Stick a fork in Hunter, he is done.

[jimmer]

 

I agree, he's been better with the bat than I thought (though this was in the realm of possibility in my mind for sure, just not likely). And, as a 1 year thing, not the end of the world. I had hoped for a more long term answer, like a 3 year deal for someone.

 

I don't see how this is chicken little though........projections aren't guarantees, they are theories about the future. Being wrong doesn't invalidate the process, it just shows that the world is not 100% guaranteed (which is one of the few things remaining that I like about sports).

He's on a roll with the bat and that's nice to see.  Hopefully it continues. But we're about 20% into the season, so we will see how it goes.  I'm not sure how many people predicted him to be a disaster with the bat, considering he was about average for a RF last year in that regard.  There's more to the game than offense though.

[diehardtwinsfan]

In this argument, I'm simply going to note that their creators say you need 3 years worth of data for them to be accurate. That indicates a big problem with precision, and accuracy in my opinion.

 

What I think the tools can do is give you a rough idea of who is better than who (over time, and not in small samples). How much runs saved at the end of the day is pretty questionable at best.

 

Based on that, I'm largely with Chief. The metric really isn't that good.

[jimmer]

 

In this argument, I'm simply going to note that their creators say you need 3 years worth of data for them to be accurate. That indicates a big problem with precision, and accuracy in my opinion.

What I think the tools can do is give you a rough idea of who is better than who (over time, and not in small samples). How much runs saved at the end of the day is pretty questionable at best.

Based on that, I'm largely with Chief. The metric really isn't that good.

The creators say it takes 3 years to see what that players true ability is (last three years more important than 10, 15 years ago), but they don't say a year's worth of data is irrelevant to what they player did THAT year.  That STILL happened.  In this case, what we have is a metric, DRS, that has shown a steady decline in defense going on three years now on a guy about to hit 40.  Which, you know, should be expected.  I guy his age should be expected to have declining defense and I'm not sure why saying that is a bad thing.  

[TheLeviathan]

 

Based on that, I'm largely with Chief. The metric really isn't that good.

 

It's really good at comparisons among players at the same position.  Especially over longer samples.  It's a ridiculously helpful and valuable metric for that.

 

The problem is that it's almost never used that way. 

 

 

[Squirrel]

Moderator note: Let's keep the stats and metric discussion pertinent to the Hunter discussion. We've had the metrics/stats discussion and you are welcome to go back to that thread as it was an awesome thread, but let's keep the discussion pertinent to Hunter.

 

Thanks.

[Linus]

Nobody objects to people being wrong it's the stuff that goes with the projection that can be tiresome ie condescension or belittling the front office etc

[Gene Larkin Fan Club]

 

I agree, he's been better with the bat than I thought (though this was in the realm of possibility in my mind for sure, just not likely). And, as a 1 year thing, not the end of the world. I had hoped for a more long term answer, like a 3 year deal for someone.

 

I don't see how this is chicken little though........projections aren't guarantees, they are theories about the future. Being wrong doesn't invalidate the process, it just shows that the world is not 100% guaranteed (which is one of the few things remaining that I like about sports).

I don't disagree with with your point about the process.  My Chicken Little comment was based mostly on the thread title and some of angry reactions on here after the first few series.  (The reports of Hunter's demise were greatly exaggerated.)  I appreciate that SpiritofVodkaDave and a few others have been able to acknowledge they may have been a bit too quick to judge.  I also acknowledge that Hunter could get hurt (or age could catch up) and the rest of the season could be a rough go.  It's marathon, not a sprint.  

 

I don't think it's valuable or accurate when people on either side of the argument speak in terms of absolutism and I'm just plain sick of people in general (not you) hide behind a veil of "that's my opinion" to say things that are inflammatory and/or ridiculous.  I appreciate a well thought out argument by someone with whom I disagree.  Sometimes, a good argument changes my mind.  Other times it helps me to better rationalize my own opinion.  Many people are too quick to rush to emotional, angry, misguided words instead falling back on logic.

 

I think I started rambling a bit.  Sorry.  My frustration is less about this thread and more about many in society in general.  I'll move on now.

[The Wise One]

 

More valid than any other option.......accuracy, not precision.

But it may not even be really accurate more than a generalization. That generalization is no different  than an eye test. 2 different analysis sites differ in saying how many balls he caught.. That is not even showing accuracy

[Otto von Ballpark]

2 different analysis sites differ in saying how many balls he caught.. That is not even showing accuracy

No, two metrics have different estimates of his defensive runs saved.

[USAFChief]

No, two metrics have different estimates of his defensive runs saved.

that seems a distinction without a difference, no?

[bird]

 

More likely than watching a few games, not watching every single game, not writing down what every player did on every play, yes, they are very likely to be more accurate than someone's random recollection of a handful of plays, yes.

 

 

I'm a big believer in the eye test when it comes to defense. As long as it isn't my eyes or the eyes of any of us here on TD that I'm relying on. No offense intended. The caveat being I'm fine with general categories. Like, Nelson Cruz is a bad defensive outfielder, or Lorenzo Cain is a good defensive outfielder, or Torii Hunter is an average defensive outfielder.

 

The last one was a joke.

 

But really, why would anyone care if a guy is the 19th ranked fielder versus the 24th ranked guy? Aren't they both bad?

