Bradley

[kbwsb]

Edmonds was thought to be a GG-calibre CFer, with a slow bat that couldn't hit anymore.
It turned out to be the opposite: he hit a ton, and fielded very poorly.

I'm a little stunned that no team brought him back this year. He really had hit well in '08, and even if he couldn't play centerfield, a number of AL teams SUCKED at DH this year; many have pointed out that with a decent DH, the Tigers would have locked up the AL Central a month ago.

[bz]

<!--quoteo(post=64752:date=Sep 30 2009, 09:17 AM:name=ruby23)-->QUOTE (ruby23 @ Sep 30 2009, 09:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I don't need a fielding metric to tell me that Aaron Rowand is not a good CFer.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Here's the thing (cover your eyes, KB.) That particular metric isn't one based off of averages. It is based on in depth scouting. I don't care if you watch every play he's made or 20...you can tell he sucks at fielding.

[ruby23]

<!--quoteo(post=64784:date=Sep 30 2009, 12:36 PM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Sep 30 2009, 12:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Edmonds was thought to be a GG-calibre CFer, with a slow bat that couldn't hit anymore.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I honestly don't know what you're talking about. I can't think of a single person on the planet that thought Edmonds still had a GG quality glove in the last few years.

[kbwsb]

For the record, I'm a huge fan of "in-depth scouting." Huge. Any and all information is valuable.

[kbwsb]

<!--quoteo(post=64793:date=Sep 30 2009, 01:05 PM:name=ruby23)-->QUOTE (ruby23 @ Sep 30 2009, 01:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=64784:date=Sep 30 2009, 12:36 PM:name=KBwsb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KBwsb @ Sep 30 2009, 12:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Edmonds was thought to be a GG-calibre CFer, with a slow bat that couldn't hit anymore.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I honestly don't know what you're talking about. I can't think of a single person on the planet that thought Edmonds still had a GG quality glove in the last few years.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
(Well, he won 8 Gold Gloves.
Eight.
So someone, somewhere, thought he was a pretty good fielder.)

He won his last GG in 2005, so by 2008, as you were likely implying, it's safe to say that many thought his fielding has likely regressed. But I for one, was surprised at just <i>how</i> far he'd regressed.

[leonardsipes]

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->A player gets credit (a "plus" number) if he makes a play that at least one other player at his position missed during the season, and he loses credit (a "minus" number) if he misses a play that at least one player made. The size of the credit is directly related to how often players make the play. Each play is looked at individually, and a score is given for each play. Sum up all the plays for each player at his position and you get his total plus/minus for the season.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Until a read that closely, I thought +/- was a fairly straight forward rasonably acurate stat. It should be zero= average, +1 above average, -1 below average. Not only is a negative any play that the best player would make and a positive would be any play that the worst player could not make (which is convoluted) but a second judgment is made, giving each play a score.

Each play is one event. With that system a player can get to much credit/penalty for one play. It would be like getting 2 or 3 hits for a particularly well hit ball. Since there are 2 judgements on each play and each judgement has a given margin of error, it increases the total margin of error.

[ruby23]

<!--quoteo(post=64795:date=Sep 30 2009, 01:10 PM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Sep 30 2009, 01:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=64793:date=Sep 30 2009, 01:05 PM:name=ruby23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ruby23 @ Sep 30 2009, 01:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=64784:date=Sep 30 2009, 12:36 PM:name=KBwsb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KBwsb @ Sep 30 2009, 12:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Edmonds was thought to be a GG-calibre CFer, with a slow bat that couldn't hit anymore.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I honestly don't know what you're talking about. I can't think of a single person on the planet that thought Edmonds still had a GG quality glove in the last few years.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
(Well, he won 8 Gold Gloves.
Eight.
So someone, somewhere, thought he was a pretty good fielder.)

He won his last GG in 2005, so by 2008, as you were likely implying, it's safe to say that many thought his fielding has likely regressed. But I for one, was surprised at just <i>how</i> far he'd regressed.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly.

[kbwsb]

Sipes, I believe your information may be incorrect. I think.

+49 (which Chase Utley had last year) is good. Plus=good.
And if I'm not mistaken, you can only accumulate one plus or minus per play. Thus Gary Mathews famous over-the-wall catch, or Willie Mays' "The Catch" would only give them a plus one.

[leonardsipes]

<!--quoteo(post=64799:date=Sep 30 2009, 12:24 PM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Sep 30 2009, 12:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Sipes, I believe your information may be incorrect. I think.

