Twins Claim Ehire Adrianza, DFA Pat Light

What did we expect as a return for 2 months of Abad? The Red Sox didn't put the wool over our eyes. Receiving a flawed prospect should be expected for a guy like Abad.  

Agreed.

Which is why I don't get many of the "sign a veteran and flip him" arguments about mediocre players still available in free agency. Sign them to help the team in the present, sure. Cut 'em even, but don't fool yourself into thinking you'll get a good return in a trade.

Did that. What's the next step in your process?

That's not range factor if you are referring to the highlighted column.  

...

RZR is not range factor. This is range factor. You won't find it on fangraphs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_factor

Fangraphites don't like range factor because you cannot compare people who play different positions with it. You can only compare 1B to 1B, 2B to 2B, etc. Therefore you can't roll it up into an advanced metric like UZR. But you CAN use it to compare a SS to other shortstops.

 

 

Interesting stat: Grossman played 190 games for three years with the Astros, hit .240/.327/.341/.668 with 11 home runs.

 

In 2016, he hit 11 home runs in 99 games, hitting .280/.386/.443/.828.

 

Does he really like the food at Target Field, or what?

 

 

Apparently he and Bruno avoided each other.

Isn't RF hard to use for SSS, also?

RF is available for minor league stats so SSS isn't an issue. Even if you don't trust the minors stats for some reason, RF is considered trustworthy after half a season as opposed to 3 years for UZR.

RF is far from an uberstat. You can't use it for first basemen, for example. But it's a good stat for looking at other position players who haven't been in the majors for three full years yet.

I look at RF for rookies or players with tiny MLB sample sizes. I use Total Zone for seasons with at least 100 starts at a position because I think it's important to be able to compare players from any era. I look at the UZR suite only casually. 

I love looking at Statcast data but like everybody else I feel it's hard to get one's head around. Plus it seems spotty/difficult to access fully.

As far as Adrianza goes, I think the Twins probably see something they can correct with his bat because he spreads it around and makes good contact. The results just haven't been there for him. With more walks he can be an everyday player even if he can't hit for power. His defense is an upgrade, average-to-above-average. He has a lot of potential to be a good backup player as his floor.

Given the differences between ball-in-play types and frequencies of pitching staffs, range factor is every bit as lousy (if not more) in small samples.

Defensive metric stats are not reliable. Unless they have the same person going over the positioning, exit velocity of the ball hit, air temp, ground crew average pay..... it is just a poorly conceived stat. There are SO many variables that it just can't be measurable on the defensive side of things. I wonder what Cal Ripkin's metrics would have been..Likely pretty low... The guy knew where to be, knew the hitters, had a great glove, etc...  There are some things in this game that need an old fashioned scout.

Does the old fashioned scout watch every play by every player, so he can do a comparison? Which one, really, is likely to have seen more plays, to do more comparisons? 

Respectfully you miss my point. The scout(s) which I have met and discussed baseball with do go and see a variety of different players and the good ones will watch players play for extended games and chances to look at their fundamentals etc.... I have coached and been around baseball for 45 years and am likely just an old fart but I can go to a game and Know a player that has good range as well as mechanics.

Scouts notes can vary but DO put in variables that explain things in detail. Metrics unless have the same person doing the input and under the same conditions simply are also subjective. They may have some value in a "general  sense" but saying a player is a good or not a good defensive player by "just" using these statistics would be a bad idea.

Mind you some scouts are better than others and is  also a subjective venture at best.

My point is that you can't trust the statistics as the variables are WAY to inconsistent. Not a math major but do know in order to have statistics be accurate and valuable the variables need to be consistent and thus the validity is questionable.

Alternate facts.

Are alternate facts an alternative to alternative facts?

I love this move. I like any move these days. This was a 103 loss team! There is hardly any move that could not be an improvement, and this is a minor minor move, so hard to not give it a "may as well".

Abad - super lucky in Minnesota and fools gold. Kintzler is too. Especially in the closers roll.

theres a big difference between Light and Chargois

So what. the point you clearly missed is that either pitcher would be claimed.

If someone wants to claim Jim Hoey Light, let 'em.

 

 

How do scouts compare their notes to other scouts? Because you are arguing the "stats nerds" can't do that....

 

I'm not missing your point at all. You are stating something as fact, that the eyeball is better than a stat, when you can't prove that at all. Both are important, but since teams are literally paying GMs and assistants LOADS of money to implement the use of these stats, I'd guess you are wrong.

Actually I am not talking about the whole metric statistic system ... just the defensive ones. Here is the deal with the "stat" you are talking about... it is taken by the eye.

I do understand the offensive metrics are used more because they are much more reliable as are more objective.

I understand that teams have been using the metrics but to my understanding it is more on the offensive side than the defensive. But I am sure there is some value but my point is it appears limited in it's validity.

It's okay we can agree to disagree on this as I am sure the old guard likely leans my way and the new guard to your side.

I'm reluctant to speak for Hosken, but I took his post to mean, if you are going to cite something (like RF) as the best evaluation tool to use, it would help if you would provide the data.

"I prefer RF, here's why, and here's Adrianza's minor league RFs." You might then go on to compare that to some relevant examples, to put the data in context.

In other words...I don't think it's on us to "look it up."

I did not tell him to look up the data. I told him to look up the fact that what he thought was RF was not RF. I had already told him it wasn't, and he chose to argue rather than check.

If you mean argue in the sense of presenting data to support my own impression, then sure. 

 

None of us know much if anything about Adrianza. According to Fangraphs, RZR "measures a player's range." Sure it's only Fangraphs but I think Fangraphs is reliable. We were evaluating your claim that he is an average defender. 

Of course fangraphs is reliable. No one said it wasn't. But RZR is not RF.

RZR, as far as I can tell, is the component of UZR that is used for range.