John lackey takes physical in Boston: deal may be imminent!

[Fafnir]

RBIs and runs scored aren't what you want to look at when comparing offensive prowess Nick. Too much of those depends on your team.

this is true.

The sox were a better team offensively then the Brewers, thus Bay likely had more opportuinities for Rbi's...(not doubting Bay is a better offensive player)

also, Cameron gives the sox the option of putting Ellsbury in lf rather then cf, thus mitigating the damage from ellsbury's weak arm. 

Bay's definitely a better bat.

I just prefer to look at avg, slugging, and OBP if you're not going to use the more exotic stats. Those three tell you most of what you need to know. (Well that and where they play their home games)

[nickagneta]

RBIs and runs scored aren't what you want to look at when comparing offensive prowess Nick. Too much of those depends on your team.

I was looking at it as strictly a player's runs per game effect on the game.

As much as those stats do have influences based on other factors, I look at baseball defensive metrics as strictly how do they effect just how much runs are scored against your team. Most outfielders are involved in fewer than 14% of their teams defensive plays in a game. In that 14% or less of involvement on defense, just how much are they effecting the 4-6 runs scored by the average team on a game in and game out basis?

That's why I used runs to debunk the defense matrices. I wasn't trying to show the offensive prowess of Bay over Cameron as I was trying to show that their offensive influence on the game in runs is so much greater than their defensive that the idea that cameron's defense makes him as good a player as Bay is foolhardy.

[Fafnir]

RBIs and runs scored aren't what you want to look at when comparing offensive prowess Nick. Too much of those depends on your team.

I was looking at it as strictly a player's runs per game effect on the game.

As much as those stats do have influences based on other factors, I look at baseball defensive metrics as strictly how do they effect just how much runs are scored against your team. Most outfielders are involved in fewer than 14% of their teams defensive plays in a game. In that 14% or less of involvement on defense, just how much are they effecting the 4-6 runs scored by the average team on a game in and game out basis?

That's why I used runs to debunk the defense matrices. I wasn't trying to show the offensive prowess of Bay over Cameron as I was trying to show that their offensive influence on the game in runs is so much greater than their defensive that the idea that cameron's defense makes him as good a player as Bay is foolhardy.

But because both stats are so team dependent you aren't debunking anything.

I don't disagree with your point, that Bay is more valuable than Cameron. But you're not comparing apples to apples so it doesn't demonstrate what you want it to say.

[nickagneta]

RBIs and runs scored aren't what you want to look at when comparing offensive prowess Nick. Too much of those depends on your team.

I was looking at it as strictly a player's runs per game effect on the game.

As much as those stats do have influences based on other factors, I look at baseball defensive metrics as strictly how do they effect just how much runs are scored against your team. Most outfielders are involved in fewer than 14% of their teams defensive plays in a game. In that 14% or less of involvement on defense, just how much are they effecting the 4-6 runs scored by the average team on a game in and game out basis?

That's why I used runs to debunk the defense matrices. I wasn't trying to show the offensive prowess of Bay over Cameron as I was trying to show that their offensive influence on the game in runs is so much greater than their defensive that the idea that cameron's defense makes him as good a player as Bay is foolhardy.

But because both stats are so team dependent you aren't debunking anything.

Faf, it's a lot faster and easier to understand to the average person than to mathematically show how OBP, SLG, and OPS directly effects the run support of a team versus that of FDPT RF and ZR and how they effect the runs in a game.

I am a huge believer in baseball offensive sabermetrics but have a lot less faith in the defensive ones as I find much of the logic in their methodology and use seriously flawed. I just wanted to show that each player's effect on the bottom line of their team's offensively and defensively were significant in their difference as to think Cameron and bay being equals was wrong.

If you want to pay me to present a detailed mathematical look as to why, that removes team influences, my time per hour starts in the high three figures per hour. But given the very quick look at the figures I showed, figures many baseball people still believe deeply in even if they do have team influences, I think it's easy to see Cameron's defense just doesn't have a large enough effect on a game as to be considered as good a player as Bay. Whether you think I've debunked anything or not.

[yall hate]

RBIs and runs scored aren't what you want to look at when comparing offensive prowess Nick. Too much of those depends on your team.

I was looking at it as strictly a player's runs per game effect on the game.

As much as those stats do have influences based on other factors, I look at baseball defensive metrics as strictly how do they effect just how much runs are scored against your team. Most outfielders are involved in fewer than 14% of their teams defensive plays in a game. In that 14% or less of involvement on defense, just how much are they effecting the 4-6 runs scored by the average team on a game in and game out basis?

That's why I used runs to debunk the defense matrices. I wasn't trying to show the offensive prowess of Bay over Cameron as I was trying to show that their offensive influence on the game in runs is so much greater than their defensive that the idea that cameron's defense makes him as good a player as Bay is foolhardy.

But because both stats are so team dependent you aren't debunking anything.

Faf, it's a lot faster and easier to understand to the average person than to mathematically show how OBP, SLG, and OPS directly effects the run support of a team versus that of FDPT RF and ZR and how they effect the runs in a game.

I am a huge believer in baseball offensive sabermetrics but have a lot less faith in the defensive ones as I find much of the logic in their methodology and use seriously flawed. I just wanted to show that each player's effect on the bottom line of their team's offensively and defensively were significant in their difference as to think Cameron and bay being equals was wrong.

