitching isn't everything".

Sid brings us the batting lineup, he says's its not perfect

Which is even funnier when you look at all the other teams in the league, let alone the AL East, and there's barely any that you'd say is better by leaps and bounds than ours.

 

[Stats01]

You would have to think this team will at the very least get the 2nd WC spot. It would be a travesty if they missed the playoffs. Just have to stay healthy.

 

[Bad News Benning]

He says the Jays aren't the favs to win the AL East because "pitching isn't everything".

Sid brings us the batting lineup, he says's its not perfect

pitching is everything. giants are a perfect example. they have won championships with a n offense built mostly from cast offs and scrubs.

 

[Leafsdude7]

It forces the other team to change it up. Consecutive days is inevitable with 5 starters but when you have 2/3 split you don't roll them out in that order and allow other teams to capitalize

Meh. I think "change it up" is not something that's good or bad for the batting line up. I don't think there's any inherent advantage in forcing it.

 

[Eyedea]

Didn't even realize this, but we apparently have the two best defensive pitchers in the league with Romero and Buehrle.

Yes Romero, according to the fielding bible, was the best pitcher defensively (saving six runs) last year in the American league. I guess it had to do with how many runners he actually had on base, and how he was able to (slightly) stop them from scoring.

Also RAD was in the mix with Buehrle, so we have 3 of the better pitchers in the league that save runs.

 

[91Kadri91*]

Not at 1B:

Lind: 181GP, 1541.2 Inn, 9 Err, .995 F%, 9.27 RF
EE: 95 GP, 782.1 Inn, 7 Err, 991 F%, 9.71 RF

Edge to Lind, for sure, but their fielding percentage isn't that much different.

For future reference, fielding percentage is an awful statistic. It's based on errors which, along with pitchers wins, is worst "stat" in baseball.

UZR is the best indicator of a player's defensive value, but it's only accurate if it has defensive value from multiple seasons. In other words, you can't just look at one season and say, so and so is better than so and so defensively because they had a great UZR in 2012. It just doesn't work like that. In the case of both Lind and Edwin, there is multiple seasons where UZR gave them a rating; Edwin's career rating at 1st being -7.6, and Lind's being -0.6

Ideally you'd like to have more innings from both player's to definitively say either way, but based on what we know, it certainly appears that Lind is/has been the superior fielder at first base.

 

[Eyedea]

pitching is everything. giants are a perfect example. they have won championships with a n offense built mostly from cast offs and scrubs.

In their defence, Scutaro was freaking awesome this postseason.

But yeah they're all about the pitching.

 

[The Nemesis]

Not at 1B:

Lind: 181GP, 1541.2 Inn, 9 Err, .995 F%, 9.27 RF
EE: 95 GP, 782.1 Inn, 7 Err, 991 F%, 9.71 RF

Edge to Lind, for sure, but their fielding percentage isn't that much different.

Apologies, since you're just the unfortunate soul that has to be the last person in line that sets me off. This is not meant to be specific to you or an insult. But I digress


For the love of god people, STOP USING FIELDING PERCENTAGE! It's a terrible, horrible, unforgivably flawed stat because it's build on the king of terrible, horrible, unforgivably flawed stats - Errors. Errors are basically a worthless stat, and as such anything built on them are equally worthles, most of all fielding percentage.

Okay. I feel better now.

 

[topched]

For future reference, fielding percentage is an awful statistic. It's based on errors which, along with pitchers wins, is worst "stat" in baseball.

UZR is the best indicator of a player's defensive value, but it's only accurate if it has defensive value from multiple seasons. In other words, you can't just look at one season and say, so and so is better than so and so defensively because they had a great UZR in 2012. It just doesn't work like that. In the case of both Lind and Edwin, there is multiple seasons where UZR gave them a rating; Edwin's career rating at 1st being -7.6, and Lind's being -0.6

Ideally you'd like to have more innings from both player's to definitively say either way, but based on what we know, it certainly appears that Lind is/has been the superior fielder at first base.

Can anyone answer if UZR factors in balls not hit at you? Ie. Scoops at 1st, saved throws etc.?

 

[Eyedea]

Perfect example: Brett Lawrie and Mike Moustakas had 17 and 15 errors respectively, and they were regarded as two of the better defensive 3rd basemen in the league, by eyesight and by defensive metrics like UZR and range.

 

[91Kadri91*]

These.

Combined with the fact that this was the first time Edwin actually played firstbase at more than an "emergency/last resort" level, and that Lind can't stay healthy while playing 1b... and I'll take EE every day.

Not that I want to get into advanced fielding too much etc. but with regards to UZR... does it factor in plays where the ball was not hit to you... ie) a scoop at first?

Any argument that uses fielding percentage as its main argument is not much of an argument.

Also, here's an article/whatever you want to call it to better your understanding of UZR. There's a lot that goes into it, and it would take me a lot longer to explain it (which I would probably do a piss poor job of).

