Case in point was Jim Edmunds. That guy was the best terrible OFer ever. Dude won Gold Gloves by getting bad jumps and taking bad routes to the ball only to make up for it with incredible jumps and dives and slides to catch the ball.

 

I do think Adeiny gets a bad rap, though. I think he's a lot better than the metrics indicate. Back to the point that I believe he had the best range in MLB to his right and the worst to his left... poor positioning. He's not as bad as those numbers suggest.

 

The Gold Glove has been insignificant for a long time. It became an absolute joke in 1999 with Palmeiro's 28-game Gold Glove.

UZR also says Adeiny has below average range and I think most of us know that's not the case.

 

I guess I'm with Perry Hill when it comes to defense. I use the good ole stats like errors and fielding percentage, as well as my eyes, to gauge a defenders ability. Defensive metrics are all flawed.

 

Range is affected by positioning, but this doesn't always mean that poor range is a positioning issue. There was a rather persuasive piece not too long ago explaining why Hechavarria's UZR was so low last year.

 

As for using simplistic stats and your eyes, that's one of the many reasons why your opinions are viewed by many as lacking validity.

I do think Adeiny gets a bad rap, though. I think he's a lot better than the metrics indicate. Back to the point that I believe he had the best range in MLB to his right and the worst to his left... poor positioning. He's not as bad as those numbers suggest.

 

This statement is contradictory. It is in fact the numbers that explain why he was good to his right but bad to his left. In other words, the stats are basically doing their job.

Range is affected by positioning, but this doesn't always mean that poor range is a positioning issue. There was a rather persuasive piece not too long ago explaining why Hechavarria's UZR was so low last year.

 

As for using simplistic stats and your eyes, that's one of the many reasons why your opinions are viewed by many as lacking validity.

 

I'm sure we can agree Hech's UZR was likely a fluke last season and should improve significantly. He's just not that bad.

 

As for simple stats and the eye test, the people that run this organization seem to use the same tools for evaluation. I'd say they're more qualified than you and I.

 

The difference between you and I? You believe what statistics tell you, almost exclusively, and let them form an opinion for you. I have the balls to use my knowledge of this game to form my own opinion. You should try it sometime.

The UZR was not a fluke. There was a reason for it's number, so it will only improve if the proper adjustments are made.

 

The Marlins FO isn't exactly a very flattering endorsement if you are trying to lobby for the "eye test" of defensive evaluation. Many people here, including myself, feel that the Marlins have backwards philosophy when it comes to multiple aspects of the game. This is the organization that views Adeiny Hechavarria as a "perennial all-star." I would argue that by citing the FO's tools for evaluation, you are actually arguing against your own point. You also can't pretend that they are more qualified in their reasoning than other teams that are more receptive to statistical analysis.

 

In short, you are basically regurgitating the same old anti-stat talking points. Your reliance on your skewed "knowledge of the game" is precisely why you are on the receiving end of so much ridicule on this board (by people other than myself too).

Also, there was that story from a couple of months back where the Marlins were actually going to consult a sabermetrics person at the winter meetings on why Hechavarria's WAR was so bad. They basically needed someone to explain to them why their "perennial all-star" was one of the worst players in MLB in 2013.

 

This isn't really a sign of their receptiveness to stats, but it indicates how far back into the stone age they live.

Also, there was that story from a couple of months back where the Marlins were actually going to consult a sabermetrics person at the winter meetings on why Hechavarria's WAR was so bad. They basically needed someone to explain to them why their "perennial all-star" was one of the worst players in MLB in 2013.

 

This isn't really a sign of their receptiveness to stats, but it indicates how far back into the stone age they live.

 

Man I forgot about that consultation thing about Hech's metrics. I'd absolutely pay money to know exactly how that meeting went.

Man I forgot about that consultation thing about Hech's metrics. I'd absolutely pay money to know exactly how that meeting went.

"Hey, so explain to us why the numbers are wrong on our SS."

 

"The numbers aren't wrong. Adeiny Hechavarria was the worst player in baseball in 2013."

 

"But he's a perennial All-Star. The numbers are wrong. See? Another case where the eye test reigns supreme. Adeiny Hechavarria, 2014 National League MVP."

 

"Okay, Mr. Loria. I'm gonna go..."

"Hey, so explain to us why the numbers are wrong on our SS."

 

"The numbers aren't wrong. Adeiny Hechavarria was the worst player in baseball in 2013."

 

"But he's a perennial All-Star. The numbers are wrong. See? Another case where the eye test reigns supreme. Adeiny Hechavarria, 2014 National League MVP."

 

"Okay, Mr. Loria. I'm gonna go..."

 

Adeiny Meh-chevarria.

I still don't get why he isn't best suited for second base. Because he's not spanish? He was a SS at Georgia Tech and played just fine there last year. It's like the same myth that Dan Uggla was some terrible second baseman. He should be just fine there long term as long as he picks up the average and patience, which is quite possible.

 

That was a myth?

In regards to defensive #'s, I'm not sold that Hechavarria is a bad defensive SS. He has the tools to grade out well and a one-year sample defensively isn't enough to know the answer for sure. (for what it's worth, he'd have to become great defensively for me to like him because he's probably the worst offensive player in baseball)

 

The Dan Uggla comment is laughable though. There is a long history there showing that he's absolutely terrible. Dietrich is probably not going to be good at 2B either. And the reason why we lived with Dan Uggla for so long at 2B was because he was one of the elite offensive players at the position. As you saw last year, when he wasn't hitting, he was benched in the playoffs because hitting is all he can do. Uggla is terrible, defensively.

Did someone say mentor?

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQrR8OjnVdYGiYMcjNi1bpIa4XW5qCJTS6sVIewP2RqR81mOss16A

 

yeah don't we get enough "professional" at bats from Dobbs. Furcal retire already

The UZR was not a fluke. There was a reason for it's number, so it will only improve if the proper adjustments are made.

 

The Marlins FO isn't exactly a very flattering endorsement if you are trying to lobby for the "eye test" of defensive evaluation. Many people here, including myself, feel that the Marlins have backwards philosophy when it comes to multiple aspects of the game. This is the organization that views Adeiny Hechavarria as a "perennial all-star." I would argue that by citing the FO's tools for evaluation, you are actually arguing against your own point. You also can't pretend that they are more qualified in their reasoning than other teams that are more receptive to statistical analysis.

 

In short, you are basically regurgitating the same old anti-stat talking points. Your reliance on your skewed "knowledge of the game" is precisely why you are on the receiving end of so much ridicule on this board (by people other than myself too).

 

True dat, my fine feathered friend. Some "knowledge of the game" Wild Card is displaying. First of all, it's Jim Edmonds, not Jim Edmunds. Second, Edmonds is a "terrible fielder?" How many "terrible fielders" in MLB history have won 8 Gold Gloves in 9 years? Third, how do you possibly compare a young Hanley Ramirez, once one of the top prospects in baseball, to Derek Bleeping Dietrich? Unbelievable.

True dat, my fine feathered friend. Some "knowledge of the game" Wild Card is displaying. First of all, it's Jim Edmonds, not Jim Edmunds. Second, Edmonds is a "terrible fielder?" How many "terrible fielders" in MLB history have won 8 Gold Gloves in 9 years? Third, how do you possibly compare a young Hanley Ramirez, once one of the top prospects in baseball, to Derek Bleeping Dietrich? Unbelievable.

 

Joe Frisaro just compared Dietrich to LeBron James, lol.

 

Jim Edmonds was the Derek Jeter of CF. I thought everyone knew that?

Frisaro compared them because of the face mask and Cleveland. You can't seriously think it was more than that.

Frisaro compared them because of the face mask and Cleveland. You can't seriously think it was more than that.

I was clearly joking. I even said lol just to make sure someone didn't say something like this.

You've got a justification for everything, don't you?

You've got a justification for everything, don't you?

If you say so. It was obviously a joke.

With you, it's pretty hard to tell. You compared him seriously to Hanley, so it wouldn't have surprised me if you were serious.

With you, it's pretty hard to tell. You compared him seriously to Hanley, so it wouldn't have surprised me if you were serious.

 

I used Hanley as an example, I did not compare them. Very, very big difference. You guys are ridiculous sometimes.

Pot calling the kettle black.

Pot calling the kettle black.

I don't suppose you meant it this way, but it looks like you're suggesting that there is really not much difference between him and everyone else here, which does have some truth to it!

He'll likely start the year on the DL