Viva El Birdos: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
Around SBN: Follow the @sbnation MMA Twitter List

Just How Valuable is Boog?

After yesterday's game, in which Brendan Ryan made a couple of really nice defensive plays and hit a game changing triple, I began to wonder just how valuable Boog is to this team.  I also began to wonder if he could be the answer at short long-term for the Cardinals.  I've taken a look at his numbers, both in the minors and as a big leaguer, to answer these questions and I think I've come to an encouraging conclusion:  Brendan Ryan has a chance to be a Cardinal for a while.

Let's start by looking at the area where, to the naked eye, Boog has the most value.  This, of course, lies in his defense at SS.  Ryan has the highest UZR/150 rating of anyone in baseball who has played at least 300 innings at SS.  Yes, you read that right.  At arguably the most important defensive position in the game, we have the best fielder in all the majors, according to UZR/150.  And really, its not even that close.  His 26.2 rating is 6 points higher than his closest compatriot at SS, Jack Wilson(who is generally considered one of the better shortstops in the game).  Now, I realize that his 320 innings may cause people to scream "Small Sample Size," but unlike with hitting, luck really doesn't play a part in fielding(especially a zone rating).  Additionally, he has been a plus defender in his other two years with the Cardinals and in his time in the minors, so this defense isn't likely to go away.  His defense this season has been worth 10.7 runs above average already this season, which calculates out to about 1.7 wins(10 runs=1 win).  I have to feel like he is going to get twice as many innings at short in the second half, so if he keeps up his current defensive level, he could be worth at least 3 wins just with the glove alone.

Now let's look as his less glamorous side.  Ryan has been the definition of average at the plate this season, being  worth -0.3 runs at the plate.  Coming into today's game, Boog has had 184 at bats this season, which is 4 more than he had in 2007(I'm kinda disregarding his '08 season due to his rib injury, which we all know can really hurt a player's offensive performance.)  He was worth 2.5 runs above replacement with the bat in 2007, so he has not been quite as good this year at the plate.  His slugging% in those two seasons('07 and '09) is actually higher than i would have thought, being over .400 both season(though just barely).  The thing that really hurts Ryan's offensive performance is his low OBP.  He's never going to hit for any real power(the occasional double or triple) so in order to be a valuable offensive player, he has to get on base.  The reason he has a low OBP is because he doesn't take walks.  His average has hovered around .290-.300, so he is getting hits, he just isn't taking walks.  His BB% is 4.7 this season and was 7.7% in '07.  His highest BB% in the minors was 8.1 in 2006 at low A ball, so we probably don't have a rise in BB% to look forward to.  If he could get is BB% up to, say, 10%, he would be roughly half a win over 500 plate appearances(I extrapolated his current numbers to 500 PA, so thats 50 BBs for a .353 wOBA).  I don't think we will ever see Ryan take 50 walks over 500 at bats, and until he does he will probably be league average hitter.  You could probably also say that his average around .300 is due to a small sample size, and you may be right.  Boog did show the ability to hit for a pretty good average in the minors(.278 in 353 PA in 2007 at Memphis), but expecting him to stay in the .290 to .300 may be asking too much.  Still, I will give him the benefit of the doubt, since he has done it in two different major league seasons.  I will add here that he has shown the ablility to steal a few bases(though his 4 CS in 12 attempts is nothing to write home about); in fact, I believe that if Tony would run more, Ryan could probably steal 20-30 bases over a full season.  That adds some value to the overall Boog package, though probably not much(I'm sure there is some way to evaluate the value of a steal, but I don't know where to find it).

So, hopefully I have shown that , assuming Boog continues to be a plus defender, he can be worth at least 3 runs over the course of a full season(and potentially more if he takes some walks and plays the stellar defense he has been this season).  3 WAR would have made Boog the 11th best SS in baseball last year, more valuable than Stephen Drew, Michael Young, and Cristian Guzman.  3 WAR is more value than Jack Wilson had in any season but his career best year(2004).  Now, this could be Ryan's career year, but since his value is weighted in defense, which isn't likely to diminish to much, I think this could be sustainable.  Not bad for a guy only making 400K(he's been worth $8.7 milion already this year) this season.  He'll have under 3 years of service time after this season, so he'll be incredibly cheap again next season.  He's 27, so he's about to enter the "prime" of his career, and I think he can be a cheap, yet valuable, bridge to the era of the Kozmonaut(Pete Kozma-who probably has at least 2 more years before he's ready to take over.)  Let's just hope his wrist holds up and that is proneness(is that a word?) for injuries stops being a problem.

All stats and figures came from Fangraphs.com

I used the wOBA calcualtor provided online by BayCityBall.com.

If I screwed anything up(math, stats, analysis of numbers) feel free to let me know.

1 recs  |  Comment 114 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

More from Viva El Birdos

The Trade Bait Blues

Oct 2009 by the red baron - 669 comments

Resting the Starters

Sep 2009 by DanUpBaby - 852 comments

Reflection

Sep 2009 by the red baron - 324 comments

Prelude to Postseason Production

Sep 2009 by chuckb - 92 comments

We have an answer, and I'm not Ryan!

Sep 2009 by chuckb - 177 comments

Around SB Nation

Monday Bird Droppings

Oct 2009 from Camden Chat - 23 comments

Are These the Guys We Wanted?

Oct 2009 from Twinkie Town - 36 comments

This Should Be Fun

Oct 2009 from Lookout Landing - 113 comments

Comments

Display:

this is a great

quantification of the shirtlicker. Good read.

"But listen, and understand: more Molinas are out there. They can't be bargained with. They can't be reasoned with. They don't feel pity, or remorse, or fear." - THT

by Yadi2Second on Jul 10, 2009 6:09 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

ditto...but

I’m all for Ryan, and I think I always have been.
Biggest problem I see is with T O N Y. I get the feeling LaRussa thinks Boog is a flake, subject to weird spells of brain-deadness {Tony’s view, not mine.}
I think if there were any other reasonable option … if K Greene had worked out better, if T Greene could hit, if Mo had or would make a trade of some kind…. then poor Boog would be riding the pine or in Memphis.
I agree with YOUR analysis and thanks for your researching efforts.

by the Tewk on Jul 10, 2009 7:22 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

This used to be true,

but ever since Boog was used to PH over Ludwick late in a game earlier this year, it has become apparent that he is the first and so far only player ever to make it out of the TLR doghouse. Even his postgame comments the other day (he was asked a question about being comfortable as starter) referenced Tony’s power over the playing time and his deference to that. He’s seemingly here to stay.

