Why not Sweeney?
by Joneser on Sep 14, 2009 1:07 PM PDT
Email
PrintRyan Sweeney should be playing center field for the A's. I'm dumbstruck as I read arguments to the contrary, and try my best to understand why people want Davis there when an obviously better fielder is right there next to him. The only possible explanation I see is Rajai's speed, which apparently trumps Sweeney's youth, rocket arm, highlight reel catches, and better routes to the ball (and he's not exactly slow). But then, people don't seem to be high on Sweeney in general, and as I pour over the posts of statistical analysis logically concluding that he's a fourth outfielder at best, I can't help but think people might be making a mistake in always exalting an amalgam of easily measurable statistics over harder to quantify categories like talent, athleticism, and the emotions evoked when your team's center fielder pulls one back from over the wall.
Granted, most criticism of Sweeney seems to come from looking at his hitting rather than at his glove work. Admittedly, I'm a rube when it comes to compiling and working with things like BABIP and WAR, though interpreting them conceptually is not beyond me, nor is the importance of reporting and analyzing a player's past performance through them, but using them to predict future performance is not an exact science, particularly when it comes to 24 year old outfielders. Sweeney is no slouch with the bat when compared to those of similar experience (or anyone, for that matter), he shows good bat control, and there's a good chance he'll only get better and stronger.
Obviously, this is subjective, but I see Ryan Sweeney developing into a very solid major league center fielder. Rajai Davis can be just as exciting on the bases (assuming he'll continue to reach with regularity) in left, where he should compete directly with Hairston next spring if he's not a sell-high part of a trade package for a right fielder this off-season.
258 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
IMO, Sweeney needs to display more power like Kotsay did back in 2006...
Don’t get me wrong, I’m pulling for him to develop into a franchise CFer but right now Davis is the better player!
"What a joke." ~ Booby Crosby
Why not Sweeney?
Because he sucks.
"Chicks dig the long ball, although fat chicks will settle for warning track power" - Nick Diamond
What outside of your subjective opinion...
has led you to believe Sweeney is the greatly superior CF? Just wondering, since I don’t really see it the way you do and I’m not sure many others do, either.
"Errors of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."
-Thomas Jefferson
Sweeney in right and Rajai in center is far better than Sweeney in CF and Rajai in left.
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Sep 14, 2009 1:37 PM PDT reply actions
I have previously made the case for Ryan Sweeney
in this fanpost: http://www.athleticsnation.com/2009/8/1/972190/the-case-for-ryan-sweeney
but I must say, that fanpost only makes the claim that Sweeney can be an above-average and a bargain center-fielder, and was written before the success of Rajai Davis. Since then, I wrote that fanpost examining the claim that Rajai Davis should be the A’s starting center fielder at least next year, perhaps beyond, and that he indeed is an above average player.
So indeed though I agree with you that Ryan Sweeney often gets the short end of the stick on this website because of the frustration which is his power potential, I think it is quite reasonable to assume that now and in the immediate future, Rajai Davis is a better player.
This year so far Rajai Davis has been worth 3.5 WAR in 339 PAs and Ryan Sweeney has been worth a very respectable 3.0 WAR in 479 PAs. Many of that comes when he has been in RF as well, and if there’s a way that his 13.1 UZR/150 in CF in 2009 is not a fluke, then he very well may be worth a bit more as a full time center fielder.
But I do want people to start paying more attention to the fact that Ryan Sweeney is a well-above average major league player, even despite his lack of power.
"Life is a horizontal fall" -Jean Cocteau
wow
Davis 3.5 WAR in 339 PA
Sweeney 3.0 WAR in 479 PA
That should make it more than obvious that Davis > Sweeney.
but with some questions
about whether Rajai will ever again match the level of production that he has been showing for the last few months.
Even if we grant that Sweeney looks better in CF than Davis
There can be little argument that both players have gotten the job done. But does looking better while doing the job necessarily mean performing better? Of course not. That’s why people have been trying to quantify defense for years and according to UZR and the Fielding Davis has outperformed Sweeney in the field.
But let’s say you don’t trust defensive metrics at all. OK, we’ll ignore that data but you have to give up your subjective claim that Sweeney is “clearly” the better defender. Let’s call the defense a push.
Davis is hitting 310/371/429.
Sweeney is hitting 284/338/396.
Davis is currently showing a better ability to drive the ball and a better ability to get on base. He is simply outperforming Sweeney.
Until Ryan Sweeney can outperform Rajai Davis he doesn’t deserve the job in CF.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Sep 14, 2009 1:53 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
The Fielding Bible
I get forgetful when discussing religious artifacts.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Fangraphs took a look at how many good centerfielders there are today.
I’m really not a Sweeney fan. I don’t see someone with that little power ever becoming far above average, even with his solid defense. I think he can be a passable centerfielder, but I’d rather get something better. And this year, Rajai has been the far superior player.
Founding member of the Eric Patterson fan club.
He already is above average. That is the point.
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Sep 14, 2009 2:45 PM PDT up reply actions
This year, sure.
Mainly because of his glove, which last year, was nowhere near as good as it is this year. From my understanding, it takes more than half a season to make a conclusion about someone’s defense based on UZR. So I’m not convinced of Sweeney’s defense.
Founding member of the Eric Patterson fan club.
If it takes more than a half a year to determine someone's defense, I would like to see more than a half a year of good hitting by Davis as well.
Davis is 30 and just now, for half a season, proving he is an above average CFer.
What you fail to understand in your joyless myopia is that baseball is the key to life-- the Rosetta Stone, if you will. If you just understood baseball better all your other questions your, your... the, uh... the aliens, the conspiracies they would all, in their way be answered by the baseball gods.
almost 30. My bad with the age mixup
What you fail to understand in your joyless myopia is that baseball is the key to life-- the Rosetta Stone, if you will. If you just understood baseball better all your other questions your, your... the, uh... the aliens, the conspiracies they would all, in their way be answered by the baseball gods.
Rajai is even younger
He won’t turn 29 until October.
Ya, the jury is still out on both of them.
The difference for me is that I am convinced Rajai is a very good defender. His bat is a huge question mark still, but he’s at least shown the potential to be above average offensively. I don’t see Ryan Sweeney’s offense getting that much better than it is now.
Founding member of the Eric Patterson fan club.
I'd say Rajai is much less likely to maintain his current hitting
than Sweeney is to improve his.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
I dunno,
I’d say neither are that likely. I just don’t see Sweeney developing power, and thereby becoming a better hitter, unless he makes some serious changes with his approach.
Founding member of the Eric Patterson fan club.
But I think he's starting to show gap power at least
His opposite field bases clearing dbl tonight was a great example of things that I have seen improve in regards to his swing. I think he is nowhere close to being done improving.
Zeigler to Geren…."A-Rod? He’s my bitch." -alox
The doubles are encouraging,
but frankly there’s nowhere near enough of them. I’m encouraged to see he wants to hit for more power though. He’s certainly capable, he’s just got some work cut out for him.
Founding member of the Eric Patterson fan club.
Agreed....
but I like his approach over the last several weeks of the season….and if he stays in RF I’m still cool with that….CF is fine too….I think it’s great to have two very capable guys to play CF and have one of them slide over to RF whenone is not playing.
Raj has done an admirable job over the last 2-3 months and I am happy to see him doing well….just don’t know if we’ll see him continue his great play on offense too much longer, going forward.
Zeigler to Geren…."A-Rod? He’s my bitch." -alox
See, I don't get this.
Sweeney has never hit at any level of baseball, save for one semi-decent year at AAA three years ago. He has a .758 OPS in more than 2,100 minor-league ABs. What evidence is there to suggest that Sweeney’s ever going to be a good hitter?
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
You do have to consider ARL on his minor league numbers.
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Sep 15, 2009 7:19 AM PDT up reply actions
Even with ARL adding 50 points of OPS, you're still struggling to get beyond above average
The monster at the end of this blog.
Sorry haven't seen this used much
but what is ARL?
by rightbackin on Sep 15, 2009 12:34 PM PDT up reply actions
Age Relative to League
Basically, if a college senior gets drafted and beats the crap out of Short Season pitching folks don’t get as excited ‘cause he’s 3-4 years older than his competition. Meanwhile, if a 17 year old goes to High-A and puts up league average numbers people take notice ‘cause he’s having success against much older competition.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Rajai Davis has a .782 in a bunch of leagues he was too old for!
Most of that was as a 21-year old in rookie ball and as a 23-year-old in A+ ball.
And he’s past the typical player’s prime age.
I’m absolutely standing by that statement.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
I understand that.
