Image
Fielding Bible
Chicago, We Have a Problem (or Maybe Not)
We do love our guest columns since we all get to take the day off from writing. Today, it's the ever cantankerous Real Neal taking on The Fielding Bible System.
The other day I bought The Hardball Times 2009 Baseball Annual. I haven’t finished yet, but as of so far, I would say save your money.
In it, though, there is an article about titled “Fielding Breeds Winning” by a certain John Dewan, which goes into some detail about how the Fielding Bibles’ Plus/Minus system helps determine which teams have a real shot at the title. I’ve argued in the comments about inherent flaws in the Plus/Minus system, but there are a lot of people, famous baseball statistical analysts who think it’s the greatest thing since high socks. My main point of contention with it, is that we know that people are biased when it comes to evaluating fielding, based on some of the ridiculous Golden Glove awards handed out, yet we go from our 500 person sample size for those awards to 3 people sample sizes for the Plus/Minus system, and somehow conclude that the latter is more accurate. Really quickly, the system looks at all plays and says for each one – if any fielder in the majors missed a play you made, you get a Plus, and if you missed a play that any fielder made, you get a Minus. Add up your Pluses and your minues and you get Plus/Minus score for the season.
Well, you might be thinking, isn’t this article supposed to be about a Chicago baseball team, and preferably the Cubs, since that’s who I come here to read about? Well, yeah, it is about the Cubs, because according to this system, the Plus/Minus system, the 2008 Cubs were living on borrowed time.
- Read more about Chicago, We Have a Problem (or Maybe Not)
- 55 comments
- Log in or register to post comments
Recent comments
TarzanJoeWallis (view)
Sure, they made generally short term trades for established players to enhance what they already had or traded for players early enough in their careers that they were essentially Cardinals from the start. What they never did was to try to use the more established players as foundational cornerstones.
Essentially we’re saying the same thing. They have given up on player development to the point that even their prospects that make it to the bigs flop so that they have to do things like buy most of their rotation and hope for the best.
Dolorous Jon Lester (view)
I don’t buy that. They had been doing that for years.
They did it with Matt Holliday. They did it with John Lackey. They did it with Mark Mulder. They did it with Jason Heyward, who had a great year for them. I’m sure there’s more but those come to mind immediately.
I attribute it more to a breakdown in what they’re doing in terms of development than a culture thing.
TarzanJoeWallis (view)
They won those trades and sacrificed their culture. That’s exactly their problem.
Dolorous Jon Lester (view)
The other part that’s kind of crazy is they made two very high profile trades, one for Goldschmidt and one for Arenado, and they very clearly won those trades. They just haven’t been able to develop players the last handful of years the way they usually do.
I guess the moral there is it’s hard to stay on top of your game and be good at what you do in perpetuity.
TarzanJoeWallis (view)
Marmol was extended at the beginning of the year. Two years I believe.
crunch (view)
Jesse Rogers @JesseRogersESPN
Craig Counsell doesn’t have a timetable for Cody Bellinger who technically has two cracked ribs on his right side. CT scan showed it today.
Dolorous Jon Lester (view)
Thought it might have been David Peralta given the open 40 man spot and how PCA has played so far.
Dolorous Jon Lester (view)
I hope they keep Mozeliak a few more years. Marmol too!
crunch (view)
wow, counsell coming with the early lineup. rarity.
canario/tauchman/happ RF/CF/LF
crunch (view)
PCA called up.