Olerud363

Your stats are off, or at least don't match with fangraphs defense. Mark Mcquire was 2, Sandy Alomar 4, and Ozzie Guillen 20ish in 1990. And including 1b men in there biases it a bit because they are always lower That being said the system has identified Kelly Gruber and Ellis Burks as guys that might also be over-rated. It identified Ozzie Guillen (and Ripken the next year) as being really good. I think the gold glove voters were idiots for a while. Didn't Pailmero win won at DH?? To do this properly you have to identify a set of "awesome" defenders, guys that won multiple gold gloves, at a premium defensive position and were well regarded by the eye test. Do the stats miss on a lot of them? Or only on Alomar?

My above post is a bit flawed because Fernandez and Barfield played a lot more games as Jays then say Devon White and Kevin Pillar What is the best way to summarize peak defensive value that can be applied to players going back to the 70s?? It seems the fangraphs system is scoring the top 3 seasons of guys like Ozzie Smith and Devon White correctly. Or am I just cherry picking?? What other players from the 80s and 90s are rated low statistically but considered great defensive players?

Why did it work for Tony Fernandez? And Ozzie Smith? And Ryne Sandberg? And Frank White? And Devon White? The guys that won lots of golds in Jays history are Barfield, Fernandez, Devon White and Alomar. Fangraphs top 3 Blue jays defensively are Fernandez (91), Barfield (83) and White (81), but Alomar is -4. What is more likely?? a) A s***** random system correctly scored three of the top 4 but was 100 runs off on the fourth? The system isn't perfect but also isn't totally s***** or random and there was something off about Alomar (Positioning, effort, pitching staff, dynamics with other defenders)

Fangraphs defensive runs are adjusted per position, 0 or slightly negative is good for a 1b. Bad 1st basemen are -20.

The formula seems to work for Tony Fernandez and for Frank White. Manuel Lee had good defensive numbers when playing beside Alomar on the same turf. It could be a combination of things. Lee and Olerud were also good defenders, so maybe the formula is thrown off if they occasionally take some of Alomar's plays. Did Alomar hustle all the time?? I seem to remember him turning it on and off. He did not play quite as well in 94 and 95 when the team wasn't winning. What about positioning? They didn't shift like they do now, but some players and teams may have been better at positioning.

Why did the metrics work for Devon White and Ozzie Smith?? If you look at D-leaders from 88 to 93 it's Ripken, Ozzie Smith, Devon White, Benito Santiago, Dick Scholfield, Mike Gallego, Scott Fletcher... some of those names make a lot of sense... some of them I don't remember enough about. The worst were an older Winfield, an older George Brett, Danny Tartubal, Goerge Bell... kind of who you'd expect (some of it is a penalty for DHing) Goerge Brett is interesting. If the formula isn't complete crap you'd expect him to be positive early in his career, then fall off. That is exactly what happened. https://www.fangraphs.com/players/george-brett/1001400/stats?position=3B I can accept that Alomar was a bit better... but I doubt he was a 25 run a year defensive player and the formula missed it but found the other 25 run a year defensive players.

Why is peak Olerud better than Peak Alomar according to fangraphs? A .350 hitter with 110 walks 40 double 20ish homers or so and gold glove 1b defense (93 and 98) vs A .320 hitter with 80 walks 40 doubles, 20ish homers or so and the stats didn't read his defense (93, 96, 99, 01 I think)

Alomar and Olerud are pretty close, 63 WAR for Alomar, 57 for Olerud. Olerud's peak season's are better according to fangraphs. Olerud hit 8 War twice. Reason to compare Alomar and Biggio is they play the same position and both had about 4 WAR through there first 160 games with the Jays. No one is saying Biggio is going to become as good as Olerud or Alomar. Just that he is at the same stage they were in 1991. Biggio is older then they were in 1991 and has a weird skill set... so yeah it's hard to see Biggio developing on the Olerud/Alomar path to 6+ WAR but he could because he is already at 4

I guess the owners point would be that without fans there isn't enough money to pay those salaries and they could declare some type of emergency. How are NFL and NBA paying the salaries?

