Q. What difference does it make, this SSI arguing about footspeed vs. jumps? Where's that on Baseball Prospectus?
Would a "serious" blog even argue this?
A. Hey, this is the guts of it, babe. We're tearing the top end off the motor, here. ;- )
As Cool Papa explains ...
[Angles are fine, but it's silly to talk about them as making up the difference between a 10.2 100m and an 11.2 100m ... especially when the 10.2 guy is also a polished ML outfielder. - Dr. D]
A big reason why you put so much emphasis on speed is because you are underrating just how big a difference in instincts between players there is. In past discussions you have argued that there are very small differences in this regard amongst major leaguers and therefor an underwhelming runner can't make up much ground on guys who are way faster than him. That's what you mean by "polished". This can't be true.
Why argue this? There's no correct way to evaluate defense.
The professionals, such as Zduriencik, Blengino, Beane, etc ... they --- > review the defensive metrics as a reality check, they --- > eyeball the defender, and then they --- > come up with an educated opinion on the defender.
At SSI, we're using a Think Tank approach to come up with a hyper-educated opinion. There's nothing wrong with that. There's nothing better available.
.
Q. How likely is it that Dr. D's 35 years of sports experience could be --- > TOTALLY misunderstanding what is happening in a baseball outfield?
A. :- ) Very. We don't have a good handle on this one.
I could be misunderstanding it by a fair amount ... not "totally," but fundamentally? Sure...
Papa, himself a speed athlete, points out something great here:
Last point. It needs to be remembered how little time outfielders have to catch most difficult hits. They usually have just a few seconds to run to the landing spot, and so a delay of even one second can be huge. Also, we can't really appreciate how much time is wasted by poor instincts because the plays happen so quick and because we aren't looking at the fielder when the ball is hit. If we could actually see how much range was lost by poor reactions and routes, I think we would be surprised.
It's a critical Truth of sports that the faster player's advantage increases with the length of his run.
Theo Walcott can't really blow past Ashley Cole in a 10-yard burst. It's only at the 30-yard distance that he can open up two or three strides down the wing.
Many, many batted balls in baseball are up-and-down in "just a few seconds."
...............
Combining that with Taro's powerful image of --- > Olympic track star looking back over his shoulder -vs- High School track star looking straight ahead...
Sure, I can visualize Franklin Gutierrez going straight to a line drive, just as fast as Denard Span does. Even if Span could beat him by 0.3 seconds from one base to the next.
...............
Cool Papa's, and Taro's, remarks about the nature of speed .... in a bang-bang play ... are telling.
Would that also mean you didn't have to be fast to beat out a grounder, or to steal a base? In those kinds of bang-bang plays, does one stride matter?
Hmmm....
.
.
I think speed is a MUCH more dominant factor in speed to 1B and SBs than in defense.
Speed to 1B in particualar. LHs have a big advantage, and some guys like Ichiro have mechanics that give them a head start, but in general its mostly speed.
I think theres a little more skill involved in SBs, but its also mostly speed relative. The extent of skill is in judging leads and knowing "when" to go.
Couldn't a runner have a special feel for a pitcher's motion, just like a CF has a special feel for where the ball's going off the bat?
Any nerd in his basement can calculate (or have their computer calculate) odds until it's actually been learned by rote. But the difference between the average online number cruncher and the poker stars is their ability to read their opponent's intentions.
I'd say the ability to learn a pitcher's intent is more like a poker player's ability to sniff out a bluff, while a player's ability to predict the path of a batted ball to be a bit more about processing certain visual stimuli and putting it together into a meaningful physical response.
Interesting question, though. Probably more to it than I'm suggesting.
I definetly think theres skill, just far less variation than involved with defense.
There are so many different skills involved in catching the ball, and tons of different scenarios.
SBs are a straight line. The skill is ALL in knowing when to go. Otherwise its raw speed. Granted, there a lot of speedy players who are lousy at that and a lot who are great. I think it just outlines why there can be such a large gap in defensive skill.
