Posts: 4,641
Threads: 210
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=71983:date=Dec 16 2009, 10:37 PM:name=Gad)-->QUOTE (Gad @ Dec 16 2009, 10:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71981:date=Dec 16 2009, 08:30 PM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 16 2009, 08:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I can't help but remain suspicious of defensive metrics.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have no idea how accurate they are. I was merely explaining how Fangraphs had determined Neifi's value.
The ironic thing about Cedeno is that UZR/150 rates him as an exceptional 2B throughout his career. It's odd he would be rated so awful at SS and just exceptional at 2B.
Or perhaps that is just more reason to doubt the formula.
I do know that stat minded teams are putting more and more emphasis on defense which is why you see Boston go after Cameron etc. Pretty much the same group that revolutionized how we view hitters with stats like OPS+, are also the guys pushing Range Factor and UZR/150 as the new tools to evaluate fielders..
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Very interesting. Is Fangraphs the best place to read up on this shifting ideology? I'd like to do some (relatively) light reading on these new-fangled defensive metrics. Is Fangraphs the best place?
Posts: 3,804
Threads: 111
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=72067:date=Dec 17 2009, 04:08 PM:name=Scarey)-->QUOTE (Scarey @ Dec 17 2009, 04:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=72061:date=Dec 17 2009, 05:38 PM:name=ruby23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ruby23 @ Dec 17 2009, 05:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=72055:date=Dec 17 2009, 02:46 PM:name=KBwsb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KBwsb @ Dec 17 2009, 02:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71982:date=Dec 16 2009, 09:33 PM:name=ruby23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ruby23 @ Dec 16 2009, 09:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71981:date=Dec 16 2009, 09:30 PM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 16 2009, 09:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I can't help but remain suspicious of defensive metrics.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's because they're bunk-ass bullshit.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif[/img]
So how <i>would</i> you rate a player defensively?
Seriously.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Watch the game.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I just find it funny that you are so against defensive stats because they're not subjective enough. Why are hitting stats ok? They're not subjective at all.
If Aramis hits four line drive screamers in the gap and is unlucky enough to have a fantastic centerfielder track down each one and make a diving catch, Ramirez get's a .000 average for the game (obviously).
Conversely, if Theriot hits four bloops in four plate appearances that fall in just in front of that centerfielder, he just got a 1.000 batting average. The stats have no subjectivity in them though. All you'll know at the end of the day is Theriot hit 1.000 and Ramirez hit .000.
Granted, more often than not over the course of the season, those lucky/unlucky hits balance themselves out on an individual basis. But really, couldn't you say the same thing about fielding stats? I'm not saying fielding stats are hugely conclusive, but I think they tend to give an idea of the capabilities of the individual player. Do you really feel that defensive stats mean nothing?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Raw offensive stats mean nothing without context either.
Posts: 676
Threads: 15
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=72070:date=Dec 17 2009, 05:57 PM:name=Ace)-->QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 17 2009, 05:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71983:date=Dec 16 2009, 10:37 PM:name=Gad)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Gad @ Dec 16 2009, 10:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71981:date=Dec 16 2009, 08:30 PM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 16 2009, 08:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I can't help but remain suspicious of defensive metrics.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have no idea how accurate they are. I was merely explaining how Fangraphs had determined Neifi's value.
The ironic thing about Cedeno is that UZR/150 rates him as an exceptional 2B throughout his career. It's odd he would be rated so awful at SS and just exceptional at 2B.
Or perhaps that is just more reason to doubt the formula.
I do know that stat minded teams are putting more and more emphasis on defense which is why you see Boston go after Cameron etc. Pretty much the same group that revolutionized how we view hitters with stats like OPS+, are also the guys pushing Range Factor and UZR/150 as the new tools to evaluate fielders..
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Very interesting. Is Fangraphs the best place to read up on this shifting ideology? I'd like to do some (relatively) light reading on these new-fangled defensive metrics. Is Fangraphs the best place?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As of right now it is the only place I have been able to find the uzr/150 data for free. I still think it is a pretty decent tool for judging infielders against other infielders. The major problem that I have is that it really seems to aid outfielders who play in small parks, and penalize outfielders who play in the larger parks. Also, when looking at it I really think you have to look at three year averages.
"Drink Up and Beat Off!"
-KBWSB
"Will I be looked on poorly if my religion involved punting little people?"
