Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 35
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    39,052
    vCash
    1500
    Quicksilver pretty much nailed the UZR questions...

    I would add that where the ball is hit makes a difference. A big one. One year there are a lot of hits to CC's diagonal left deep (deep LC field). He's got a pile of range in that direction. His UZR numbers spike from +10 to +18 in that year, the following year due to changes in the pitching staff and dumb luck few balls are hit that way and there are more flies/pops well within CC's range - bang down to a +5.

    The only way to get a usable number is have a machine set up to sim all the different sorts of hits a fielder could get and grade them on that. That's a sim, that's not a baseball game or season or two.

    For all of UZR's flaws it's better then other systems I am familiar with and well past things like FP% and GG's.


    6/27/09: “We expect [Rondo] to play by the rules and be a leader as a point guard. We need him to be more of a leader,” Ainge said. “There were just a couple situations where he was late this year, I don’t know if he was sitting in his car, but showed up late and the rest of the team was there. We have team rules and you have to be on time. He was fined for being late, he said he was stuck in traffic, and it’s just unacceptable.”

    Some jerks never learn.....

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    14,057
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by quiksilver2491 View Post
    Even for scouts, the hardest aspect of a player to assess accurately is defense. A scout can watch a player one game and see a couple of plays that are absolutely spectacular and he is going to walk away thinking the player is amazing defensively. Meanwhile the player actually isn't good defensively, but just has to make spectacular plays to make up for his lack of range. Defense is hard to judge by the naked eye.
    While it is hard, its not as hard as you are making it out to be in my view. No scout looks at just one game thinking anything really. They might have an inkling but the job of a scout is to take long looks at players and take everything into consideration. Footwork, glove work, arm strength, range, how good of jumps they get, where they position themselves in situations, etc.. The naked eye can tell a lot more than defensive stats in my view because the defensive stats don't take hardly enough into consideration. I know its impossible to watch every out of every game but if you watch enough of a player, you can tell a lot. The rest of your post I agree with. Good stuff!

    Would you trust a blind scout? Of course you wouldn't but that's what you do when you simply go by stats
    Splifftone, OptiskeptSF and Ciaban have a lot in common

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Corning, NY
    Posts
    5,721
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by bagwell368 View Post
    Quicksilver pretty much nailed the UZR questions...

    I would add that where the ball is hit makes a difference. A big one. One year there are a lot of hits to CC's diagonal left deep (deep LC field). He's got a pile of range in that direction. His UZR numbers spike from +10 to +18 in that year, the following year due to changes in the pitching staff and dumb luck few balls are hit that way and there are more flies/pops well within CC's range - bang down to a +5.

    The only way to get a usable number is have a machine set up to sim all the different sorts of hits a fielder could get and grade them on that. That's a sim, that's not a baseball game or season or two.

    For all of UZR's flaws it's better then other systems I am familiar with and well past things like FP% and GG's.
    It's certainly the best defense metric but that still isn't saying much. I don't have a problem with UZR over long periods of time, I just don't like it being used in-season and also don't like the large impact it has on fWAR.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    46
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by OneTuzSea View Post
    Thought of this while looking at the thread about WARP and VORP; are there any things sabr-related you don't agree with? Whether it's certain princicples, or even a stat you just think is bogus?

    This isn't a thread to just bash sabrmetrics if you don't like and don't care to learn about it. Just trying to get some discussion.
    I think overall its very accurate, only in certain instances can you actually find outliers.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    7,034
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by OneTuzSea View Post
    It's certainly the best defense metric but that still isn't saying much. I don't have a problem with UZR over long periods of time, I just don't like it being used in-season and also don't like the large impact it has on fWAR.
    Part of the issue is that most sites just jam UZR into their WAR calculations which gives players highly inflated WAR numbers due to outlier defensive seasons.

    Fangraphs lists decimals next to the UZR numbers on their stats pages, which is silly. UZR should be thought of as a range of numbers that the player could fall into +/- the score given with increasing accuracy gained the larger the range is. This is similar to carbon dating techniques.
    Last edited by Milnertime; 07-08-2011 at 06:30 PM.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    36,943
    vCash
    1000
    I HATE that UZR is still used in Fangraphs WAR

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Corning, NY
    Posts
    5,721
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffy25 View Post
    I HATE that UZR is still used in Fangraphs WAR
    I would like to simply click a "Like" or "Thank You" button, but since this site is still entrenched in 2003 I will simply with a nodding smile face so you know how much I agree.


  8. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    815
    vCash
    1500
    Here's something I don't understand about sabermetrics:

    Sabers call RBI a "garbage stat" because it's dependent on what others do (i.e. get on base before them).

    Okay....so how come that same logic doesn't extend to a hitter getting bases on balls? Isn't that largely dependent on whether the pitcher throws four balls out of the strike zone?

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    36,943
    vCash
    1000
    Quote Originally Posted by Victory Faust View Post
    Here's something I don't understand about sabermetrics:

    Sabers call RBI a "garbage stat" because it's dependent on what others do (i.e. get on base before them).

    Okay....so how come that same logic doesn't extend to a hitter getting bases on balls? Isn't that largely dependent on whether the pitcher throws four balls out of the strike zone?
    It's been thoroughly proven that it is a skill statistic.

    1. The ability to lay off bad pitching
    2. Having the ability to be dangerous enough that you aren't thrown in the strike zone consistently
    3. Being able to foul off good pitches to work a walk
    4. Being patient enough to see a lot of pitches to get your team further through the lineup.

    If it was dependent on the pitcher, then all offensive players would be at least close to each other in their walk rates, but we know that is very far from the truth.

