ItsTheBlog™
ITL: The blog itself is designed to serve as a means of entertainment to the public as well as to provide some insight into what we are all about here at ITL. ItsTheBlog stems from the website dedicated to all things sports, www.itstheleague.com. We love sports and we're always looking to make improvements and build on what we have, so feel free to leave us some feedback.Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Re: VMU13
One of our readers, VMU13, has made a decent argument in response to Jose Mota's comments... Here's what he said, verbatim:
"well, believe it or not, its actually not that absurd at all. in his career, he's posted a fielding percentage thats downright sick compared to the rest of the league, .975 to .955 (!!!), better than 3rd basemen scott rolen, mike schmidt, AND brooks robinson. in fact, lowell has a higher fielding percentage than any 3rd baseman who has ever won a gold glove. better yet, none of those 3rd baseman even posted a career fielding pct higher than .971 (besides robinson). also, his range factor and zone rating have always been well above the rest of the league.. admittingly, it may seem like a bit of a stretch to call him one of the best because of his uncharacteristically dismal defense this year. but if you look over his entire career, its not unreasonable at all to claim that he's right up there with the likes of rolen, schmidt, robinson and many others.
Here's where my disagreement is:
Fielding percentage, even more so comparing his fielding to other notable third basemen by way of gold glove count, is ridiculous. A Gold Glove is quite possibly the WORST way to evaluate a fielder's performance. In fact, there really is no way to tell how valuable of an asset a player's defense can be to his team. Often, fielding percentages are skewed based on throwing/fielding errors, who was given what error on what play, and so on. A third baseman with more range is more likely to make more errors, because what may be routine to him, is not to others. More opportunities also lead to more errors, as well as playing conditions, etc...
While I do think Mike Lowell is a more then capable third baseman, the corner positions of the diamond are primarily labeled as offensive positions. In this sense, to utter Mike Lowell's name in the same sentence as some of the all time great's at third base, IS in fact absurd. Let's see what the numbers (Yes, thats all that matter in this game) say:
Mike Lowell: .277 BA, .342 OBP, .467 SLG, .809 OPS, 180 HR's, 609 runs. ... Now those aren't bad numbers by any stretch, but really, VMU13, up there with the greatest of all time? Oh... here's what the greatest of all time did:
Mike Schmidt: .267 BA, .380 OBP, .527 SLG, .907 OPS, 548 HR's, 1506 runs.... Those numbers are "Best of all mother humping time" numbers.
Wade Boggs: .328 BA, .415 OBP, .443 SLG, .854 OPS, 1513 runs, and Boggs was by no means a power hitter. His .415 OBP is possibly his most impressive statistic.
Eddie Matthews: .271 BA, .376 OBP, .509 SLG, .886 OPS, 512 HR's, 1509 runs.
George Brett: .305 BA, .369 OBP, .487 SLG, .856 OPS, 317 HR's, 1583 runs, 3154 hits.
So to say that Mike Lowell belongs in the same sentence as these greats is, in fact, a joke. Not to mention the fact that he's played 10 season already, and the numbers put up by these Hall of Famers were compiled in <20 seasons. I'd say Mike Lowell has a lot of work to do to catch these studs of the hot corner, but it's not likely he'll get there. No hard feelings, Mike, you're starting on my fantasy team tonight.
"well, believe it or not, its actually not that absurd at all. in his career, he's posted a fielding percentage thats downright sick compared to the rest of the league, .975 to .955 (!!!), better than 3rd basemen scott rolen, mike schmidt, AND brooks robinson. in fact, lowell has a higher fielding percentage than any 3rd baseman who has ever won a gold glove. better yet, none of those 3rd baseman even posted a career fielding pct higher than .971 (besides robinson). also, his range factor and zone rating have always been well above the rest of the league.. admittingly, it may seem like a bit of a stretch to call him one of the best because of his uncharacteristically dismal defense this year. but if you look over his entire career, its not unreasonable at all to claim that he's right up there with the likes of rolen, schmidt, robinson and many others.
Here's where my disagreement is:
Fielding percentage, even more so comparing his fielding to other notable third basemen by way of gold glove count, is ridiculous. A Gold Glove is quite possibly the WORST way to evaluate a fielder's performance. In fact, there really is no way to tell how valuable of an asset a player's defense can be to his team. Often, fielding percentages are skewed based on throwing/fielding errors, who was given what error on what play, and so on. A third baseman with more range is more likely to make more errors, because what may be routine to him, is not to others. More opportunities also lead to more errors, as well as playing conditions, etc...