I can’t help but think the results are more important than the age, though—and that the age is more likely to produce noise than the results. There are no results with Sweeney, save that one year. We now have two years of comparable data for him, and he shows zero improvement from this year to last.
Rajai is only 28, so he has two more prime years left (if we call the prime 27-30, I realize there is debate about this range). I think neither player is a long-term solution for the A’s. So, if that’s the case, Davis is the better option until Brown or Desme, or a free agent, or somebody else proves ready to replace him. Davis is producing better results, offers far more on the basepaths, and is a superior defender.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
Well, like I said, I don't think either of them should be starting everyday
I don’t think either one is likely at all to hit at an acceptable level against same-handed pitching. Sweeney just happens to be lucky enough to be the one who is lefthanded.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
+1
Sweeney isn’t horrible at all but if you’re a playoff contender then Sweeney shouldn’t be your starting CFer.
"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin
by Helloooo 1st on Sep 14, 2009 2:45 PM PDT up reply actions
Well... Sweeney and Davis shouldn't be starting in your OF
One or the other, perhaps, but not both.
The monster at the end of this blog.
That's probably what they should be doing, yes
but the notion seems to offend the horde of johnny-come-lately Rajai fans.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
The problem with a straight platoon of those two
is that Davis would only get 1/4 or so of the starts and currently his offense and defense both exceed what Sweeney offers. Meanwhile, both Davis and Sweeney hit RHP far better than Scott Hairston does, so…
I say platoon Sweeney and Hairston, and let Raj either play every day because he’s good or give way if/when he shows he isn’t. But given that Raj actually hits righties about as well as he hits lefites — and is a much bigger base-stealing threat against them — don’t sit Raj 3/4 of the time so that Hairston can OBP .289 with worse defense.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Me:Hairston::Pamcakes:Holliday
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
MAKEMENOTHATEYOUSCOTTHAIRSTON!
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
I think the answer is to find someone better than Scott Hairston.
But, yes, failing that a Sweeney/Hairston platoon makes a lot of sense.
by Elston Gunn on Sep 14, 2009 10:29 PM PDT up reply actions
Rajai Davis has a professional track record of eight years of showing he's not good enough
Hairston’s actually been a good hitter for the past few seasons, and it’s hard to dock him too much for underperforming with the A’s when he’s been dogged by a nagging injury.
I just don’t get this “right now” business. At all. We know that small samples of play are junk— absolute junk, worthless— yet people continue to treat them as if they actually mean something.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
Regardless of whether they actually are worthless, junk, or mean nothing
Scott Hairston in his small sample size with Oakland has fucking sucked ass. He has hit like shit and makes very strange plays in the outfield.
Like I said somewhere else here — at least Matt Holliday “didn’t care” his way to a 125 OPS+ while he was here (BUT DIDN’T WANT TO BE)
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
More importantly,
Hairston has a history of sucking against RHP.
and mike, everyone knows that not caring is worth -30 OPS+ points. It’s not that hard.
Founding member of the Eric Patterson fan club.
Still boggles my mind that Gallagher's value dropped to the point
of being traded for the bad half of a platoon.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
Are you suggesting that Hairston does want to be here?
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
That's a very good question, sir.
I ask: Have you ever seen him smile?!
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
No, but the does have a more pleasing skull shape.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
Only if you reject his results solely based on age.
344 plate appearances isn’t all that small of a sample, either.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
I reject his results based on the fact that he's Rajai Davis
and seven seasons of Rajai Davis hitting like Rajai Davis mean a hell of a lot more than one season of Rajai Davis hitting like Kenny Lofton.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
6 HR and 6SB in 437 at bats
Wow let’s put Ryan Sweeny in the hall of fame. Ryan Sweeny is what he is a 4th outfielder who doesn’t have enough power for a corner spot or enough speed for center.
The A’s seem to be moving towards running more and Sweeny isn’t that type of player or at least he hasn’t shown himself to be.
One last thing how is a .284 batting average with no power or speed above average? Sweeny is the epitome of average.
by sirbed on Sep 14, 2009 2:51 PM PDT reply actions 2 recs
well, average is pretty valuable -
by implication, it means that half the league is worse than you, no?
Remember when there was "Good Sweeney" and "Bad Sweeney"?
Man that seems like a long time ago.
Save Rajai Davis
The problem I have with most people writing off Sweeney is that he still has a lot of room to grow.
Davis is already 30 and struggled mightily up until this recent stretch. I’m not at all saying this is a fluke, but there is a possibility it is. After all, most players who are going to be this productive year in and year out will have done it consistently by the time they are 30.
On the other hand, Sweeney is 24 and still has a lot of room to grow. Even though OakFoSho was pretty insane, he had some good points, including his hilarious post about the time it takes prospects to develop power. During one of the comments in that fanpost someone made a comparison that I cant seem to shake. Someone said, sorry i forget who, that Sweeney seemed like Jayson Werth at age 24. Everyone would like to have an above average defensive CFer who hits like Jayson Werth on their team, and I can Sweeney eventually turning into that. Werth first hit 20 Hrs at the age of 29, and has 33 this year and I would bet he hits 30 for the next couple years. And yes, Werth plays in a joke of a ball park but he still has some legitimate power.
What you fail to understand in your joyless myopia is that baseball is the key to life-- the Rosetta Stone, if you will. If you just understood baseball better all your other questions your, your... the, uh... the aliens, the conspiracies they would all, in their way be answered by the baseball gods.
Rajai is not yet 29
And this year is really the first time thR he has started regularly for a good extended period.
by OaklandSi on Sep 14, 2009 3:07 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
my bad
What you fail to understand in your joyless myopia is that baseball is the key to life-- the Rosetta Stone, if you will. If you just understood baseball better all your other questions your, your... the, uh... the aliens, the conspiracies they would all, in their way be answered by the baseball gods.
If rajai plays like this next year as well then I'm on board, but Im skeptical of him.
I cant get the first half of this year Rajai out of my head…..
What you fail to understand in your joyless myopia is that baseball is the key to life-- the Rosetta Stone, if you will. If you just understood baseball better all your other questions your, your... the, uh... the aliens, the conspiracies they would all, in their way be answered by the baseball gods.
"Struggled mightily" isn't really fair, either.
He has a solid minor-league career.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
We're going for "fair" in this exchange?
No one tells me anything.
The monster at the end of this blog.
But he was very old for pretty much every level he was at.
What you fail to understand in your joyless myopia is that baseball is the key to life-- the Rosetta Stone, if you will. If you just understood baseball better all your other questions your, your... the, uh... the aliens, the conspiracies they would all, in their way be answered by the baseball gods.
by winchester5 on Sep 15, 2009 12:34 PM PDT up reply actions
Even though I sound like a Sweeney fan boy, Im not sold on him either,
I want to see Weeks in CF in a perfect world
What you fail to understand in your joyless myopia is that baseball is the key to life-- the Rosetta Stone, if you will. If you just understood baseball better all your other questions your, your... the, uh... the aliens, the conspiracies they would all, in their way be answered by the baseball gods.
This.
Unfortunately, that perfect world has Wallace sticking at third. Jury’s out on that one too.
Founding member of the Eric Patterson fan club.
Wallace at third really does make all the other positions look better.
What you fail to understand in your joyless myopia is that baseball is the key to life-- the Rosetta Stone, if you will. If you just understood baseball better all your other questions your, your... the, uh... the aliens, the conspiracies they would all, in their way be answered by the baseball gods.
Up until Raj recently found the Fountain of Not Suck...
… Sweeney was the best option in center. But as the stats posted by grover above show, Davis has been a very valuable player this season. I’m skeptical as to whether Rajai is the real deal, but for right now, he’s got to be your everyday centerfielder.
In the meantime, Sweeney has shown some progress in the power department— cognitively speaking, at least. His recent comments reflect a desire to move away from a singles-oriented approach. Whether or not that change will have taken place by the time Raj starts to decline due to age (and perhaps a correction in statistical performance) is what I’d like to find out.
Not sure about Sweeney in CF
I like his arm but I do not think he gets to some of the balls Rajai gets to.
But I do think he can be valuable to this team.
Sure, I would like to see power from the corner outfield (and infield!) positions but not all teams can afford that luxury.
While he does not possess power, Sweeney does make contact and there are places in a lineup where making contact is essential.
I am not sure why Geren is so set on his current lineup. Just because it does not suck as much as the first half, does not mean it is optimal.
