# Defensive Metrics Topic

Posted by bad_luck on 9/4/2013 12:58:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 9/4/2013 12:29:00 PM (view original):
I'm not going to get into the specifics of the article I'm taking this from, but this was considered one of Brendan Ryan's best plays at SS over the last couple years.

I think I'm missing something here.
UZR considered this one of Ryan's best plays over the last few years.  Can you figure out why?
9/4/2013 1:00 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 9/4/2013 12:55:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 9/4/2013 12:51:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 9/4/2013 12:42:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 9/4/2013 12:37:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 9/4/2013 12:33:00 PM (view original):
My point is, naturally, I don't NEED a number to say "Jeter has sure lost some range and Ryan is a damn good SS in the field".    You seem to NEED to put a -3.7 on Jeter and a 2.6 on Ryan.    Why?
In fairness, if we were to make an argument on "who is better, Ryan or Jeter?" we would use numbers.  So if there's a defensive number to look at, naturally, you want to try to use it.  Except the number could be meaningless if you don't use it in the right way.  I want a better number.
I think that's everyone's goal.

No one is married to UZR (or plus/minus or DRS). It's just what we have. When something better gets figured out, we'll use that instead.
And, if the only thing to eat is a **** sandwich, do you chow down?    Or do you wait until something better comes along?
How many times have you used fielding percentage in an argument? Because if UZR is a **** sandwich, fielding percentage is the undigested **** sandwich in the stomach of a dead guy buried last month.
I'd venture "none" but, if I did, it was in reference to the number of errors made.   A guy with a .990 F% is a better fielder than a guy with a .950 F%, don't you think?
9/4/2013 1:02 PM
This is one of Ryan's worst plays, according to UZR.  Seems unfair, right?  Why is this one of his worst plays?

9/4/2013 1:03 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 9/4/2013 1:00:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 9/4/2013 12:58:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 9/4/2013 12:29:00 PM (view original):
I'm not going to get into the specifics of the article I'm taking this from, but this was considered one of Brendan Ryan's best plays at SS over the last couple years.

I think I'm missing something here.
UZR considered this one of Ryan's best plays over the last few years.  Can you figure out why?
9/4/2013 1:03 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 9/4/2013 1:02:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 9/4/2013 12:55:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 9/4/2013 12:51:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 9/4/2013 12:42:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 9/4/2013 12:37:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 9/4/2013 12:33:00 PM (view original):
My point is, naturally, I don't NEED a number to say "Jeter has sure lost some range and Ryan is a damn good SS in the field".    You seem to NEED to put a -3.7 on Jeter and a 2.6 on Ryan.    Why?
In fairness, if we were to make an argument on "who is better, Ryan or Jeter?" we would use numbers.  So if there's a defensive number to look at, naturally, you want to try to use it.  Except the number could be meaningless if you don't use it in the right way.  I want a better number.
I think that's everyone's goal.

No one is married to UZR (or plus/minus or DRS). It's just what we have. When something better gets figured out, we'll use that instead.
And, if the only thing to eat is a **** sandwich, do you chow down?    Or do you wait until something better comes along?
How many times have you used fielding percentage in an argument? Because if UZR is a **** sandwich, fielding percentage is the undigested **** sandwich in the stomach of a dead guy buried last month.
I'd venture "none" but, if I did, it was in reference to the number of errors made.   A guy with a .990 F% is a better fielder than a guy with a .950 F%, don't you think?
Not necessarily. Errors are subjective and you can't make an error if you don't have the range to get to the ball.

UZR is way better than fielding percentage.
9/4/2013 1:04 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 9/4/2013 1:04:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 9/4/2013 1:02:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 9/4/2013 12:55:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 9/4/2013 12:51:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 9/4/2013 12:42:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 9/4/2013 12:37:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 9/4/2013 12:33:00 PM (view original):
My point is, naturally, I don't NEED a number to say "Jeter has sure lost some range and Ryan is a damn good SS in the field".    You seem to NEED to put a -3.7 on Jeter and a 2.6 on Ryan.    Why?
In fairness, if we were to make an argument on "who is better, Ryan or Jeter?" we would use numbers.  So if there's a defensive number to look at, naturally, you want to try to use it.  Except the number could be meaningless if you don't use it in the right way.  I want a better number.
I think that's everyone's goal.

No one is married to UZR (or plus/minus or DRS). It's just what we have. When something better gets figured out, we'll use that instead.
And, if the only thing to eat is a **** sandwich, do you chow down?    Or do you wait until something better comes along?
How many times have you used fielding percentage in an argument? Because if UZR is a **** sandwich, fielding percentage is the undigested **** sandwich in the stomach of a dead guy buried last month.
I'd venture "none" but, if I did, it was in reference to the number of errors made.   A guy with a .990 F% is a better fielder than a guy with a .950 F%, don't you think?
Not necessarily. Errors are subjective and you can't make an error if you don't have the range to get to the ball.

