Comments on: Speed For Second Base

By: buttsecks?

buttsecks? — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 18:53:34 +0000

Whoo-hoo! I never would have had any idea that there was still any activity in this thread otherwise.

Thanks a billion, David. I know I said a million earlier, but now that I’ve actually seen it in action I multiplied it by a thousand.

By: Charlie

Charlie — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 20:28:40 +0000

I recall Bill Madlock was a bit on the chunky side too.

By: Dave

Dave — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 07:58:57 +0000

Well, nevermind I guess we may have been talking about B.J. instead of Justin. My bad

By: Dave

Dave — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 07:56:44 +0000

I doubt anyone will read this, but how do you say justin upton is a +5 CF when he was -5 at RF. CHONE has him in the negatives at centerfield next year to on baseball projections. Very annoying that someone like Dave would post that he is plus 5 CF like it is a fact.

By: John

John — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 14:53:35 +0000

David h

At least my comment was going more toward an explanation for why more tall players aren’t put at 2nd instead of 3rd. While dave’s examples do indicate a similar performance he does admit that the pool is somewhat biased versus the average 3b because teams/managers have concluded that the 3rd basemen could play 2nd, thus why we have data for them at 2nd. We’ve seen a decent amount of 3rd base prospects tried at 2nd because of blocking issues but not many of them end up at 2nd (think Ian Stewart not making it after a trial). I think if we had data from these players playing 2nd (the ones deemed not able to play 2nd but able to play 3rd) we’d have a better feel for performance differences.

By: david h

david h — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 02:48:40 +0000

This is a common problem among many of the comments regarding these 2b/3b posts. The quick step issue, the strong arm issue — all that would be reflected in the defensive performance when a tall 3b moves to 2b. Dave is arguing, with examples, that when third basemen move to second base, their performance at second is no worse.

Regarding turning the double play, and its possible relation to arm length and arm length’s correlation to height, this might be a valid point. I am not sure, but if I recall correctly, UZR does not account for double plays, so if a 3b goes to 2b and does everything as well as he did at third, and as well as a short guy, except turning a double play, UZR will show no decline.

By: John

John — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:14:50 +0000

The issue with the 2nd vs. 3rd thing is underrating the extended, quick mobility needed at 2nd base versus the short, reflex based mobility needed at 3rd. Taller players are at a disadvantage in the movements of playing 2nd since that position needs quick, choppy steps as well as the point above about turning the double play. Look at a 2nd basemen and the type of steps that are used to range and field, the short steps are especially necessary when getting closer to the ball, taller players would tend to misstep unless they were excellent athletes. 3rd almost exclusively requires a one step movements and thus doesn’t need many short steps. During my collegiate summers I played in a competitive summer league where I played many positions and the only position I couldn’t play well/average was 2nd because I couldn’t chop my steps well enough.

Basically, if you have a tall, athletic enough player to play 2nd, they usually end up playing SS since height will correlate to arm strength in general as well. Think Ripken, A-rod, etc.

By: tangotiger

tangotiger — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 15:45:20 +0000

Matt, those reliability numbers you are referring refers to something else.

What I am saying is that if you have 30 ballots, and you split them up randomly into two 15-ballot groups, the correlation between the two groups will be .90. That’s an enormous level of agreement.

This is similar to when I ask my readers to vote on how much CC will get paid, or ARod will get paid, etc. After 20 or 30 votes, the results barely change, even when I’m up to 150 votes.

By: Matt

Matt — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 06:23:31 +0000

Tango, question. As I look through the rankings the agreements are all lower than .90. Just wondering why then the reliability you are talking about comes up as that? Thanks.

By: tangotiger

tangotiger — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 05:29:24 +0000

I should note that while reliability is .90, that simply implies consistency among voters. It doesn’t mean they are right… just that they are representative among people who read blogs, like all of us fine folk.

In addition to having two pro scouts fill out the ballots to confirm the fans, I asked Dave Cameron here, a trustworthy fan of Mariner baseball to evaluate and compare against the 100+ MAriner fans who filled in the ballots. You can read it here:
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/the-fans-scouting-report/

I think it gives a pretty good primer on the Fans Scouting Report.

I appreciate the more reasoned responses here. It’s easy in a message board to say whatever, but seeing that we spend a bit of time here, there’s no reason we can’t try to make this as productive as we can. So, I look forward to hearing additional constructive dialogue.