While I do think Mike Lowell is a more then capable third baseman, the corner positions of the diamond are primarily labeled as offensive positions. In this sense, to utter Mike Lowell's name in the same sentence as some of the all time great's at third base, IS in fact absurd. Let's see what the numbers (Yes, thats all that matter in this game) say:
Mike Lowell: .277 BA, .342 OBP, .467 SLG, .809 OPS, 180 HR's, 609 runs. ... Now those aren't bad numbers by any stretch, but really, VMU13, up there with the greatest of all time? Oh... here's what the greatest of all time did:
Mike Schmidt: .267 BA, .380 OBP, .527 SLG, .907 OPS, 548 HR's, 1506 runs.... Those numbers are "Best of all mother humping time" numbers.
Wade Boggs: .328 BA, .415 OBP, .443 SLG, .854 OPS, 1513 runs, and Boggs was by no means a power hitter. His .415 OBP is possibly his most impressive statistic.
Eddie Matthews: .271 BA, .376 OBP, .509 SLG, .886 OPS, 512 HR's, 1509 runs.
George Brett: .305 BA, .369 OBP, .487 SLG, .856 OPS, 317 HR's, 1583 runs, 3154 hits.
So to say that Mike Lowell belongs in the same sentence as these greats is, in fact, a joke. Not to mention the fact that he's played 10 season already, and the numbers put up by these Hall of Famers were compiled in <20 seasons. I'd say Mike Lowell has a lot of work to do to catch these studs of the hot corner, but it's not likely he'll get there. No hard feelings, Mike, you're starting on my fantasy team tonight.
Labels: Best all time, Boggs, Brett, Matthews, Mike Lowell, Scmidt
Comments:
<< Home
now there were years when brooks robinson was just flat out nasty, saving an equivalent of 21 runs in 1967. but for the better portion of his career he was just a 'good' 3rd baseman, nothing spectacular. however, while his FRAR and Rate1 are better than Lowell's, you can see its not too farfetched to say that they are at least a little, if not very, similar in fielding (although overall i'd still give the edge to brooks) and even more so to say they can be mentioned in the same sentence. not in hitting by any means, but in fielding.
# posted by 
: August 22, 2007 at 1:09 AM
: August 22, 2007 at 1:09 AM
sorry, my computer decided to fuck with me and not let me post my entire comment. basically i explained my position and why i was defending lowell in full detail. but i dont have the time to rewrite it. hopefully i can try to give it another shot tomorrow night. but here's the jist of the stats.
-baseball prospectus-
Rate2
Mike Lowell-108
Brooks Robinson-107
AvgRAA2
Mike Lowell-10.8
Brooks Robinson-8.6
AvgEqr
Mike Lowell-77.4
Brooks Robinson-69.0
(and then the above post)
-baseball prospectus-
Rate2
Mike Lowell-108
Brooks Robinson-107
AvgRAA2
Mike Lowell-10.8
Brooks Robinson-8.6
AvgEqr
Mike Lowell-77.4
Brooks Robinson-69.0
(and then the above post)
# posted by : August 22, 2007 at 1:21 AM
: August 22, 2007 at 1:21 AM
okay... heres how i had intended my original post to look before we were so rudely interuppted by my computer. i apologize for the sloppiness and confusion of last night. here goes:
apparently there's been a misunderstanding as to what exactly i meant when i said that mike lowell deserved to be mentioned with the likes of scott rolen, brooks robinson, and mike schmidt. when i originally saw your post i read it as "Mike Lowell is one of the best all time AT (sic) third base" in other words, i assumed (which i think may have been mesa's intent) that he was talking strictly about defense, or else he would have just said "he's one of the best 3rd baseman ever." but of course i could be wrong and he could have meant it exactly as you took it. i just want it to be clear that i, in no way, was comparing mike lowell to ANYBODY in terms of offense, my intention was strictly defense.
now, that being said, i completely agree with you on the premises of the gold glove. i believe its a faulty award voted on by a committee that judges solely on 'flashy' plays and popularity. i know theres even been ridiculous instances where players such as rafeal palmeiro and torii hunter have won gold gloves without even playing in half the games! anyway, the reason i brought gold gloves into it is because theres just no way of knowing EVERY 3rd baseman who has ever played the game, its just too time consuming and i wasnt about to look them up myself. so, while knowing gold gloves on their own do not stand, i believe they can still serve as a generally productive tool in searching for the 'above average' fielder in the live ball era. that is why i chose it, seeming to be the most logical starting point for comparing exceptional third basemen.