Lineup I would love to see:
Rajai – CF (gets on base and steals bases)
Sweeney – RF (good contact hitter to move or score Rajai)
Kennedy – 3B (hits with RISP)
Hairston – LF (w/ Cust, only real power in lineup and splits up lefties)
Cust – DH
Zook – C
Powell – 1B (would love to see him in the lineup every day and catching more)
Ellis – 2B
Pennington – SS
Interesting, everyone…it’s amazing to me, though, how much credence people put into stats like UZR. Do you really need UZR to see, with your eyes, that Davis has a weak arm and has far more trouble tracking anything other than routine flys? His speed allows him to correct some of this, sometimes creating catches that look impressive at the end, but only because he took himself out of position with questionable routes and bad reads. Instead of only combing through stats, watch them play (at the ballpark, on tv) – Sweeney doesn’t hesitate, doesn’t come in then run back to balls often, he has a great arm, and can make the spectacular play, legitimately. Davis, well, other than flat out speed, just isn’t impressive out there(and has a lot of trouble with balls coming off the outfield wall, in particular) . I’m not saying Sweeney’s the second coming, nor even the answer to all the A’s problems, but if you can put someone in center that plays very solid defense with potential to develop into someone who approaches .300 with 15 HRs, then maybe you keep him there and focus your efforts on another position. If people want to rely on Davis to be consistent, they’re going to be disappointed. He’s never hit this well before, and he probably won’t do it again.
I agree with the being skeptical about Rajai, I'm not convinced he can hit like this again, however, i'm not sure he cant either.
but I’m not sure the defensive gap is as big as you think it is. They both look very good in CF. It really comes down to who can hit better over the course of the season, because they both have been great defensively, in my opinion.
What you fail to understand in your joyless myopia is that baseball is the key to life-- the Rosetta Stone, if you will. If you just understood baseball better all your other questions your, your... the, uh... the aliens, the conspiracies they would all, in their way be answered by the baseball gods.
I don't see Davis having a weak arm.
And considering how well Sweeney has played in RF, why are you pining for him to move when someone happens to be hitting and fielding really well in CF right now anyway?
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
This wasn't supposed to be at me right?
I am just skeptical about Rajais hitting, I love him in center.
What you fail to understand in your joyless myopia is that baseball is the key to life-- the Rosetta Stone, if you will. If you just understood baseball better all your other questions your, your... the, uh... the aliens, the conspiracies they would all, in their way be answered by the baseball gods.
Really?
Have you seen him throw? And yes, Sweeney has played RF well because he’s a good outfielder – he plays center well, too. I’d like to see him moved from the corner partly so people can stop complaining about him not having enough power to be a corner outfielder…
What you may not be seeing
is that, while yes, purely on observation, Sweeney has better “instincts” in the outfield, the matrices are showing that Davis makes a up a substantial amount of ground in the outfield through his speed. Now, is this the real Davis offensively? Probably not. But until Sweeney steps up and shows us he’s capable of doing a .300/15 HR season while getting on base, you play the hot hand. It’s as simple as that. This is way looking for an alternate solution is to both these guys is important. But if this is what you have, based on what we’ve seen so far, you put Davis in center and let him lose the job.
CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."
I agree with most of what you're saying,
but if Sweeney puts up a .300/15 HR season, he’s not just pretty good, but a star.
Being an A's fan, you're starved for stars
.300/15HRs with very good defense is really good, but it’s not on par with what you would call a “star.”
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
With Sweeney's defense
that would definitely be star level. Also, remember that 15 HRs and a .300 avg is probably over a .450 slugging %.
And hey, if he keeps hitting 3 doubles a game, who needs homeruns?!
"Life is a horizontal fall" -Jean Cocteau
by King Richard on Sep 14, 2009 9:47 PM PDT up reply actions
Hitting .284/6 HRs, he's been worth 3 WAR in 122 games.
4 WAR is an all-star caliber player. If Sweeney played the same defense and hit .300/15 HRs, I think he’d be well over that mark.
by Elston Gunn on Sep 14, 2009 10:28 PM PDT up reply actions
I want to bite the hot hand when it feeds me
or perhaps more accurately, when it is stuffed down my throat.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
This is exactly the point of UZR,
and in a sense, stats in general. They give us an objective view of how a player has done. Sweeney might look a lot better aesthetically, but that doesn’t mean he is making more plays or is a better defender than Davis.
Founding member of the Eric Patterson fan club.
by travdog6 on Sep 14, 2009 3:48 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
Do you really think that uzr is that accurate?
I understand that what I’m saying is based on observation and highly subjective, but don’t try to say that using stats to make a case is always objective. If we’re looking at batting average for 2008, then, sure, that can be objective. There’s a lot of subjectivity in manipulating stats and deciding which to use, and a lot of fuzziness to something like uzr to begin with, so when you start using statistics as a forward looking methodology to predict which athlete will outperform the other in coming years, objectivity doesn’t apply.
I'd suggest looking at the links I posted below.
You’re probably right, UZR isn’t 100% accurate. But I think it’s the best we’ve got today. It essentially breaks the field down into 78 zones, and sees how many plays are made. Again, I’m not doing a good job describing, but this does.
Founding member of the Eric Patterson fan club.
I think people trust UZR
because they know better than to trust their eyes. It was either Rany JAyzerli or Joe Posnanski (along with dozens of other sabermetric bloggers) who said that it is nearly impossible to tell who is a good defender and who is a bad defender by watching them in games. Even if you managed to watch 150 plus games a year, it’s nearly impossible to derive any sort of conclusion from it. A dazzling play here, a flub there, those would taint your characterizations of their respective defenses.
If Yuniesky Betancourt makes a couple of truly staggering plays, that doesn’t make him a good defensive shortstop (and years of watching the A’s play the mariners have told me that he is capable of some truly staggering plays). Rather, it makes him a bad shortstop who occasionally looks brilliant.
What’s important is the aggregate and UZR, though glawed, takes a stab at that
I’m not saying that Ryan Sweeney shouldn’t be CF (my thoughts are to sell high on the rajai before he gets regression-tastic) but you can’t base your assessment of Ryan Sweeney’s defense on watching his highlight reel.
by eastbayexpat on Sep 14, 2009 3:49 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
Rec'd
Founding member of the Eric Patterson fan club.
I'm very amused by your recing my comment
while you reced mine.
Great minds and all that.
by eastbayexpat on Sep 14, 2009 3:52 PM PDT up reply actions
Im just going to rec both of them...
What you fail to understand in your joyless myopia is that baseball is the key to life-- the Rosetta Stone, if you will. If you just understood baseball better all your other questions your, your... the, uh... the aliens, the conspiracies they would all, in their way be answered by the baseball gods.
It was basically at the same time too.
Weird….
Founding member of the Eric Patterson fan club.
Hey I dont need a UZR to tell me that Jack Cust sucks at outfield!
lol but you make a good point.
What you fail to understand in your joyless myopia is that baseball is the key to life-- the Rosetta Stone, if you will. If you just understood baseball better all your other questions your, your... the, uh... the aliens, the conspiracies they would all, in their way be answered by the baseball gods.
You'd find some pretty wacky stuff though
for example, if you asked a random giants fans if barry bonds was a terrible fielder, I’d bet the answer would be yes. And if you were talking 2006-2007. You’d be right.
If you asked the random giants, when he became a bad fielder, they’d probably say 2001-2002 if they had paid decently close attention to his Fielding percentage.
But it’s not true. According to fangraphs UZR, Bonds was an above average Left fielder (admittedly not the toughest position out there) from 2002-2005, peaking in 2003 with a UZR/150 of 16.7.
Incidentally, this episode also highlights how truly ridiculous barry bonds was.
by eastbayexpat on Sep 14, 2009 4:04 PM PDT up reply actions
WHAT!? You mean Erick Byrnes wasn't a great outfielder!?
by LoneStranger on Sep 15, 2009 8:39 AM PDT up reply actions
I miss that guy.
Founding member of the Eric Patterson fan club.
I don't miss any of our trainers.
Just Byrnes.
Founding member of the Eric Patterson fan club.
There is nothing quite like watching that man field a fly ball.
Founding member of the Eric Patterson fan club.
Byrnes epitomizes the importance of UZR
He made pretty much the best catch I have ever seen live, charging hard from deep left field to make a huge layout in foul territory by the bullpen mounds. I was certain that no one would get to the ball until the second when he actually caught it.
But I’m smart enough to know that he’s not a great defensive left fielder.
Yup
I was more referring to the routes that guy took to the ball. Truly hilarious. Also how he stressed fundamentals like a little leaguer. He’s the only big leaguer who, when he read it right, would circle under a flyball, come in on it, crow hop, and fire into the infield, all with noone on base.
Founding member of the Eric Patterson fan club.
