Athletics Nation: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:





Staturday: Defensive Metrics (Courtesy of grover)

When Blez first offered me this gig I knew that at some point defensive metrics would be brought up. A lot of time and energy has been devoted towards developing reliable numbers that can be used to evaluate pitchers and hitters but the defensive side of things lags well behind. I don’t know, maybe a lot of that has to do with fantasy baseball focusing all the scoring on pitching and hitting results. Seriously, has anyone ever heard of a fantasy league that awards points for defensive efficiency? I digress. Defensive metrics are just now starting to evolve to the point where they are both reasonably reliable and readily available to the general public which is why I wanted to be the one to talk about them.

If you really want to know how good a fielder is defensively you need to forget about the numbers and find a non-biased scouting report. At this time defensive ability is best measured or judged by the human eye, not by statistical systems.

Huh?

I don’t trust defensive metrics to provide me with a consistently accurate measure of a player’s defensive ability as they’re too easily fooled. There’s a reason for that… they’re all flawed. So flawed, in fact, that there are several you should just flat out avoid. Anything you see on MLB.com, Espn.com, CBSSportsline.com or Foxsports.com should be ignored. Don’t even waste your time clicking on their links. I can’t tell you the number of times I looked up a player’s defensive performance on one metric, then cross referenced him with another system and have come up with conflicting answers. One standard praises the guy, the other says he sucks. The single best metric out there for public consumption is the Ultimate Zone Rating, created by Mitchel Lichtman. His UZR was so good the St. Louis Cardinals hired him to be their personal defensive metric maven; therefore you can no longer get a complete table of UZR numbers.

So where do we go from here?

Well, now that I’ve thoroughly undermined any confidence you may have had in defensive metrics prior to reading this article, let me start the building process. The reason defensive metrics are flawed is because they don’t contain enough data. First off, they ignore how a player positions himself prior to the ball being in play. The importance of pre-positioning should be obvious but I’ll go over briefly anyways. If a defender knows where the batter is probably going to hit the ball prior to the pitch even being thrown he can place himself in a position to easily field the ball. The easiest example would be to imagine a defense shifting to play a dead pull hitter. The 2nd baseman will slide over to his right until he’s practically behind the pitcher. The batter hits the ball up the middle, just to the 3rd base side of the pitching mound. The 2nd baseman takes a step to his right, fields the ball and makes a clean throw to 1st base. An easy out but most of the defensive metrics would award a bonus to the 2nd baseman for making a play so far out of his zone. His natural range had nothing to do with fielding the ball, his positioning was the primary factor.
The important thing to remember is that defensive metrics are not a magnifying glass that helps you clearly see what is there, they are a prism that distorts the image of what you’re trying to identify. The good news is utilizing one defensive metric allows all the subjects to be distorted in the same manner. Ah-hah! But which metric?

Accepting that there are flaws in all the accessible systems, the best place to look for defensive data is through The Hardball Times (THT) and their Revised Zone Rating System or RZR for short. Like just about every system, RZR looks at the percentage of balls that are hit into a defender’s zone and get turned into outs. THT has gone a step further then that and include Out Of Zone (OOZ) plays. An OOZ play is any out a defender makes while ranging outside of his zone. As I stated earlier, positioning can lead to a distortion of the out of zone data but OOZ is a solid statistical attempt to judge a player’s range on defense.

RZR and OOZ (weren’t those the names of the mutated bad guys in Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 2?) can be converted into Runs Saved, although I’m not entirely sure of the formula for this. Not to worry though, I’ve got the conversions on hand and I’ll share the numbers with you in a little bit. Hey, this is Staturday… I think I’m obligated to include some actual stats before I sign off! Still, I feel like the most important information I can pass on is this: In time the technology will be available to allow for a purely statistical way to evaluate defense but until then the best thing to do is mix existing analysis with observational reports (i.e. scouting reports) to best determine defensive skill.

(Well, I was going to go a bit more in depth on RZR but I can’t find the bloody link I need to continue, so to Hell with it! On to the numbers!)