Decrease runs scored?
Maybe.

Decrease winning? Never seen that proven.
-SFTU

by hazel on Jul 10, 2009 9:36 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Great post.

I was indifferent to Brendan Ryan until this season. His defensive play this season has been refreshing.

"If I prepare myself, my stuff is good and I'm going to get outs. That is a fact." - Chris Carpenter

by spants on Jul 10, 2009 8:51 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

doesn't wOBA

include steals?

Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.

by prophetjohn on Jul 10, 2009 9:16 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

not according to the wOBA calculator i used

"Albert hits good pitches hard and bad pitches even harder. And when he gets in the batter's box, if you pray, then you start praying. And if you don't pray, you think about starting."--Brian Bannister

by VolsnCards5 on Jul 10, 2009 9:19 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

i guess i was wrong

i thought TB were included

Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.

by prophetjohn on Jul 10, 2009 9:21 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

it does

but steals aren’t a part of total bases are they

"Albert hits good pitches hard and bad pitches even harder. And when he gets in the batter's box, if you pray, then you start praying. And if you don't pray, you think about starting."--Brian Bannister

by VolsnCards5 on Jul 10, 2009 9:23 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

thats a question..not a statment

"Albert hits good pitches hard and bad pitches even harder. And when he gets in the batter's box, if you pray, then you start praying. And if you don't pray, you think about starting."--Brian Bannister

by VolsnCards5 on Jul 10, 2009 9:24 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

well

i would’ve assumed they were, but again, i’m no expert

Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.

by prophetjohn on Jul 10, 2009 9:47 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

They're not.

Just hits.

"If I prepare myself, my stuff is good and I'm going to get outs. That is a fact." - Chris Carpenter

by spants on Jul 10, 2009 9:50 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Well..

I feel pretty worthless on this forum, most of the time, so.. Oh, wait. You’re talking about Brendan. He’s pretty okay, I guess.

[Homer shows Bart "Wonderbat".]
Bart: Wow. How many home runs you gonna hit with that thing?
Homer: Let's see... We play thirty games. Ten at-bats a game. Mm...three thousand.

by boog on Jul 10, 2009 9:46 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

For the record,

though, I’ve had the Boog tag many years more than Mr. Ryan.

[Homer shows Bart "Wonderbat".]
Bart: Wow. How many home runs you gonna hit with that thing?
Homer: Let's see... We play thirty games. Ten at-bats a game. Mm...three thousand.

by boog on Jul 10, 2009 9:47 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

great post, some minor quibbles though

“luck really doesn’t play a part in fielding”

Yeah, it does, especially over 300ish innings. OTOH, it’s hard to be THAT good and not actually be pretty good, and Ryan passes the eyeball test as well.

“defense … isn’t likely to diminish too much”

Middle infield defenders have a pretty steep aging curve after age 27. Tango says 28. BR is 27 now.

the end of every half inning IS a turning point. -Evilfrog

by SleepyCA on Jul 10, 2009 11:32 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Now, I realize that his 320 innings may cause people to scream “Small Sample Size,” but unlike with hitting, luck really doesn’t play a part in fielding(especially a zone rating)

Holy Jesus.

Derosa.

by vivaelpujols on Jul 11, 2009 5:56 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Would you

Care to explain why you have an objection to his use of the statistic in this way, thus adding to the discussion, or would you prefer to just make a pissy little snipe because you’re ever so much fucking smarter than everyone else around here?

You can't teach a hammer to love nails.

by the red baron on Jul 11, 2009 8:41 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions   1 recs

Pujols Flieding value

Pujols’ fielding values ince being a full-time 1st baseman

2004 4.4
2005 1.0
2006 4.6
2007 18.8
2008 8.5
2009 -1.8

Remember that Pujols had various arm and calf problems, which would likely negatively effect his fielding. Just like hitting there is a degree of variability in fielding. This is due to good/bad years and a degree of luck

by maurerdj on Jul 11, 2009 10:23 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

good point

but pujols has still been a plus defender the whole time at 1st…that is what i was saying about ryan…he’s going to be a good fielder, and luck isn’t nearly as an important factor as it is with batting

"Albert hits good pitches hard and bad pitches even harder. And when he gets in the batter's box, if you pray, then you start praying. And if you don't pray, you think about starting."--Brian Bannister

by VolsnCards5 on Jul 11, 2009 11:26 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'm not sure that's defacto attributable to "luck"

my take on the varying UZR figures is that it’s a measure for which one season of data is not a huge sample size – it’s enough to get a rough clue as to how well someone has defended, but it’s not necessarily a good indicator of their true value (or at least, less so than a full season’s healthy wOBA).

Rather than luck, I think you can argue it’s just a matter of taking small, distinct sample sizes from a larger group of data, for a metric that’s not necessarily wholly reflective of reality anyway…

Felonius Monk - bitching to contact since 2008

by Felonius_Monk on Jul 13, 2009 5:22 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Rather than luck, I think you can argue it’s just a matter of taking small, distinct sample sizes from a larger group of data, for a metric that’s not necessarily wholly reflective of reality anyway…

Well put.

Derosa.

by vivaelpujols on Jul 15, 2009 7:33 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

It came from the fact that

you obviously know what you’re talking about, yet chose not to share that knowledge in an attempt to help enlighten those who don’t understand the concept as well. You could have said, “Whether or not you believe luck plays a part in fielding, it takes something on the order of about 2000 innings before the noise begins to cancel out and we can really start to trust fielding statistics.”

Instead, you chose to belittle someone based on the fact they don’t quite understand how to use a very abstract concept. The poster is mistaken in one of his assumptions; you have the knowledge to enlighten him, rather than simply insult. That’s just the sort of thing that makes so many baseball fans despise stat snobs.

You have so much to offer, but all you did in this case was belittle. I have a problem with that.

You can't teach a hammer to love nails.

by the red baron on Jul 12, 2009 12:40 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

His anaysis was lazy

There has been a shitload of discussion here about the validity of defensive metrics and small sample size performance. There is a ton of information out there about this kind of stuff in popular sites like FanGraphs and THT.

He wrote an analysis explicit trying to determine a player’s value, while using advanced stats, yet chose to make baseless assumptions on some of them. If I ever did that, I wouldn’t feel bad if I got flamed for it.

Still, I guess what I said was just being an asshole and not adding to the discussion, so you’re right.

