I'm confused:

 

Coghlan had 5 errors in 1039.1 innings

McCutchen had 2 errors in 952.2 innings.

 

So what is this whole talk about Coghlan's defense being horrible ?? What numbers are people basing this on? Yeah Coghlan committed a few more errors, but does that suffice him losing the ROY to a guy who's offensive numbers don't compare.

I'm confused:

 

Coghlan had 5 errors in 1039.1 innings

McCutchen had 2 errors in 952.2 innings.

 

So what is this whole talk about Coghlan's defense being horrible ?? What numbers are people basing this on? Yeah Coghlan committed a few more errors, but does that suffice him losing the ROY to a guy who's offensive numbers don't compare.

 

 

 

Errors FTW

http://blogs.sun-sen...hris-coghlan-in

 

 

 

Florida Marlins: BBA unkind to Chris Coghlan in NL ROY vote

> Posted by Juan C. Rodriguez on October 19, 2009 09:36 PM

That's BBA as in Baseball Bloggers Alliance. The BBA is mimicking the Baseball Writers Association awards, casting ballots for the Manager, Rookie, Cy Young and MVP honors in both leagues. Looks like they've gotten through the managers and rookies and are currently taking the Cy Young tally.

 

I was a little surprised to see Chris Coghlan didn't get a ton of love in the NL ROY debate. The BBA's winner: Pirates OF Andrew McCutchen. Not only did Coghlan not win, he didn't make the podium! Placing and showing in the vote were Braves right-hander Tommy Hanson and Phillies lefty J.A. Happ.

 

Michael Jong at the Marlins Maniac blog is a member of the BBA and has been casting his ballots. I've linked to Michael's work here in the past and he does a great job putting a Sabermetric spin on what's happening with the Fish. Oddly enough though, Michael altogether left Coghlan off his NL ROY ballot. Michael's top three: McCutchen, Cubs right-hander Randy Wells and Hanson.

 

In his explanation, Michael penalizes Coghlan for his poor outfield play. My point to Michael was if you're going to condemn Coghlan for well below average defense at a position he'd never played, you also should celebrate him for excelling at a spot in the batting order that was foreign to him.

 

I like McCutchen and he certainly is in the NL ROY conversation, but the historic nature of Coghlan's offensive season in my estimation makes his defensive shortcomings forgivable.

 

Well they have lost all credibility with me, that's for sure

 

 

 

 

 

 

Man, some of you are real homers about this. You might not agree with his opinion, but to say he loses all credibility is really ignorant. The guy stated why Coghlan isn't in his top 3, and the reason (defense) is legit. The top 3 mentioned also had very good years.

 

Reminds of those thare so smart they are actually dumb...Can't see the forest for the trees. What bugs me the most is that Coghlan has had one of the most incredible rookie season in the history of the game, clearly recognized by the upper tier experts of the game and the stats geeks minimize it with meaningless fringe stats that have had insurmountable controversy in addition to a very minimal level of validity. Can anyone in their right mind actually say that McCutchen had a more outstanding rookie season than Coghlan? McCutchen had a very good rookie campaign, Coghlan had an extraordinary one. Stat geeks it's time to put away your pocket protectors and flow charts your reasoning does not hold water here, at least not this time. It's almost like trying to quantify who is the better between The Beatles or the garage Band that plays on Saturday nights. If that makes me a homer so be it...By the way those 3 had very good year but thats the problem...Coghlan had an amazing year! No matter if you are a Marlins fan or a fan of the game what Coghlan had done had not been seen in a lifetime. McCutchen...Happ...Hanson not so much!

 

It doesn't make you a homer, but it makes you a jerk for name-calling unprompted. And UZR is not a meaningless fringe stat. Not even close. Not perfect, but far from a meaningless fringe stat.

Can't handle stats geek...how about numbers nerd or data dweeb? I know...DIGITS DORK!

http://blogs.sun-sen...hris-coghlan-in

 

 

 

Florida Marlins: BBA unkind to Chris Coghlan in NL ROY vote

> Posted by Juan C. Rodriguez on October 19, 2009 09:36 PM

That's BBA as in Baseball Bloggers Alliance. The BBA is mimicking the Baseball Writers Association awards, casting ballots for the Manager, Rookie, Cy Young and MVP honors in both leagues. Looks like they've gotten through the managers and rookies and are currently taking the Cy Young tally.

 

I was a little surprised to see Chris Coghlan didn't get a ton of love in the NL ROY debate. The BBA's winner: Pirates OF Andrew McCutchen. Not only did Coghlan not win, he didn't make the podium! Placing and showing in the vote were Braves right-hander Tommy Hanson and Phillies lefty J.A. Happ.