Runs Saved (2007)

I’m focusing on the guys who project to be around in 2008. Remember, this is Runs Saved, a positive number is good and a negative number is bad.

1B: DJ = -4;        Barton = -1
2B: Ellis = +15
SS: Crosby = +9;    Murphy = -1
3B: Chavez = 0;    Hannahan = +1
LF: Brown = +11;    R. Sweeney = +1
CF: Denorfia = N/A
RF: Buck = +7;    R.Sweeney = +1

0 recs | Comment 61 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

Display:

I've never really trusted any

of the defensive measures out there. For example, I think (up until last year) that most defensive measures would underrate someone like Kotsay who not only positioned himself so well, but also got one of the best reads on flyballs I'd ever seen. I just don't know how you can objectively measure that statistically. He would seemingly always be breaking on the ball the millisecond that it hit the bat and he was going the right way unlike someone like Eric Byrnes who would zig zag all over the field until he had to dive for the ball.

Interest point about the positioning too. Ellis is really good at positioning himself but he also has remarkable range.

Excellent piece, grover. As usual.

by Blez on Mar 1, 2008 9:24 AM PST   0 recs

Why would the metrics

underrate Kotsay, because of his reads? If he makes great plays as a result of great reads, he will get credit for making those plays. If he does not make plays, it does not matter how great his reads are.

Also, unless the A's were using an orthodox positioning scheme with Kotsay and the outfielders, he would not be underrated as a result of positioning. He would be underrated as a result of positioning IF he was regularly cheating to one corner to cover for a guy there, making it harder for him to make plays in "his" zone.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Mar 1, 2008 9:59 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

UZR loved Kotsat back when he was, you know, good ...

IIRC he posted seasons as good as ~40 runs above average. THT's data doesn't go back that far (it's been a while) so I can't verify how RZR felt ...

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Mar 1, 2008 11:17 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

The metrics have been fairly friendly to Kotsay

up until his back started to impact his play. Then the metrics weren't so hot on him.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Mar 1, 2008 11:43 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

As others have said...

Kotsay used to be highly rated by the metrics when he was good. He just hasn't been any good for 2 or 3 years, while Byrnes got better and better with more playing time. Now, apparently, the metrics confirm what I (and, other fans) perceived with out eyes, i.e., Eric Byrnes is a very good defensive left fielder: Byrnes 2007 - Best in the NL

Go A's!

by FoolshGame22 on Mar 1, 2008 10:11 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Best defensive left fielder in the NL

is not a distinction that anyone should be putting on their resume.

Last year the following people played left field in the NL:

Bonds
Luis Gonzalez
Matt Holliday
Carlos Lee
Adam Dunn
Chris Duncan
Moises Alou
Pat Burrell

among other leading lights. I mean, that's practically half the league who are universally known to be horrendous fielders.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Mar 1, 2008 11:25 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

well, I guess it's all relative, isn't it...

especially, when UZR couldn't find one AL left fielder above zero:
LF

Best

NL

Soriano +16
Holliday +13
Gonzalez +11

AL

No one above zero!
UZR

Now, UZR, admittedly, doesn't have Byrnes among the top 3. He's probably 4th. But, in the metric I previously posted, he was the #1 left fielder in baseball, according to their metric. Take it for what it is worth. Believe it or not. He's good. He doesn't care if you believe it. Neither do I.

Go A's!

by FoolshGame22 on Mar 1, 2008 11:40 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Just to make this clear

My point wasn't "AL left fielders are better than NL," because that's clearly not the case. There are just as many fielding catastrophes (Garret Anderson, Raul Ibanez, Manny, Matt Stairs, etc.) in the AL. Heck, Shannon Stewart is one of the top left fielders in the AL with, by all accounts, the single worst throwing arm in MLB.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Mar 2, 2008 1:20 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

yes, let's make it clear...

Byrnes is the best defensive left fielder in baseball. I'm glad you agree.