+49 (which Chase Utley had last year) is good. Plus=good.
And if I'm not mistaken, you can only accumulate one plus or minus per play. Thus Gary Mathews famous over-the-wall catch, or Willie Mays' "The Catch" would only give them a plus one.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

That is the way I assumed it was, until I read what I qouted in my post. I do understand that + is good. The explanation states (not very clearly) a player gets a "plus number" or a "minus number" and "score is given for each play". Which seems to say they have to determine if the score is + or -, and then how much + or -.

[kbwsb]

FWIW, I've been a big fan of the <!--coloro:#0000FF--><!--/coloro-->plus/minus system for evaluating defense<!--colorc-->
<!--/colorc-->. It beats the hell out of fielding percentage.

Still, it has some <!--coloro:#FF0000--><!--/coloro-->obvious flaws<!--colorc-->
<!--/colorc-->. What if a routine ball is hit to a shortstop, but he bobbles it, then recovers and makes a quick throw, and the runner is out by a whisker? But, what if the runner is Ryan Howard? Then it's clear that at average-speed runner would have beat out the throw, and the SS would have made an error.
Is that a zero, or a minus?

What if, in the same situation, after the bobble, the SS makes a spectacular recovery and throw, but the runner is Ichiro or Juan Pierre, and he beats the throw by an inch...90% of the time, the shortstop's great athletic move would have nailed the runner, but in this case, a lightning-fast runner beats the throw. Is that a plus or minus, or zero?

How about this: a catchable ball that the RFer (let's call him Adam Dunn) slightly misplays, so it goes over his head? Yeah, he probably gets a minus, but it's a <i>2-base</i> error (if it's even charged as an error), so it's obviously worse for the team than the SS mis-play in the paragraph I described above.

Now, what if he misses the cut-off man on his throw, and the runner takes third base? Cut-off men are missed all the time, and I've never seen it charged as an error. Still, because of the RFers' lackluster play, a probable out is turned into a <i>triple</i>! Does he get one minus, 2 minuses, three?

I wonder how they quantify this kind of stuff. It seems like there are a few bugs in the system.

[Scarey]

I've always seen the plus/minus system as a more acurate zone rating more than an interpretation of a player's overall defensive skill. It's why, like I said earlier, plus/minus for 1B is almost worthless. While it is important for a first baseman to have good range, it's much more important he have good hands and ability to judge throw trajectory. If you can find it, go look at Derrek Lee's plus/minus.

[leonardsipes]

The concept is great, and by evaluating every play, and can certainly be done. I just question the methodology.

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->A player gets credit (a "plus" number) if he makes a play that at least one other player at his position missed during the season, and he loses credit (a "minus" number) if he misses a play that at least one player made. The size of the credit is directly related to how often players make the play.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Does that mean if he Rowen missed a ball that they believe every other CFer in baseball would catch, he gets a -29? I doubt it is that extreme (because player ratings would very more from year to year), but I think the bigger the scale is, the less accurate the result.

I always thought, that if a player was -24, it meant that he allowed 24 more hits than the average player. Now I don't know what to believe.

[kbwsb]

<!--quoteo(post=64842:date=Sep 30 2009, 04:37 PM:name=leonardsipes)-->QUOTE (leonardsipes @ Sep 30 2009, 04:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->The concept is great, and by evaluating every play, and can certainly be done. I just question the methodology.

<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->A player gets credit (a "plus" number) if he makes a play that at least one other player at his position missed during the season, and he loses credit (a "minus" number) if he misses a play that at least one player made. The size of the credit is directly related to how often players make the play.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Does that mean if he Rowen missed a ball that they believe every other CFer in baseball would catch, he gets a -29? I doubt it is that extreme (because player ratings would very more from year to year), but I think the bigger the scale is, the less accurate the result.

<b>I always thought, that if a player was -24, it meant that he allowed 24 more hits than the average player.</b> Now I don't know what to believe.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My understanding is that is exactly correct.

[bz]

They judge the degree of difficulty a play has, I'm assuming based on some sort of visual standard deviation based on the ability to get to the ball and then execute the play, and give a positive or negative score based on whether they fielded the ball or not. So Theriot not getting to a ball up the middle that majority of MLB short stops would have would result in a -1 score for that play.

[bz]

Here's the problem: how do you trust that they can determine the degree in which a ball is playable consistently or any better than just some random guy with a much smaller sample size?

I can't wait til that defense-camera-majig that Butcher showed comes out.