Derosa.

by vivaelpujols on Jul 12, 2009 4:31 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

but you cannot deny how good Brendan Ryan has been at defense this season

Nasty like Nas, Batman combined with Method Man
G. Rap hydraulics, supersonics call me Shark Man

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jul 13, 2009 3:20 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Of course not

I always thought he was a good defender.

Derosa.

by vivaelpujols on Jul 13, 2009 6:11 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

i get the feeling that if i had said the exact opposite of what i said

you would have disagreed…all i am saying is that ryan’s defense is not nearly as affected by luck as a player’s hitting can be…maybe i did not word it well

i just don’t believe that a players range is contingent on luck

"Albert hits good pitches hard and bad pitches even harder. And when he gets in the batter's box, if you pray, then you start praying. And if you don't pray, you think about starting."--Brian Bannister

by VolsnCards5 on Jul 11, 2009 11:28 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

The creators of most defensive metrics say that a decent sample size,

is something like two years. Even good defenders have years where they go from +20 to +3 because chances on defense are so luck-dependent. Early in the season Schumaker’s defense was something like minus 40. That was partially skill, but it was a ton of luck as he didn’t really look that bad out there. He has brought it up to a respectable not entirely vomit-worthy -15. He’s also considered a decent defensive outfielder, yet he’s oscillated wildly from nearly +30, perennial gold-glove LF to -20, Jermaine Dye and Adam Dunn love child RF in the same season in similar sample sizes to BRyan’s 2009.

While your statement

i just don’t believe that a players range is contingent on luck

seems perfectly reasonable, the measurement of that range isn’t just how quickly a player can jump and run 5-10 yards (that basically doesn’t change or goes up until age 27-30 and then declines slowly). It’s based on chances, which include every kind of interference, hops, weather, interactions with teammates and opponents, and positioning (in, holding runners, out, shifted). A good defender can easily go from a huge +25 season to one that is average, just based on luck. This isn’t to say we don’t know anything. Adam Dunn will never put up a +25 season in the same way Carl Crawford will never hit 40 home runs, but it’s very difficult to say much more with certainty in smaller than whole-season (or larger) samples.

Decrease runs scored?
Maybe.

Decrease winning? Never seen that proven.
-SFTU

by hazel on Jul 11, 2009 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

thanks for the insight

i guess i had just always thought defense was less luck-based than offense

"Albert hits good pitches hard and bad pitches even harder. And when he gets in the batter's box, if you pray, then you start praying. And if you don't pray, you think about starting."--Brian Bannister

by VolsnCards5 on Jul 11, 2009 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Defensive metrics are just not as accurate as offensive metrics.

Hopefully Hitf/x and a bit more time will make them more reliable. Boog has looked great so far, and while this may be some luck, his true talent is definitely very high.

Decrease runs scored?
Maybe.

Decrease winning? Never seen that proven.
-SFTU

by hazel on Jul 11, 2009 12:55 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

that's the key

defense itself MAY BE less variable or less luck based but our ability to weed out the noise precludes us from verifying that.

Future Redbirds - tracking Cardinal prospects for Cardinal Nation

by azruavatar on Jul 11, 2009 2:58 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

good point

It’s easy to “mistake the map for the territory” when it comes to defensive metrics. They are not “the player’s skill”; they are an attempt to measure the player’s skill.

the end of every half inning IS a turning point. -Evilfrog

by SleepyCA on Jul 11, 2009 3:13 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

yea that is my take

but with no proof, i can see why people might take issue with my analysis

i just feel, based on current level, boog is a gold glove caliber SS(if the GG were a defensive award only, which unfortunately it isn’t)

"Albert hits good pitches hard and bad pitches even harder. And when he gets in the batter's box, if you pray, then you start praying. And if you don't pray, you think about starting."--Brian Bannister

by VolsnCards5 on Jul 11, 2009 3:24 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

The issue with your analysis, at least in the case of the UZR claim you made,

is that you’re using much, much, much too small a sample size to draw any accurate conclusions. We know that you need something on the order of 2000 innings, or ~2 seasons, worth of data, before any conclusions based on most fielding metrics become really worthwhile. Anything less than that and you simply don’t have enough chances for a fielder to ensure that you’re not drawing sweeping conclusions based on noise. 350 innings sounds like a lot, sure, but when you start to consider how many balls are actually hit to a fielder in any given inning, you begin to see it isn’t nearly enough chances.

You can absolutely argue that, based on what you see with your eyes on an everyday basis, you expect Ryan’s defense to continue on at its current level, and in fact, I would tend to agree with you. He has excellent range, good hands, and plenty of arm to make any throw he needs to. Scouting him and then either agreeing or disagreeing with how you think the numbers are going to trend is fine. The problem comes when you try to use those numbers as a tool to support your argument. The numbers themselves simply aren’t legitimate yet, so it adds absolutely nothing of value to your argument.

You simply can’t use the UZR data the way you did, at least not for a long time. Or, rather, you can use the data that way, but in such a context, those numbers don’t mean anything.

You can't teach a hammer to love nails.

by the red baron on Jul 12, 2009 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Just a question.

If the innings number is based on the number of attemts a fielder gets, do we adjust that value based on the position played? Obviously, a SS is going to get significantly more fielding attempts than a RF, so is that adjusted?

by etp_stl on Jul 12, 2009 12:59 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Not entirely sure.

I believe there may be some adjustment, but in a very general sense, the idea is that over that many innings, things will even out regardless of the exact number of chances a given position sees.

It’s an interesting question, and I’m sure there is some number of chances that roughly equates to the 2000 inning/ 2 year mark, but I honestly don’t know what it is.

You can't teach a hammer to love nails.

by the red baron on Jul 12, 2009 1:03 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Infielder UZR is "better" than outfielders,

meaning it takes less time to stabilize, for the reasons that you mentioned and the fact that OF UZR can be confusing with overlapping zones.

Derosa.

by vivaelpujols on Jul 12, 2009 4:26 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

i suspect OF defense has a higher "noise" rate, with more variability

in the type of hits. UZR doesn’t distinguish the speed at which balls are hit, so even chris duncan could get a lazy pop-up that stays in the air for a week to shallow LF; he gets the same credit as for catching a sinking liner that carl crawford would have to go all-out for.

the same effect (IFF v. weak GB v. sharp GB v. liners) would be present in the infield, but i’d suspect the variability is much less.

the truth can't hurt you, it's just like the dark/ it scares you witless, but in time you see things clear and stark -- macmanus

by tom s. on Jul 13, 2009 2:14 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'm pretty sure that UZR does account for how hard the ball was hit

Not mathematically of course, but I’d be surprised if the stringers who enter in the data don’t enter a coding for how hard the ball was hit.