[jimmer]

 

The caveat being I'm fine with general categories. Like, Nelson Cruz is a bad defensive outfielder, or Lorenzo Cain is a good defensive outfielder, or Torii Hunter is an average defensive outfielder.

 

The last one was a joke.

 

But really, why would anyone care if a guy is the 19th ranked fielder versus the 24th ranked guy? Aren't they both bad?

That's pretty much exactly how I like to use the metrics.  Great defender, above average defender, average defender, below average defender, horrible defender.  Does it matter if one guy is 19th or 18th?  Would I want to get into a heated debate on whether the #18 guy was really better than the #19 guy? No. It's best used to put the player into a grouping of similarly skilled players.

 

But all this is pretty off topic, the discussion on metrics in general as opposed to talking just about Hunter, as ChiTown has already mentioned. Though I like how you threw Hunter in there...good call.

[bird]

 

yeah he has. again, this is why the eye test stinks,.  different people seeing different things.

 

My gut tells me that if you polled scouts from every team and asked them what their eyes tell them about the defensive production of any outfielder they've all properly scouted, their responses would be remarkably similar. 

 

Now, if you polled the TD community after telling them to burn their spreadsheets and forget what they read, my guess is that 53.7% of all commenters would say Hunter is pretty bad, but not all THAT bad. Another 17.8% would say Hunter absolutely sucks and makes them miss Delmon and Hammer. 9.8% would say Hunter deserves a Gold Glove and a Nobel Peace Prize. The remaining .7% would say he should be the center fielder, and that would be Ryan.

 

The remainder would have no opinion and still be grousing about their burnt spreadsheets.

 

[jimmer]

 

My gut tells me that if you polled scouts from every team and asked them what their eyes tell them about the defensive production of any outfielder they've all properly scouted, their responses would be remarkably similar. 

 

Now, if you polled the TD community after telling them to burn their spreadsheets and forget what they read, my guess is that 53.7% of all commenters would say Hunter is pretty bad, but not all THAT bad. Another 17.8% would say Hunter absolutely sucks and makes them miss Delmon and Hammer. 9.8% would say Hunter deserves a Gold Glove and a Nobel Peace Prize. The remaining .7% would say he should be the center fielder, and that would be Ryan.

 

The remainder would have no opinion and still be grousing about their burnt spreadsheets.

Love this post (though your math seems off, not sure you came up to 100% there).  Kudos on the Nobel peace Prize!

[bird]

 

Love this post (though your math seems off, not sure you came up to 100% there).  Kudos on the Nobel peace Prize!

 

 

Leave it to you damn stat heads to bring up the math.

[jimmer]

 

Leave it to you damn stat heads to bring up the math.

[Squirrel]

 

My gut tells me that if you polled scouts from every team and asked them what their eyes tell them about the defensive production of any outfielder they've all properly scouted, their responses would be remarkably similar. 

 

Now, if you polled the TD community after telling them to burn their spreadsheets and forget what they read, my guess is that 53.7% of all commenters would say Hunter is pretty bad, but not all THAT bad. Another 17.8% would say Hunter absolutely sucks and makes them miss Delmon and Hammer. 9.8% would say Hunter deserves a Gold Glove and a Nobel Peace Prize. The remaining .7% would say he should be the center fielder, and that would be Ryan.

 

The remainder would have no opinion and still be grousing about their burnt spreadsheets.

I think this sums up this thread nicely. Best use of percentages ever.

[ashbury]

[Otto von Ballpark]

that seems a distinction without a difference, no?

No. There is no disagreement about the number of balls he has caught. That is incorrect.

 

There is disagreement about how to value the balls he has caught or failed to catch, but that itself does not imply inaccuracy. You get the same differences between eye tests too, it doesn't mean all eye tests are inherently inaccurate.

[jimmer]

Hunter is doing well offensively so far, and I hope it continues.  The defense is very bad but, like Jeter, he catches what he can actually get to.  Perhaps he'll eventually DH, whether it be this year or next year after he's re-signed. As of now, we may not have a better option.

[nicksaviking]

I think we have a real shot here. This one has the potential to be the longest running non-stickied non-draft thread in TD history. Keep up the good work guys!

[Sam Morley]

 

 

 

But really, why would anyone care if a guy is the 19th ranked fielder versus the 24th ranked guy? Aren't they both bad?

No, the 24th ranked RF in major league baseball is not bad.

[Mike Sixel]

 

No, the 24th ranked RF in major league baseball is not bad.

 

What would be bad, out of the ones that are ranked? How low would you have to be to be bad at something? I'm just curious.

[nicksaviking]

 

What would be bad, out of the ones that are ranked? How low would you have to be to be bad at something? I'm just curious.

 

Over the past four years, I kind of got used to thinking any kind of ranking higher than 30th was pretty good.  Maybe we can raise the bar to 24th now.  But let's not get too crazy.

[Willihammer]

.318/.373/.542 since original post

[jimmer]

 

.318/.373/.542 since original post

Looking good offensively.  Good for him and good for the team!

[DaveW]

 

.318/.373/.542 since original post

Works every time

[Highabove]

"Tori is showing us how to win"

 

Aaron Hicks

[Twodogs]

 

.318/.373/.542 since original post

I wonder if we can stick a fork in Mauer, you think he would hit .318 after getting a fork stuck in him??

[DuluthFan]

 

I wonder if we can stick a fork in Mauer, you think he would hit .318 after getting a fork stuck in him??

 

He would probably end up on the DL.