183D2E3B272C2726232B4F0 wrote: I was excited to see Polanco play. We heard all about his defense. I haven't seen it either.
I think it is just his arm. His arm is so good that he gets a high rating. But his problem is actually squeezing the ball. He just doesn't look fluid at all.
If Bell hits, no one will care. But he has to hit. With that said, I wouldn't have a problem moving him for a top pitcher. That would still leave a hole at 1B.
Bell is hitting, but I still care and so should you. He's provided no value to the team because his defense is terrible. I know you hate WAR, but every site agrees that Bell IS a hole at 1B. He's been worse than Jaso. If you don't believe the math, just look at the standings. Has Bell caused the Pirates to get more wins?
I'm another who has a problem with WAR. While I know it gives a general overall value of a player, it is ultimately expressed as conjecture in terms of how many wins a player is worth. So when you say, "Has Bell caused the Pirates to get more wins?", it's not actually possible to determine just by looking at the WAR stat. I know his defense is poor. I can't recall if his defense has cost them games because of plays he made or didn't make. I know his bat has contributed to a few wins. I'm willing to see if he can be an asset to the team. A team doesn't need a gold glove at 1B. If he can be just passable at 1B, his bat might be worth having him the lineup. In fact, he could be one of their best hitters. Pedro was so bad it appeared he had a mental block about throwing and catching, and the offense he provided was limited to hitting HRs against RHP while striking out frequently and having a low BA and low OBP. Bell can contribute to the offense with power, BA and OBP from both sides of the plate. So I would be reluctant to accept the conjecture of "numbers of wins" that a lab guy with a plastic pocket protector and a calculator determines by adding up some WAR formulas instead of seeing just how many games Bell will win or lose. Baseball is played on the field and wins are only determined there; never in a lab. I get that the better a player is; the higher his WAR is. But when we start using it as if it factually tells us how many more wins a player is worth, it loses meaning to me.
Bell, Frazier and the case for the Defense
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
-
Wrathchild
- Posts: 152
- Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2016 6:23 pm
Bell, Frazier and the case for the Defense
092429383F2E39797A4B0 wrote: I was excited to see Polanco play. We heard all about his defense. I haven't seen it either.
I think it is just his arm. His arm is so good that he gets a high rating. But his problem is actually squeezing the ball. He just doesn't look fluid at all.
If Bell hits, no one will care. But he has to hit. With that said, I wouldn't have a problem moving him for a top pitcher. That would still leave a hole at 1B.
Bell is hitting, but I still care and so should you. He's provided no value to the team because his defense is terrible. I know you hate WAR, but every site agrees that Bell IS a hole at 1B. He's been worse than Jaso. If you don't believe the math, just look at the standings. Has Bell caused the Pirates to get more wins?
I'm another who has a problem with WAR. While I know it gives a general overall value of a player, it is ultimately expressed as conjecture in terms of how many wins a player is worth. So when you say, "Has Bell caused the Pirates to get more wins?", it's not actually possible to determine just by looking at the WAR stat. I know his defense is poor. I can't recall if his defense has cost them games because of plays he made or didn't make. I know his bat has contributed to a few wins. I'm willing to see if he can be an asset to the team. A team doesn't need a gold glove at 1B. If he can be just passable at 1B, his bat might be worth having him the lineup. In fact, he could be one of their best hitters. Pedro was so bad it appeared he had a mental block about throwing and catching, and the offense he provided was limited to hitting HRs against RHP while striking out frequently and having a low BA and low OBP. Bell can contribute to the offense with power, BA and OBP from both sides of the plate. So I would be reluctant to accept the conjecture of "numbers of wins" that a lab guy with a plastic pocket protector and a calculator determines by adding up some WAR formulas instead of seeing just how many games Bell will win or lose. Baseball is played on the field and wins are only determined there; never in a lab. I get that the better a player is; the higher his WAR is. But when we start using it as if it factually tells us how many more wins a player is worth, it loses meaning to me.
It must be painful for you that Huntington is one of those pocket-protector nerds. He can't look up from his spreadsheet long enough to realize you can't trade your closer in the middle of a pennant race even if the spreadsheet says it makes long-term business sense in a vacuum.