Derosa.

by vivaelpujols on Jul 13, 2009 7:47 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

you mean like the gameday lines "singles on a sharp GB to

RF" v. “grounds out weakly to the SS”? i hadn’t heard that. i had thought it was just zone by zone.

the truth can't hurt you, it's just like the dark/ it scares you witless, but in time you see things clear and stark -- macmanus

by tom s. on Jul 13, 2009 8:03 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'm pretty sure it just differentiates between

GB, FB, LD and IFFB, however they’re scored (and as you know, the classification of those differs from stadium to stadium, scorer to scorer, so there’s some definite bias there).

Felonius Monk - bitching to contact since 2008

by Felonius_Monk on Jul 14, 2009 1:36 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'm still learning all this stat stuff.

I have a couple comments though.

- I completely understand a player’s UZR value “leveling off” due to sample size, however IMO it would be hard for a bad player to “get a lucky” high UZR value. In other words, a good defender might be “unlucky” and not have balls hit to the extreme of their range, but a bad defender (Duncan) will never have a great UZR (still a leveling off effect though).
Conclusion: Small sample size
=Good defender looking bad due to bad luck
=Bad defender never looking good due to good luck

- It seems to me that UZR rating is not as presice as it needs to be if it is rated by innings played and not fielding attempts. I’m sure BRyan will have many more attempts with Carp and Pineiro on the mound than other SS around the league. Yes we could say 2000 innings should result in enough fielding attempts, but is that where the line has to be drawn? Shouldn’t it be rated on fielding attemps?

-

by Schnurdog on Jul 13, 2009 3:17 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Innings are used as a proxy for opportunities

based on position. UZR/150 is X opportunities that you would expect at position Y in “150 games”.

Future Redbirds - tracking Cardinal prospects for Cardinal Nation

by azruavatar on Jul 13, 2009 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

you can see this effect in some players in very small samples

they’ll have 3 innings in RF and have a 47 UZR/150 rating.

one way a bad player could get a good UZR in a SSS is to have the lazy pop-up I mentioned above. if the ball has a huge hangtime, you don’t need great range to get under it. or, you could be playing on a shift, for instance, like a LF shading toward the gap for a LH hitter who catches a ball in LCF. that’s two ways to get a high UZR in a SSS off the top of my head. I’m sure there are others.

the truth can't hurt you, it's just like the dark/ it scares you witless, but in time you see things clear and stark -- macmanus

by tom s. on Jul 13, 2009 4:04 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

thanks for the info

it makes sense to me…i just didn’t consider it when doing the post

"Albert hits good pitches hard and bad pitches even harder. And when he gets in the batter's box, if you pray, then you start praying. And if you don't pray, you think about starting."--Brian Bannister

by VolsnCards5 on Jul 12, 2009 2:39 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Based on the number of chances though

wouldn’t a SS, because he gets so many more chances that everyone else on the field, normalize quicker than that? I understand that 2000 innings is a baseline for most players, but a SS will probably have nearly 4 times as many chances in that time period as a first-baseman would.

"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller

by fourstick on Jul 13, 2009 12:31 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

That was my question, and ...

Baron said he didn’t know. See above.

by etp_stl on Jul 13, 2009 9:18 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yes

They would. If you’ll read Colin Wyers’ most recent article on THT, he shows that infielders UZR takes less time to stabilize.

Derosa.

by vivaelpujols on Jul 13, 2009 11:18 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I wouldn't necessarily think that was true though

a CF is probably going to get more chances than a first baseman will over the course of a season, maybe not as many more than a SS would, but definitely more chances.

IMO, I’m still unsure that UZR measures true “talent” level on defense, but it is the best metric that we have currently, and it appears to evaluate fielders correctly based on the numbers for players that I’ve seen play a lot, which are mostly Cardinals and Royals players.

"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller

by fourstick on Jul 14, 2009 12:18 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

UZR doesn't measure talent, it attempts to measure value

The thinking is that over a very large sample size (like 2-3 seasons), it measures talent.

Derosa.

by vivaelpujols on Jul 14, 2009 1:28 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Isn't that semantics?

Value = Talent, to a certain extent, right? You can’t measure a player’s WAR value without being able to say that he has some sort of talent or no talent at certain aspects of the game. If a guy can’t be considered to have an innate “talent” that is attributable to the value that we’re measuring, then what good is the value measurement other than to determine whether we made a good financial decision in hindsight?

If we’re only measuring value, then UZR really doesn’t measure anything noteworthy in terms of performance because it’s not predictive enough in a relative timetable of one or two seasons to help a team make marginal decisions on personnel.

"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller

by fourstick on Jul 14, 2009 12:05 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I don't think so.

UZR literally only measures success and failure in repeated trials. This is extrapolated into runs saved and value.

Even over small samples, UZR really does measure value. A player makes a great play on opening day and saves a run, his season UZR/150 jumps up to +80. No one would say his talent is anywhere close to that, but he really was that valuable over the small sample. Skip Schumaker’s UZR/150 hovered in the negative mid-forties for a few weeks, but no one was concluding that his talent made him the worst defender in the history of baseball (or almost no one).

Decrease runs scored?
Maybe.

Decrease winning? Never seen that proven.
-SFTU

by hazel on Jul 14, 2009 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

i'd quibble with this a little bit. UZR measures how

defensive plays fit the dataset of plays that it “likes.” a single defensive play may be “out of zone” but not be a spectacular play (like a lazy pop-up, or a player playing on a shift). UZR is going to like that play a lot, even though most players positioned the same way would have made it. conversely, a sharply hit line drive near a player that a player couldn’t reach and that no one could reach because of its speed would register as a negative, or a player playing on a shift misses a ball that goes right through the spot where he WOULD have been playing if he weren’t on a shift.

it takes a big sample size to relegate all that noise to a low level of significance. UZR directly measures defensive data sets that it’s programmed to like; only at large sample size does “data it likes” correlate strongly with “good defense.”

the truth can't hurt you, it's just like the dark/ it scares you witless, but in time you see things clear and stark -- macmanus

by tom s. on Jul 14, 2009 5:45 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Here is an interview with MGL. The most relevant part:

JH: What factors do you consider when determining the probability of a ball being turned into an out?