If you want to pay me to present a detailed mathematical look as to why, that removes team influences, my time per hour starts in the high three figures per hour. But given the very quick look at the figures I showed, figures many baseball people still believe deeply in even if they do have team influences, I think it's easy to see Cameron's defense just doesn't have a large enough effect on a game as to be considered as good a player as Bay. Whether you think I've debunked anything or not.

Am I missing something or have you done nothing statistical regarding defense except to say you dont agree with most advanced, accepted defensive statistics out there?  I mean, when presented with your argument, or lack thereof regarding defensive matrices, or the argument of the accepted defensive matrices by million (billion) dollar organizations, why are your points stronger? 

you have showed nothing about defense...what you ahve showed is something that no one in the thread argued, that Jason Bay is a better offensive player than Mike Cameron.  ultimately, you may be right and the article I cited may be wrong, but I havent seen you show anything credible to prove that...



edit: I should note, I am not huge into knowing about the advanced stats.  I take them at face value.  I believe that one persons opinion is not nearly as effective to analyze a player as the stats discussed in the article.  so that is why I believe the stats over nick's opinion (re: the defensive numbers)...but I would love to be shown why I may be wrong.

[nickagneta]

What I showed in simple terms is that bay's influence on the final score last year resulted in about .4 runs per game better than Cameron's. What I am saying is that, using logic only, players in the outfield effect the game defensively on average below 14% of the time, based solely on total chances a full time outfielder will see as compared to the chances to make a play defensively for the rest of the team.

Bay and Cameron both have career fielding percentages of 99% and last year Bay had a better fielding percentage than Cameron, probably due to playing in Fenway. But given that the average outfielder only gets an average of 3 chances a game to make a defensive play, logocally do you see any way that any defensive statistic is going to show that Cameron's defense is so much better than Bay's that it is going to show he saves as much asd a half run more per game defensively than Bay to prove the article's point that Cameron is as good a player as Bay?

Cameron's defense would have to be off the charts HOF good and Bay's defense would have to be absolutely atrocious for a corner outfielder's defense to effect the outcome of the game by over 0.4 runs per game to make Cameron an equal player to Bay.

Have I done an in depth look at the methodology of defensive matrices or did I compute tons of different stats to compare the two defensively, no. But simple logic and knowledge of the game says that the only players who's defense is going to effect a game to the extent it would have to be effected to make Cameron and Bay equal players are catchers, shortstops, second basemen and first basemen.

[yall hate]

What I showed in simple terms is that bay's influence on the final score last year resulted in about .4 runs per game better than Cameron's. What I am saying is that, using logic only, players in the outfield effect the game defensively on average below 14% of the time, based solely on total chances a full time outfielder will see as compared to the chances to make a play defensively for the rest of the team.

Bay and Cameron both have career fielding percentages of 99% and last year Bay had a better fielding percentage than Cameron, probably due to playing in Fenway. But given that the average outfielder only gets an average of 3 chances a game to make a defensive play, logocally do you see any way that any defensive statistic is going to show that Cameron's defense is so much better than Bay's that it is going to show he saves as much asd a half run more per game defensively than Bay to prove the article's point that Cameron is as good a player as Bay?

Cameron's defense would have to be off the charts HOF good and Bay's defense would have to be absolutely atrocious for a corner outfielder's defense to effect the outcome of the game by over 0.4 runs per game to make Cameron an equal player to Bay.

Have I done an in depth look at the methodology of defensive matrices or did I compute tons of different stats to compare the two defensively, no. But simple logic and knowledge of the game says that the only players who's defense is going to effect a game to the extent it would have to be effected to make Cameron and Bay equal players are catchers, shortstops, second basemen and first basemen.

problem 1: you point to fielding percentage, which would be the same flawed look at defensive skill that has enabled people to think players like Derek Jeter are excellent defensive players.  if your range is atrocious, but you catch every ball hit directly at you, it does not make you a good defensive player.  If Bay can only get to balls hit x distance away from him, but Cameron gets to balls hit y distance away from him, there is a clear difference in the players as it pertains to their defensive skill level, and thus impact on the game.

As for bay's defense compared to Camerons, the stats show that Bay is below average whereas Cameron is significantly above average.   Over the last three years, according to UZR Bay was the WORST LF in all of baseball.  over the same 3 years, Cameron has been second best. 

Maybe the defensive effect will be mitigated by the wall.  Even if, as you say Cameron will not, with defense and offense considered, amount to near the player Bay is, is it at least plausible to you that this was a 'smart' decision based on the fact that Bay is looking to recieve significant money for 5 years, when he will likely be a DH in 2-3?

Additionally, we dont know what the possible trade discussions have been.  while I doubt Ellsbury is going to be moved, if they could acquire one of the two big bats, you have your cf in Cameron.  the Sox have still yet to tell Bay he isnt part of their plans, so they could still bring him and his awful defense back, slot Cameron at Cf, along with a nice new power hitter at first base.

it's obvious that the team is focusing on improving their atrocious team defense and lack of range (hence the Scutaro signing, the desire to pay Lowell to play elsewhere, and now this).  But they must be using flawed simple logic and knowledge of the game in determining defensive worth.

[nickagneta]

Oh don't get me wrong yall. I think the move brilliant. I would never pay Bay the money he was looking for no matter how much money I had. He's, to me, about a $12 million a year player and I would never give him more than three years since I think he could be nothing more than a DH in 2012.

The Cameron move, coupled with Ellsbury's move to left field is a great stop gap waiting for some truly great outfielders hitting the free agent market the next couple of years. I love the move. Cameron, even at $7.5 million over two years is a great signing.

I just disagree with the premise of that article, that's all.