UZR is way better than fielding percentage.
I can see a lack of range by watching a couple of games.

Do you NEED a number, or stat, to determine Ryan is a better defensive SS than Jeter?
9/4/2013 1:05 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 9/4/2013 1:03:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 9/4/2013 1:00:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 9/4/2013 12:58:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 9/4/2013 12:29:00 PM (view original):
I'm not going to get into the specifics of the article I'm taking this from, but this was considered one of Brendan Ryan's best plays at SS over the last couple years.

I think I'm missing something here.
UZR considered this one of Ryan's best plays over the last few years.  Can you figure out why?
Fine.  It's an interesting article.  Some of it I agree with, some I don't.  I didn't want to post it because I didn't want to make this article a topic of conversation; it's been overblown for years, and even I'm sick of it.

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/9603949/the-tragedy-derek-jeter-defense
9/4/2013 1:06 PM
And ironically, Mike started the Ryan to Jeter comparison here.
9/4/2013 1:07 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 9/4/2013 1:05:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 9/4/2013 1:04:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 9/4/2013 1:02:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 9/4/2013 12:55:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 9/4/2013 12:51:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 9/4/2013 12:42:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 9/4/2013 12:37:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 9/4/2013 12:33:00 PM (view original):
My point is, naturally, I don't NEED a number to say "Jeter has sure lost some range and Ryan is a damn good SS in the field".    You seem to NEED to put a -3.7 on Jeter and a 2.6 on Ryan.    Why?
In fairness, if we were to make an argument on "who is better, Ryan or Jeter?" we would use numbers.  So if there's a defensive number to look at, naturally, you want to try to use it.  Except the number could be meaningless if you don't use it in the right way.  I want a better number.
I think that's everyone's goal.

No one is married to UZR (or plus/minus or DRS). It's just what we have. When something better gets figured out, we'll use that instead.
And, if the only thing to eat is a **** sandwich, do you chow down?    Or do you wait until something better comes along?
How many times have you used fielding percentage in an argument? Because if UZR is a **** sandwich, fielding percentage is the undigested **** sandwich in the stomach of a dead guy buried last month.
I'd venture "none" but, if I did, it was in reference to the number of errors made.   A guy with a .990 F% is a better fielder than a guy with a .950 F%, don't you think?
Not necessarily. Errors are subjective and you can't make an error if you don't have the range to get to the ball.

UZR is way better than fielding percentage.
I can see a lack of range by watching a couple of games.

Do you NEED a number, or stat, to determine Ryan is a better defensive SS than Jeter?
Do you watch every single game for every single team? I don't.

What about games last year? Games in 2007? Games in 2002? I haven't seen all the games. I can't tell you, without stats, who the best hitter in baseball was in 2009, let alone who the best defender was at every position.

9/4/2013 1:11 PM
That was a great Grantland piece.
9/4/2013 1:36 PM
Do you NEED to watch every single game for a team to get a basic understanding of relative defensive abilities?

If you watch a half dozen games of team A and see Jimmy Girliearm consistenty throwing balls from deep in the hole at SS into the dirt in front of the first baseman, while watching a half dozen games of team B and seeing Tommy Cannonarm throwing lasers from the same position into the first baseman's chest, can't you make some sort of a judgement on Jimmy's vs. Tommy's arms?

Or do you need to see the other 156 games?  Or better yet, stats?
9/4/2013 1:48 PM
Over the last 5 seasons, Everth Cabrera has played over 3100 innings at shortstop. Without looking at any stats, how good is his defense?
9/4/2013 2:20 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 9/4/2013 1:07:00 PM (view original):
And ironically, Mike started the Ryan to Jeter comparison here.
I know Jeter is range-handicapped at this point.   It was overblown for years but it's real now.
9/4/2013 2:21 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 9/4/2013 2:20:00 PM (view original):
Over the last 5 seasons, Everth Cabrera has played over 3100 innings at shortstop. Without looking at any stats, how good is his defense?
I'll be the first to say I don't even know who Everth Cabrera is.

Therefore, I would not join an "Everth Cabrera sucks/is great at SS" debate.

That said, I don't think anyone debated Brett Gardner vs. Mike Trout vs. Miguel Cabrera MVP last season.
9/4/2013 2:24 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 9/4/2013 2:20:00 PM (view original):
Over the last 5 seasons, Everth Cabrera has played over 3100 innings at shortstop. Without looking at any stats, how good is his defense?
I don't know.  I'm not sure I'd know looking at defensive stats either.
9/4/2013 2:33 PM
◂ Prev 1...5|6|7|8|9...23 Next ▸
Defensive Metrics Topic