In any event, your post doesn't become more persuasive by wrapping it in clichés and inflammatory language. Everybody knows the game is played by humans on grass. That doesn't mean you can't analyze the results someplace else. It's akin to saying the back office can't credibly use metrics to determine how the store is operating.
Bell's defense is terrible. It has actually been worse somehow than Alvarez' defense. Could he get better? Yeah, I suppose, but for the reasons I stated above, I'm not holding my breath. I'm not saying he shouldn't be played; I'm saying he's not currently providing any value despite his bat. He's like Alvarez but even more polarizing. I wouldn't hesitate to trade him if you could get a good pitcher from someone that can either use Bell as a DH or simply wants to take the chance he becomes usable in the field.
I think it is just his arm. His arm is so good that he gets a high rating. But his problem is actually squeezing the ball. He just doesn't look fluid at all.
If Bell hits, no one will care. But he has to hit. With that said, I wouldn't have a problem moving him for a top pitcher. That would still leave a hole at 1B.
Bell is hitting, but I still care and so should you. He's provided no value to the team because his defense is terrible. I know you hate WAR, but every site agrees that Bell IS a hole at 1B. He's been worse than Jaso. If you don't believe the math, just look at the standings. Has Bell caused the Pirates to get more wins?
I'm another who has a problem with WAR. While I know it gives a general overall value of a player, it is ultimately expressed as conjecture in terms of how many wins a player is worth. So when you say, "Has Bell caused the Pirates to get more wins?", it's not actually possible to determine just by looking at the WAR stat. I know his defense is poor. I can't recall if his defense has cost them games because of plays he made or didn't make. I know his bat has contributed to a few wins. I'm willing to see if he can be an asset to the team. A team doesn't need a gold glove at 1B. If he can be just passable at 1B, his bat might be worth having him the lineup. In fact, he could be one of their best hitters. Pedro was so bad it appeared he had a mental block about throwing and catching, and the offense he provided was limited to hitting HRs against RHP while striking out frequently and having a low BA and low OBP. Bell can contribute to the offense with power, BA and OBP from both sides of the plate. So I would be reluctant to accept the conjecture of "numbers of wins" that a lab guy with a plastic pocket protector and a calculator determines by adding up some WAR formulas instead of seeing just how many games Bell will win or lose. Baseball is played on the field and wins are only determined there; never in a lab. I get that the better a player is; the higher his WAR is. But when we start using it as if it factually tells us how many more wins a player is worth, it loses meaning to me.
It must be painful for you that Huntington is one of those pocket-protector nerds. He can't look up from his spreadsheet long enough to realize you can't trade your closer in the middle of a pennant race even if the spreadsheet says it makes long-term business sense in a vacuum.
In any event, your post doesn't become more persuasive by wrapping it in clichés and inflammatory language. Everybody knows the game is played by humans on grass. That doesn't mean you can't analyze the results someplace else. It's akin to saying the back office can't credibly use metrics to determine how the store is operating.
Bell's defense is terrible. It has actually been worse somehow than Alvarez' defense. Could he get better? Yeah, I suppose, but for the reasons I stated above, I'm not holding my breath. I'm not saying he shouldn't be played; I'm saying he's not currently providing any value despite his bat. He's like Alvarez but even more polarizing. I wouldn't hesitate to trade him if you could get a good pitcher from someone that can either use Bell as a DH or simply wants to take the chance he becomes usable in the field.
Bell, Frazier and the case for the Defense
WAR is like RBI...it's a stat and that's about all you can say. Bad defense manifests itself in so many ways it's difficult to come up with a stat to measure it. My take has been that you want to have players that at least seem to be league average or better.
-
Bobster21
Bell, Frazier and the case for the Defense
547162776B606B6A6F67030 wrote: I was excited to see Polanco play. We heard all about his defense. I haven't seen it either.
I think it is just his arm. His arm is so good that he gets a high rating. But his problem is actually squeezing the ball. He just doesn't look fluid at all.
If Bell hits, no one will care. But he has to hit. With that said, I wouldn't have a problem moving him for a top pitcher. That would still leave a hole at 1B.
