Talk:Óliver Pérez

Defensive Statistics
I don't see how Perez's defensive statistics are relevant to this article.

He's a pitcher so his numbers are skewed due to a very small sample size. He had only 15 chances all year in 29 starts, so a .833 fielding percentage does not tell whether he had a good year defensively. If he made all 15 plays (which even the worst fielder in the majors could potentially do), would we be writing about how impressive his defense was? Definitely not.

And again with the range factor, he's a fly ball and strikeout pitcher. So even if he was a great fielder, he'd never get the chances to have a high range factor, a stat that is simply a measurement of how many chances you have.

Leaving these stats on their own mislead people about the subject of the article. The purpose of this site is to enhance people's understanding about the subject. Not to mislead them into believing something untrue because of some skewed numbers we throw out there.

Even leaving the numbers in with explanations of how they're skewed makes the article about the relevancy of fielding statistics for pitchers, not about Oliver Perez.

It's inaccurate to portray him as a bad fielder based on these statistics. Obviously the statistics are cold hard numbers and are true. Nobody is arguing that. But using them to make a case of his fielding ability is subjective at best. I'm safe to remove the references based simply on wikipedia policy on subjectivity. But I'm also removing them based on the fact these numbers give no real proof that he's a bad fielder.

And finally, fielding isn't the story of Perez's career. In the big picture, it's not relevant to the article. Wikipedia has that 10-year rule. In 10-years will it matter that Perez's skewed fielding percentage happened to be lower than other National Leaguers? I'm pretty sure not.

Are we really going to give as many words in this article to his fielding in 2007 as we do to his Game 7 pitching performance in the 2006 NLCS? Does that make any sense?

Statistics are dangerous because of situations like this. I am removing the defensive references. If you have a compelling reason as to why they are relevant, please use the talk page to explain as it's silly to have an edit war over this. I took the time to make a well thought out case as to why the defensive statistics are irrelevant. If you believe they are relevant, please do the same. Ags412 22:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Of course his defensive statistics are relevant.  They are reported for pitchers, just as they are for other ballplayers.  Pitchers received gold glove awards, just as other players do.  He met the qualification statistics for pitchers. The entry reflected the arguments mentioned above re the reasons -- fly ball pitcher, etc.  You can amplify on that, but there is no reason to delete the entry given the above. The info in short is notable enough that pitchers' stats are listed on mlb and espn just as other players stats are, he has enough playing time to qualify for league leader (or last in league), and pitchers' defense is of interest just as other positions are and therefore leads to gold gloves and the like.  I don't care if you leave out the explanation you came up with for his stats -- though others may.  With good reason.  In the interest of being collaborative I left it in.  If that is too much, expect the readers to know it and delete it.  But it is totally POV to suggest that what mlb, etc., view is a notable stat is not notable.  Find a way to leave it in with or without additional info, or bring this to arbitration.  If you like increase the entry on other areas such as individual pithing performances.  Just deleting it is not appropriate, and just asserting that the info is "irrelevant" based on the above analysis is compelling.--Epeefleche 23:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The number of plays a pitcher make very greatly from year to year. Defensive stats for pitchers are quite irrelevant.  If a pitcher would make two errors on one play, which does happen, his fielding percentage could be around .900 at the end of the year.  The point I'm making is defense for one season is pointless.  If you are going to list any defensive numbers list them for a career, not a season.--Alorrigan 1-15-2008


 * I removed the bit about the flyball pitchers getting fewer fielding opportunities. Two reasons why: Without citation, it smacks of WP:OR & it is unnecessary detail. Encyclopedia articles are not the place to debate the relevance of the groundball pitchers' range factor compared to that of flyball pitchers. I also removed several uncited statements about Perez' potential and club expectations, as they were also OR-heavy. Caknuck (talk) 03:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed the part about his defense entirely. There are several links on the page that include his stats, and there is no need to list all of his stats on the page.  Readers are free to look those up if they are interested.  Consequently, readers may presume that those stats mentioned are most important.  That he happened to commit 3 errors in a trivial sample size says very little about his overall ability as a baseball player.  Anyone with a sufficient understanding of probability and statistics should understand this.  Given a sample size of only 18 chances, a non-trivial portion of pitchers with say a .950 "true" fielding percentage would be expected to commit 3 errors.  So although the numbers listed were true, it is misleading to put them on the page as though they are an important aspect of his baseball career.  Furthermore, there is considerable debate as to the relevance of those defensive statistics anyway (just look at the article on errors). Mickeyg13 (talk) 06:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Baseball assessment comment
Substituted at 14:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)