Big Pimpin wrote:
It's long been known that certain metrics (UZR especially) has had problems with LF in Fenway (and Enron/Minute Maid) because of the wall. And like I said before, I agree that we can't have complete confidence in any one number. But if you take other systems and multiple years and look at the entirety of the data and then put a range around it, I think you can be pretty confident in the result.
For instance, I may not agree that Manny is a -18 LF because that's his UZR number for 2007, but if I look at UZR and PMR and Chone (I didn't, I'm just making this argument) and come to the conclusion that he's roughly a -15 LF then I maybe I can reasonably think he's a -10 to -20 LF. Knowing the problems with Fenway and wanting being conservative, I would probably value him as a -5 to -15 LF. I guess my own personal opinion is simply that the defensive data and information is very useful, even if one particular metric or year or whatever isn't completely 100% reliable.
Yes, but to go from "this is useful" to "this definitely proves the Bradley + RP is more valuable than Dunn" is a bit of a stretch no?
Forgetting about what the stats say, I think you could also argue that defensive stats are meaningless for Bradley. He only played 20 games in the outfield last year, and he hasn't spent significant amounts of time in CF since 2005. He's suffered injuries every year since then. His admittedly stellar offensive output last year was as a DH. He's never matched it while playing a lot in the outfield. I think there's plenty of reason to be skeptical of relying on Bradley, and I think there's plenty reason to wonder how good he is defensively at this point in his career. He is of course way better than Dunn, but exactly how much better and what it means for value is very much in question IMO.