Bell is hitting, but I still care and so should you. He's provided no value to the team because his defense is terrible. I know you hate WAR, but every site agrees that Bell IS a hole at 1B. He's been worse than Jaso. If you don't believe the math, just look at the standings. Has Bell caused the Pirates to get more wins?
I'm another who has a problem with WAR. While I know it gives a general overall value of a player, it is ultimately expressed as conjecture in terms of how many wins a player is worth. So when you say, "Has Bell caused the Pirates to get more wins?", it's not actually possible to determine just by looking at the WAR stat. I know his defense is poor. I can't recall if his defense has cost them games because of plays he made or didn't make. I know his bat has contributed to a few wins. I'm willing to see if he can be an asset to the team. A team doesn't need a gold glove at 1B. If he can be just passable at 1B, his bat might be worth having him the lineup. In fact, he could be one of their best hitters. Pedro was so bad it appeared he had a mental block about throwing and catching, and the offense he provided was limited to hitting HRs against RHP while striking out frequently and having a low BA and low OBP. Bell can contribute to the offense with power, BA and OBP from both sides of the plate. So I would be reluctant to accept the conjecture of "numbers of wins" that a lab guy with a plastic pocket protector and a calculator determines by adding up some WAR formulas instead of seeing just how many games Bell will win or lose. Baseball is played on the field and wins are only determined there; never in a lab. I get that the better a player is; the higher his WAR is. But when we start using it as if it factually tells us how many more wins a player is worth, it loses meaning to me.
It must be painful for you that Huntington is one of those pocket-protector nerds. He can't look up from his spreadsheet long enough to realize you can't trade your closer in the middle of a pennant race even if the spreadsheet says it makes long-term business sense in a vacuum.
In any event, your post doesn't become more persuasive by wrapping it in clichés and inflammatory language. Everybody knows the game is played by humans on grass. That doesn't mean you can't analyze the results someplace else. It's akin to saying the back office can't credibly use metrics to determine how the store is operating.
Bell's defense is terrible. It has actually been worse somehow than Alvarez' defense. Could he get better? Yeah, I suppose, but for the reasons I stated above, I'm not holding my breath. I'm not saying he shouldn't be played; I'm saying he's not currently providing any value despite his bat. He's like Alvarez but even more polarizing. I wouldn't hesitate to trade him if you could get a good pitcher from someone that can either use Bell as a DH or simply wants to take the chance he becomes usable in the field.
Wrathchild, sorry you took offense. I wasn't expecting an angry response. My post was not meant to be critical of you. I merely gave my opinion that WAR can be relied on too much when we get into assigning "wins." A case can be made that Bell won't help the team based on WAR. But I believe such decisions should be based on what goes on during games rather than the WAR formula.
I think it is just his arm. His arm is so good that he gets a high rating. But his problem is actually squeezing the ball. He just doesn't look fluid at all.
If Bell hits, no one will care. But he has to hit. With that said, I wouldn't have a problem moving him for a top pitcher. That would still leave a hole at 1B.
Bell is hitting, but I still care and so should you. He's provided no value to the team because his defense is terrible. I know you hate WAR, but every site agrees that Bell IS a hole at 1B. He's been worse than Jaso. If you don't believe the math, just look at the standings. Has Bell caused the Pirates to get more wins?
I'm another who has a problem with WAR. While I know it gives a general overall value of a player, it is ultimately expressed as conjecture in terms of how many wins a player is worth. So when you say, "Has Bell caused the Pirates to get more wins?", it's not actually possible to determine just by looking at the WAR stat. I know his defense is poor. I can't recall if his defense has cost them games because of plays he made or didn't make. I know his bat has contributed to a few wins. I'm willing to see if he can be an asset to the team. A team doesn't need a gold glove at 1B. If he can be just passable at 1B, his bat might be worth having him the lineup. In fact, he could be one of their best hitters. Pedro was so bad it appeared he had a mental block about throwing and catching, and the offense he provided was limited to hitting HRs against RHP while striking out frequently and having a low BA and low OBP. Bell can contribute to the offense with power, BA and OBP from both sides of the plate. So I would be reluctant to accept the conjecture of "numbers of wins" that a lab guy with a plastic pocket protector and a calculator determines by adding up some WAR formulas instead of seeing just how many games Bell will win or lose. Baseball is played on the field and wins are only determined there; never in a lab. I get that the better a player is; the higher his WAR is. But when we start using it as if it factually tells us how many more wins a player is worth, it loses meaning to me.
