For a stat-oriented fan you show how locked-in you are in numbers alone.

There is no stat for balls a player cannot reach only stats for balls he touches or gloves. Callaspo cannot get to a lot of balls and has to stretch into dives...this should be a stat but it isn't. That is why stats alone are incomplete.

Headley is a tier better than Callaspo...no comparison.

There are defensive metrics. As far as too short? I will never be on the same page with you regarding the size of a player.

The taller you are, the slower you move and the longer it takes to throw the ball. Have you ever thought of that?

I've thought of a lot more facets than you, for sure.

"The taller you are the slower one moves"....LOL....ever watch Muhammed Ali?

Headley is way, way better than Callaspo..a world apart.,

By your reasoning we should build an entire team of short guys...they are quicker. Short is NO GUARANTEE of quickness...there are even more slow short guys than slow taller guys.

Your argument does not hold water...leaky.

Ludicrous.

If that is your stance, why wouldn't teams put taller players at SS?

BTW, you were saying the same thing about Mark Reynolds a year or so ago, he was so much better than Callaspo at 3rd. How'd that work out?

".....Not to be confused with Heady Lamar..."

Tsk! Tsk!

Heady..........WRONG!!!!!!!!! (my Buddy Bizarre impression.....)
Lamar..........WRONG!!!!!!!!! (see above....)

Hedy Lamarr!

: )

--
Headley is way, way better than Callaspo..a world apart.,
--
He could be, but his height has nothing to do with it.

--
"The taller you are the slower one moves"....LOL....ever watch Muhammed Ali?
--
And you think Ali was anywhere near as quick as Sugar Ray Leonard? Leonard was 5'9''.

>>There is no stat for balls a player cannot reach only stats for balls he touches or gloves.<<

Wrong. As usual.

UZR, for instance, uses ball location in its evaluation. In fact, that's the whole point of it. If a player is getting to balls that another player isn't, then it shows up in the data.

And it doesn't show up in Headley vs Callaspo.

Total Zone uses hit type in its calculations and again, doesn't show any sort of consistent difference in the defensive abilities of the two either.

>>Headley is a tier better than Callaspo...no comparison.<<

Probably not.

Saylo's two favorite stats are height and age. How often would you expect him to be right?

Since I really don't know, and don't feel like looking it up, does UZR account for line drives that will go over or beyond Callaspo's ( Or Izturis'.) reach, but be easily snagged by a taller player ( Headley, or Trumbo.) with a presumably longer "wingspan"? ( Or is there such a stat?)

In almost any case I can think of, an athletic taller man - as opposed to a bigger, but lumbering ox - is going to get to balls, both on the ground, but ESPECIALLY in the air, that a shorter player, will not.

I watch a lot of baseball and my nose is not buried in flawed stats.

By your question you are an advocate of shorter players just like your co-advocate on this thread.

Short guy are a liability at the corners is a reality not a bias against short players....it is principally the CORNER infield.

Stats do not show how many grounders and line drives that should have been gloved but were not because of lack of reach.

What is it about all this that you cannot/will not comprehend?

Short guys are at a disadvantage at first base because they make a smaller target. Bill James spent a great deal of time looking at putouts for third basemen and fund nothing.

short guys at 3B lack leverage even in their throwing...they have to exert more than tall guys generally and therefore make throws that can have too much effort resulting in errors. We've seen Callaspo throw into the dugout enough times to realize that...except you, of course.

Cannot believe you still paying that losing hand...love to play you at a poker table...bring lots of money.

Callaspo has very little range...how is it you cannot see that?

>>does UZR account for line drives that will go over or beyond Callaspo's ( Or Izturis'.) reach, but be easily snagged by a taller player ( Headley, or Trumbo.) with a presumably longer "wingspan"?<<

In theory, but of course, how accurately it does can be quibbled with. For instance, it's a lot easier to judge how good a player is at fielding bunts (Callaspo's a bit better) than it is to just the difference of a foot or two of height with line drives (side to side is easier).

Plus/Minus and Total Zone use computerized play-by-play data and so they are a bit more accurate in that regard. The data they use has four categories for balls hit in the air: line drive, fliner-line drive, fliner fly ball and fly ball (fliner being a portmanteau of fly ball and liner) so they've got more room to judge how well a payer is fielding line drives at given heights, but again, it's not perfect.

Both of those systems, incidentally, also show that there's not much difference overall between the defense of Headley and Callaspo at third. Headley's probably a bit better, but not like the difference between Beltre and Mark Reynolds or anything.

"Hedy Lamarr! "

Yeah, I thought I might have mispelled the last name, after I posted it. Thanks for the correction.

Chase Headley
Headly Lamarr
Heady Lamarr

Headley may be able to catch balls hit over his head better, but what about the balls hit low to the ground. I'm think Callaspo gets to those better.

If you measure players by their height and their age, you are not going to be able to accurately evaluate them.

And you can't.

>hat will go over or beyond Callaspo's ( Or Izturis'.) reach, but be easily snagged by a taller player ( Headley, or Trumbo.) with a presumably longer "wingspan"? ( Or is there such a stat?)<

Certainly not directly. The way I figure it Headley is 5 inches taller than AC - and, in general, a person's wingspan (fingertip-to-fingertip) is generally the same as their height. So, Headley's arms might be 2" longer than AC's.

And, being 5" taller, he'd have as much as a 7" advantage just reaching up - not counting leaping ability, reaction times, and the like.

So, I'd agree, a taller guy probably has an advantage on balls over his head - I'd disagree on balls on the ground, as Callaspo's hands are already closer to the ground, and he has a lower center of gravity than a taller guy - his lateral response should be better than Headley's.

In the end, I really don't think there's much difference between them in either offense or defense - but I'd give a very slight edge to Headley. I'm starting to think that, to some people, their view of Callaspo doesn't have much to do with ability at all ..

"For instance, it's a lot easier to judge how good a player is at fielding bunts (Callaspo's a bit better) than it is to just the difference of a foot or two of height with line drives (side to side is easier)."

And yet, Trumbo easily converted such a play during Weaver's no-no, for the defensive play of the game. ( While Callaspo could only pocket such a play, during Sunday's Dodger game.)

Height and age are vital STATISTICS...aren't statistics your bible?

how can you ignore those stats? age and height are vital to a team's success both short and long term.

if you could have your way you'd have an entire team of guys 5' 8" thru 5'10" and ages 33 to 37.

reality is something you reject.