RealGM

Prince Fielder
.324 EQA
6.9 WARP1
69.1 VORP
50 HR
119 RBI
.288 AVG

Albert Pujols
.333 EQA
11.3 WARP1
72.1 VORP
32 HR
103 RBI
.327 AVG

So who do you think had the better season?

Haven't we come to expect seasons like that from Pujols? I mean in reality, Pujols had the better year...but for a worse team obviously.

Fielder had a breakout year, youngest to 50HR, just missed playoffs, etc.

So the sexy pick is Fielder, but everyone and their mother would rather have Pujols...and statistically speaking he had the more productive year.

What is the gap defensively like?

2poor wrote:What is the gap defensively like?

Large. Pujols is the best defensive 1st baseman in the NL and Fielder is below average.

Pujols.

GYBE wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Large. Pujols was the best defensive 1st baseman in the NL before Mark Teixeira joined the Braves and Fielder is below average.

Fixed.



And the answer is obviously Pujols. Prince Fielder is a great player, but there's only one player that can say he's better than Pujols.

So, is every Brave the best defensive player at their position according to you?

I love these type of threads where bigboy posts a comparison with an obvious answer waiting for people to come in and speak evilly about advanced metrics.

GYBE wrote:So, is every Brave the best defensive player at their position according to you?

Well in Center Field they used to have a huuge advantage over anyone....now that advantage is at first base.

If they get a new Shortstop in there they could begin to have a case there as well, Rent-aria is awful

Basketball Jesus wrote:I love these type of threads where bigboy posts a comparison with an obvious answer waiting for people to come in and speak evilly about advanced metrics.

You mean like the Rasmus vs. McCutchen one, where the answer was obviously McCutchen?

No, because those are projections, not concrete MLB statistics.

34Celtic wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Well in Center Field they used to have a huuge advantage over anyone....now that advantage is at first base.

No it's not. Teixeira is above-average but he's far from the best defensive 1st baseman in the NL. Pujols, Derrek Lee and Adrian Gonzalez are all well ahead of him.

GYBE wrote:So, is every Brave the best defensive player at their position according to you?

Nope, just Teixeira. Andruw isn't a Brave anymore. And if you have ever seen Teixeira man 1st base, you'd know he's the best in MLB. And LOL @ 34Celtic still calling Renteria "god-awful."

High 5 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Nope, just Teixeira. Andruw isn't a Brave anymore. And if you have ever seen Teixeira man 1st base, you'd know he's the best in MLB. And LOL @ 34Celtic still calling Renteria "god-awful."

What about Chipper? Don't tell me you've abandoned that position after fighting so vehemently previously.

And have you seen Derrek Lee and Pujols play as much as you've seen Teixeira? Because those pesky things like objective data really disagree with you.

I never said Chipper was the best defender, just that he had the best season and deserves the gold glove. I've seen Lee and Pujols play more than Teixeira since I pretty much never saw the Rangers, but I know Teixiera had the reputation as the best 1st baseman in the AL and he looked better than any other first baseman with the Braves.

Teixeira IS in fact the best defensive 1st basemen. Pujols is good but Teixeira after seeing him on a regular basis since coming to the NL is 2nd imo in the MLB after dougie M.

RAA (Runs Above Average [that the fielder saves])

2007 Pujols: 22
2006 Pujols: 19

2007 Lee: 15
2005 Lee: 16 (was hurt in 2006)

2006 Teixeira: 11
2007 Teixeira (ATL): 5
2007 Teixeira (TEX): -6

No, Pujols is the best in the game. It really doesn't matter what you think you saw, your eyes aren't exactly the best measuring sticks.

GYBE wrote:RAA (Runs Above Average [that the fielder saves])

2007 Pujols: 22
2006 Pujols: 19

2007 Lee: 15
2005 Lee: 16 (was hurt in 2006)

2006 Teixeira: 11
2007 Teixeira (ATL): 5
2007 Teixeira (TEX): -6

No, Pujols is the best in the game. It really doesn't matter what you think you saw, your eyes aren't exactly the best measuring sticks.

what does that stat prove?(im not mocking you, im asking as i dont use prospectus stats as often)

rey ordonez had 27 errors in 1996 (6% chance per attempt)with 13RAA, yet in 1998 in 1 more game and 49 less attempts he made 17 errors (4% chance per attempt) and had only 7RAA..(not making a point just settin up next question).. are 2 diifferent seasons of RAA not related? like is it the type of stat that uses info/averages of that season alone in comparison to only other fellow players of their position that year? simply put like would a raa of 10 in 1999 necessarily be better than an raa of 5 in 2000? or does it go by only that season?

also one problem i feel with the stat is it seems to be based on consistency, like how would it take into account a play that no one else could make, but that guy, who may have made great plays that would have been ruled hits but maybe had a couple off games and botched an easy play. like jose reyes imo can make plays no one else can with a combination of his range with his legs to his arm, yet in one game this year he bobbled a ball and then threw it too hard past castillo and it went into cf, and was charged 2 errors in one play.. i dont see that making him much worse of a defender, however it prolly kills his RAA considering it did cost a couple runs.. also wouldnt the batter also need to be takin into effect to perfect RAA? like say jose reyes hits a slow grounder to short, sometimes if the SS bobbles a barehand or makes a quick weak throw, he will get the benefit of the doubt from the scoring jus the fact that they assume reyes would have beat it out, yet if it was a slow runner and he barehanded it or made a bad throw, its an error even though it may have been the exact same hit ball? thats why i tend to use my eyes for fielding, ive seen plays made by teixeira and doug mintjhhgdsh that i feel no1 else could make, and they are also steady otherwise, but may not have the same stats as someone who jus makes ALL the routine plays and no very tough plays that may have saved runs, however would have been ruled hits, and those great plays do not show up in the statsheet..

edit: now that i think about it, it prolly is possible for RAA to take into account a great play that saved a run cause its still an attempt to the fielder?

KnicksMetsJetsNova wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



rey ordonez had 27 errors in 1996 (6% chance per attempt)with 13RAA, yet in 1998 in 1 more game and 49 less attempts he made 17 errors (4% chance per attempt) and had only 7RAA..(not making a point just settin up next question).. are 2 diifferent seasons of RAA not related? like is it the type of stat that uses info/averages of that season alone in comparison to only other fellow players of their position that year? simply put like would a raa of 10 in 1999 necessarily be better than an raa of 5 in 2000? or does it go by only that season?

RAA = runs above average in a given year...so in a given year, depending on the stats of the average fielder that number will go up and down
here's a BP article explaining defensive metrics, see if that helps you out

GYBE wrote:RAA (Runs Above Average [that the fielder saves])

2007 Pujols: 22
2006 Pujols: 19

2007 Lee: 15
2005 Lee: 16 (was hurt in 2006)

2006 Teixeira: 11
2007 Teixeira (ATL): 5
2007 Teixeira (TEX): -6

No, Pujols is the best in the game. It really doesn't matter what you think you saw, your eyes aren't exactly the best measuring sticks.

You'd be completely lost in the game of baseball without these stats wouldn't you? You can't look at stats like RAA to gauge how good someone is defensively. It can give you a hint in the right direction, but that's about it. Like I said in the other thread, I draw my conclusions from actually watching and understanding the game, not by some number on a website. It's hilarious how you post the stats like they were sent straight from God.

It's hilarious that your only arguments derive from your completely biased viewpoints. Both our methods might be imperfect, but at least mine are from an objective third party.

None of us watch all 162 games of every team. We need to use statistics to properly gauge the values of players. I don't see why you're so opposed to this.