-Jody
Posts: 2,894
Threads: 72
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
Ace, I'd read through the basics of The Fielding Bible. They basically do what Ruby suggests...they "watch the game." Only instead of watching, say, 80 Cub games, they watch 162 games, every inning, every pitch, <b>of all 30 teams</b>. Then they meticulously go through every fielding play, and compare its' level of difficulty to other players across MLB.
It's a nice combo: 75% Ruby (using their eyes) and 25% serious tabulation to put what they see in the proper context.
There's nothing better than to realize that the good things about youth don't end with youth itself. It's a matter of realizing that life can be renewed every day you get out of bed without baggage. It's tough to get there, but it's better than the dark thoughts. -Lance
Posts: 2,696
Threads: 47
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=72072:date=Dec 17 2009, 07:03 PM:name=ruby23)-->QUOTE (ruby23 @ Dec 17 2009, 07:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=72067:date=Dec 17 2009, 04:08 PM:name=Scarey)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Scarey @ Dec 17 2009, 04:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=72061:date=Dec 17 2009, 05:38 PM:name=ruby23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ruby23 @ Dec 17 2009, 05:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=72055:date=Dec 17 2009, 02:46 PM:name=KBwsb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KBwsb @ Dec 17 2009, 02:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71982:date=Dec 16 2009, 09:33 PM:name=ruby23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ruby23 @ Dec 16 2009, 09:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71981:date=Dec 16 2009, 09:30 PM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 16 2009, 09:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I can't help but remain suspicious of defensive metrics.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's because they're bunk-ass bullshit.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif[/img]
So how <i>would</i> you rate a player defensively?
Seriously.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Watch the game.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I just find it funny that you are so against defensive stats because they're not subjective enough. Why are hitting stats ok? They're not subjective at all.
If Aramis hits four line drive screamers in the gap and is unlucky enough to have a fantastic centerfielder track down each one and make a diving catch, Ramirez get's a .000 average for the game (obviously).
Conversely, if Theriot hits four bloops in four plate appearances that fall in just in front of that centerfielder, he just got a 1.000 batting average. The stats have no subjectivity in them though. All you'll know at the end of the day is Theriot hit 1.000 and Ramirez hit .000.
Granted, more often than not over the course of the season, those lucky/unlucky hits balance themselves out on an individual basis. But really, couldn't you say the same thing about fielding stats? I'm not saying fielding stats are hugely conclusive, but I think they tend to give an idea of the capabilities of the individual player. Do you really feel that defensive stats mean nothing?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Raw offensive stats mean nothing without context either.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If that's your line of thinking, why do you refuse to acknowledge the context of Soto's year at the plate this year? I've explained multiple times why he was unlucky at the plate, but you just say he sucks. In fact, I believe you think it's nonsense when I'm basing my "Soto was unlucky" conclusion on a subjective measure (line drive %).
Posts: 2,894
Threads: 72
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
Scarey, a lot of ball fans don't want to believe that luck plays a large factor in player performance.
(or team performance, for that matter). It's not just Ruby-type fans; even hard-core sabermetric types used to chafe at the notion that there wasn't always a logical explanation to what happens on a ballfield.
Maybe it's the term, "luck." It sounds kind of like an <i>excuse</i>, instead of a legitimate factor that needs to be considered.
Perhaps if it were referred to as "randomness" it might be easier to accept.
There's nothing better than to realize that the good things about youth don't end with youth itself. It's a matter of realizing that life can be renewed every day you get out of bed without baggage. It's tough to get there, but it's better than the dark thoughts. -Lance
Posts: 4,684
Threads: 78
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
Baseball is all about luck.
Wang.
Posts: 4,641
Threads: 210
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=72099:date=Dec 18 2009, 08:26 AM:name=veryzer)-->QUOTE (veryzer @ Dec 18 2009, 08:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Baseball is all about luck.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's why I'm in the Bigs today.
Posts: 3,804
Threads: 111
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=72080:date=Dec 17 2009, 08:35 PM:name=Scarey)-->QUOTE (Scarey @ Dec 17 2009, 08:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=72072:date=Dec 17 2009, 07:03 PM:name=ruby23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ruby23 @ Dec 17 2009, 07:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=72067:date=Dec 17 2009, 04:08 PM:name=Scarey)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Scarey @ Dec 17 2009, 04:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=72061:date=Dec 17 2009, 05:38 PM:name=ruby23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ruby23 @ Dec 17 2009, 05:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=72055:date=Dec 17 2009, 02:46 PM:name=KBwsb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KBwsb @ Dec 17 2009, 02:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71982:date=Dec 16 2009, 09:33 PM:name=ruby23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ruby23 @ Dec 16 2009, 09:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71981:date=Dec 16 2009, 09:30 PM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 16 2009, 09:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I can't help but remain suspicious of defensive metrics.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's because they're bunk-ass bullshit.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif[/img]
So how <i>would</i> you rate a player defensively?