MGL: I’m glad you asked! Type (hard, medium, soft, same as John and BIS I think), location (as I said, distance, in typically 30 to 35 feet increments, and 22 pie slices from foul line to foul line), the handedness of the batter (which implicates fielder positioning and sub-speeds within the three classes of speed), the baserunners and outs (which also implicates fielder positioning), and the G/F proclivity of the pitcher (which implicates speed). I hope I didn’t miss any, but I could have.

Derosa.

by vivaelpujols on Jul 15, 2009 1:37 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

thanks for the quote. good to know.

i did see mgl quoted as saying that calculating “hang time” and fielder positioning were the two major factors that needed to be added to the UZR system to make it truly representative of good defense.

the truth can't hurt you, it's just like the dark/ it scares you witless, but in time you see things clear and stark -- macmanus

by tom s. on Jul 15, 2009 4:13 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Here's the thing though

I don’t need a stat to measure how “valuable” one catch is, I can see that with my own eyes and I’m sure to catch it 5 times on Sportscenter, Baseball Tonight, and the Cardinals Post-Game Show. Not only that, but WPA is actually better for determining the “value” of the particular catch and how it relates to winning the game, which is the ultimate goal.

You’re missing my point though — it may determine value, but only after the fact. It cannot determine defensive value going forward, or predictively, like offensive stats such as wOBA and pitching stats such as tRA and FIP can, which is to say that it can’t determine projective value in a meaningful enough sample size to give us any real determination of the value of a player’s defensive ability. The average major league career is less than one season — if UZR can’t determine a player’s value in at least a season’s worth of data, then it just isn’t worth using to determine a player’s value, because it’s not statistically relevant in the accepted range.

"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller

by fourstick on Jul 14, 2009 6:29 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

UZR can be predictive, as long as you regress the data properly

If a player, in his age 28-30 year old seasons, puts up UZR’s of +5, -2 and +15, you would treat each season as a seperate data point and regress properly to the mean. I think the proper amount of regression is about 50% each year for infielders and 60% for outfielders. Then you would wiegh the data properly, add an aging curve and viola!

Guys who actually do defensive projections, like Sean Smith, probably have a more complicated system with stuff like fielder height and weight, but they do essentially the same thing that I mentioned above.

I don’t see why people think that UZR is so much different from offensive statistics. Due to it’s error bars, it isn’t as well correlated as wOBA, but that just means you have to regress it more.

Derosa.

by vivaelpujols on Jul 15, 2009 1:44 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Did you even READ my comment?

Or did you read “it isn’t predictive” and then skip the entire rest of the words?

If I have to regress three seasons worth of data to eliminate the error bars, what do I do when I don’t have three seasons worth of data? What if I want to evaluate whether Brendan Ryan is good enough defensively to be the SS of the future for the Cardinals? UZR can’t tell me this without a ton of other input, most of which I would have to gather by watching him play, every day, for half a season. But I can evaluate his bat using wOBA without having to see him play every day for 3 months and compare him to other players of that ilk with around 300 to 400 AB’s worth of data and get it to correlate pretty well.

This is my point: If you can’t use it to evaluate talent or value in an accepted range and then use that to predict future performance, then it’s not worth using to predict future performance. Since I need three years worth of data and most major league careers fall 2 years short of that range, it’s effectively a poor statistic to judge
talent or predict performance.

You can argue any way you want to, you’re not going to change my mind on UZR unless we can regress it in terms of a half season’s worth of “chances” and not innings.

"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller

by fourstick on Jul 15, 2009 1:11 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yes I fucking read your comment

And my point still stands. If Brendan Ryan puts up a +30 UZR is 1/2 of a season, you just regress that a lot. That’s exactly what we do with offensive data in our projections.

Derosa.

by vivaelpujols on Jul 16, 2009 12:20 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Except that offensive data

correlate pretty well at half a season. UZR data doesn’t. Regressing a well correlated data set a lot is still going to give you a whole lot better idea of value and talent than regressing a poor data set a whole lot. Put up a Fanpost that regresses UZR and wOBA and shows a similar F-Test and t-test over the sample size of a full season (i.e. 600 AB’s or 1350 innings), and I’ll begin to listen to your argument. I don’t believe this to be statistically possible given how UZR is currently calculated, unless you make a ton of assumptions about the data in UZR, which would lessen the predictability of the data set.

I know I don’t write for Driveline Mechanics, but I did take 3 semesters worth of statistical analysis in college and I do know what I’m talking about. Again, I’m not saying that it tells us nothing, just that it doesn’t tell us things with a high degree of certainty within a given data range — which is between half a season and a full season’s worth of data. There are a ton of statheads that agree with this, so why is it such a problem for you?

FWIW, your arrogance when it comes to the issue of UZR is tiresome, when most of the rest of your sabermetric brethren agree that it really isn’t a great judge of talent and value.

"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller

by fourstick on Jul 16, 2009 9:29 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I've never taken a stat course in my life

So maybe I’m not as equipped to answer this as you, but this guy might be. I believe he did the test that you are talking about. Basically, he suggest what I am telling you to do. The fewer observations and the more uncertainty those observations have, the more you regress. And going by his article, UZR doesn’t have a terrible correlation in comparison to wOBA.

I’m not saying that it tells us nothing, just that it doesn’t tell us things with a high degree of certainty within a given data range — which is between half a season and a full season’s worth of data. There are a ton of statheads that agree with this, so why is it such a problem for you?

Yes I agree with that, but that has not been the stance that you or other guys on this blog have taken. I can point to multiple comments that say UZR is worthless, and other things like that.

All I am telling you do is understand the uncertainties, than either regress it accordingly or make judgements know the uncertainties. That is what you are supposed to do with every stat. You shouldn’t just throw it out.

   

Derosa.

by vivaelpujols on Jul 16, 2009 9:56 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

You're probably right that a players range is more consistent that hitting...

but UZR isn’t a measure of actual skill, at least not in a small sample size (which 300 innings definitely is, it’s a measure of value. As hazel said, fielding chances can be affected by luck significantly.

Derosa.

by vivaelpujols on Jul 11, 2009 4:11 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

and value

is directly affected by skill

Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.

by prophetjohn on Jul 11, 2009 10:02 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

A small sample size of anything doesn't reflect skill

Much less one that has so much variance like UZR. Colin Wyers of THT tested out that variance and found that you should regress about 65% of a league average player into a full season of UZR.