i also agree that fielding percentage is a stat that, like many others, cannot hold up on its own. for instance, if someone is 1st in fielding percentage, but has the worst range in the league, the stat is useless in determining the player's defensive value (derek jeter has been a good example in the past). however, the same could be said vice versa as well. if someone has awesome range and yet possesses the worst fielding percentage in the league, the range statistic diminishes (ie: rafeal furcal). basically, what im trying to say is that i know mike lowell's fielding percentage is not the best tool when it comes to determining a player's worth, but in his case the margin in comparison to the players of his time is so great that it cant be ignored (.975-.955). to be that far ahead of your peers in any catergory is extremely impressive. and as i pointed out before, his range factor and zone rating (two generally good tools) have always been very good as well.
but since i find myself with a little time im gonna post some stats that may be a little more useful in determining a player's true defensive value. ill use brooks robinson to compare since he seems to be the 3rd baseman by which most standards are set.
-baseball prospectus-
Rate2
Mike Lowell-108
Brooks Robinson-107
AvgRAA2
Mike Lowell-10.8
Brooks Robinson-8.6
AvgEqr
Mike Lowell-77.4
Brooks Robinson-69.0
now there were years when brooks robinson was just flat out nasty, saving an equivalent of 21 runs in 1967. but for the better portion of his career he was a 'good' 3rd baseman, nothing spectacular. however, while his FRAR and Rate1 are better than Lowell's, you can see its not too farfetched to say that they are at least a little, if not very, similar in fielding (although overall i'd still give the edge to brooks). and its not unreasonable to say that they can be mentioned in the same sentence. not in hitting by any means, but in fielding.
Post a Comment
apparently there's been a misunderstanding as to what exactly i meant when i said that mike lowell deserved to be mentioned with the likes of scott rolen, brooks robinson, and mike schmidt. when i originally saw your post i read it as "Mike Lowell is one of the best all time AT (sic) third base" in other words, i assumed (which i think may have been mesa's intent) that he was talking strictly about defense, or else he would have just said "he's one of the best 3rd baseman ever." but of course i could be wrong and he could have meant it exactly as you took it. i just want it to be clear that i, in no way, was comparing mike lowell to ANYBODY in terms of offense, my intention was strictly defense.
now, that being said, i completely agree with you on the premises of the gold glove. i believe its a faulty award voted on by a committee that judges solely on 'flashy' plays and popularity. i know theres even been ridiculous instances where players such as rafeal palmeiro and torii hunter have won gold gloves without even playing in half the games! anyway, the reason i brought gold gloves into it is because theres just no way of knowing EVERY 3rd baseman who has ever played the game, its just too time consuming and i wasnt about to look them up myself. so, while knowing gold gloves on their own do not stand, i believe they can still serve as a generally productive tool in searching for the 'above average' fielder in the live ball era. that is why i chose it, seeming to be the most logical starting point for comparing exceptional third basemen.
i also agree that fielding percentage is a stat that, like many others, cannot hold up on its own. for instance, if someone is 1st in fielding percentage, but has the worst range in the league, the stat is useless in determining the player's defensive value (derek jeter has been a good example in the past). however, the same could be said vice versa as well. if someone has awesome range and yet possesses the worst fielding percentage in the league, the range statistic diminishes (ie: rafeal furcal). basically, what im trying to say is that i know mike lowell's fielding percentage is not the best tool when it comes to determining a player's worth, but in his case the margin in comparison to the players of his time is so great that it cant be ignored (.975-.955). to be that far ahead of your peers in any catergory is extremely impressive. and as i pointed out before, his range factor and zone rating (two generally good tools) have always been very good as well.
but since i find myself with a little time im gonna post some stats that may be a little more useful in determining a player's true defensive value. ill use brooks robinson to compare since he seems to be the 3rd baseman by which most standards are set.
-baseball prospectus-
Rate2
Mike Lowell-108
Brooks Robinson-107
AvgRAA2
Mike Lowell-10.8
Brooks Robinson-8.6
AvgEqr
Mike Lowell-77.4
Brooks Robinson-69.0
now there were years when brooks robinson was just flat out nasty, saving an equivalent of 21 runs in 1967. but for the better portion of his career he was a 'good' 3rd baseman, nothing spectacular. however, while his FRAR and Rate1 are better than Lowell's, you can see its not too farfetched to say that they are at least a little, if not very, similar in fielding (although overall i'd still give the edge to brooks). and its not unreasonable to say that they can be mentioned in the same sentence. not in hitting by any means, but in fielding.
# posted by : August 23, 2007 at 12:41 AM
: August 23, 2007 at 12:41 AMSubscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Archives
June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 August 2008 December 2008 April 2010 September 2010 October 2010 November 2010 April 2011
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]