Seriously.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Watch the game.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I just find it funny that you are so against defensive stats because they're not subjective enough. Why are hitting stats ok? They're not subjective at all.
If Aramis hits four line drive screamers in the gap and is unlucky enough to have a fantastic centerfielder track down each one and make a diving catch, Ramirez get's a .000 average for the game (obviously).
Conversely, if Theriot hits four bloops in four plate appearances that fall in just in front of that centerfielder, he just got a 1.000 batting average. The stats have no subjectivity in them though. All you'll know at the end of the day is Theriot hit 1.000 and Ramirez hit .000.
Granted, more often than not over the course of the season, those lucky/unlucky hits balance themselves out on an individual basis. But really, couldn't you say the same thing about fielding stats? I'm not saying fielding stats are hugely conclusive, but I think they tend to give an idea of the capabilities of the individual player. Do you really feel that defensive stats mean nothing?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Raw offensive stats mean nothing without context either.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If that's your line of thinking, why do you refuse to acknowledge the context of Soto's year at the plate this year? I've explained multiple times why he was unlucky at the plate, but you just say he sucks. In fact, I believe you think it's nonsense when I'm basing my "Soto was unlucky" conclusion on a subjective measure (line drive %).
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Soto looked like a fool at the plate last year, if you don't think that, you weren't watching. I don't care how many of his outs were line drives, because that number was eclipsed by the number of times his top hand slipped off the bat. He's Rick Wilkins and I think their was some possible PED infusion that helped him get to the bigs after being pretty mediocre for all but 2 years of his career.
Posts: 2,696
Threads: 47
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=72102:date=Dec 18 2009, 10:10 AM:name=ruby23)-->QUOTE (ruby23 @ Dec 18 2009, 10:10 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=72080:date=Dec 17 2009, 08:35 PM:name=Scarey)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Scarey @ Dec 17 2009, 08:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=72072:date=Dec 17 2009, 07:03 PM:name=ruby23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ruby23 @ Dec 17 2009, 07:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=72067:date=Dec 17 2009, 04:08 PM:name=Scarey)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Scarey @ Dec 17 2009, 04:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=72061:date=Dec 17 2009, 05:38 PM:name=ruby23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ruby23 @ Dec 17 2009, 05:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=72055:date=Dec 17 2009, 02:46 PM:name=KBwsb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KBwsb @ Dec 17 2009, 02:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71982:date=Dec 16 2009, 09:33 PM:name=ruby23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ruby23 @ Dec 16 2009, 09:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71981:date=Dec 16 2009, 09:30 PM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 16 2009, 09:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I can't help but remain suspicious of defensive metrics.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's because they're bunk-ass bullshit.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif[/img]
So how <i>would</i> you rate a player defensively?
Seriously.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Watch the game.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I just find it funny that you are so against defensive stats because they're not subjective enough. Why are hitting stats ok? They're not subjective at all.
If Aramis hits four line drive screamers in the gap and is unlucky enough to have a fantastic centerfielder track down each one and make a diving catch, Ramirez get's a .000 average for the game (obviously).
Conversely, if Theriot hits four bloops in four plate appearances that fall in just in front of that centerfielder, he just got a 1.000 batting average. The stats have no subjectivity in them though. All you'll know at the end of the day is Theriot hit 1.000 and Ramirez hit .000.
Granted, more often than not over the course of the season, those lucky/unlucky hits balance themselves out on an individual basis. But really, couldn't you say the same thing about fielding stats? I'm not saying fielding stats are hugely conclusive, but I think they tend to give an idea of the capabilities of the individual player. Do you really feel that defensive stats mean nothing?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Raw offensive stats mean nothing without context either.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If that's your line of thinking, why do you refuse to acknowledge the context of Soto's year at the plate this year? I've explained multiple times why he was unlucky at the plate, but you just say he sucks. In fact, I believe you think it's nonsense when I'm basing my "Soto was unlucky" conclusion on a subjective measure (line drive %).