I can't see there not being 162 games. The owners want 100 games to reduce costs and delay until fans can come back. The players want 162. The contract says 162. It's been proven sports can go on in the middle of COVID (NFL right now, NBA in a few days). So what legal argument do the owners have for shutting it down?? Last time most everything was legally shut down, but this time that isn't the case. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to argue they _should_ play, or it is even a good idea, if COVID is at this level April, just saying I don't see a legal way for the owners to stop it.

Keith just recently "Nope. He's just not very good, and those stats are really skewed by a big September in 2019 when he feasted on some garbage pitching. Tampa Bay had his number - they attacked him with velocity and he couldn't adjust." For the record he was also very good in August of 2020. He was very good in the key 4 game Yankee series Sept 22-26 2020, where I would think they were trying their hardest to neuter him with fastballs. He had almost a 1.000 ops in these games (I checked on bbref, go to 'game logs' and highlight a series of games to get the split). I also checked September 2019. They played Baltimore... yes. And Cavan cycled against Baltimore yes. They also played TBR, NYY, Houston, Atlanta a bunch. Good players crush bad pitching. No reason to think September 2019 was that weird... Cavan will have lots more games against good pitching which he will not hit as well as bad pitching. But in a 162 game slate there will be a mix of both. No reason to think Cavan's 160 game sampled is biased.

Alomar was a 6 WAR player when he hit .320. Alomar didn't have as high a WAR as you'd expect from a gold glove 2b because weirdly his defense was slightly negative, at about the same level as Biggio's. If Biggio hit .320 and kept everything else he'd beat Alomar because of some extra walks. I agree that Biggio won't become a .320 hitter. If he became a .270 hitter, kept the walks, and added a bit of power?? Then he'd probably be at Alomar level in terms of WAR. A .270 hitter with 110 walks, and 30 homers. Prime Alomar was more like a .320 hitter with 80 walks and 20 homers. Not really trying to say 'Biggio will become Alomar', just that their first 160 games with the Jays are comparable and if Biggio improved he could get there. I think the limiting factor is that Biggio was 25 and Alomar 23 when they got to the 4 WAR point... those 2 years probably make a big difference in the career arc.

Biggio through a full season so far (159 games) is about where Alomar was in his first full season as a Jay in 1991. Alomar had 4.3 WAR, Biggio 3.9. How are they so close? Biggio walked more - 110 to 50 or so Both were great baserunners - Biggio 20-0, Alomar 50-10 or so, that's about the same Biggio has more power Biggio is slightly negative defensively, but so was Alomar. Even the baby stats of the 90s showed that. It was a mystery. Alomar took a step forward in 1992/93. More walks, added power in 93. Still, Biggio is at about the same point as Alomar 1991. Biggio is 25, so no guarantee he'll take a step forward, but if he does he'll be really good.

He is a unique guy, 20-0 stealing bases, a historically great eye at the plate. Those skills could translate to being able to get a good jump in CF, and anticipate where he needs to get to.

Bo isn't perfect but I don't see the problem. He looks fine on fangraphs but I guess some of the other systems don't like him. I hadn't even heard this might be a problem until he looked like Russ Adams for a couple of innings in one of the playoff games. Of course if he looks like Russ Adams for a couple of months then yes, it might be a problem.

Justin Turner may have just cost the Blue Jays another year in Toronto. When Shapiro goes to the government trying to work out a deal for next year how can he possibly convince them that incoming players will abide by any rules?

Well my post was probably over the top. I haven't really heard what exactly is going to happen to all the teams. For example where I live the NY-Penn league is really important. It was really missed this summer. What is happening with that?? My understanding is that it is disbanded with some cities getting full season leagues... but still not good. The Cities in the NY Penn league are mostly within day trip to a game distance of Yankees/Mets/Red Sox/Phillies. Will people still be making those day trips ?? Probably, but not as much. Would they instead support the NY Penn league even more?? Probably, but again we don't know how much. Replacing the NY Penn league with a full season high quality independent league would be interesting.