I think Sweeney could be an every day CFer
But so far he doesn’t have the power the legitimate starting him in RF every day. I like both him and Rajai a lot, but I don’t see them both as part of the starting lineup going forward.
It's just not true that Sweeney needs a certain amount of power to play COF.
If Sweeney is 10 runs better defensively in RF than CF (maybe not likely, but certainly possible considering his arm is more valuable there), then he’s exactly as valuable in RF. If he’s 5 runs better, he’s got 5 runs less value, which is a significant amount to lose. My guess is that he’s somewhere between that, and, therefore, only worth a couple of runs less.
Baseball Think Factory explained UZR,
and I thought I’d link that here.
Founding member of the Eric Patterson fan club.
I really don't mind the current outfield configuration, because it keeps Cust at DH
Sweeney has been fantastically valuable with his defense in RF, and although his offense isn’t what you’d like it to be for a contending team’s corner outfielder, who cares? Oakland isn’t a contender right now, and doesn’t figure to be for another two years, at least.
When the time comes, he might end up being no more than a 4th outfielder, but it’s very nice to have a cushion to let him play and develop. You hear a lot of people talking about his untapped power. Maybe it takes him a few years to figure it out and actually find that power, like Joe Mauer.
[Disclaimer: Ryan Sweeney is nowhere near the talent Mauer is, but it’s a similar situation in that everybody thought Mauer would develop power and it took him several years to hit more than fifteen HR—maybe Sweeney is the same way]
If you think Billy Beane is a bad GM, I hate you and find you stupid.
by NateHST on Sep 14, 2009 4:34 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Exactly. To everything.
What you fail to understand in your joyless myopia is that baseball is the key to life-- the Rosetta Stone, if you will. If you just understood baseball better all your other questions your, your... the, uh... the aliens, the conspiracies they would all, in their way be answered by the baseball gods.
Rajai would need 5.2-ish plate appearances per game to qualify for batting stats for the season and whatnot...
But do you realize how long it’s been since we’ve had a qualified .300+ hitter? 2004 Mark Kotsay (.314) and 2004 Erubiel Durazo (.321).
2005 Mark Ellis hit .310, but he was around 15 plate appearances short of qualification. But that’s it. Five years without a .300+ hitter.
It might, if he bats leadoff (or even 2nd) and plays every day
A couple extra inning affairs and he’s there.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Please help me figure out what I'm doing wrong.
3.1 PA/G over 162 G = 502 PA as the minimum for qualification.
Rajai has 344 PA as of right now. 502 – 344 = 158PA left to qualify.
158PA divided by 19 Games left = ~8.32 PA/G to be eligible.
8.32ish =/= 5.2ish.
Do I have a math fail? What am I forgetting?
At 5.2ish, he’d have about 443 PA on the year. 502PA – 443PA = 59PA short.
by LoneStranger on Sep 15, 2009 10:12 AM PDT up reply actions
sweeney/rajai
both have been hitting well
sweeney his age 24 season, do you room for improvement?
rajai will be 29 in the offseason.
You could argue both still project as really solid 4th OF types. Depending on how buck/cunningham do if they ever get a chance, hairston signed through 2011…there shouldnt be any shortage of OFs.
I don't think they're necessarily competing next year
Sweeney/Rajai/Hairston seems to be the best OF, and it’s underwhelming, but certainly not bad. I would guess Rajai would be a bit better than Sweeney next year, but Sweeney’s pretty young and I could see him have a couple ~.300/.360/.440 years for the A’s with excellent corner OF defense, so I’d take him if it was necessary to get rid of one of them. I’m surprised some people think Sweeney is a better defender. Rajai is really really fast, mistakes and all….
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
I'd like to see Sweeney and Hairston platoon
Hairston’s pretty mediocre against RHP and Sweeney’s pretty gawdawful against LHP, and a platoon would mean Sweeney starting 3/4 of the time. Works for me. Hopefully Cunningham, Doolittle or Carter is ready to patrol a corner OF spot soon, and the A’s can have a very good OF of one of them, Davis, and Sweeney/Hairston.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
There's also that Buck character.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
Who?
"Life is a horizontal fall" -Jean Cocteau
by King Richard on Sep 14, 2009 8:47 PM PDT up reply actions
I've already traded Buck.
I like to be 3 months ahead of Billy Beane.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
for??
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
It doesn't matter
’cause he just preemptively traded that guy, too.
But the guy we’re getting in return will bring in a massive haul of prospects some day.
m*****f***ing c***s***ing peanut butter and jelly!! f*** f*** f***!!!
Ryan Langerhans?
"Life is a horizontal fall" -Jean Cocteau
by King Richard on Sep 14, 2009 10:46 PM PDT up reply actions
CAN WE JUST SEE HIM IN A DAMN HOME GAME PLEASE?
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
Truth is...
they’ll both be playing a lot next year.
And Travis Buck and Aaron Cunningham now have very uncertain futures in this organization
I haven't heard/seen anything on Cunningham that leads me to believe he doesn't have a future here.
Founding member of the Eric Patterson fan club.
That's another thing
Why are you wasting at-bats on a dead end like Rajai Davis when you could be giving them to Aaron Cunningham?
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Sep 15, 2009 10:04 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Davis got a chance to start and he ran with it
There has been nothing in his current performance that supports the idea that Rajai Davis does not deserve to be in the starting line-up. Now, you want to take at bats away from a productive player and give them to Cunningham because, in your eyes, Davis has no future with this club and Aaron does. Way to send a message to the players. It doesn’t matter how well they perform, if you don’t like them they’re going to ride the pine in place of guys you do like. Way to motivate.
Here’s a question, if you’re so motivated to see Cunningham get at bats in Oakland (and I don’t have anything against that goal) then way not bench Jack Cust? Davis has a higher OBP and a higher Slugging percentage than Cust, plus he can actually play in the field. What is the rationale for benching Davis instead of Cust?
The monster at the end of this blog.
DH Rajai Davis?
God, this team fucking sucks.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
MAKEMENOTHATEYOUSCOTTHAIRSTON
and by that I mean raise your goddamn BABIP 100 points.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
Hitters do have control over BABIP.
It’s pitchers who don’t.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
In former Soviet Union
that thing has control over you.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
Cust is older, too (30).
In his second straight year of decline, and about to get significantly more expensive.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
Ridiculous
Davis has a higher OBP and a higher Slugging percentage than Cust
Factually false. Rajai Davis has an OBP of .337 and a slugging percentage of .384. Jack Cust blows him out of the water in both categories (.374/.454) at the major league level, and that’s not even touching the bizarre gap in their demonstrated abilities in the minors.
ZiPS rest of season has Cust at .373/436 and Davis at .333/.316. The difference is comical.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
He's looking at career,
you’re looking at 2009.
Founding member of the Eric Patterson fan club.
I hope he's not looking at career
‘Cause that would be freakin’ stupid.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Yeah, but it lets him say you're wrong.
Always look at the data set that shows you’re right and the other guy’s wrong. That’s how I learned it.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
Get off your high horse
Completely ignoring that Cust has for the last two years in the MLB and beyond that in the minors was better is good analysis?
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Sep 15, 2009 2:09 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm not saying cut one or the other
We’re supposedly talking about getting Aaron Cunningham some at bats at the end of the year. You frequent Fangraphs, you know how to read the numbers, please explain the logic in benching a player who’s produced a 3.4 WAR over a guy who produced a .8 WAR inspite of 210 more at bats.
How is it suddenly sacrilege to suggest that a currently inferior performer lose at bats so an as yet (fairly) untested player gets a chance?
The monster at the end of this blog.
Im not disagreeing with your point as much as your dickishness
which I thought to be uncalled for considering that you didn’t make any arguments to why we should ignore past history for either Davis or Cust which suggest significantly different levels of offensive production going forward.
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Sep 15, 2009 2:59 PM PDT up reply actions
Past history?
PT wants to use Zips projections to justify why Cust shouldn’t lose any at bats. He wants to use 2007 and 2008 data to support his belief that Davis should lose playing time.
But heaven forbid that we actually look at what the players have done this season, what they’ve done recently, before making a decision. Because the sample size is too small.
That’s a ridiculous argument. I understand the need to keep sample size in mind when making a decision on long range plans but there is absolutely no reason to bench a guy who’s day-in, day-out producing offensively and defensively for your ball club just to let another guy get playing time.
For crying out loud, we can use Zips to project what certain hitters are going to do over the next 3 weeks but we can’t look at their performance over the past 3 months because the sample size is too small? What kind of bullshit are you defending here DFA?
The monster at the end of this blog.
This is disingenuous
Career totals include the last three months, so saying that they ignore the last three months is false.