    Just an example, Albert Pujols has a walk rate of 12.9% over the last decade
    Yuniesky Betancourt has a walk rate of 3.3% over the last decade

    Both players are not pitched to the same. But that's because of how dangerous Pujols is mainly. And also because nobody fears Betanourt. They can just groove him pitches, he isn't going to beat them like Pujols will. (Betancourt saw 51.1% pitches in the strike zone in the last decade, Pujols 47.8%...believe it or not that is a large difference. Pujols is one of the lowest strike rates in baseball, and Betancourts is one of the middle to largest). And because Pujols has shown great plate discipline over the last decade on pitches outside of the strike zone and and an ability to lay off these pitches. Betancourt swings wildly at pitches out of the zone (33.6% of the pitches outside of the strike zone are swung at as opposed to Pujols' 22.9%).

    It's remarkable how consistent players are with their K and BB rates over varying intervals. It's absolutely a skill statistic and not subject to the pitchers themselves.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    815
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffy25 View Post
    It's been thoroughly proven that it is a skill statistic.

    1. The ability to lay off bad pitching
    2. Having the ability to be dangerous enough that you aren't thrown in the strike zone consistently
    3. Being able to foul off good pitches to work a walk
    4. Being patient enough to see a lot of pitches to get your team further through the lineup.

    If it was dependent on the pitcher, then all offensive players would be at least close to each other in their walk rates, but we know that is very far from the truth.

    Just an example, Albert Pujols has a walk rate of 12.9% over the last decade
    Yuniesky Betancourt has a walk rate of 3.3% over the last decade

    Both players are not pitched to the same. But that's because of how dangerous Pujols is mainly. And also because nobody fears Betanourt. They can just groove him pitches, he isn't going to beat them like Pujols will. (Betancourt saw 51.1% pitches in the strike zone in the last decade, Pujols 47.8%...believe it or not that is a large difference. Pujols is one of the lowest strike rates in baseball, and Betancourts is one of the middle to largest). And because Pujols has shown great plate discipline over the last decade on pitches outside of the strike zone and and an ability to lay off these pitches. Betancourt swings wildly at pitches out of the zone (33.6% of the pitches outside of the strike zone are swung at as opposed to Pujols' 22.9%).

    It's remarkable how consistent players are with their K and BB rates over varying intervals. It's absolutely a skill statistic and not subject to the pitchers themselves.

    So the pitcher has no control whatsoever over whether a player walks or not?

    If you're going to lend as much weight as you do to BB, shouldn't you at least try to figure out which pitchers the batters faced, so you're comparing apples-to-apples? If Player A got the majority of his at-bats against pitchers in his division who had better control, and Player B was fortunate enough to play in a division with several wild pitchers, wouldn't that play a factor?

    I especially think it's a mistake to lend too much weight to minor leaguers who walk a lot, because they're facing a lot of pitchers who can't find the strike zone.

    I'd give it some weight, certainly, but not as much as a lot of sabers do.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    35,381
    vCash
    1500
    This guys like BFF's with Mr. Haha

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    36,943
    vCash
    1000
    Quote Originally Posted by Victory Faust View Post
    So the pitcher has no control whatsoever over whether a player walks or not?
    Of course he does.

    But out of the data of facing 500 guys it shows up.

    Just like a hitter getting 500 PA you will be able to see it.

    It is a skill set. Which both pitchers and hitters affect equally.


    If you're going to lend as much weight as you do to BB, shouldn't you at least try to figure out which pitchers the batters faced, so you're comparing apples-to-apples? If Player A got the majority of his at-bats against pitchers in his division who had better control, and Player B was fortunate enough to play in a division with several wild pitchers, wouldn't that play a factor?
    We have that.

    We know the quality of opponents faced. It's one of the reasons David Price showed up as valuable as he was because he faced the toughest competition all season long.

    This is all measurable.

    I especially think it's a mistake to lend too much weight to minor leaguers who walk a lot, because they're facing a lot of pitchers who can't find the strike zone.
    Let me ask you this.

    Then why do players have significantly different K and BB rates from the rest of the league sometimes? And those same players consistently show up there? And guys with low K and BB rates remain at the bottom?

    How would you like to explain that difference?

    As well. This is one of the few stats that actually continue to show the same rate or close to for players after they graduate to big leagues?

    It's one of the few most consistent statistics for a player. It's also one of the reasons when you see a young player with great plate discipline you likely will continue to see it as they age.

    Just one individual example (but basically all players fit). Look at Kevin Youkilis. You could see his intense walk rate in the minor leagues. He has carried that into his major league career.

    This is very normal. It's not outside of the hitters control. The hitter has a lot of control over their walk rate. And pitchers have a lot of control over their walk rates. These are things the individual control and directly compete each other over.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    A Phillies Phan in Ocean Twp & BKLYN
    Posts
    5,261
    vCash
    1500
    Walks are used for both pitchers and batters' stats. If it is the batters' skill set, why are they included with the pitchers' stats as well?
    Quote Originally Posted by Crucis View Post
    Parity is about equality of opportunity, not equality of results.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    36,943
    vCash
    1000
    Quote Originally Posted by thefeckcampaign View Post
    Walks are used for both pitchers and batters' stats. If it is the batters' skill set, why are they included with the pitchers' stats as well?
    That is the same thing as asking why do pitchers have stats for anything and hitters have stats for anything?

    They are fighting against one another. Isn't that pretty basic?

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    A Phillies Phan in Ocean Twp & BKLYN
    Posts
    5,261
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffy25 View Post
    That is the same thing as asking why do pitchers have stats for anything and hitters have stats for anything?

    They are fighting against one another. Isn't that pretty basic?
    Not when you said pitcher doesn't matter in determining what walks the batter accomplished.
    Quote Originally Posted by Crucis View Post
    Parity is about equality of opportunity, not equality of results.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •