View Full Version : Defensive Stats

10-19-2012, 11:55 AM
IMO are useless, when I see a player like Gordon Beckham have a - UZR its just :facepalm: . Can any1 change my mind or show me an actual decent fielding stat?

10-19-2012, 01:35 PM
You shouldn't look at UZR on a season-by-season basis. Three years is a minimum time where you can really trust what you're seeing and even then it's not perfect.

10-22-2012, 08:30 PM
Did you ever consider maybe Gordon Beckham isn't the stud you thought he was?

Kind of like Jeter....

Just because a stat doesn't love the player you have a crush on, doesn't mean it's a bad stat.

10-23-2012, 09:14 AM
Uzr has a ton of flaws but it can certainly be useful if youre objective about it and understand its strengths.

Looking at Beckham's UZR...

He has three seasons of data, which is a rather small sample size:

2010 - -0.8
2011 - 4.9
2012 - - 0.7

The negative UZR does not indicate that he's a bad fielder. We only have a sample size of three seasons, and actually, these stats indicate that he's a good fielder. It's important to understand that defensive stats can fluctuate just like offensive seasons and pitching. You will have years where a player is better than normal and season where a player is worse than normal.

When you look at just this season and see a -0.7 UZR, you need to see what other data is available. A -0.7 UZR is hardly that bad, and doesn't indicate anything.

To me, these numbers tell you that Beckham is a solid to good fielder, but how good has yet to be determined. Give it another year or two.

10-29-2012, 04:16 AM
Every time I see these threads I laugh. Tell me, please, what stat you'd prefer? Or how you'd fix it?

Look, it might not be filet mignon, but a nice rare burger is still better than plenty of other food.

12-29-2012, 10:50 PM
I feel like you have to look at a combination of UZR and DRS. I admittedly like to use FSR too.

01-11-2013, 01:08 PM
I don't like UZR, the results are like a sine wave. Three years is a gigantic window to have to wait on accumulating, and what happens when a player goes into decline in the 2nd year? How will you ever be able to parse the decline out with assurance?

Also UZR sucks for 1B and C.

Chuckle all you like, I find the baseball-reference TZR, range, and Rfield stats to be far less erratic - thus more usable in a current year - if somewhat less exacting than UZR.

01-19-2013, 11:18 PM
UZR is garbage IMHO.

01-21-2013, 04:51 PM
None of them are perfect, and most are far from it. But its what we have right now, and we know they are better than FLD% and errors and whatnot.

The three years thing may be a little annoying and inefficient, but its what you need to be somewhat accurate.

01-24-2013, 03:03 AM
IMO are useless, when I see a player like Gordon Beckham have a - UZR its just :facepalm: . Can any1 change my mind or show me an actual decent fielding stat?

These stats aren't here to reaffirm your impression or assumption about a player.

And....UZR is useless in a single season sample size.

You need 3 years minimum, and even then it's only worth a range. Good, bad, average, great, excellent, horrible, etc. I hate that Fangraphs uses it in WAR, because it's a horrible stat.

Try DRS (defensive runs saved) and dWAR on baseball-reference. Both are a little less volatile, and when you use all three, you get a decent representation.

That is...until pitch f/x data is provided to the masses for more conclusive defensive statistics.

01-24-2013, 03:05 AM
btw, dWAR and DRS both agree that Beckham is either average to just barely above average.

turning in a negative 2010, positive 2011, slightly negative 2012.

So at least they are all being consistent.