This is insane. Complete idiocy. Wrong move at the wrong time. I wonder if independent ball will thrive?? People are moving away from cities. Will not be travelling into big cities for games. Yankee Stadium will no longer have 50,000 a day, 1/2 of those from suburbs and day trip towns. It will have 25,000 a day from closer in. The people will be travelling 20 minutes to go to a local game only to find MLB shut down their local game with a laugh and insane disrespect to the common man. And the 41st round draft pick (think Mike Piazza, Kevin Pillar). Done. Hopefully the people and the system naturally organize an independent league, where the Piazzas and Pillars play their early seasons before signing with MLB. That's the answer, hopefully it happens and the Oligarchs, Central Planners, socialists and other undesirables don't try to fight the people on this.

Also if there are still 25ish rosters it limits platooning.... If teams starters are working less they'll need more relievers... unless they go with 28 man rosters permanently I wouldn't worry about the platooning. And who cares if Rowdy Tellez and some 29 year old right hander platoon??

This is the stupidest thread ever. Why are guys losing money if they are performing better?? How exactly does that work?? Shortening the leash on pitchers will only be done if it results in them performing better. A guy like Roy Haladay, a 250 inning 3.00 ERA guy, might turn into a 180 inning 1.50 ERA guy A guy like Aaron Sanchez, a 200 inning 3.00 ERA guy for 1 year, and then garbage, might turn into a 150 inning 3.00 ERA guy for many years A guy like Tanner Goark, a 200 inning 4.00 ERA guy for a few years might be a 150 inning 3.25 ERA guy for a few years. Of course you may say Roy Haladay wouldn't of been better in 180 innings so let him go 250... if that's true they won't constrain that type of Pitcher. They'll use the analytics to figure out the optimal number of innings, if that ends up being 250 they'll go with that. The guys will look better, even if you are just using traditional stats. Why will they be paid less?? If this really works the bigger problem may be further collapse of offense... a league of .230 hitters with some power and lots of ks... then they have to decide something to give the hitters a boost.

In part to miss Thursday and Monday night football.

1. Work with upper management to figure out playing time. Optimize for performance and health. 2. Work with upper management to decide optimal defensive, offensive, and pitching roles. 3. Work with upper management to hire and guide coaching staff, most important thing is to be on the bleeding edge of performance strategies including pitching and hitting mechanics, pitch sequencing, and advanced health and performance indicators. 4. Work with advanced analytics team to optimize in game strategy within reasonable constraints, ie 20 sacrifice bunts a year won't make a difference 100 would. Slight inefficiencies in lineup construction won't make a difference, getting it completely wrong every day would.

All I was pointing out is that all this ******** about "the right way" is just ********. If it worked everybody would be on board. If guys are lights out in 150 innings and the team is winning no one is going to be demoralized. Buck Martinez acts as if taking a pitcher out after 4 innings demoralizes the team. It's so stupid. Specifically the first playoff game. The piggy back thing basically worked, 7 innings 1 run I think. However Buck (and others) act like if Shoemaker stayed in, and say gave up 2 runs (instead of the 1 Ray did), that the Jays would have had a better chance of winning because they wouldn't of been "demoralized".

As it turned out 0 COVID positive baseball players would of come into Toronto (none came to Buffalo, or the Washington/Philly home games). As it turned out baseball's initial protocols sucked and there was always a chance 15+ COVID positives could of ended up in Toronto (they wouldn't of given the schedule but that was luck). As it turned out even if the Canadian Government had approved I guess they would of un-approved after 17 Marlins got it. As it turned out baseball adjusted it's protocols to shut down teams for at least a series after 1 positive test. This seemed to work. As it turned out the pandemic numbers in the States decreased by about 50% and the numbers in Canada increased quite a bit, to the point where cases are getting close to par, unlike the summer where there was at least a 10 times higher rate in the U.S. As it turned out Donald J. Trump himself got the virus, depending which channel you watch he is either done for or already defeated it like a nothing burger. No one on Blue Jays message boards knows how any of it turned out because the discussion is highly illegal (even though it has repercussions to every baseball decision made this winter).

That's the main reason for occasional Vlad Guerrero biggest failure ever thread. It's fun to have a guy who is the greatest ever from day 1... It's like Delgado when Manny Ramirez and Frank Thomas and A-Rod were going insane in the mid 90s. Delgado would have his day, but wasn't a clear legend from age 21... Kind of fun when there's no doubt and not really a need for "Is such and such the next Jesus Montero?" thread.