Below is a (very long) quote of said article:

How does UZR determine how much credit, positive or negative, to award a fielder on each batted ball? First it goes through 6 years of batted ball data and determines how often each type and location of batted ball is fielded by each defensive position, making adjustments for the speed of the ball, and the handedness, speed, and power of the batter. Later on, further adjustments are made, such as the outs and base runners, and various park adjustments, like the size and configuration of the OF, the speed of the infield, and the speed of batted balls in general, as influenced by temperature, altitude, and the ground ball percentage of the pitcher (e.g. ground ball pitchers allow easier to field ground balls and harder to field air balls). For example, UZR might find that from 2004-2009, of all hard-hit line drives hit by a LH batter with above-average power to a certain location in an average OF, 15% are fielded by the CF’er, 10% by the LF, and 75% fall for a hit. Remember, those would be average numbers across all MLB parks.

Now, let’s say that we want to compute a UZR for every player in 2009. For every batted ball, either it is caught by a fielder and turned into an out (either the batter or a base runner is out, or both of course), it is scored as a hit, or the batter reaches on an error or a fielder’s choice (and no out is made). One or more fielders will receive positive or negative credit depending on the outcome of the play and depending on how often that same batted ball in that same situation (outs, base runners, attributes of the batter, etc.) was successfully fielded by each fielder from 2004-2009.

Let’s say that that same batted ball in the example above was caught by the CF’er on the first play of a game. Since typically someone will catch that same ball only 25% of the time (see above), this particular CF’er will get credit for an extra .75 plays – 100% minus 25%. We then convert .75 plays into runs by multiplying .75 by the difference between an average hit in that location and the average value of an air ball out. A typical outfield hit is worth around .56 runs and any batted ball out is worth around -.27 runs, so the difference between a hit and an out is worth around .83 runs. (We don’t vary the value of the hit or out based on the outs or base runners because we want “game situation-neutral†defensive evaluations.) Since our fielder gets credit for .75 extra plays, we give him credit for .75 times .83 runs, or +.6255 runs for that play.

The LF’er, even though he typically catches that same ball 10% of the time, gets no demerits for not making the play. In UZR, when a ball is caught and turned into an out by one fielder, no other fielder gets docked any runs. This helps to minimize the effects of “ball-hogging.†If we didn’t do this, for example, on teams where the CF’er liked to take charge of just about every lazy fly ball hit into the gaps, the LF’er and RF’er would end up being penalized for balls that they could have easily fielded. Of course, with this method, a ball hogger will get slightly more credit than he deserves, but as long as his ball-hogging is done on easy fly balls, he isn’t going to get much credit anyway. For example, if a certain type of ball and location is caught 90% of the time, whoever catches it is only going to receive .1 (1 minus .9) times .83, or .083 runs in credit.

Notice that our CF’er did not get credit for 100% minus 15%, where the 15% is the percentage of time a typical CF’er catches the ball. Why is this? Because the total credit for catching that ball has to be 100% minus how often it is typically caught by anyone (25% in this case), and since no one else but the CF’er will (or should) receive credit, he has to get all of the total credit on that play, which is .75 extra balls. You may also notice that there is a slight flaw in that methodology. Let’s say that the LF’er normally catches 80% of those balls and the CF’er 10%. If the CF’er does catch that ball, he is only going to get credit for .1 plays even though it appears that it was a difficult catch for him (since he only catches similar balls in similar situations 10% of the time). But, if we give him more credit than .1 extra balls, we would have to take something away from the LF’er who normally fields that ball 80% of the time. We could do something like that, but we choose not to. As I mentioned before, if we dock one or more fielders when another fielder makes a play, we run into ball hogging problems. All of these problems arise, of course, because we don’t know precisely where a ball is hit, we don’t know exactly how long the ball was airborne or on the ground before it lands, is touched, or passes a fielder, and we don’t know exactly where the fielders were positioned when the ball was hit. Many decisions we have to make regarding the UZR methodology involve a trade-off. Given the limitations of the data, while the outcome is quite reliable, especially with large amounts of data (say, several years for a player), it is not perfect.

If that same ball were to drop for a hit, now our CF’er and our LF’er would both be penalized. First we figure the total cost of the hit. Since this particular batted ball is typically fielded by someone 25% of the time, the cost of the hit is .25 plays. Now, how do we apportion that .25? Since the LF’er catches 10% of these balls and the CF’er 15%, the LF’er is responsible for 40% (10/25) of the hits and the CF’er, 60% (15/25). So, the LF’er gets docked .4 (40%) times .25, or .1 plays, and the CF’er, .6 times .25, or .15, a total of .25 plays. Again, the run value of a play is the difference between an out and a typical hit in that area of the field, or around .83 runs. So when that ball drops for a hit, the LF’er gets docked .83 times .1, or .083 runs, and the CF’er gets nicked by .83 times .15, or .123 runs. Makes sense, right? If the CF’er catches a certain ball more often than another fielder or fielders, and the ball falls for a hit, he should bear the majority or plurality of the “blame.â€