Derosa.

by vivaelpujols on Jul 12, 2009 5:24 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

i didn't say that.

a small sample size of uzr doesn’t accurately reflect value, either, at least not a player’s true value, only what they’ve been worth. a player’s actual value is directly proportional to their skill

Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.

by prophetjohn on Jul 12, 2009 10:53 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

No, value is completely separate from skill

Magglio Ordenez put up a 9 WAR season in 07, but given the fact that he has never had anything approaching that before or after, we know that it doesn’t reflect his true skill. OTOH, it actually happened, so he did provide value to his club that year.

Derosa.

by vivaelpujols on Jul 12, 2009 4:00 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

i guess

i should be saying “performance” instead of “skill” to accurately portray what i was saying

value is an abstract concept based on what the player is actually doing. magglio hit and caught balls in a manner that made him worth nine wins above replacement.

but value is still directly affected by skill, even if luck and POH% (playing over head percent) also have a factor in calculating it

Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.

by prophetjohn on Jul 12, 2009 4:13 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

We have all

seen with our own eyes the kids can play D. I was suprised to see that he is the best SS in the ML. I would like to see him increase his OBP and get the green light more. Maybe he could be turned in a lead off guy. Well, I can hope.

by nybirdfan on Jul 11, 2009 9:59 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Ryan

has always been an entertaining player to watch for me. He makes things happen when he is in there; sometimes good sometimes bad, but more good than bad.

From his first day in the big leagues he seemed confident, comfortable and not intimidated at all by being a big leaguer. That alone to me goes a long way to being successful at the Major league level.

I thought from the beginning, he could develop into a pesky hitter with good defense and speed but I had no idea he was as good defensively as he has shown this year.

My main concern though is just how durable he will be, as hard as he plays he could be injury prone. His body looks a little frail for the hard nosed game he plays.

Also, like Ryan, Rasmus shows no signs of being intimidated by being in the majors, so I think both have a lot to contribute to the team.

by ridgesee on Jul 11, 2009 11:05 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

durability

is definitely a big factor with Ryan. he’s been on the DL every year he’s been in the system, and in 7 seasons, he’s played in 600ish games.

But man, can he play SS.

the end of every half inning IS a turning point. -Evilfrog

by SleepyCA on Jul 11, 2009 2:28 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

True

I agree with your analysis of his body type and the way that he plays. He has that Ecksteinesque way of
playing. No Fear. And that could lead to trouble down the road, but damn is it fun to watch.

by cardfanndeboonies on Jul 11, 2009 9:48 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'm happy to say

Ryan is currently proving me wrong. I’ve never thought he had any sort of major league career ahead of him, except as perhaps a cheap Cesar Izturis/backup MIF type on a non-contending team. I think his bat will always suck but if he can be a +10 SS (which I think is a possibility) he can hit like a replacement-level player and still be about league average. I think he’s a good placeholder until Kozma/Jackson are ready…

Felonius Monk - bitching to contact since 2008

by Felonius_Monk on Jul 13, 2009 5:35 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

i agree with every bit of this post

boog’s defense has always been above average, but never like we’ve seen this year. some of the plays he can make with his arm (see: thursday’s game) deep in the hold are amazing, something eckstein and kbot never did or could do.

on the offensive side, he has always frustrated me. however, i watched his average in the paper morning after morning as it got closer and eventually to and beyond the 300 mark. no, he doesn’t take a lot of walks, but he’s the perfect man for the #9 spot in the lineup. tony would be foolish to not use him as the everyday SS in the second half.

by stlcardinalsfang on Jul 11, 2009 2:07 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

defense...

… i think his defense was hampered by injuries last year, and very sparing use in ‘07. he may not actually be the best defensive SS in the majors, but i think his defensive ability has always been high. the question is whether he can keep his OBP around .330-.340. if so, then he’s a valuable player. if not, then he’s not so great.

by kindred on Jul 11, 2009 5:02 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

i agree

any player that can get 3 wins with his glove alone can get away with a lot at the plate (see: some of the early yadi years), but eventually he has to start producing at the dish. there’s a big difference between boog have an OBP of .335 and an OBP of .320. it has to be more towards the former.

by stlcardinalsfang on Jul 11, 2009 5:35 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

right...

… he’s been exactly league-average with the bat so far this season, mostly b/c his OBP is .337. with his great defense he could probably be a league-average SS if his OPS dipped to .700 (it’s .738 right now), so if he could maintain .280/.320/.380 with great defense then he’s a 2 WAR player. i think he can manage that.

by kindred on Jul 11, 2009 5:57 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

the operative words

in fang’s comment are …“Tony would be foolish…”

the aforementioned Tony has yet to pull the trigger on (not playing) Ankiel, Duncan and Thurston. He has yet to relent on his mania for having an extra pitcher that he rarely even USES. He has yet (to convince ME anyway) to fully commit to Rasmus as the everyday CF, moreover even seeming to entertain the idea of moving him out of the 2 hole, to the 5 or 6 rbi spot. etc
In the B Ryan case, however, we may get lucky, in the sense that LaRussa may be forced to use Boog at SS for lack of an even remotely viable option.

by the Tewk on Jul 12, 2009 2:11 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

well that's the thing...

… TLR had every reason to give KG a fair shot, just as he had every reason to give Ank and Dunc their chances to round into shape (esp. when Boog and Luddy were injured and/or ineffective). over the past month, however, he’s played Rasmus and Ryan full-time. and for the three games that DeRosa was in the line-up, Thurston was treated as he should be: a bench player. unfortunately DeRosa and KG got hurt and TG flamed out, so Thurston and one of Ank/Dunc/Stav is back in the line-up. this isn’t TLR’s design, but simply making the best of a pretty piss-poor hand.

best (somewhat optimistic) case: by August 1st (or 15th) Glaus can throw from 3rd to 1st, DeRosa can swing a bat, and our lineup is:

1. Schu 2B/LF
2. DeRosa LF/2B (i don’t think it matters too much which is where, but i’d prefer Schu in LF)
3. 5
4. Luddy RF
5. Raz CF
6. Glaus 3B
7. Yadi C
8. Pitcher
9. Boog SS

with a bench of Ank, Dunc, Thursty, Larue, Greene/Hoff/Greene. against LH pitchers, put Boog at the top of the lineup and Hoff/Greene/Greene at the bottom.

i’ll take that any day of the week, and i think TLR would too. that’s playoff worthy line-up, with a playoff-worthy rotation. and if the bullpen holds steady or even improves, then it’s clearly a playoff-worthy team. i’d be happy to take my chances with that line-up and Carp/Waino/Lohse/Piniero in the playoffs.

of course it’s possible that Glaus and DeRosa never play another game for the BoB, Lohse hasn’t really recovered, Ank/Dunc/KG never escape their doldrums, Boog gets over-caffeinated and freaks out, and we fall off the pace. but the former seems more likely than the latter to me.

i’m truly optimistic about this team, for probably the first time this season. we’re in first by a few games, the teams chasing us have flaws at least as big as ours, and we have a lot of room to get better with Lohse/Glaus/DeRosa. even marginal guys like Kinney and Reyes could improve and give us an extra win or two in the second half. quite frankly Ank/Dunc/Thursty cannot get any worse. literally. sure, Piniero and Franklin probably regress some, but Welly and Motte probably improve.

we’re in good shape right now.

by kindred on Jul 12, 2009 4:37 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yea I would love to have that starting lineup

But that bench is pretty ugly, but at least they’re not playing like some of them are now.

