John Dewan on Nate McLouth

by Charlie on Nov 15, 2008 3:12 PM EST Comment 27 comments

John Dewan's post on Nate McLouth's Gold Glove is pretty interesting. Dewan begins with the assumption that McLouth was the worst defensive outfielder in baseball last year based on the numbers, then moves to more moderate ground based on factors that some advanced metrics don't do a good job quantifying. McLouth's arm, for example, was pretty valuable last year. Dewan also helpfully points out that McLouth seems to have a problem judging where the wall is on deep fly balls--he lets balls carom off the wall and past him, back toward the infield.

(Thanks to Carnival Matleuse for e-mailing me the link.)

0 recs | Comment 27 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Good read

I’m glad to see positive plays accounted for as well as misplays. I had a hard time believing that Nate was that bad in center.

by Chad Bahamas on Nov 15, 2008 3:39 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I agree. And honestly, I suspect that a lot of people on both sides—those who voted for McLouth, and those who got outraged about it—didn’t actually watch McLouth much. I don’t think he deserved a Gold Glove, but he wasn’t bad, either.

by Charlie on Nov 15, 2008 3:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

its the intertubes

So many discussions have absolutes and proclamations. Then when asked, it often turns out that the posters have rarely or never watched the player.

Scouts rated Nates defense in the minors as excellent according to John Sickels. The people who voted for the GG were coaches and managers who actually watched him.

And FWIW, the GG is awarded as on outfielder not a CF.

by ol Pete on Nov 15, 2008 4:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It seems pretty likely that playing shallow would account for both the positive of holding runners to one base and the negative of letting balls bounce past him off the wall.

by Arnold Rothstein on Nov 15, 2008 4:32 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

That's an interesting point

I wonder how many of the six off-the-wall balls that caromed over his head were either products of weird bounces in the Notch or just the result of oddball walls that Nate hasn’t quite learned to play yet. It’s probably worth noting that last year he was still pretty much a rookie, in actuality if not fact.

I any case, how often do you hear any announcer ascribe that kind of play to a miscue by the outfielder? It’s almost always, “Annnnnd the ball takes a funny bounce away from McLouth …”

by bucdaddy on Nov 15, 2008 5:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

There was one ball, I think in Denver, that hit a corner and took a crazy roll along the fence toward left field, and went for a home run.

by Arnold Rothstein on Nov 15, 2008 11:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Who Is John Dewan? ...

and what are his credentials to comment on McLouth’s ability.

I watched many games on mlb.com and, as far as I am concerned, McLouth can hold his own with most NL centerfielders. He certainly is not the best CF in the NL, but he has alot of plusses.

So I say again, what are Dewan’s credentials other than being a writer and co-publisher of ACTA, whatever that is?

by thegunner on Nov 16, 2008 12:04 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I believe that John Dewan is one of the longest-tenured of the statistical baseball analysts, unless this is his son. I think he was among the founders of Stats, and was among the SABR leadership in the 1980’s.

He also owes me 19 bucks for a book he didn’t ship 20 years ago.

by Arnold Rothstein on Nov 16, 2008 2:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Google exists.

You may want to try it some time.

If you had, you would’ve found this (fourth result), which would’ve answered your question.

by Vlad on Nov 17, 2008 11:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

This Is About As Good As Wikopedia!!!

So I ask again, what are his (John Dewan’s) credentials that should make me think that he knows something about baseball other than statistics - like who can play and who can’t.

by thegunner on Nov 17, 2008 2:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Statistics are how you know who can play and who can't.

They’re a record of what happens on the field, nothing more or less. Anyone who doesn’t like statistics is saying that they prefer the imaginary game in their head over the real one on the field.

by Vlad on Nov 17, 2008 2:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Some statistics are a partial record of events on the field. Some are estimations.

John Dewan is an entrepreneur. The record of events he sells is of unknown accuracy and quality. The attempts at estimates of defensive performance are crude and flawed besides being based on raw data of unknown reliability and validity.

Seems to me that the people making bold proclamations that McLouth is horrible at defense are the ones living in an imaginary world. Remarkably, many of them will argue that they don’t even need to see him play.

by ol Pete on Nov 17, 2008 7:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I've seen him play plenty of times...

…and while I wouldn’t go so far as to say he’s “horrible”, I definitely don’t think he was among the best-fielding CFs in the NL last year.

by Vlad on Nov 18, 2008 10:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

he was voted as an OF for what that's worth

by ol Pete on Nov 18, 2008 12:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Technically, yeah...

…but how often does a non-Ichiro non-CF win a GG?

by Vlad on Nov 18, 2008 2:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Statistics

I buy what you are saying for certain categories of statistics, but I certainly don’t buy Dewan’s statistics about fielding. They are totally subjective. If Nate McLouth only made one error in 2008, what does that tell you. Ny eyes don’t lie!

by thegunner on Nov 17, 2008 7:38 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Errors is another swamp of a discussion, but FWIW the one error was a throwing error. Ironically it came after a sideways carom off the CF wall in Miller Park that flustered him a bit.

by ol Pete on Nov 17, 2008 7:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

There certainly isn’t anything subjective about errors…

by matskralc on Nov 18, 2008 6:53 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Even the word "error" doesn't tell you a damn thing

Bill James once wrote something to the effect that an error could be a catcher dropping a foul pop, which doesn’t result in anyone reaching base or anyone advancing a base. Or it could be a center fielder having a ball bounce off his head and roll to the wall and go for four bases. An outfielder can make a fantastic throw dead on target, but if it hits the runner in the helmet and thence rolls into the dugout it’s ruled an error. Meantime a second baseman can take a throw from short on a potential DP and make the worst relay you ever saw to first, and as long as nobody advances an extra base it can’t be an error because “you can’t presume the double play.”

“Error” tells you jack.

by bucdaddy on Nov 18, 2008 7:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

My eyes

by thegunner on Nov 17, 2008 7:38 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

What are your credentials besides being sighted?

Obviously he’s written and studied the subject for years. It doesn’t make him right, but it does make him an authority.

by azibuck on Nov 19, 2008 9:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

What is your definition of an authority?

Is it someone who has “written and stidied for years”? There are many fools who have written and studied for years.

by thegunner on Nov 19, 2008 10:08 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

OK, what would you like his credentials to be?

Say you’re hiring someone to comment on the defensive abilities of just about every player in baseball for the last 20 years. What would their resume look like?

by azibuck on Nov 19, 2008 4:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Simple Answer For You!

The late George Kissell of the Cardinals or Sparky Anderson, most notably of the Big Red Machine, and also the Detroit Tigers.

It certainly would not be John Dewan!

by thegunner on Nov 19, 2008 7:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I love Sparky to death...

…but at this point his health probably isn’t good enough to let him do too much work. Now, if you wanted someone to watch a game with…

by Vlad on Nov 20, 2008 10:38 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

In other words ...

it has to be someone who really knows the game and has seen a lot of players over many years. And it has to be somebody that I personally believe knows the game. There are many GMs and even supposedly “respected” baseball men that don’t know their a__ from a hole in the ground.

by thegunner on Nov 19, 2008 8:01 PM EST reply actions 0 recs