 

Michael Jong at the Marlins Maniac blog is a member of the BBA and has been casting his ballots. I've linked to Michael's work here in the past and he does a great job putting a Sabermetric spin on what's happening with the Fish. Oddly enough though, Michael altogether left Coghlan off his NL ROY ballot. Michael's top three: McCutchen, Cubs right-hander Randy Wells and Hanson.

 

In his explanation, Michael penalizes Coghlan for his poor outfield play. My point to Michael was if you're going to condemn Coghlan for well below average defense at a position he'd never played, you also should celebrate him for excelling at a spot in the batting order that was foreign to him.

 

I like McCutchen and he certainly is in the NL ROY conversation, but the historic nature of Coghlan's offensive season in my estimation makes his defensive shortcomings forgivable.

 

Well they have lost all credibility with me, that's for sure

 

 

 

 

 

 

Man, some of you are real homers about this. You might not agree with his opinion, but to say he loses all credibility is really ignorant. The guy stated why Coghlan isn't in his top 3, and the reason (defense) is legit. The top 3 mentioned also had very good years.

 

Reminds of those thare so smart they are actually dumb...Can't see the forest for the trees. What bugs me the most is that Coghlan has had one of the most incredible rookie season in the history of the game, clearly recognized by the upper tier experts of the game and the stats geeks minimize it with meaningless fringe stats that have had insurmountable controversy in addition to a very minimal level of validity. Can anyone in their right mind actually say that McCutchen had a more outstanding rookie season than Coghlan? McCutchen had a very good rookie campaign, Coghlan had an extraordinary one. Stat geeks it's time to put away your pocket protectors and flow charts your reasoning does not hold water here, at least not this time. It's almost like trying to quantify who is the better between The Beatles or the garage Band that plays on Saturday nights. If that makes me a homer so be it...By the way those 3 had very good year but thats the problem...Coghlan had an amazing year! No matter if you are a Marlins fan or a fan of the game what Coghlan had done had not been seen in a lifetime. McCutchen...Happ...Hanson not so much!

 

It doesn't make you a homer, but it makes you a jerk for name-calling unprompted. And UZR is not a meaningless fringe stat. Not even close. Not perfect, but far from a meaningless fringe stat.

Can't handle stats geek...how about numbers nerd or data dweeb? I know...DIGITS DORK!

 

 

Can't handle stats=facts, when the overall statistics don't favor your favoritest player? I know...visit iranignoranthomer.com. A place where only your opinion matters, and those who disagree are considered less credible, even though they are presenting numbers to support your opinion, unlike you!

Awards aren't given out strictly on account of hard stats. If they were, there would be no need for a voting process because some pre-determined formula could just as easily be agreed upon and then issue awards contingent upon this. Thankfully awards aren't issued this way as sometimes other factors need to be considered. This isn't to say that players should be awarded upon "chemistry" or "heart" but I believe the case of a player (Coghlan) being given the opportunity to have his rookie year in 2009 (instead of 2010) entirely because a hole opened in the lineup unexpectedly for an unnatural position should be such a consideration. Many rookies get the call in this fashion. The Marlins were juggling Miguel Cabrera between third base and outfield for the 2003 season. If the teams (the Marlins) are willing to sacrifice defense (in the case of Cabrera or Coghlan) for drastically improved offense, why should defense be receiving so much weight in awards consideration? In other words, in the case of Coghlan, the Marlins clearly thought that any offensive upgrade Coghlan brought to the lineup would outweigh any defensive liability. The Marlins were certainly willing to make this trade off, so why shouldn't the voters. I think the statistical argument against Coghlan might be based upon fact but it isn't based upon the reality of the situation.

 

 

It seems that most of the credible baseball writers and analysts (ie not bloggers with no credentials) are willing to view the race under this light.

 

If Coghlan loses the award, it will be to either Happ or Hanson. I would be shocked if Coghlan were to place behind McCutchen in the voting.

 

And for the record, I'm not a "homer." I've been severely criticized for as long as I've been posting here for being a pessimist. Remember that I was one of the view voices here during the last few weeks of the season (dating back to August, I believe) looking at the numbers and proclaiming that the Marlins odds making the playoffs were virtually impossible.

 

This is not my stated opinion because I am a "homer" but because I happen to disagree.

Leaving context out of a player's performance when choosing award winners is f-ing stupid.

