Possible Free Agent Options For Marlins Next Season

[Erick]

oye

I think you need to read the post you quoted again. I was saying that your eyes aren't any better than mine. Your eyes aren't stats.

I wasn't saying Stanton is good based on what I've seen; statistics support that Stanton has been a very good defensive RF'er.

I'm really not sure what you're trying to do right now.

[Beef]

Considering what you saw when you watched the play discussed in the quote and your reaction to people who knew that what you saw was wrong, you cannot be trusted to say that somebody is an outstanding outfielder. Simple as that.

Your eyes aren't stats is just stupid. The stats you want to use are still very flawed and you can't always rely solely on stats. It's what nny does because he doesn't know anything else.

As for this stuff:

Now we're talking about computerized stats that, while they may not be perfect, are better than one's eyes.
- Just relying on it because it is computerized is silly.

Stanton is a very good RF'er.
- He's not

Coghlan, for what it's worth, was rated as an okay CF'er this year. At that time, everyone was waiting for UZR #'s to come out to see just how good/bad Coghlan was.
- Nobody was waiting for UZR to come out to just how good or bad Coghlan was. And, since you wanted to mention one play compared to a whole season, his UZR #s weren't necessary to know that it was an average play that he made. UZR wasn't the proof you mentioned you were looking for 40 times.

Also, by the end of that thread, I'm pretty sure I admitted that I was wrong.
- Yeah, you were wrong. It took way too long and it is why I wouldn't trust your opinion of a player's defense.

[Erick]

Considering what you saw when you watched the play discussed in the quote and your reaction to people who knew that what you saw was wrong, you cannot be trusted to say that somebody is an outstanding outfielder. Simple as that.

Your eyes aren't stats is just stupid. The stats you want to use are still very flawed and you can't always rely solely on stats. It's what nny does because he doesn't know anything else.

As for this stuff:

Now we're talking about computerized stats that, while they may not be perfect, are better than one's eyes.
- Just relying on it because it is computerized is silly.

Stanton is a very good RF'er.
- He's not

Coghlan, for what it's worth, was rated as an okay CF'er this year. At that time, everyone was waiting for UZR #'s to come out to see just how good/bad Coghlan was.
- Nobody was waiting for UZR to come out to just how good or bad Coghlan was. And, since you wanted to mention one play compared to a whole season, his UZR #s weren't necessary to know that it was an average play that he made. UZR wasn't the proof you mentioned you were looking for 40 times.

Also, by the end of that thread, I'm pretty sure I admitted that I was wrong.
- Yeah, you were wrong. It took way too long and it is why I wouldn't trust your opinion of a player's defense.

The stats are still better than your eyes. Mike Stanton's #'s are very impressive. Look at his defensive #'s last year and project them over the course of a full season. They may be somewhat flawed, but he was very good.

And I said I was wrong about the play after looking at it over and over again. Sorry, I guess you've never been wrong before. I'll try to be perfect like you from now on.

As bobbob said in this thread, who cares if he's horrible at routes (which is just an observation, anyway)? If his athleticism allows him to get to the ball most of the time anyway, isn't that all that matters? There have been several outfielders in baseball history who haven't been the greatest of route runners, but their athletic ability makes them above average OF'ers.

And it's stupid to not consider the idea when you consider the crap list of free agent CF'ers. When one of the best candidates out there is a guy who can't hit and has been fucking terrible in LF this year (Pierre), you consider what might just be the best possible option of moving Stanton to CF and signing a corner OF bat (which is easier).


Also, I fail to see why observing something wrong once = never being able to observe anything correctly, ever.
I am almost certain that your eyes have lied to you at least once in the past.

Again, I'm sorry. Jesus Christ.

[Beef]

My first post was half jest/half truth. Obviously that is not the main reason I won't trust what you say about a player's defense.

But I won't trust what you saw about a player's defense.

Numbers are great, and completely necessary, but some of the shit that is going on here (like saying something is just an observation so it needs to be discounted) is trying to turn the game into the Ways and Means Ootp game that is played on here. Stats don't tell the whole story. It seems some on here might not really understand what goes into some of these stats, but just use them as gospel because they are numbers. It is mostly meaningless if used like that and observation/human scouting is still a giant necessity in baseball that is necessarily made stronger by statistics.

[Erick]

My first post was half jest/half truth. Obviously that is not the main reason I won't trust what you say about a player's defense.

But I won't trust what you saw about a player's defense.

Numbers are great, and completely necessary, but some of the shit that is going on here (like saying something is just an observation so it needs to be discounted) is trying to turn the game into the Ways and Means Ootp game that is played on here. Stats don't tell the whole story. It seems some on here might not really understand what goes into some of these stats, but just use them as gospel because they are numbers. It is mostly meaningless if used like that and observation/human scouting is still a giant necessity in baseball that is necessarily made stronger by statistics.

Ok.

So basically everyone is allowed to give their opinion on the topic, but if I were to make an observation right now it wouldn't matter because you would just ignore it, anyway.

Hence the reason why I'll just use the stats. At least they're somewhat telling and not based on my observations, which you value so little.

Why would I share my observations when you wouldn't give a fuck about them, anyway? No one wants to waste their time, right?

No one said defensive statistics are perfect right now, so I'm not sure what your tantrum is about. Seems like you still have your panties in a bunch over an argument that occurred months ago. Really, that's all this is about. Here, I'll help you out - you were right; did that make your pathetic day?

[Beef]

ohmygosh

MY FIRST POST WAS A JOKE

except for the part that I wouldn't trust your opinion about a player's defense

[Erick]

ohmygosh

MY FIRST POST WAS A JOKE

except for the part that I wouldn't trust your opinion about a player's defense

As I said, if we weren't allowed to use stats, I guess I'd never be able to post on here because you don't trust my opinion and we'd just be arguing about stupid stuff all the time.

So really...what would you like me to post?

If I post an observation, I'm wrong to you because I'm me.
If I post something using stats, I'm still wrong because stats aren't always perfect and I automatically don't understand what they mean because...well, I'm me.

Tough.

[Beef]

mm hmm
--------------------
Also because you are soaking wet blanket

[Erick]

mm hmm
--------------------
Also because you are soaking wet blanket

You are a Wes Helms.

[Mainge]

I think moving Mike to center would be a mistake. Even if you think he could play it right now, he's still growing and is likely going to get bigger and fill out.

[Erick]

I think moving Mike to center would be a mistake. Even if you think he could play it right now, he's still growing and is likely going to get bigger and fill out.

He's 6'5" 235. How much bigger is he going to get? I would imagine the organization doesn't want him getting much bigger than that, regardless of position.

Also, his value is awesome as it is; imagine how awesome it'd be if he played just an average CF. Slightly below average defense from Stanton in CF (assuming that's all they can get out of him defensively) is more valuable than anyone they can possibly sign/trade for to play the position.

[Mainge]

He has room.

[Ramp]

Not a free agent, but if the Padres make Chase Headley available, I think that is someone to seriously look into acquiring.

[Erick]

Not a free agent, but if the Padres make Chase Headley available, I think that is someone to seriously look into acquiring.

I'd be a big fan of such a move.

[FishFanInPA]

I'm surprised no one pointed out how the team's patience is wearing thin on Chris Volstad.