On any given batted ball, it is possible for 2, 3 or even 4 fielders to receive negative credit when a ball drops for a hit. As long as a position even occasionally catches a ball in that “bucket†(a “bucket†is a certain type of ball hit to a certain location at a certain speed with a certain kind of batter at the plate, etc.), a player at that position will get docked some fraction of a run when that ball falls for a hit. By the way, when figuring the value of a play, or the difference between a hit and an out for a certain type of batted ball in a certain location, we always use the average hit value for that kind of ball over our 6-year time span and across all parks. We don’t use the actual hit value on that play (e.g. a double) if the batted ball lands for a hit, and we don’t use the average hit value for that park. Again, we are trying to evaluate defense in as much of a context-neutral environment as possible.

Anyway, UZR goes through each batted ball for every game and does the same calculations as above, awarding one or more fielders plus or minus credit depending on what type of ball was hit, it’s location, and the estimated position of the fielders, as determined by things like the handedness, speed, and power of the batters, and the outs and base runners. In addition, adjustments are made for the characteristics and configuration of the ballpark, and for the G/F tendencies of the pitcher.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-fangraphs-uzr-primer/#2

 

[shakes]

What we are missing out of all of this is that John Farrell should suck it.

 

[topched]

Any argument that uses fielding percentage as its main argument is not much of an argument.

Also, here's an article/whatever you want to call it to better your understanding of UZR. There's a lot that goes into it, and it would take me a lot longer to explain it (which I would probably do a piss poor job of).

Below is a (very long) quote of said article:



http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-fangraphs-uzr-primer/#2

Still doesn't answer my question about balls that are not batted at the fielder.

For example, Lawrie fields the ball and bounces one to 1st. EE/Lind makes a tough scoop that only 25% of 1b would make... is this factored in at all?

 

[Jozay]

Ha, I forgot about Farrell, and I liked it that way :|

Anyways,a rotation of:
JJ
Dickey
Morrow
Romero
Buerhle

I think thats the best because you have JJ who throw relatively hard and then you have Dickey who is a knuclkeballer and then your throw the hard throwing Morrow out there. Teams would be screwed!

 

[Stats01]

What we are missing out of all of this is that John Farrell should suck it.

LOL! Someone should try to bring in a sign into the RC that says that, but I doubt security will allow that.

Or how about this "Hey Farrell how do you like that Dickey."

 

[Sokil]

Apologies, since you're just the unfortunate soul that has to be the last person in line that sets me off. This is not meant to be specific to you or an insult. But I digress


For the love of god people, STOP USING FIELDING PERCENTAGE! It's a terrible, horrible, unforgivably flawed stat because it's build on the king of terrible, horrible, unforgivably flawed stats - Errors. Errors are basically a worthless stat, and as such anything built on them are equally worthles, most of all fielding percentage.

Okay. I feel better now.

Oh come on, you're some 'error snob' now?

 

[Bomber0104]

Ha, I forgot about Farrell, and I liked it that way :|

Anyways,a rotation of:
JJ
Dickey
Morrow
Romero
Buerhle

I think thats the best because you have JJ who throw relatively hard and then you have Dickey who is a knuclkeballer and then your throw the hard throwing Morrow out there. Teams would be screwed!

Three righties in a row and then two lefties?

JJ
Buerhle
Dickey
Morrow
Romero

 

[Dwight K Schrute]

can everyone here please agree to bring a 'how do you like them apples' sign to the first game of that series?

 

[Sokil]

can everyone here please agree to bring a 'how do you like them apples' sign to the first game of that series?

or "this is my dream job" signs

 

[Canada4Gold]

Three righties in a row and then two lefties?

JJ
Buerhle
Dickey
Morrow
Romero

I think the transition from power to knuckler to power is tougher to handle than the transition from rightie to leftie to rightie

 

[weems]

Rasmus needs to step up this season. Not a huge fan but the guy does have lots of talent.

 

[91Kadri91*]

Still doesn't answer my question about balls that are not batted at the fielder.

For example, Lawrie fields the ball and bounces one to 1st. EE/Lind makes a tough scoop that only 25% of 1b would make... is this factored in at all?

Technically, yes. Read this excerpt from the article:

Now, let’s say that we want to compute a UZR for every player in 2009. For every batted ball, either it is caught by a fielder and turned into an out (either the batter or a base runner is out, or both of course), it is scored as a hit, or the batter reaches on an error or a fielder’s choice (and no out is made). One or more fielders will receive positive or negative credit depending on the outcome of the play and depending on how often that same batted ball in that same situation (outs, base runners, attributes of the batter, etc.) was successfully fielded by each fielder from 2004-2009.

Basically, if Lawrie throws a one-hop to Edwin, with (hypothetically) Desmond Jennings running to first, and Edwin is able to scoop it up for the out, he will receive a positive UZR credit for the play (along with Lawrie), with the amount dependent on how often/likely that play is to happen over "blank" number of years.