Playing slo-pitch as an adult, we never put much stock in jumps compared to speed, 'cause it seemed like we all could read the hitter's swing and get into motion before the ball connected.
That's beer league. Which major league OF is not moving at the crack of the bat?
The best OF's in park-and-rec were simply the fastest ones, since we all jumped before connection and we all ran straight to the landing spot.
For us, saying that the best OF's were the fastest guys, was like saying the best rebounders are the tallest guys.
................
But there are a dozen interesting theoretical points here ... the debate will rage on, that's for sure :- )
:)
The Round Mound Of Rebound, Dennis Rodman, and even currently a guy like Kevin Love. The best rebounders are NOT the tallest, they are the ones that are.. well, GOOD at it ;)
Rodman did it by being tenacious and nasty and dirty and in peoples head and out working others, and being able to jump out of the gym multiple times in a row in quick succession. Barkley did it with having a huge body to move guys around and box out extremely well. Kevin Love does it by a combo of being a great rebounding technician (boxing out, timing, quick feet, etc.) and a near genius level of knowing where the rebound will actually be (instinct? Good at reading the angles at which the shot missed? Not sure.)
Could it be that you have a slight bias towards the pure physical tool (Speed, height), and away from the guy who is just plainly good at it?
It reminds me of a fellow I like to play racquetball with. I am younger than he is, bigger, stronger, faster. I swing the racquet harder, I serve better, I am better at kill shots. I read websites and take classes to better my strategy. Yet he strolls into the court and bests me almost every single time! I never see him practice, and it is almost like he isn't even trying that hard. When questioned he tells me that he is just "good" at it, and always has been.
Maybe Guti is just "good" at playing center field?!?
The one 'athletic' game where the pudgy older guys can just absolutely whallop young, athletic types by predicting where the ball will be and never straying too far from a central position to make a given shot.
It's so predictable, but nobody can seem to break out of the mold. Great point, OBF.
Dennis Rodman has to be one of the most underrated players of all-time.
He is the best rebounder of all-time and no one else is even remotely close. He was also a premium defensive player.
He is the single-season leader in REBRATE SEVEN times over. #1-#6 are ALL Rodman and #8 is Rodman as well.
http://basketballreference.com/leaders/leadersseason.htm?stat=rebrate&lg=n
Whats interesting is that Danny Fortson is #7 and #10 on the list and Reggie Evans clocked in at #9. On a rate basis they had two of the best rebounding seasons of all time in '04-05.
Fortson and Evans both clocked in on the list in their '04/'05 seasons. They were probably the biggest reason the Sonics had such a suprisingly good year and shocked people in the playoffs.
After that year, Fortson barely got any playing time and Evans was traded to Denver. The Sonics were terrible again overnight and it may have even cost us our team.
And Kevin Love is the kewlest :- )
Dennis Rodman was actually the guy I was thinking of, when talking about 'the tallest rebounders are the best' ... I wonder what it was that made Rodman *AS* good as he was... workrate doesn't cover it; Nick Collison has as much desire as Rodman had...
......................
Fliers aside, it's not like we would go 'look at Jamie Moyer; throwing hard doesn't mean your'e good' ...
The NBA rebounding leaders don't consist of men 5 foot 2...
Neither is the ML centerfielder population composed of guys who run 4.9 forties...
Principles of game theory warp as one player is vastly more skilled than the other :- )
The top 100 pro racquetball players are mucho quick, no doubts there...
Dennis Rodman was a very SMALL power forward. He was 6'6". The average power forward is 6'10".
Basketball is a game that relies even more on raw athleticism than baseball. And yet the greatest rebounder of all-time by a long shot was a runt compared to his competition.
In random pick-up games between average joes, talent gaps can be huge. Everybody in the pros is talented. When you get at that level, skill is often a huge facotr.
Barkley being even smaller, like what, 6 foot 4 and a half?
Those guys truly used technique and instincts to overcome huge deficits in size (speed), as Franklin Gutierrez is also accused of doing...
None of which is to say that the NBA rebounding list has a lot of shorties on it, or that the ML center field list has a lot of slow guys...