 

Coghlin was put in LF and did well considering, that should improve his chances because it is significantly more impressive than just coming up and playing your natural position. Learning a new defensive position should by all rights diminish your offensive performance and Coghlan's offensive performance is better than McCutchen's. OPS+ is crap, and McCutchen didn't even play enough to qualify for batting rankings. And both Coghlan and McCutchen were average amongst the players at thier positions (yes CF is harder to play and yes LF is filled with butchers).

 

I think if you want to make a case for a more deserving player, Happ has a better case than McCutchen.

Can't handle stats=facts...

 

Most stats are not facts, except for the most empirical ones - X hits in Y plate appearances as an example, those based on what actually happened in a game or a season or by a player or a team - but beyond those, once one number in a formula is postulated, stats are supposition and last time I looked supposition and fact are not easily confused.

Sporting News Named JA HAPP their ROY Today...

 

The Sporting News awards are based on the voting by the players.

 

So the bloggers and players chose Happ.

 

I have no doubt the baseball writers will do the wrong thing and go with Coghlan.

The problem is that people actually think that Coghlan did way better than McCutchen offensively. He didn't. Unless if you're taking # of AB's into consideration, and assuming McCutchen would tail off, or something.

 

Btw, gotta love the "OPS+ is crap" comment. I'd love to hear why?

Awards aren't given out strictly on account of hard stats. If they were, there would be no need for a voting process because some pre-determined formula could just as easily be agreed upon and then issue awards contingent upon this. Thankfully awards aren't issued this way as sometimes other factors need to be considered. This isn't to say that players should be awarded upon "chemistry" or "heart" but I believe the case of a player (Coghlan) being given the opportunity to have his rookie year in 2009 (instead of 2010) entirely because a hole opened in the lineup unexpectedly for an unnatural position should be such a consideration. Many rookies get the call in this fashion. The Marlins were juggling Miguel Cabrera between third base and outfield for the 2003 season. If the teams (the Marlins) are willing to sacrifice defense (in the case of Cabrera or Coghlan) for drastically improved offense, why should defense be receiving so much weight in awards consideration? In other words, in the case of Coghlan, the Marlins clearly thought that any offensive upgrade Coghlan brought to the lineup would outweigh any defensive liability. The Marlins were certainly willing to make this trade off, so why shouldn't the voters. I think the statistical argument against Coghlan might be based upon fact but it isn't based upon the reality of the situation.

 

 

It seems that most of the credible baseball writers and analysts (ie not bloggers with no credentials) are willing to view the race under this light.

 

If Coghlan loses the award, it will be to either Happ or Hanson. I would be shocked if Coghlan were to place behind McCutchen in the voting.

 

And for the record, I'm not a "homer." I've been severely criticized for as long as I've been posting here for being a pessimist. Remember that I was one of the view voices here during the last few weeks of the season (dating back to August, I believe) looking at the numbers and proclaiming that the Marlins odds making the playoffs were virtually impossible.

 

This is not my stated opinion because I am a "homer" but because I happen to disagree.

 

 

 

There actually is a decent measurement for which you could use to determine the ROY, MVP, CY Young, etc. It's called WAR, but most people, especially writers, either don't know about it or reject the stat completely. It seems to me that you're basing your opinion of who should win the ROY solely off of what the Marlins thought/needed. Coghlan's offense didn't outweigh his defensive liability, and, if anything, they canceled each other out. It's true that he was the best candidate that was available in the Marlin's system, but that is irrelevant to the point of comparing him with rokkies from different teams.

 

The writers and analysts that you're referring to, which I'm assuming are the likes of Gammons, Olney, Rosenthal, and the others, have a job to provide to the audience what the audience wants to hear, not to provide in-depth statistical evidence as to why Coghlan shouldn't win the ROY, which 99% of Baseball Tonight viewers would simply tune out. If you're going to use someone's opinion on something, at least make it someone like Bill James, Tom Tango, Nate Silver, etc.

 

Notice that I have never said at any time that Coghlan wouldn't win the MVP, but he shouldn't. If everyone was deserving of the award they received, Nate McLouth and Derek Jeter wouldn't have gold gloves. And until the BWA finally consists of people who aren't ignorant to sabermetrics, it will continue to be like that.

I never said that Coghlan is deserving on account his value to his team but said that considerations need to be made with regard to his defense. As stated, there is no single statistic or metric that can alone decide who is deserving of the award; there are additional factors.

 

I'm not convinced that Coghlan was so bad defensively that he negated his offensive production, which was among the very best on the team.

I still think Coghlan will win the award. Just a gut feeling...

The problem is that people actually think that Coghlan did way better than McCutchen offensively. He didn't. Unless if you're taking # of AB's into consideration, and assuming McCutchen would tail off, or something.

 

Btw, gotta love the "OPS+ is crap" comment. I'd love to hear why?