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Soto looked like a fool at the plate last year, if you don't think that, you weren't watching. I don't care how many of his outs were line drives, because that number was eclipsed by the number of times his top hand slipped off the bat. He's Rick Wilkins and I think their was some possible PED infusion that helped him get to the bigs after being pretty mediocre for all but 2 years of his career.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Looked like a fool? He looked no different than he did in his rookie season, he just made quite a bit more outs. Top hand slipped off the bat? That's what he does. Just because noticed him do it while realizing he was struggling this year, does not mean he didn't do it before and does not mean it was the cause of his struggles.
If those line drives had only a 2 degree difference in trajectory falling in for hits and Soto ended up with an .800+ OPS, I don't think you would be bringing up any of this. But, because his stat line looks bad, you get to present your theory about him being a bust (that you've been touting since before 2008) as fact.
Posts: 640
Threads: 19
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Looked like a fool? He looked no different than he did in his rookie season, he just made quite a bit more outs.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know that my eyes glaze over when some of the more complicated stats come up and I know some of them are actually quite useful but seriously dude- you're letting numbers separate you from your common sense. If a guy makes more outs that he did a previous year, I'm going to go out on a limb and say he just wasn't as good a hitter as he was the year before.
Posts: 3,804
Threads: 111
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Looked like a fool? He looked no different than he did in his rookie season<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You weren't watching then.
Posts: 2,696
Threads: 47
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=72114:date=Dec 18 2009, 11:01 AM:name=Dirk)-->QUOTE (Dirk @ Dec 18 2009, 11:01 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->Looked like a fool? He looked no different than he did in his rookie season, he just made quite a bit more outs.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know that my eyes glaze over when some of the more complicated stats come up and I know some of them are actually quite useful but seriously dude- you're letting numbers separate you from your common sense. If a guy makes more outs that he did a previous year, I'm going to go out on a limb and say he just wasn't as good a hitter as he was the year before.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's the thing Dirk, these aren't complicated stats.
This is what it basically equates to. When a player hits a line drive, there is a higher probability for it to fall in as a hit. Hopefully there's no dispute there. Line drive % shows... well what percentage of balls hit are line drives. These include any ball in play. It counts any plate appearance where the result was not a strikeout, walk, HBP, or HR.
BABIP is the batter average of balls put in play. Again, this is a measure of the balls that are put into play that land for hits vs. outs. Basically the batting average of plate appearances that didn't result in a strikeout, walk, HBP, or HR.
Now, if you look at the mean of the line drive % and BABIP of baseball players, you can see where some players may have outliers. Soto in 2009 was a huge outlier.
In 2008, he was above average in BABIP and line drive %. That basically means he was hitting a lot of line drives and was helped by a bit of luck for other non-line drives.
In 2009, he was still above average on line drive %, but his BABIP fell big time to .251. League average BABIP is usually around .300-.305.
Even more interesting is the fact that batting average league wide on line drives was .718 while Geo's was .505. That is pretty directly exemplifies his bad luck.
Couple that with the fact that he struck out less, took more walks, made more contact, and swung at less pitches out of the strike zone in 2009 than he did in 2008 and I think you start to understand why Soto's stats looked so bad last year.
If you're intersted in getting the whole story, Fangraphs has a good article about it and this blog has some very telling info as well.
Posts: 14,115
Threads: 90
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
Soto looked fatter and slower (in all facets of his game), and he wasn't nearly as selective at the plate for long stretches. I'll admit that he was a victim of bad luck, and I'm sure that dragged on him, but at the same time even if you factor in for an above average amount of luck, Soto was probably a .250 hitter at best last season. Add in better conditioning, and maybe he boosts that to .260. I could live with that in a catcher as long as he doesn't continue to regress defensively. I'm just not so sure that poor conditioning was the root of all his problems. It should help, but I'm not convinced.
Posts: 2,696
Threads: 47
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=72124:date=Dec 18 2009, 11:46 AM:name=rok)-->QUOTE (rok @ Dec 18 2009, 11:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->wasn't nearly as selective at the plate for long stretches.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I just posted a site that shows he was more selective in every way for the whole of the season.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->if you factor in for an above average amount of luck, Soto was probably a .250 hitter at best last season.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you pair a league average BABIP with his line drive%, his line would actually be closer to a .270 hitter. I think that should be our expectations for Soto going forward. We're lucky that he has developed very good plate discipline. Hopefully, he can overcome his shoulder injury and lose a few pounds. Hopefully that will elevate his slugging % and we can get a .800+ OPS again.
|