The poster formerly known as JoeyBombs.

by RasRoY on Jul 12, 2009 11:50 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I would seriously question Glaus' return.

Even if he does return, I don’t think there is any reason to believe that he will provide the kind of offense that he did last year with a bum shoulder. We saw how Rolen returned, and this is Glaus’ second shoulder recovery.

I still think this team is in dire need of a #5 hitter, and I wouldn’t count on anything in-house filling that void.

by etp_stl on Jul 12, 2009 1:04 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Glaus won't hit like he did last year

but he doesn’t need to to be an upgrade over Thurston. Even if he’s only getting on base, and his power is sapped (like Rolen when he did his shoulder), he should improve our lineup a lot. As long as he can throw to 1B, I don’t think he’ll be much worse than Thurston defensively. Even if he’s lost more than half his value from last year, he’s still worth 2 wins the rest of the way, which is more than Thurston will add.

Felonius Monk - bitching to contact since 2008

by Felonius_Monk on Jul 13, 2009 5:39 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Sapping his power will affect his ability to get on base, too.

Losing power doesn’t just take away HRs, it also turns singles into outs. It turns 2Bs off the wall into weak fly balls. That’s what happened to Rolen the first year back (2005). I agree that he doesn’t have to do much to be better than Thurston, but it still doesn’t help this team fill the gaping holes in the #5 and #6 spots.

by etp_stl on Jul 13, 2009 9:36 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

He'll still walk plenty

and I’d probably put him in the 2 hole in front of Albert and hit Derosa 5th or 6th.

"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller

by fourstick on Jul 13, 2009 12:43 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

That's the one thing Thurston does now.

I obviously don’t know how it will actually turn out, so I’m just speculating on what I’ve seen of returns from shoulder injuries. I just don’t want people to get their hopes up about him. DeRosa’s sub .800 OPS doesn’t scream #5 hitter to me. I would guess you would have to move Rasmus there to try to make it better.

by etp_stl on Jul 13, 2009 9:23 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I like Rasmus in the 6 hole

because of his speed and power mix. He can drive the ball out to keep a big inning going, but he can create a run scoring situation with his ability to steal bases and put himself in scoring position for the weaker hitters behind him in the 7, 8, and 9 holes.

"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller

by fourstick on Jul 14, 2009 12:20 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

That speed and power is why I like him in the 2 hole.

I know there are plenty who believe that his speed will leave 1B open to make it easier to walk Albert, but how is one hit to get two baserunners such an awful thing? It is neither Albert’s nor Colby’s fault that there is a giant sucking sound from the massive hole in the lineup following Ludwick. I would prefer to see Colby receive the additional ABs from batting higher in the order. Nearly half of Albert’s hits are singles, so having a guy that can regularly go 1st to 3rd and possibly score on a fielding hiccup.

Of course, moving Colby in the order is nothing more than rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic, right now. Nor does it give me any reason to believe that Glaus will provide any offensive value this year. I won’t go down the Mulder road with the organization again. (Does anybody else see that becoming a fan fixture phrase in St. Louis “the Mulder road?”) If this team doesn’t add another bat, either with Wallace or from elsewhere, then there is no reason to discuss post-season possibilities, IMO.

by etp_stl on Jul 15, 2009 8:59 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

all of these are true

but tony likes brendan ryan. and that’s about the best analysis i can give you.

by stlcardinalsfang on Jul 12, 2009 12:33 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Personally,

I actually prefer Rasmus in the #6 slot. Unfortunately, he fits too well in the 2 hole right now to move him, so there he stays. But long term, I think he fits perfectly at 6. He has the power to clean up all the runners from the middle of the order ahead of the bottom, and with the bottom of the order up with him on base, there might actually be an opportunity for him to use his speed and take a base, rather than playing strict station to station ahead of Albert.

As it is now, an out with Albert or Ludwick up to bat is simply too valuable to risk the stolen base. With the bottom of the order up, the calculus changes significantly, and would free up Colby to use another of his tools that, right now, is a total non-factor.

(And yes, I realise that wasn’t really the point of your post, but it’s an issue I find interesting.)

You can't teach a hammer to love nails.

by the red baron on Jul 12, 2009 1:01 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Wow.

Couple of really, really clumsy sentences in there. Eh. Fuck it.

You can't teach a hammer to love nails.

by the red baron on Jul 12, 2009 1:04 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I have the feeling that I am quite a bit older

than most on here. I was twelve when the Card’s won in ‘82. I remember watching Sutter strike out Gorman Thomas. So I compare what I have to seen to what I see. Back then we had a guy by the name of Ozzie whom was not known to rake with the bat. True, he had some really good years but he had some years where he couldn’t sand if he fell of the proverbial camel. His OBP wasn’t always just tremendous either by the way. While I am not putting Ryan into that lofty stature yet, I can really live with what he is doing as long as he keeps it up.

 We live in a different time now, the players are different. Everybody wants a Jeter or Arod or Nomar for an SS. Strong arm, good range, high avg., home run power. Me, I’ll settle for the kid catching the ball and throwing accurately. If he gets a hit here and there, then great for us. KGreen showed us what it’s like to not have that.

by cardfanndeboonies on Jul 11, 2009 3:34 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

hear hear...or is it here here

either way, i agree…SS is a defensive position, always has been and always will be…any offense(as long as its not just abysmal) is a cherry on top

"Albert hits good pitches hard and bad pitches even harder. And when he gets in the batter's box, if you pray, then you start praying. And if you don't pray, you think about starting."--Brian Bannister

by VolsnCards5 on Jul 11, 2009 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

actually,

i think it’s, “hear here”

Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.

by prophetjohn on Jul 11, 2009 10:11 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'm even older

than you, deboonies. and, the Wizard notwithstanding, MY all-time favorite Cardinal SS was Dal Maxvill.
“I never saw Maxie make an error from the 7th inning on, or when the game was on the line.” —Mike Shannon

by the Tewk on Jul 12, 2009 2:16 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

especially with a ground ball pitch to contact staff

and with a marginal defensive 2nd baseman still learning his way, and (potentially) a iffy glove with a plus bat soon to be at 3rd. You’re not going to have to pay him multiple millions for a few years either.