 

 

Because OPS+ has a ballpark factor that does not account for handedness, nor does it calculate on the components of OPS. Also, by using a simple relation between a team's games at home and on the road it flattens the park effects for hitters on teams that have pitching staffs that are prone to walks and severe problems with opponent power.

The problem is that people actually think that Coghlan did way better than McCutchen offensively. He didn't. Unless if you're taking # of AB's into consideration, and assuming McCutchen would tail off, or something.

 

Btw, gotta love the "OPS+ is crap" comment. I'd love to hear why?

 

 

Because OPS+ has a ballpark factor that does not account for handedness, nor does it calculate on the components of OPS. Also, by using a simple relation between a team's games at home and on the road it flattens the park effects for hitters on teams that have pitching staffs that are prone to walks and severe problems with opponent power.

 

 

Even if you go by the regular .OPS stat, it's not a huge difference.

The only way you can say that Coghlan has a significant edge is because he was slightly better in ~70 more AB's...which that is pretty significant (the difference in AB's).

 

If I was asked who the best position player rookie was, I'd say Coghlan, but that's only because I've never seen defense taken into account for the award. I'm not going to say a person loses credibility, though, for adding defense, especially when one player has a significant edge over another. And I really think it's irrelevant that Coghlan was asked to play a position he was inexperienced at. At the end of the day, that's still the position (LF) that he played, and his value came from that position, not 2B or 3B.

I don't know what the BBWA members will use as their criteria but if you want to see a comparison worth noting between the two players being discussed, compare their gamelogs for August and Sept/Oct. The thing that leaps out at you is the number and frequency of multi-hit games that Coghlan racked up.

 

He's in the running because of one thing -- he's a freakin' hit machine. You can try and reference some stat that's more or less representative just look at the succession of hits the guy put up.

 

The gamelog for each player tells the story. And nothing above takes anything away from McCutchen who had a fabulous year as well. But just to bring a smile your face take three minutes and check out Coghlan's August on gamelog, it's a thing of beauty.

I don't know what the BBWA members will use as their criteria but if you want to see a comparison worth noting between the two players being discussed, compare their gamelogs for August and Sept/Oct. The thing that leaps out at you is the number and frequency of multi-hit games that Coghlan racked up.

 

He's in the running because of one thing -- he's a freakin' hit machine. You can try and reference some stat that's more or less representative just look at the succession of hits the guy put up.

 

The gamelog for each player tells the story. And nothing above takes anything away from McCutchen who had a fabulous year as well. But just to bring a smile your face take three minutes and check out Coghlan's August on gamelog, it's a thing of beauty.

 

 

 

This should also bring a smile to your faces.

 

http://mlb.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=6703855

 

Coghlan talking about his hitting approach and destroying the MLB Network studio.

I don't know what the BBWA members will use as their criteria but if you want to see a comparison worth noting between the two players being discussed, compare their gamelogs for August and Sept/Oct. The thing that leaps out at you is the number and frequency of multi-hit games that Coghlan racked up.

 

He's in the running because of one thing -- he's a freakin' hit machine. You can try and reference some stat that's more or less representative just look at the succession of hits the guy put up.

 

The gamelog for each player tells the story. And nothing above takes anything away from McCutchen who had a fabulous year as well. But just to bring a smile your face take three minutes and check out Coghlan's August on gamelog, it's a thing of beauty.

 

 

 

It's rookie of the year, meaning that what happened prior to those two months is significant, as well.

Yes, but the records he broke in August and September have to be taken into account as well.

I don't know what the BBWA members will use as their criteria but if you want to see a comparison worth noting between the two players being discussed, compare their gamelogs for August and Sept/Oct. The thing that leaps out at you is the number and frequency of multi-hit games that Coghlan racked up.

 

He's in the running because of one thing -- he's a freakin' hit machine. You can try and reference some stat that's more or less representative just look at the succession of hits the guy put up.

 

The gamelog for each player tells the story. And nothing above takes anything away from McCutchen who had a fabulous year as well. But just to bring a smile your face take three minutes and check out Coghlan's August on gamelog, it's a thing of beauty.

 

 

 

What Erick said, and if you really just want to go by hits, then from June 4th (the day McCutchen entered the MLB) until July 31st, McCutchen had 59 hits compared to 47 hits by Coghlan.

 

But of course, number of hits tells the whole story.

It's rookie of the year, meaning that what happened prior to those two months is significant, as well.

 

 

I understand children always have to be right because, well, because children always have to be right. lol

 

That said I never postulated that Coghlan should be or would be picked over McCutchen or anyone else, please show me where I said that or for that matter that the last two+ months of the season are more important than any other period, or the season as a whole, because I don't think that's what I said.

 

If I wanted to make that argument I would have. The words I used didn't appear by accident. I picked them on purpose. As for Coghlan, my point was and is simply that he's "in the running" (my EXACT words) because he put on a show in the last two months+ of the season (that every Marlins fan might enjoy taking a moment after a sometimes frustrating season to enjoy) or as I put it originally, "...to bring a smile your face...it's a thing of beauty".

 

And it was.

 

http://florida.marlins.mlb.com/stats/individual_player_gamebygamelog.jsp?c_id=fla&playerID=458085&statType=1

It's rookie of the year, meaning that what happened prior to those two months is significant, as well.

 

 

FFS! Coghlin's totals are yearly totals, and he had enough of them to qualify for batting leader boards. By your rationale, McCutchen should be ineligible because he contributed nothing(!) in April and May. Not to mention that his only superb month was August.

 

No player will show a good performance for the year if you exclude the parts where he performed well.

It's rookie of the year, meaning that what happened prior to those two months is significant, as well.

 

 

FFS! Coghlin's totals are yearly totals, and he had enough of them to qualify for batting leader boards. By your rationale, McCutchen should be ineligible because he contributed nothing(!) in April and May. Not to mention that his only superb month was August.

 

No player will show a good performance for the year if you exclude the parts where he performed well.

I think the point is that one must consider the entire duration through which Coghlan was playing. I don't remember the exact time period but I think that Coghlan was slumping pretty horribly in July right before he went on his tear. This must be considered as well. In other words, I don't think Coghlan should be given more credit because he had two really incredibly months.

 

Coghlan did post a .390 OBP, which is very impressive for a rookie. He wasn't all hits, unlike Juan Pierre in some years when he hit for high average but low OBP.

It's rookie of the year, meaning that what happened prior to those two months is significant, as well.

 

 

FFS! Coghlin's totals are yearly totals, and he had enough of them to qualify for batting leader boards. By your rationale, McCutchen should be ineligible because he contributed nothing(!) in April and May. Not to mention that his only superb month was August.

 

No player will show a good performance for the year if you exclude the parts where he performed well.

 

 

Tell me, again, where I excluded the last 2 months. I just misunderstood Marlins2003's post. I thought he was excluding every month but August and September, but apparently he wasn't. I'm not excluding anything.

It's rookie of the year, meaning that what happened prior to those two months is significant, as well.

 

 

FFS! Coghlin's totals are yearly totals, and he had enough of them to qualify for batting leader boards. By your rationale, McCutchen should be ineligible because he contributed nothing(!) in April and May. Not to mention that his only superb month was August.

 

No player will show a good performance for the year if you exclude the parts where he performed well.

I think the point is that one must consider the entire duration through which Coghlan was playing. I don't remember the exact time period but I think that Coghlan was slumping pretty horribly in July right before he went on his tear. This must be considered as well. In other words, I don't think Coghlan should be given more credit because he had two really incredibly months.

 

Coghlan did post a .390 OBP, which is very impressive for a rookie. He wasn't all hits, unlike Juan Pierre in some years when he hit for high average but low OBP.

 

He should, because they were record setting months. That has to count for something.

 

 

Can't handle stats=facts, when the overall statistics don't favor your favoritest player? I know...visit iranignoranthomer.com. A place where only your opinion matters, and those who disagree are considered less credible, even though they are presenting numbers to support your opinion, unlike you!

 

 

You wanna know how realistic the formula used to make this determination is? Using that formula McCutchen is a better player than Manny Ramirez, at least this season, although as a hitter his numbers no way compare to Manny who had a .418 OBP and .949 OPS... As much of a bonehead that Ramirez is on defense, no way can he cost his team as many runs as McCutchen saves for his to be able to offset the difference in run production. BTW using that same fuzzy math to rate defense, McCutchen is only rated as an average defender in CF at -0.8. Using that same statistical analysis of defense Cody Ross is almost as bad as Coghlan! In all fairness McCutchen was not even the best rookie on his team Garett Jones outperformed him significantly as a run producer and had a higher avg. In fact taking the pitchers out of the equation at best I would rate McCutchen as the 4th best rookie because McGehee also had a better offensive output. McCutchen's glove was not so great as to leapfrog all these guys and certainly not CC. I can accept that pitching is a more significant part of baseball and if Happ won some awards I don't agree with it but I can understand it. However to say McCutchen had the best rookie performance of 2009 is just plain senseless. The formula used to make that determination is so far off the mark that it is just an utter joke