It must be painful for you that Huntington is one of those pocket-protector nerds. He can't look up from his spreadsheet long enough to realize you can't trade your closer in the middle of a pennant race even if the spreadsheet says it makes long-term business sense in a vacuum.
In any event, your post doesn't become more persuasive by wrapping it in clichés and inflammatory language. Everybody knows the game is played by humans on grass. That doesn't mean you can't analyze the results someplace else. It's akin to saying the back office can't credibly use metrics to determine how the store is operating.
Bell's defense is terrible. It has actually been worse somehow than Alvarez' defense. Could he get better? Yeah, I suppose, but for the reasons I stated above, I'm not holding my breath. I'm not saying he shouldn't be played; I'm saying he's not currently providing any value despite his bat. He's like Alvarez but even more polarizing. I wouldn't hesitate to trade him if you could get a good pitcher from someone that can either use Bell as a DH or simply wants to take the chance he becomes usable in the field.
Wrathchild, sorry you took offense. I wasn't expecting an angry response. My post was not meant to be critical of you. I merely gave my opinion that WAR can be relied on too much when we get into assigning "wins." A case can be made that Bell won't help the team based on WAR. But I believe such decisions should be based on what goes on during games rather than the WAR formula.
Bell, Frazier and the case for the Defense
Not a good defensive team. Average, I'd put it. Just as the stats bear out.
-Cervelli isn't a good defensive catcher, average to below defensively.
-Mercer is sure handed, but his range was atrocious this year and hurt him big time. Average SS to below defensively
JHay has great range but a little bit of bobbles still. He's a good defensive 2nd basemen.
Kang had errors early, but is a good 3bman defensively
Freese is average defensively
Cutch is the worst defensive CF in baseball. The absolute worst.
Polanco has a rifle and is above average overall in RF, but sloppy with his angles and tracking. Sloppy glovework. cannon and speed makes him above average still.
marte is a great LF. Probably the best Defensive LF in baseball.
-Cervelli isn't a good defensive catcher, average to below defensively.
-Mercer is sure handed, but his range was atrocious this year and hurt him big time. Average SS to below defensively
JHay has great range but a little bit of bobbles still. He's a good defensive 2nd basemen.
Kang had errors early, but is a good 3bman defensively
Freese is average defensively
Cutch is the worst defensive CF in baseball. The absolute worst.
Polanco has a rifle and is above average overall in RF, but sloppy with his angles and tracking. Sloppy glovework. cannon and speed makes him above average still.
marte is a great LF. Probably the best Defensive LF in baseball.
-
dogknot17@yahoo.co
Bell, Frazier and the case for the Defense
I really disagree with you about Mercer. If I had to choose one guy to field a bases loaded, final play of the World Series, it would be Mercer.
-
fjk090852-7
- Posts: 3495
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 2:52 pm
Bell, Frazier and the case for the Defense
Marte is a very good fielder when he plays. I think if he gets a slight injury he sits out. He better toughen up in my opinion.
Bell, Frazier and the case for the Defense
3935346F666F676A6D72685F0 wrote: Marte is a very good fielder when he plays. I think if he gets a slight injury he sits out. He better toughen up in my opinion.
He seems to play quite often after he gets hit with a pitch. He had played 122 out of the first 131 this season and played in 153 games in 2015.
He still may need to toughen up but he has been durable other than the back injury this year. Wasn't he sick a couple times rather than injured in other missed games?
He seems to play quite often after he gets hit with a pitch. He had played 122 out of the first 131 this season and played in 153 games in 2015.
He still may need to toughen up but he has been durable other than the back injury this year. Wasn't he sick a couple times rather than injured in other missed games?