But even without those factors, I’d still like to keep Ryan around for the next few years. If you have a glove that is in the top quarter at SS, you can put up with a low average/low obp and still get great value. I don’t think Ryan is this good with the bat, but I think he probably is among the best with the glove even though I am not sure as good as UZR/150 suggests. Maybe, maybe not. Either way, he is clearly damn good. Just have to watch him to know that.

by Merry CRasmus on Jul 12, 2009 2:24 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

You're not old

I was12, when the Cards won in 1946.

by ridgesee on Jul 12, 2009 9:36 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

wow...that is awesome

you should do a fanpost on some of your memories from those teams

"Albert hits good pitches hard and bad pitches even harder. And when he gets in the batter's box, if you pray, then you start praying. And if you don't pray, you think about starting."--Brian Bannister

by VolsnCards5 on Jul 12, 2009 2:36 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

+1

would love to read that.

the end of every half inning IS a turning point. -Evilfrog

by SleepyCA on Jul 12, 2009 6:01 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

This fall

after the season, I will

by ridgesee on Jul 12, 2009 6:59 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

one thing i hope you address is if you ever wore an onion on your belt

It kind of sounds like he’s [Duncan] just running around like a puppy out there – full speed ahead in random directions. – BTown Birds Fan

by gdm426 on Jul 13, 2009 2:37 AM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

because that was the fashion at the time?

Felonius Monk - bitching to contact since 2008

by Felonius_Monk on Jul 13, 2009 5:42 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

You and Tewk

Have me beaten on that count. I was just basing it on some of the conversations I have seen in here and was starting to feel old. lol Now I don’t feel so bad.

by cardfanndeboonies on Jul 12, 2009 7:53 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

3 WAR would be excellent

I’m not sold on his defense; his minor league ratings haven’t been great, and while he’s looked amazing this year, I’ve learned not to trust my own eyes very much. Still, even if he is only +5 at short, he can still be a crappy hitter and be a good player.

Derosa.

by vivaelpujols on Jul 12, 2009 7:41 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Compared w/Iz2 last year

Cesar Izturis WAR

Iz2 was 1.5 WAR last year and 2.0 for his career. If Boog keeps up his current play, we have made HUGE progress at SS

Proud sponsor of the Official 2009 StL Cardinal theme song: Reason to Believe

by gocards62 on Jul 12, 2009 9:12 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

If 10 runs = 1 win and he is worth 10.7

He’d be worth 1.07 wins on defense, not 1.7. 1.7 would be equal to 17 runs

The poster formerly known as JoeyBombs.

by RasRoY on Jul 12, 2009 11:27 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

ha

good point…man that is some shoddy math on my part…thanks for pointing it out

"Albert hits good pitches hard and bad pitches even harder. And when he gets in the batter's box, if you pray, then you start praying. And if you don't pray, you think about starting."--Brian Bannister

by VolsnCards5 on Jul 12, 2009 2:33 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

No Problem

The poster formerly known as JoeyBombs.

by RasRoY on Jul 12, 2009 3:06 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

after seeing the play Boog made last night (and all the other ones this season)

I have no problem believing that Brendan Ryan is the best defensive shortstop right now. I now call him Wiz Kid

Nasty like Nas, Batman combined with Method Man
G. Rap hydraulics, supersonics call me Shark Man

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jul 13, 2009 3:21 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

I still like shirtlicker

"But listen, and understand: more Molinas are out there. They can't be bargained with. They can't be reasoned with. They don't feel pity, or remorse, or fear." - THT

by Yadi2Second on Jul 14, 2009 10:12 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I call him Marmaduke Cutlery.

Felonius Monk - bitching to contact since 2008

by Felonius_Monk on Jul 14, 2009 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Good post if only

to note what a contribution Ryan has made to this point. Whether or not SS defense withers after age 27 or it’s a small sample size or defensive stats are or are not more stable than offensive stats, Brendan Ryan has made a huge contribution, considering all the circumstances, to the Cardinals’ first place position at the all star break. One of the interesting things about that for me is that, despite being unable to see many Cardinal games, he absolutely wowed me when I could see him a couple of years ago. After watching guys like Eckstein and the endless chain of second basemen look essentially like me trying to throw a guy out from the middle infield this was a guy who looked like he had the range, arm and outstanding reflexes to be a real plus major league infielder. As we are so often forced to do, I kept asking “What is it that Tony doesn’t like?”. There is no comparison between Ryan and the other pretenders, Greene, Greene, Thurston, Barden, Schumaker et al at least defensively and it’s amazing that Ryan had to win the job only after others failed. I’m very glad that the fielding stats seem to confirm what my eyeballs, and others, have seen and think that the Cardinals’ chances down the stretch are as dependent on Ryan’s health and continued good play as they are on any of the starters other than Albert.

by easy on Jul 15, 2009 7:38 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the Internet's #1 St. Louis Cardinals blog.
Start posting about the Cardinals »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Stl_ia_card_45_-_dark_small
Jeff Pearlman Thinks Of Hair Clumps When He Thinks Of The Thief McGwire
Black-spider-monkey_small
Losing my religion (w/ baseball)

Recent FanPosts

Small
40 Man Question..
Cathybachebay1_small
The current Busine$$ of Baseball...how long can it last?
Avatar_small
VEB CheBird T-Shirt for Sale - Red or Powder Blue, CLEARANCE
Stl_ia_card_45_-_dark_small
October Lore: One In A Million
St-louis-cardinals-script_small
A Team of Free Agents
St-louis-cardinals_small
Report: LaRussa Will Return
Small
Skip's Lament: The Curse of Too Many Decent Players
Stlcardinals4070_small
Closer Fail

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managers

Jack_benny_small DanUpBaby

Editors

Bender1_small azruavatar

Adam1_small chuckb

Trigun_001_small the red baron