ZIPS rest of the season projection includes data from this season, so saying that they ignore the last three months is false.
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Sep 15, 2009 3:33 PM PDT up reply actions
What Cust did in 2007 is much less relevant than what he's done this year
when determining who gets at bats in the final few weeks of the season.
People have gone on and on about how the A’s fucked Cust up and how he’s supposedly changed his approach at the plate and maybe his back is bothering him more than he let on and on and on and on.
If Cust has truly changed his approach or his back is a problem than any projection system using 2007 and 2008 data is fucked because the player is no longer the same guy who put up those numbers from the past.
In my minor league write up this morning I talked briefly about how the A’s try to foster winning in the minor league system. Explain to me how Oakland would be fostering a winning approach by replacing the most productive player in the line-up instead of one that is struggling. I understand that Cunningham (or Carter or Wallace) might struggle but that’s to be expected. I can accept that as part of those players’ learning experience. I just don’t understand why we’d want to the team to make it harder on itself to win ball games by keeping under-performing vets in the line-up when there are better options to choose from.
The monster at the end of this blog.
That makes it worse actually.
You made no justification for your argument that using career numbers was “frickin stupid” when in fact there are good reasons to suggest that using career numbers or ZIPs or other projections, is preferable to using years totals.
Nyjer Morgan this year is a better ballplayer than Longoria, Ichro, and ARod according to WAR who would you rather have going forward?
You say:
For crying out loud, we can use Zips to project what certain hitters are going to do over the next 3 weeks but we can’t look at their performance over the past 3 months because the sample size is too small? What kind of bullshit are you defending here DFA?which is quite frankly utter bullshit. If you know that ZIPs includes the last three months then how can you claim with a straight face that I am ignoring three months of data
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Sep 15, 2009 7:51 PM PDT up reply actions
The Zips projection
was being used to predict performance for the rest of this season, not 2010 and beyond. It is far more important (in this instance) to consider the info we have from this season if we want to guess at what their production will be for the remainder of 2009. PT has made it clear that he rejects the idea of focusing on the 2009 data even though the roles and/or health of the players has significantly changed. I’m pissed off that he’s trying to use a projection system into a limited time frame (the last 3 weeks of the season) as justification for playing time decisions as opposed to the work of these two players over the course of the season. I’m pissed off that PT claims 3 weeks of projected performance, using a system that I feel has been compromised in these players’ cases, is a better barometer for the rest of the season than their performance over the past few months.
Cust is struggling this year and Davis has broken out. The models have been broken and using Zips will only artificially inflate Custs expected performance line and depress Rajai’s. I say to Hell with the projections, Davis has earned continued at bats and if you want to see Cunningham or Carter or Wallace get playing time then Cust needs to ride the pine.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Zips RoS is the same as a projection for the next year if the seaon ended today.
Basically you are wrong about the projection system and I think you are wrong about using the data you do and are using. Beyond that the attitude you used was uncalled for given significant questions about what the data should be used
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Sep 15, 2009 11:48 PM PDT up reply actions
I hope Zips RoS doesn't do what you say it does
Becasue the current RoS line for Davis is 278/333/333 with a .056 ISO. Now I readily admit that Davis isn’t much of a slugger but he does own a career .386 slugging percentage.
So either you’re wrong about what RoS does re: 2010 or the whole projection is stupid broke in his case.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Yes, it's "freakin' stupid" to use more data rather than less
I forgot that cherrypicking small samples is much more effective.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
Because what's currently happening now is irrelevant, right?
True or False, Rajai Davis has (thus far) outperformed Jack Cust this season?
You talk about Davis having no future here in Oakland, never mind that Cust is only under team control for 2 more years vs. Davis’ 3 years.
Never mind that Cust turns 31 in January, meaning he’s now at the end of his supposed “peak years”. Davis turns 29 in October.
Let’s ignore the fact none athletic sluggers (like Cust) can enter the decline phase earlier than more athletic types. I mean, its not like Cust’s offensive performance has dropped steadily over the last 3 seasons.
So we’ll ignore all that data just so you don’t have to say “yeah, benching Cust could be an option to get Cunningham some at bats.”
If you don’t care about what’s actually happening on the field right now than why do you watch the games? Why do you root for the team?
The monster at the end of this blog.
WHY DO YOU HATE FREEDOM?!?!
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
Then evil has won.
Good day sir.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
freedom = weird body art
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
If it's so obvious, why are you having to resort
to half-truths to make your point?
Of course Rajai Davis has outperformed Cust this season. This is the first time in their respective lives that you can actually say that to be the case. It’s sure as hell the first time you could say it with respect to their offense.
I’ve already made it clear that I think Rajai Davis should be traded this offseason assuming the A’s can get a decent return. It’s selling high; ditching Cust from the lineup would be selling low. I think his performance is easily replaceable on the free agent market, cheaply, if you really insist on keeping it around. Randy Winn will be sending out resumes very soon.
And I must say— “refusal to care about minutia” = “not a real fan”? Really? It’s a bizarre viewpoint— of course I WANT the players to play well; I’d LIKE everyone on the team to hit .500; that has nothing to do with talent evaluation at all— but I suppose even ad homs are in play at this point.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
Paul, I'm not the one cherry picking the data, of using half truths... that's on you
The whole point behind this discussion was to find at bats for Cunningham when the River Cats finished their play off run. So we’re talking about the at bats that’ll come in the last few weeks of the season.
You want to trade Rajai Davis this offseason (assuming a decent return) because it would be selling high. OK, that runs contrary to the idea that Davis should be benched in favor of Cunningham for the remainder of this season. Benching a player does not enhance his trade value, especially when he’s been performing well on the field!
If you truly want to shop Davis this offseason then you need to showcase him by keeping him on the field, not by sitting him on the bench. All the flashy stuff, his speed, his glove, the stolen bases… if he keeps doing that he’s only going to increase his trade value, possibly to a point beyond what he’s actually worth.
You’ve completely contradicted yourself and you’re grasping at anything because you just can’t admit that there was a viable alternative to your plan to get Cunningham at bats.
The monster at the end of this blog.
You've completely misunderstood me on this entire subthread, then
The root post referred to obtaining playing time for Aaron Cunningham next season.
Truth is…
they’ll both be playing a lot next year.
And Travis Buck and Aaron Cunningham now have very uncertain futures in this organization
Emphasis added, natch.
This season is basically trivial. I mean, the way to get ABs for Cunningham is by shutting Hairston down for the season with the quad injury.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
Unfortunately, no
Your argument has waffled between a present course of action and next season.
Why use Zips projection for the rest of 2009 if you’re arguing for 2010?
Why are you worried about Davis taking at bats from Cunningham if the plan is to trade Rajai in the offseason?
Most importantly, if your point is 2010 then why didn’t you defend my attack on Cust’s downward performance trend?
Your argument hasn’t been nearly as clear as you think it has.
The monster at the end of this blog.
In order
1. Because it’s the same as what the ZiPS for next season will be, with the possible exception of both players being a year older (and thus likely a bit worse);
2. Because I cannot fiat the A’s to actually trade Davis, nor can I fiat other teams to actually give up a decent prospect for him;
3. Because his “downward performance trend” is already evaluated in ZiPS (and other projections, but we won’t see them until the offseason), which invariably weight the most recent year’s sample of play more heavily than prior years.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
Man I wish i had fiat power with regard to the A's.
Oh to be the AFF.
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Sep 15, 2009 11:37 PM PDT up reply actions
Please tell me that using "fiat" as a verb
is your own creative innovation, and not a standard practice you’ve picked up in law school.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
Its standard debate terminology.
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Sep 16, 2009 12:44 AM PDT up reply actions
Swell, one more thing for me to love about debate....
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
Whats wrong with the verb fiat?
do you have the verb Google?
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Sep 16, 2009 2:47 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't know, just personal aesthetics, I guess.
Of course I know nouns turn into verbs all the time. This one just seems unusually awkward given its grand etymological heritage. Sort of funny that a noun that is famously derived from a verb is trying to become a verb again.
(I say “trying” because I still hold out hope that this will remain debate jargon and not spread to common usage.)
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
agreed, it is a wince-inducing word...
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
But you know that fiat is a verb in Latin
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
I'll be fair about this
I assume you’re using Zips RoS like DFA is, so I’ll pose the question to you. I don’t think that RoS is meant to be used as a projection for the next season, I think it’s meant for 2009 only. Because I don’t understand why Davis, who has a career .348 slugging percentage, is projected to slug .333 in 2010. He’ll be 29 next season, still in his peak period, why would that be the case?
The monster at the end of this blog.
I don't know
I’m surprised by how bad his projected slugging numbers are, too. Marcel and Oliver thought his slugging would be more in the .370s this season, but those aren’t updated daily.
The system clearly thinks he’s the next Juan Pierre; why, I’m not exactly sure. It’s certainly a problematic direction his career could head down, though.
In any case, even assuming ZiPS is at the low end of the projection spectrum, they’re likely to be in the .670-.720 range for OPS. Once you adjust for park and position, that’s somewhere between average and 10 (ish) runs below average. Depending on how his defense holds up, he’ll probably add 5-10 runs there.
He’s actually a decent player even with the kind of crappy OPS I expect him to post. I just think that the team might be able to seize a narrow window of opportunity to trade him and get more than “decent player” returns for him.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
I did a little googling
Zips RoS is only meant to project a player’s performance for the rest of the season. It has nothing to do with 2010.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Yeah link that doesn't say that at all.
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Sep 16, 2009 11:37 AM PDT up reply actions
What part of...
“the RoS line which is what a player is projected to do in only the remaining part of the season” doesn’t work for you?
The monster at the end of this blog.
Grover youre wrong
In context it says that its not for the total season rather than the rest of the season. If you look at the formula you can see that it essentially weights this year the same as it would any other most recent year like would be done at the end of the season, then projects for the remaining playing time.
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Sep 16, 2009 2:12 PM PDT up reply actions
Just to settle a a debate:
ZiPS RoS is only meant to project a player’s performance for the rest of the season.
--
Dan Szymborski
dan@baseballprimer.com
by D.Szymborski on Sep 16, 2009 6:07 PM PDT up reply actions
Why the dude created the metric why would we question his response?
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Sep 16, 2009 8:25 PM PDT up reply actions
Not enough sarcasm for you?
I could add more but then it starts to come across as forced.
The monster at the end of this blog.
What is the relationship of the weighting of the season data and what will happen at the end of the year?
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Sep 16, 2009 8:25 PM PDT up reply actions
It’s essentially a simple model with significantly less regression towards the mean than a season-to-season projection. I derived this from 30 years of game-by-game logs ( had every player through every game and a simple projection and modeled what mix of the old projection and the new information was the most predictive).
After 1 game was played, 2009 performance made up 0.2% of the rest of season projection. After game 161, it’ll be 37.8% of the rest of season projection.
Due to the vagaries of a season, the expected accuracy waxes and wanes. By this time of the season, with 2 weeks left, we have the most information to-date, but we’re predicting what happens over a very small sample size.
--
Dan Szymborski
dan@baseballprimer.com
by D.Szymborski on Sep 17, 2009 7:46 AM PDT up reply actions
So is there a way I could take this years ROS and translate it into next years ZIPS?
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Sep 17, 2009 10:27 AM PDT up reply actions
The link is contrasting the ZiPS projection for the rest of the season
with the line which includes what the player has already done this season. It has nothing to say on the issue that has been discussed on this thread.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
The link flat out says
that RoS, which you quoted, only pertains to the current season. It has nothing to do with 2010.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Except it doesn't, look at the link to the calculator in your post.
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Sep 16, 2009 2:13 PM PDT up reply actions
Do I really have to break out the interpretive canons on you?
Please don’t make me do that.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
I don't need crayon
Next time, don’t use a 2009 projection system to justify a 2010 roster move. It muddies what you’re trying to argue.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Stop badmouthing Raj's D
He’s the 3rd best CF in the game this year according to UZR
http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=cf&stats=fld&lg=all&qual=n&type=0&season=2009&month=0
He's actually second best (with 500+ innings).
Keep in mind that UZR is a counting stat. The more you play, the higher (or lower) it gets. Raj has had a short season. Going by UZR/150, he’s second best among CFers with 500 innings or more. If you lower the innings limit, Nyjer Morgan and Coco Crisp come into the picture above Rajai, however.
And for the record,
If you do the same innings threshold on RFers, Ryan Sweeney leads by an absurd margin. Great to see.
http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=rf&stats=fld&lg=all&qual=500&type=0&season=2009&month=0
Wow, has Andre Ethier always been that bad?
His UZR/150 is -13.6.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
OMFG THANKS AGAIN, BILLY!!!!
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
If you add 20 HR to Ryan Sweeney
You have a kind of awesome RFer and everyone is stoked. So…….can we get this dude on roids or something? lol
Nah for real I have no problem with rolling with a Hairston-Davis-Sweeney OF in 2010. Package up Buck+Barton for a SP/swingman so we have a spot starter that isnt Tomko, Reinke, Giese or Ed-Gone.
If you add 20 HRs to Sweeney he is one of the best players in baseball.
Like better than Holliday and winning MVPs.
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Sep 15, 2009 1:35 PM PDT up reply actions
If I add 20 HRs to my softball stats I'd be a monster...
What you fail to understand in your joyless myopia is that baseball is the key to life-- the Rosetta Stone, if you will. If you just understood baseball better all your other questions your, your... the, uh... the aliens, the conspiracies they would all, in their way be answered by the baseball gods.
Lookout Landing still won't care.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
Exactly
If Sweeney hit 20 more HRs then his line comes out to .330/.373/.528 or a wOBA of .425 or the third best among qualified players and about 41 BRAA and he would be a 7 WAR player with his defense, which is among the best in the game.
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Sep 15, 2009 2:02 PM PDT up reply actions
If we're going to magically gift 20 HR to Sweeney...
Could we do something about my left ankle, ‘cause I’m worried I’m going to need surgery on it relatively soon.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Obviously
what I was saying is the expectation that Sweeney needs to add 20 jacks is ridiculous. He is already an significantly above league average player. Sweeney had basically the same batting line as last year suggesting that it is not a fluke. Additionally there are reasons to believe that Sweeney has been a little unlucky this year when he has hit the ball hard and coupled with his still young age, it is likely that he will return to this level of production in the future. He really only needs to maintain his current level of production, mostly in terms of UZR which admittedly can be difficult, to be a very good player.
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Sep 15, 2009 2:13 PM PDT up reply actions
I just
wish there was a place for young ball players to go so they would get the at bats necessary to develop the skills necessary to be in the major leagues. I hate arguing everyday for two years as to whether a guy can develop more power, or get better reads on flyballs.
Well he did get better at flyball reads and OF defense and there are suggestions that his power is improving
he is hitting more line drives than last year and his ISO is also improving.
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Sep 15, 2009 3:01 PM PDT up reply actions
the expectation that Sweeney needs to add 20 jacks is what will get people to stop saying he’s a 4th OF. Quit over-rating him, he isnt very good at hitting.
Um hes essentially league average
with signs that he could improve. Half of the league is a worse hitter than Sweeney.
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Sep 15, 2009 3:05 PM PDT up reply actions
If you add 20 HR to Sweeney he's basically Grady Sizemore.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
except Sizemore gets on base a lot more
steals more bases, plays better defense, has a better fan club, a cooler name etc
Better hair too.
What you fail to understand in your joyless myopia is that baseball is the key to life-- the Rosetta Stone, if you will. If you just understood baseball better all your other questions your, your... the, uh... the aliens, the conspiracies they would all, in their way be answered by the baseball gods.
Not as tall, though.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
Put one on the board for Sweeney
What you fail to understand in your joyless myopia is that baseball is the key to life-- the Rosetta Stone, if you will. If you just understood baseball better all your other questions your, your... the, uh... the aliens, the conspiracies they would all, in their way be answered by the baseball gods.
Except Rajai isn't that good defensively
He still takes mind-boggling routes consistently. He’s looked lost in center a ton of times. If he didn’t have great speed, he’d be horrible.
"Chicks dig the long ball, although fat chicks will settle for warning track power" - Nick Diamond
Yeah, and the fact that he does have good speed, makes him a good fielder
"if gio would of ptched,he would of pitched shoot outs." - MR.OAKLAND
"Anyone who calls themselves the Angels Angels should have to start over and ride the short bus." -timmeh from McCovey Chronicles
That actually just makes him fast
His UZR is nice because of it, but have you taken a look at his BRBAILUCOS (bad routes + bases allowed on inaccurate lollipop throws / utter confusion facing outfield wall caroms)?
If he's getting to more balls than anyone,
who gives a fuck how he gets there?
Founding member of the Eric Patterson fan club.
Because you don't consistently get to balls if you take poor routes
I can remember 5 or 6 times where a bad route cost Raj the catch.
"Chicks dig the long ball, although fat chicks will settle for warning track power" - Nick Diamond
But he's still getting to more balls....
I, too, would love it if he ran Sweeney roots out there. But because of his speed, he’s still making more plays.
Founding member of the Eric Patterson fan club.
More plays? Or just other plays?
I guess it matters whether or not you are fast enough to make up for the time lost by starting off in the wrong direction. I haven’t the slightest idea on how to measure this.
by LoneStranger on Sep 17, 2009 12:48 PM PDT up reply actions
Well frankly, neither do I.
There’s obviously there’s the chance it’s luck or he’s just getting different plays than Sweeney, but I’ll trust UZR for now cause I got nothing else to go by.
Founding member of the Eric Patterson fan club.
Time to put local GPS-type systems on the players!
by LoneStranger on Sep 17, 2009 1:28 PM PDT up reply actions
Now we're talking!
And attach those little motion capture sensor balls to their uniforms so we can track their twists and turns while they run down fly balls…
"You see that?"
“See what?”
“That, right there.”
“Oh yea. Interesting.”
“The numbers say he does better when he swings his hips like a little girl.”
by LoneStranger on Sep 17, 2009 3:43 PM PDT up reply actions
Good fielder=makes lots of outs
When you can get to the ball more, you will make more outs. Common sense.
"if gio would of ptched,he would of pitched shoot outs." - MR.OAKLAND
"Anyone who calls themselves the Angels Angels should have to start over and ride the short bus." -timmeh from McCovey Chronicles
How simplistic.
There’s a little more to the equation, and I’d figure you’d know that with your vast knowledge of statistics and how they conclusively determine a person’s ability to play the outfield. It’s laughable that so many people have such blind faith in statistics for which they probably don’t wholly understand the method of collection, and claim an objective perspective on the issue based on their belief in them (and yes, I used “belief” rather than “knowledge” because I doubt that anyone here can vouch for the validity of the data used in piecing such abstract and arcane statistics together). At least I’m admitting that my opinions are subjective and not based in fact…I’d respect your opinion more if you admitted as much.
And, just for fun, how about someone producing for me a graphic of all these balls that Davis can get to that Sweeney can’t? Which of the 78 zones is Sweeney incapable of reaching?
Heh.
It’s laughable that so many people have such blind faith in statistics for which they probably don’t wholly understand the method of collection, and claim an objective perspective on the issue based on their belief in them
And here I’m thinking people who wear their ignorance on their sleeves and proudly profess to disregarding whatever the numbers say are, well, quite annoying as well.
Here’s a couple of articles that explain UZR quite cogently. It’s far from a perfect system but it’s the best we got thus far and it’s far better than what we can “see” with our eyes.
I disregard this particular stat as applied to this particular situation, not all stats
My point, Tripp, is basically what you said: UZR is “far from a perfect system.” I am familiar with the concept and what comprises the stat, what I commented on is the method of collection. Classifying batted balls by hard, medium, and soft leaves a lot to be desired, so much so, that, in my opinion (brace yourself, more ignorance), it’s pointless using it to compare a guy that gets good reads and positions himself well to a really fast guy who relies on raw speed. Consider the variation between even two “medium” speed fly balls (assuming medium is even defined and consistent): if there’s a few mph difference between them, they guy charged with tracking the faster ball to the same zone gets hosed with this stat. And, neither outfielder being discussed here has played a whole year in CF, so we have a small sample size to begin with…It may very well be “the best we got thus far,” but in this case, I don’t think it’s valuable. If we’re comparing Ichiro to Gary Sheffield, then UZR has a place to drive the point home. When it’s these two, for this amount of time, I just don’t think using UZR is any better than a season’s worth of watching them. Neither position is based upon reliable, factual evidence. I understand that eyes aren’t always reliable, but blurting out inapplicable numbers doesn’t make it so.
by Joneser on Sep 16, 2009 4:44 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
You're over complicating things.
The primary goal, the only goal, of an outfielder (or any fielder) is to get outs. Here’s what everyone else has been trying to tell you: It doesn’t matter if said out was acquired through superior positioning or superior speed. It only matters that said out was acquired.
Heck, let’s say Rajai actually does have an inability to run great routes to the ball or is unable to position himself adequately. Well, you would expect these deficiencies to interfere with his ability to get outs correct? But here’s the real kicker: it hasn’t. UZR, which is the best objective measure of this out-getting ability no matter how hard you try to weasel away from this fact, would be negatively affected if Rajai’s route running/positioning deficiencies were, if fact, actual deficiencies that caused him to not, well, get outs. But it is not adversely affected. And thus, this handwringing over routes and positioning simply doesn’t matter in this case. Rajai could do cartwheels to the ball but as long as he catches the ball and as long as he continues to catch the ball (which he shown he has been able to through the course of his career), it doesn’t matter.
Before you accuse me of doing so, let me say that I’m not saying route running and positioning do not matter in every case. Some outfielders do not have those skills and it does affect their ability to get outs (which OMG, would show up in their UZRs). Perhaps Rajai really doesn’t have these skills. And perhaps his speed is what makes up for it. And guess what? The results show that that’s perfectly fine.
And here’s something else to think about, isn’t it possible that you’re utterly wrong about Rajai’s supposed inability to run routes, position himself correctly, etc? Do you watch every single one of his plays in person (btw, your opponent, UZR, does)? Is it possible you saw one of his plays in which he made a route running mistake, said to yourself, “Well, golly gee, Rajai sure sucks at route running!”, and hereinafter made a point of noticing every time he made such a mistake (because confirmation bias is such a big part of human “reasoning”)? Is it possible that you got notions of Rajai’s inability to run routes from hearsay?
Ah, the follies of subjective based reasoning.
by Tripp on Sep 16, 2009 7:58 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
+5
"if gio would of ptched,he would of pitched shoot outs." - MR.OAKLAND
"Anyone who calls themselves the Angels Angels should have to start over and ride the short bus." -timmeh from McCovey Chronicles
I guess it comes down to whether or not the outs
are done in an efficient manner. Assume that a faster runner makes up for exactly the same number of outs by speed to counter the bad routes. They’ve just spent more effort for the same results. The solution would be to figure out how to reduce the inefficiency of the bad routes and use the extra speed to increase the player’s range to score more outs than before.
Fast and easy. Just how I like ’em.
by LoneStranger on Sep 17, 2009 12:56 PM PDT up reply actions
The point is there's no way he can continue to make good plays, or get outs
If he takes routes like he did in the Hairston game back in Chicago.
"Chicks dig the long ball, although fat chicks will settle for warning track power" - Nick Diamond
The follies of poor reasoning...
The funny thing is that I agree with everything you say in the last paragraph. Absolutely. I once thought Ben Grieve would be the savior of the franchise, so that I can be wrong about Rajai’s ability to position and run routes is a definite possibility. I think that by clearly stating all along that my feelings about this matter are my opinion, based on my observations, stipulates as much.
And I see your point that the only goal of an outfielder is to get outs. Here, you’re mostly right. I also think that preventing runs (keeping base runners from advancing, getting the lead runner instead of the trailer, etc) is high on the list, but no need to argue that here – I’ll try not to make things too complicated for you.
My main problem with your reasoning is your insistence that UZR is objective. It isn’t. It’s a nice stab at it, but it still involves a lot of speculation. As I said, if positioning isn’t figured in at all, and the speed of batted balls is relegated to "soft," "medium," and "hard," can you really say that human speculation isn’t skewing the data? One assumption in calculating UZR is that "soft" fly balls are harder to catch in the shallow zones than they are in the deeper zones, thus they are weighted accordingly. Using that, an outfielder who catches lots of soft flies in shallow zones will have a higher UZR than an outfielder catching the same amount of flies (an equal number of outs) in a slightly deeper zone. But what if the outfielder in the former example plays a shallow centerfield and the latter a deeper centerfield? If positioning isn’t taken into account, couldn’t that possibly affect the validity of this stat? Now, one might argue that things would even out because the deeper centerfielder would get to more "hard" flies in deeper zones…but what if there weren’t as many? What if, on one of those, the ball happened to bounce off the heel of his glove as it might in any few hundred tries…wouldn’t that "weighting" system unduly affect his UZR? Unless one outfielder has exactly the same chances as another – and I don’t mean an equal number, I mean those actual chances (obviously not possible) – there is speculation involved, and, hence, subjectivity.
You’re also looking at differences in sample size. Davis has played over 700 innings in center this year while Sweeney has played just over 450. If you want to use UZR as basis of comparison, you need to speculate, a lot. Lucky for us, there’s an even more subjective version of UZR – the UZR/150. Using this objective wonder, the "ability" gap between the two narrows to 15.5 for Davis and 13.1 for Sweeney. If we want to look at combined outfield play using standard UZR (so at least using real PO totals instead of projection), you’ll see that Sweeney holds the advantage at 17.8 to 14.0.
But even though one could argue, based on that, that Sweeney shows more "ability," I won’t. I don’t like this stat because it doesn’t take enough things into account. If it plotted fielder position for each chance, included the exact speed of the ball, and weighted each try by the distance actually covered relative to the time the ball stayed in the air, then I might pay it more credence. Until it does, I don’t pay much attention to it unless the results are drastic – assuming an equal sample size, if one outfielder posted a UZR of 15 and another outfielder a -15, then you can say that there is something going on there.
And what, by the way, is considered statistically relevant when comparing one UZR to another? What’s the margin of error (or do sabermetricians even acknowledge this)?
To address directly another of your fallacious claims, you can’t say that bad routes haven’t affected Davis’s ability to get outs based on UZR. Couldn’t he have covered more ground, reached more zones, and had an ever higher UZR if he had taken better routes? Have you determined this by examining the actual plots on the graphs (which don’t include his starting point)? Can you say with certainty that Sweeney, had he been in centerfield instead of Davis and had the exact same chances, wouldn’t have put up a higher UZR? Isn’t that speculation either way? Isn’t that subjectivity?
I like Sweeney in center and Davis in left because of what I’ve seen. That’s not objective, but at least I don’t try to hide it and puff myself up with poorly applied, subjective statistics masquerading as quantitative analysis.
Saying that a stat includes luck is not the same thing as saying that it is not objective
Batting average includes lots of luck, but you cannot seriously contend that batting average is subjective. Most of your critique of UZR is nothing more than “but he might just have been lucky!” Which is true of hitting stats as well.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
Straw Man
Batting average, though slightly subjective when considering scorer’s interpretation of when to apply errors (not luck), is close enough to an objective stat that it would be downright silly to object to it.
If you actually understood what I was saying about UZR, you’d understand that it isn’t luck I’m concerned about. It’s that it doesn’t account for fielder positioning at all and its accounting for batted ball speed is dubious. Lacking in those areas, it isn’t possible to assess an outfielder’s ability to track a ball and turn it into an out with a high enough degree of accuracy to be relevant in this situation.
That isn’t pointing out that a stat includes luck. It’s pointing out that this particular stat includes more than a few assumptions to augment its hard data. Those assumptions make it subjective. That’s what I have a problem with.
Positioning
will matter in the scoring of individual plays, but it should wash out over a large sample, especially if we’re comparing guys on the same team.
I think maybe if you went to every game in person (not watch on tv), maybe you could get a pretty good sense of OF defense, but otherwise not even close. So Rajai takes bad routes but is really fast, and Sweeney takes better routes, but is slower… Absolutely no way you can resolve that by watching the games on tv. Not even close.
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
Yep.
Totally agree with everything you said. And I haven’t been to more than 10 games this year, so I can’t say that Sweeney would produce more outs.
I guess I just feel better with him there. I like that baserunners are afraid of his arm.
There I go again…
Your critiques are irrelevant
it doesn’t account for fielder positioning at all
Nonsense. Fielders who position themselves better will make more outs.
its accounting for batted ball speed is dubious
Since fielders have absolutely no control over what speed of batted balls are hit their way, all this does is introduce directionless random variation into the sample. Well, here’s the thing— we already know there’s substantial directionless random variation in zone ratings.
From the fielder’s standpoint, what speed balls are hit to him is pure luck, and his positioning relative to the placement of the ball is a mixture of luck and skill. The skill portion is already accounted for in the metric. The luck portion does not inherently favor any one outfielder over another.
Also, just for future reference, since you’re new here— the intimidation tactics don’t work on me (or most people here). So, don’t bother.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
1. positioning is mostly a coaching decision that doesn’t have anything to do with evaluating fielding.
2. batted ball speed: unlikely that it is a big deal, but the theory that everyone will get roughly the same mix of batted bal speeds in a large sample may be problematic because it involves team pitching to some (probably small) extent and therefore you might get team-relative biased results.
3. last sentence: ?. didn’t see joneser using any intimidation. haha.
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
1. There’s almost never a way to separate out coaching from player performance.
2. I suppose, but pitchers don’t seem to have much if any control over the speed of batted balls that they give up.
3. Go reread his comments on this thread.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
uzr is not objective
insofar as different scorers consistently classify balls differently, whether in terms of line drive/fly ball, or hard/medium soft. Also, a completely objective system analogous to BA would be something like range factor, which is not any good. UZR/other good fielding systems stand or fall on the consistency of the scorers, and there are significant doubts about that. Hit f/x should be a huge improvement in accuracy over the stats/bis pbp data.
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
Sure, sure
No arguments there (and I can’t wait for Hit F/x, myself). But without purposeful bias (and I’ve never seen evidence for that), all it does is slightly increase the randomness factor.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
Not purposeful bias
but as I understand there’s like one guy who does all the games at each park, and they may do it differently, which would introduce systematic bias. I’ve seen various indications (don’t remember where) that that is the case to some extent.
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
This is actually a cogent post.
You have several valid critiques. First off, let me concede that I was wrong when I wrote:
UZR, which is the best objective measure of this out-getting ability
There’s obviously quite a bit of subjectivity when charting UZR data. Like I said, fielding metrics like UZR are far from perfect in this regard and they’re continually being tweaked on. But here’s my problem with your assessment. You look at this weakness, deem it completely impractical, and then you abandon the metric entirely in favor of an infinitely more subjective metric: your eyes. So is subjectivity just an issue for you with these new-fangled fielding metrics but it’s perfectly fine for your eyeball scouting?
Secondly, in your example of the shallow vs deep zones, you’re just cherry picking one scenario to try to disprove an entire system. Assuming Davis always plays shallow and Sweeney always plays deep (both assumptions which have little to back it up anyways) there has already been a large enough sample for us to assume that well, not every Davis out was caught in the shallow zone and Sweeney out caught deep (thereby inflating UZR for Davis). Essentially what I’m getting at is that in a large enough sample such as this, which I think someone else mentioned, any difference with regards to positioning is accounted for and canceled out. This kinda reminds me of what I call the “Adam Dunn” reasoning, in which baseball pundits point to one specific scenario in which Dunn has little success in (let’s say, with a runner on third) and use it to say, “Aha! This is why he sucks as a hitter!” Similarly, you’re blowing off UZR entirely based on this scenario while ignoring many many things it does well (and much better, than what your eyes can tell you for sure).
And perhaps arguably the most important thing UZR does better than humans? It watches every single play of every single game. You constantly make a big deal about sample sizes with regards to UZR. And yet, I’m pretty sure that UZR has assessed a larger sample size than what you’ve seen from watching the games (and I’m relatively sure you haven’t seen every single play of every single game in person).
Basically what it comes down to is this. You make a huge hullabaloo over UZR’s methods, subjectivity, and sample size, most of which is perfectly valid. From my impressions, you care a great deal about those critiques, which is great; cynicism is pretty good when it comes to evaluating statistics. Logically, I would believe the next step is for you to propose using a better system. But instead I get this reasoning:
I like Sweeney in center and Davis in left because of what I’ve seen.
The irony is killing me. In the end, you’re not really asking me to defend UZR in comparison to ZOMG THE HYPOTHETICAL BEST FIELDING EVALUATION METHOD IN THE WORLD. You’re asking me you defend UZR in comparison to well, your eyes and your opinion. Laughable.
Isn't this fun?
First, my apologies for getting a little personal, there.
I’m not asking you to defend UZR in comparison to my eyes, exactly – look, I know my eyes are not the instrument through which to evaluate major league talent. I’m just trying to get someone, anyone, to admit that, in this particular situation, with these two guys and and the fielding stats they’ve put up this year, UZR doesn’t really add more merit to one guy starting there over the other. In this case (certainly not every), it’s no better than my opinion, anyone else’s, or the flip of a coin.
Also, I wasn’t trying to imply that Davis plays shallow, or even that those two guys were involved in my little uzr thing – just trying to point out some of the possible problems with the methodology in general. That wasn’t meant to be an extension of the Davis vs. Sweeney thing, directly. If it read like that, my fault for not being more clear.
Lastly, I’m not trying to sound like I’m applying a double standard where subjectivity is concerned. My eyes, applying uzr to this sample – both crap. I was just trying to have a little fun and got frustrated when I couldn’t make people see where I was coming from.
I think my next post will be “Ryan Sweney for President.”
I don't agree with what you said,
but it’s really awesome that you know how the stat works/are discussing it and why you don’t like it. It’s something that needs to be done more around here.
Founding member of the Eric Patterson fan club.
Here is you.
Here is the reply button.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