Go A's!

by FoolshGame22 on Mar 3, 2008 12:05 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Great Piece

and great usage of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles...i nominate Harden to be Leonardo

This Is A's Brand Country

by DyeLongJustice on Mar 1, 2008 9:41 AM PST   0 recs

Well that just doesn't work

as Zito would've been the perfect Michelangelo back in the day.

by Blez on Mar 1, 2008 9:43 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Chavez?

Any idea why Chavvy gets dinged by this system? Was it the injuries, or does the data in this case not correlate with the scouts? Also, does this metric use a PECOTA-style weighting of previous seasons, or is it exclusively using 2007 data? It seems to me that the same technology that is being utilized for Pitchf/x would work really well in this case-baseball players are much bigger and slower than a baseball. Track their movement during a play, combine that information with the baseball data about whether they actually caught the darn ball, and you could have the beginnings of a very good defensive metric. Any thoughts?

by Doug on Mar 1, 2008 9:55 AM PST   0 recs

Injuries

Chavez's defense was noticeably off last season. I'm surprised he grades out as even average in the above.

I'm not sure there's going to be a Field F/x coming out in the near future, unfortunately (although Hit F/x, or something like it, which will tell us the speed and launch angle of batted balls, should start being available in the next few years). So while we may soon be able to tell whether a fielder is positioned correctly based on a hitter's tendencies, and we'll have info on how many plays a defender makes, it's going to be some time (probably 5+ years) before the information is integrated to the extent that it replaces the Mark I Eyeball. And of course, it will probably always be impossible to tell whether a guy was positioned badly because he's an idiot or because the infield coach is an idiot...

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Mar 1, 2008 11:11 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

That was my thought while reading this

The impact of coaches during the game makes fielding stats that much more unreliable. While you could make the arguement that a hitting or pitching coach can give in-game advice as well, you usually don't see the coach waving a pitcher to move another half step over on the rubber during a play.

Winner of the 2008 "find grover a new sig" contest.

by 5Aces on Mar 3, 2008 1:24 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

THT is a yearly metric

So Chavez's score was entirely based on his 2007 play.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Mar 1, 2008 11:12 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

interesting

I (and many fans sitting near me) thought various times last season that Hannahan missed a play that looked like one that Chavvy had made often in the past...of course, that past was before 2007

by OaklandSi on Mar 1, 2008 11:41 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Why no current UZR tables?

Did Mitchel Lichtman keep the formula secret?

It's Rhodes Scholar Night at the Coliseum tonight.

by Scottbass on Mar 1, 2008 11:02 AM PST   0 recs

The Cards are paying him, thus freebies are limited

I guess.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Mar 1, 2008 11:10 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

The formula is avalaible

Or at least a detailed explanation of the formula. Part 1, Part 2

He's just not going to hand out all his calculations for free.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Mar 1, 2008 11:21 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

UZR

You can find complete UZR data from 2003 through mid-2007 here.

by Danny on Mar 1, 2008 11:02 AM PST   0 recs

Older stuff you can find...

I haven't seen a completed 2007 list so I can only assume that he's no longer publishing them for free.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Mar 1, 2008 11:11 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

He stopped publishing it at all for a while ...

that he's publishing it at all again, I'd guess means he has developed something significantly better for the Cardinals.

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Mar 1, 2008 11:20 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

He no longer works for the Cardinals

NYT:

One leading researcher in this field, the former St. Louis Cardinals consultant Mitchel Lichtman, has developed a statistic to measure this, Pitcher Zone Rating, and he agreed to share his data with The New York Times. Though the data is still in its nascent stages and pitching performance has a big variation from year to year, patterns are starting to emerge.

According to P.Z.R., over the last six years, pitchers have indeed had a substantial impact on the outcomes of balls in play, almost as big as that of fielders. Among starting pitchers, the undisputed king of inducing weak contact is the Red Sox’ Tim Wakefield, the game’s premier knuckleballer. Since 2001, Wakefield’s ability to prevent hits on balls in play has saved him 85 runs, or lowered his earned run average by 0.62. In other words, he will be out of a job if he ever loses it. The runners-up are the left-handed curveball specialist Barry Zito and the sinkerball pitcher Derek Lowe.

Many statistically literate fans have dismissed Zito’s success as a product of a friendly stadium and superb fielders. In fact, while his favorable environment did prevent 32 runs since 2001, good for 0.20 off his E.R.A., his own ability had an effect twice as large: 64 runs and 0.40 of E.R.A.

by Danny on Mar 1, 2008 11:36 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

grover, regarding your prepositioning

if the 2b did as you outlined in your example, why should he not get credit for making the play? If he made a great play, whether as a result of superb raw physical ability, good reading of the game and good mechanics, or some combination of that, he still made a great play.

One thing to keep in mind, is that these play by play metrics measure, PLAYS made and not made, NOT raw athletic range. They were not designed to measure raw athletic range. They were designed to measure PLAYS and RUNS.

The problem with the static zones, is when a team regularly and constantly positions it's players with an unorthodox scheme, ie multiple players are regularly playing out of zone.

Or when a player is regularly playing out of "his" zone, ie Andruw Jones, who has a tendency to play very shallow.

Using Andruw as an example, because he plays out of "his" zone often, he makes a lot of OOZ plays. OTOH, he also does NOT make as many plays as he "should" that are in "his" zone.

Baseball Info Solutions and STATS Inc, the 2 companies that collect play by play data, handle / classify out of zone plays differently.

STATS Inc way of handling OOZ data is that for OOZ plays "the player is credited with an 'out' and a 'ball in zone' for balls caught outside his zone.". Because of this, Andruw does not do well in systems that use STATS data, like Zone Rating and UZR.

OTOH, Andruw does well in systems that use BIS data, like John Dewan's plus minus and RZR.

This does not mean that BIS is better than STATS. Some of those OOZ plays that Andruw made, could very well be popups that the SS could have handled.

Dewans' plus minus is available, not for free unfortunately, but to subscribers of Bill James' website.

"Anything you see on MLB.com, Espn.com, CBSSportsline.com or Foxsports.com should be ignored. Don’t even waste your time clicking on their links"

Zone rating is pretty decent, and is available on those sites for free.

Chris Dial has an outstanding explanation of what is Zone Rating on BBTF.

For observational reports by fans, Tom Tango has his annual Fans Scouting Reports, where players are graded on various aspects of D, like first step, hands, range, etc. This is then converted into an overall score.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Mar 1, 2008 11:12 AM PST   0 recs

I'll try to answer what I can

In my example, the 2B gets credit for making the out. However, RZR would count the out as an Out-Of-Zone play which while technically true it paints a much more heroic picture then what actually happened.

Zone Rating, when it first came out, had a tendency to reward the more sure-handed defenders who lacked the range to even attempt plays on the edges of their zone. A more athletic defender would attempt a play and if he couldn't convert the out he'd take a hit in his ZR score. At the same time, if the athletic defender converted the out he didn't a bonus for doing so. Therefore ZR could only only penalize the player who had greater range and attempted more plays.

RZR takes out all the OOZ plays and judges them seperately. For the most part, OOZ is influenced by the defender's range BUT like the example I showed, defensive positioning can warp the data. If the 2B in my example had been set in his natural position and then on contact ranged to his right and fielded a grounder on the SS side of 2B then the OOZ play would have been a result of superior athletic ability.

I'm vaguely familiar with Dewan's +/- system but as you said, ya gotta pay for it. THT's stuff is free.

And I'm not too sure of the Fans Scouting Reports at this time. They're something I came across while working on this piece and I haven't spent a great deal of time thinking about them. I like the theory because at this time I'm much more comfortable with Mark 1 Eyeball analysis as the basis for defensive ratings.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Mar 1, 2008 11:30 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re the limits of ZR

yeah, that's what I'm saying. Because of the way it classifies OOZ plays "the player is credited with an 'out' and a 'ball in zone' for balls caught outside his zone"

The problem though is that just because a play is OOZ does NOT mean that making a play on it was a result of great D. Andruw Jones catching a popup that the SS could have caught, because he was playing shallow, is not great D.

"For the most part, OOZ is influenced by the defender's range BUT like the example I showed, defensive positioning can warp the data. If the 2B in my example had been set in his natural position and then on contact ranged to his right and fielded a grounder on the SS side of 2B then the OOZ play would have been a result of superior athletic ability"

But that is the issue. ZR, RZR, etc, are NOT trying to measure superior athletic ability. They are trying to measure RESULTS. Not how the results were obtained.

Dewan's plus minus system grades guys according to the difficulty of a play made. For example, if Derek Jeter makes a play that 80 percent of MLB SS's make, he gets a +0.20. If he does not make a play that 80 percent of MLB SS's make, he gets a -0.80.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Mar 1, 2008 11:59 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

See below

I'm probably guilty of trying to project athletic range via OOZ plays. 'Course, that's the only category that could possibly hint at range so there you go.

How the results were obtained is critical, IMO.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Mar 1, 2008 2:19 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

I completely disagree with your primary critique of defensive stats ...

and it brings me to a critical difference between stat and scout based analysis.

Scout based analysis cares far too much about how something happens. Unless we're talking about small sample sizes or players changing levels (or pitcher health, but that's a difference subject), how a player does something doesn't matter. All that matters is that a player does something. If he makes the play, he makes the play. It doesn't matter if it's because he (the 2b) had a premonition and decided to position himself to the left of second, despite the fact that a lefty was up or if because he was able cover those forty feet, make a spectacular diving play and throw out the runner from his knees.

The second play looks a lot cooler but it does not provide any more benefit to his team.

Ask Derek Jeter how well making the spectacular play can fool the scouts ... or ask Mark Ellis how under appreciated positioning and fundamentals are.

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Mar 1, 2008 11:26 AM PST   0 recs

My primary critique is that defensive metrics don't have enough data

The ones most readily available do not address positioning, route running or even turning the double play. A lot of them struggle with bunts or short rollers.

What strikes me as funny is you're accusing the scouts of the very thing I think the metrics miss. All that matters to RZR or UZR or Rate 2 and on and on is whether or not a play is made. To me, the metrics are much closer to binary than a human scout.

As there are bad metrics, there are bad scouts. I can't remember where I read it, but someone suggested a simple test to judge the quality of a scout. Have the scout watch Derek Jeter play defense and if at any point the scout uses the word "clutch" in his report you need to fire him on the spot! I have read a fair number of scouting reports and comments that have been critical of Jeter's defense.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Mar 1, 2008 11:41 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Someone quoted that recently on AN -- was it a scout who does chats on ESPN?

I remember the scout specifically noting that Jeter has lousy footwork -- which, again, is a process critique, not a result critique.

"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s

by Nick on Mar 1, 2008 12:06 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

It was Keith Law

to be specific.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Mar 1, 2008 11:28 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

No, that's what I'm saying ...

Assuming I have enough data (which I'll agree is a problem) ... I only care about the results -- which generally are binary.

I'll stipulate that most metrics don't account for turning the double play and may have trouble with bunts (swinging or otherwise). In that case those of us using the stats need to be aware that they are not the be-all-end-all of defense -- they only deal with the great majority of defensive plays -- but not all of them. If the numbers tell me that a second baseman is great at covering his zone, but the scouts tell me he's lousy around the base, turning two, I'll conclude that he's probably good defensively, but not great. if they tell me that a third baseman is average but the scouts tell me he can charge the bunt like no one else, I'll conclude that he's above average.

It's like a certain hypothetical selection process when the supporters of a certain possible selection accuse the supporters of the other possible selection of considering that possible selection to be the messiah when the only individual who has ever suggested that the second possible selection was the messiah was the first possible suggestion. (was that vague enough?)

No one in the numbers game will tell you that you should ignore the scouts -- just that the numbers are equally important, often more so. The primary determinant of the weighting is generally a function of sample size.

I care about results (assuming sufficient sample size) -- not process. I don't care how a player does it, just that he does it.

And while I'm sure there are some scouts that realized how bad Jeter is defensively, there were apparently enough of them that didn't to allow the moronic decision of moving the good SS, Alex Rodriguez, to third, while leaving the atrocious SS, Jeter, in the more important defensive position.

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Mar 1, 2008 1:19 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

I may be projecting some here

But OOZ plays are the best way I see of trying to judge a player's range. In that regard, process is as important (or more so) then the result. For me, I'd rather have a good gloveman with superior range then a great gloveman with below-average range. Positioning can mask sub-standard range but when push comes to shove I want a guy who can go get it.

As for the A-Rod to 3B bit, you can't really think it was the Yankee scouts who said Team Captain and Face of the Franchise Derek Jeter should man SS. Jeter welcomed A-Rod with open arms after making it clear to management that he was going to remain the Yankee SS thank you very much.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Mar 1, 2008 2:13 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

OOZ is generally an effecitve way of measuring range.

But it does not then follow that process is as or more important than results. The result is making the out of zone play. The process of how the player does it (by positioning, by athleticism, etc) is irrelevant.

I'd rather have the better player and am not at all dogmatic about what kind of player that will be.

I'd have to imagine that if the Yankee scouts were smart enough to realize that moving A-Rod to third instead of Jeter was going to cost the team in the neighborhood of 2 wins a year, they'd have been able to talk management out of it.

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Mar 1, 2008 2:43 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Doesn't OOZ penalize everybody else?

If the 2B catches a ball out of his zone, it's in somebody else's zone. Just because he's a ball hog doesn't mean the SS, CF, or RF are any less talented. They just know that ass of a 2B will complain for 20 minutes after the game because he "called the ball" first or something.

I've yet to see anything that I'd put on the same planet as UZR in terms of fielding metrics. A lot of decent, and can be used in conjunction, but anything not using UZR is pretty useless, IMO.

by thejd44 on Mar 2, 2008 1:32 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

I agree UZR is the best metric out there

But if you can't access it, what's the point?

I don't know the answer to your question, but I would assume that the play would not count against the SS. I think the play would not be counted in the total number of opportunites for the SS... at least that's how I'd set up the system.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Mar 2, 2008 8:48 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

I mostly agree

But it's interesting and worthwhile for a team to know how much of a player's defensive value is due to positioning rather than range. While much of positioning is intuition, I'm sure it's more coachable than range. Teams could target players with good range and poor positioning as undervalued, and they could also evaluate their own team's positioning.

You're right in terms of past value, but not necessarily in terms of predictive future value.

by Danny on Mar 1, 2008 11:42 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Would my 2B example been clearer

if I had said RH pull hitter?

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Mar 1, 2008 11:44 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Yes, I was a little confused at first, because the extreme defensive shifts are for lefties, not righties

"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s

by Nick on Mar 1, 2008 12:07 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Sure, it's interesting ... and would have some value ...

I'd agree that such a stat would probably have value in identifying possible undervalued talent ... but it wouldn't be any more predictive. It doesn't show you that something will change, just that there is room for improvement, which would likely require external factors to come to be ...

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Mar 1, 2008 1:22 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Positioning does matter

A player who regularly positions himself out of "his" zone, or at the edges of "his" zone, is going to provide confusing data for a metric that uses static zones.

A team that regularly uses unorthodox positioning, will make this worse.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Mar 1, 2008 12:04 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

1. No it doesn't ...

it doesn't matter how hard a player has to work to make a play. That has nothing to do with how much value he brings to his team. If a player positions himself oddly, he will make plays that a typical player at that position won't make but he also won't make other plays that a typical player would. Whichever there is more of (more or less, not every ball in play is created equal, but for the purposes of this discussion that's accurate enough) determines whether that player's odd positioning is helping his team or hurting his team.

2. Zone based statistics could account for this, to a certain extent. Players that have a wider dispersion of fielded balls (relatively less in the middle of the zone, relatively more on the periphery) likely takes more liberties with his positioning. A player for whom the mode of his plays aren't in the middle of the zone is very likely to consistently position himself abnormally.

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Mar 1, 2008 1:29 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

I'm not sure what you're saying ...

but here's my best attempt at a response:

For the most part, a play made is a play made ... especially when it comes to middle infielders, since the overwhelming majority of plays they don't make end up being singles (or errors that have the same end result as a single -- throwing errors being a different animal) ...

If you have a second baseman who watches a slow roller that your grandma could have fielded go through his legs, but then fields a ball forty feet to his right that not even Mark Ellis could have gotten to, based on those two plays, he's an exactly average fielder. He gave up a single (more likely a one base error) on the first play, but took one off the board with the second.

Dewan's plus/minus system
, while inferior to MGL's UZR is very helpful in understanding this concept.

Let me know if that answers your question ...

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Mar 1, 2008 5:37 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Another way to phrase it might be...

1) Regular positioning:

Fielder fields ball in zone. Fielder makes error on ball in zone.

2) Odd positioning

Fielder fields ball OOZ. Fielder muffs ball OOZ

Same fielder abilities, but no "chance" charged to Fielder 2 on second ball?

by WaddellCanseco on Mar 2, 2008 5:17 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Yes, it does

I'm just going to repeat myself, this is how ZR handles out of zone plays "the player is credited with an 'out' and a 'ball in zone' for balls caught outside his zone""

In other words, ZR penalises a player, to a certain extent, for making an OOZ play.

But what of RZR you say?

Again, I'll repeat myself: The problem though is that just because a play is OOZ does NOT mean that making a play on it was a result of great D. Andruw Jones catching a popup that the SS could have caught, because he was playing shallow, is not great D.

The "value" that Andruw Jones brought the Braves by playing shallow, could easily replaced by the Atlanta SS.

It's debatable just how much "value" brings the Braves by catching popups the SS could have caught.

"Zone based statistics could account for this, to a certain extent. Players that have a wider dispersion of fielded balls (relatively less in the middle of the zone, relatively more on the periphery) likely takes more liberties with his positioning. A player for whom the mode of his plays aren't in the middle of the zone is very likely to consistently position himself abnormally."

But they do not. That is the issue, they do not. Look, just compare the Zone Ratings, and RZRs of the following players: Andruw Jones, Ichiro, Bonds, Torii Hunter, Aaron Rowand.

Consider the fact that UZR has Ichiro as one of the worst defensive CFs in 2007, while plus minus disagrees.

Also, you still have not addressed the problem of how static zones are going to handle a TEAM that regularly uses unorthodox positioning.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Mar 1, 2008 11:12 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Who cares about Zone Rating?

Next you're going to start talking about errors ...

RZR ... you're right -- OOZ does not mean that making a play was a result of great D. But if Andruw can steal pop flies from the SS while still covering the ground behind him then it will show up in the combination of his RZR and his OOZ. If he can't, his OOZ may be spectacular (but probably won't be -- since he's basically robbing Peter (long flies) to pay Paul (short ones).

I'm going to remove Bonds from this comparison because it does not make sense to compare a LF to four CFs.
Name RZR OOZ
Jones .921 80
Suzuki .893 97
Hunter .891 47
Rowand .863 69

So now that I've pulled the numbers together, what's your point? Jones was great -- according to RZR/OOZ, only Granderson was better. Suzuki was about average, Hunter was a bit below average, he used to be great but now he's mostly flash and Rowand has lost a step and was clearly the worst of the bunch.

The team can be judged by the sum of the plays that it makes and doesn't make, adjusted for the relative difficulty of each. Why would odd positioning affect this? If they make the plays, they make the plays, if they don't, they don't. If you're looking for undervalued commodities you may ask for some help from your scouting department to identify players whose defense is better than it looks because of odd positioning.

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Mar 2, 2008 10:19 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

I asked you to compare

those players using DIFFERENT metrics?

As to who cares about zone rating, just because you dismiss it blithely does not mean that it is useless. I suggest that you read the primer on Zone Rating that I linked.

The point with comparing those players using DIFFERENT METRICS, not the same damn metric from THT, IS THAT THEY DO NOT AGREE.

I repeat myself again: UZR HAD ICHIRO AS ONE OF THE WORST CFs IN THE AL. Compare that with RZR.

According to MLG's various posts on his blog, he has Rowand and Hunter as plus defenders. Compare that with RZR

The point is that the STATS INC based metrics, including UZR, conflict with the BIS based metrics, including plus minus AND RZR, when it comes how to handle things like discretionary plays, like out of zone popups, etc.

The team can be judged by the sum of the plays that it makes and doesn't make, adjusted for the relative difficulty of each. Why would odd positioning affect this? If they make the plays, they make the plays, if they don't, they don't."

It affects how the individual players rate. If the 3b spends most of his time in the SS's zone, he will end up making lots of OOZ plays, few in zone plays that made by, say the corner OF behind him playing

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Mar 2, 2008 10:48 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

And MGL in his posts

on his blog had Rowand and Hunter both as plus defenders, Jones as a mediocre defender.

Yup, Hunge is now mostly flash, and Rowand has lost a step and was clearly the worst of the bunch.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Mar 2, 2008 10:50 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Also,

RZR had Bonds as an average LF. UZR as one of the worst LFs in the NL.

And your conclusion?

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Mar 2, 2008 10:54 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Furthermore,

RZR has David Wright as well deserving of his gold glove, one of the best 3bs in MLB, 20-25 runs above average.

From MGL in a post on BBTF:

Feliz +24 138 def. games
Glaus -5, 111
Jones +7, 103
Wright +3, 159
Zimmerman +6, 164

BTW, the worthless Zone Rating agrees mostly with UZR, more than the superior RZR.

You begin to see a pattern here? STATS, BIS?

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Mar 2, 2008 11:13 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

More spamming

In case I wasn't clear enough, "But if Andruw can steal pop flies from the SS while still covering the ground behind him then it will show up in the combination of his RZR and his OOZ. If he can't, his OOZ may be spectacular (but probably won't be -- since he's basically robbing Peter (long flies) to pay Paul (short ones)."

The issue is how much credit to give him for stealing popups from the SS. How much value is he providing when he is making plays that someone else could have made easily?

Would other CFs also have as good numbers if they also started "stealing" discretionary plays?

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Mar 2, 2008 11:25 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

From what I've read -- you're right about the difference between

STATS and BIS. This is obviously a problem. I've never said the stats that we have are perfect.

By stealing pop-ups from a SS, Andruw does offer his team some value -- though likely not as much as he would be credited with in the stat. I'm not sure how exactly the various stats handle this -- but I'd suggest a framework much like Dewan's plus/minus -- If a CF, for instance, catches an OOZ pop fly that would have been caught by 10% of CFs and 80% of SSs, he gets a +.1. In order to protect players with rangy teammates in the position next to them, we could either ignore or weight down the plays in their zone but made by another player in the denominator/minus part of the equation.

Anyway, I've never said any of these stats are perfect. They aren't. The STATS/BIS issue is a significant problem. Positioning issues may be a challenge -- but I doubt very much that they are that significant of a problem.

My points have always been:
1. Stats can potentially answer most of the points folks have raised (not that they necessarily do now).
2. Process, assuming a sufficiently large data set, is secondary (by a wide margin) to results.

That's all I'm saying. The numbers we have are imperfect -- but most of the problems COULD be corrected for.

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Mar 3, 2008 10:00 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Didn't I go on and on

about how all the defensive stats are flawed? No should be demanding perfection from them or you.

Well, maybe your hair. You should have perfect hair.

But really, aside from that why such harsh standards?

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Mar 3, 2008 6:10 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

THE FIELDING BIBLE

Hey Grover, are you familiar with the method in The Fielding Bible?

It attempts to count for many fielding questions by attempting to quantify a players or teams fielding ability to his left and right, over his head and in front of him. It also rates 3B on bunts, and takes a stab at throwing by rating bases not taken.

by BleacherDave on Mar 1, 2008 1:54 PM PST   0 recs

I'm aware of the book

Although I don't own a copy. It's probably worth a $20 investment but the book is a one shot deal. I was trying to find a way to measure defense during the season.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Mar 1, 2008 2:04 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Oakland Athletics.

C