Posted by Jtpsops on 2/29/2016 2:18:00 PM (view original):
In addition, my point with my example above was to show that in no way does dWAR correlate logically with defensive statistics. I guarantee if people ranked those 4 players above, they would not rank them in the same order dWAR does. If advanced metrics are correct all the time, they should always correlate with statistics.

That is my point. Sometimes stats and advanced metrics clash. Your side will always blindly say "well, no, it doesn't make sense - he does have pretty good stats. But WAR says he sucks, so he sucks!!" Personally, when there's a contradiction, I prefer to lean towards the side of concrete, measurable statistics over an "approximate" formula.

Which goes back to my original point. If dWAR or, more precisely, DRS or UZR (depending on BR or FG) only told us what fielding percentage and range factor already did, it would be useless. The entire point of an advanced stat is to go beyond the basic metrics.

Sometimes stats and advanced metrics clash. Your side will always blindly say "well, no, it doesn't make sense - he does have pretty good stats. But WAR says he sucks, so he sucks!!"

No one blindly says that but, absent a mitigating factor, I'll trust DRS or UZR before fielding percentage. Especially when you're talking about two outfielders.

There are still flaws. UZR doesn't take into account shifts/positioning, foul balls, etc. So if a COFer tends to play on a team where his coach has him hugging the lines (maybe there's a rangy CF, maybe they want to prevent doubles down the lines, etc.), he's going to get to fewer balls in his zone. And he could make up for that by making 25 outs in foul territory that a guy positioned more towards CF wouldn't get to, but that's not going to be reflected. Am I saying UZR is useless? No. But as with all advanced metrics, it needs to be viewed in conjunction with other factors to measure it's accuracy.

Overall, I think advanced metrics do get it right. But my whole point in this thread is that there are some players that advanced metrics are clearly wrong on (that they "hate" for some reason), and the sabermetric crowd needs to be able to admit when those flaws occur.

You need to be able to admit when your shallow analysis was just poor, too.

About Arencibia, you were right. About Heyward, you were straight-up unambiguously wrong. If you want to argue he still got paid too much for a defense-first COF, that's fine. But if you want to argue that he isn't the standout COF defender in baseball today, you don't have a lot of legs to stand on. Gordon is probably 2nd-best, and the gap is pretty big.

That's precisely my point. Heyward's career RngR is 93 as a COF. Gordon's is 22.9. Having watched both play (and no, I don't watch every game they play), I find it very difficult to believe Heyward's range is that much better. I never denied he was good, but no, I don't buy that he's that far ahead of the rest of the league. Gordon is pretty damn good.

Gordon is slow. They both take great lines to the ball and make very good decisions in the outfield. The difference between them is that Heyward is just straight-up faster. By a healthy margin.

Posted by Jtpsops on 2/29/2016 2:56:00 PM (view original):
There are still flaws. UZR doesn't take into account shifts/positioning, foul balls, etc. So if a COFer tends to play on a team where his coach has him hugging the lines (maybe there's a rangy CF, maybe they want to prevent doubles down the lines, etc.), he's going to get to fewer balls in his zone. And he could make up for that by making 25 outs in foul territory that a guy positioned more towards CF wouldn't get to, but that's not going to be reflected. Am I saying UZR is useless? No. But as with all advanced metrics, it needs to be viewed in conjunction with other factors to measure it's accuracy.

Overall, I think advanced metrics do get it right. But my whole point in this thread is that there are some players that advanced metrics are clearly wrong on (that they "hate" for some reason), and the sabermetric crowd needs to be able to admit when those flaws occur.

Does fielding percentage take into account shifts?

What player is UZR "clearly" wrong on?

So UZR question - could a COFer's UZR not be impacted by his CF? If you have a CF and a COF with great range playing beside each other, would that not simply make them both look average, since neither is required to range as far? Or make one look awesome and one look really bad, if the CF is potentially taking a lot of balls in the gap and the COF isn't required to make as many plays? Same thing with a SS and 3B?

You didn't answer my questions.

The biggest problem with UZR (and DRS) is sample size. As long as you average out multiple years of data, it's pretty reliable. It's definitely better than range factor and fielding percentage (which suffer from the same sample size limitations).

Posted by bad_luck on 2/29/2016 4:48:00 PM (view original):
The biggest problem with UZR (and DRS) is sample size. As long as you average out multiple years of data, it's pretty reliable. It's definitely better than range factor and fielding percentage (which suffer from the same sample size limitations).

But my example still stands as a potential flaw. A great CF will take balls away from his COFs and could lower their UZR, even though they may still be above average-to-elite defenders.

And I'll be honest, I have Markakis in mind here. He's a guy I've always felt advanced metrics have gotten wrong. I don't think he has elite range by any means, but watching him for years, I never recall thinking "so-and-so would have gotten to those balls". He got to everything, in my opinion, he should have gotten to. With Jones beside him, there was no reason for him to range into the gaps to make as many plays, but I still think he was capable of doing it.

As for fielding percentage - it shows you how reliable a player is on balls he gets to. I never once said it was the whole package. I would never take it in a vacuum, but it's useful.

Jones has never had elite (or even good) range. He's been average to below average.

The reason Jtpsops thinks Markakis is a great fielder is because Jim Palmer talked about it CONSTANTLY during broadcasts for years. I imagine a lot of Orioles fans who watch the MASN broadcasts are convinced Markakis is an elite fielder.

Posted by dahsdebater on 2/29/2016 5:22:00 PM (view original):
The reason Jtpsops thinks Markakis is a great fielder is because Jim Palmer talked about it CONSTANTLY during broadcasts for years. I imagine a lot of Orioles fans who watch the MASN broadcasts are convinced Markakis is an elite fielder.

Don't be so condescending as to tell me my reasoning. I think he's a good fielder because I've watched him play.

Posted by Jtpsops on 2/29/2016 5:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 2/29/2016 5:22:00 PM (view original):
The reason Jtpsops thinks Markakis is a great fielder is because Jim Palmer talked about it CONSTANTLY during broadcasts for years. I imagine a lot of Orioles fans who watch the MASN broadcasts are convinced Markakis is an elite fielder.

Don't be so condescending as to tell me my reasoning. I think he's a good fielder because I've watched him play.

Markakis is 'above average'. So are a lot of other OFers.

Posted by bad_luck on 2/29/2016 5:16:00 PM (view original):
Jones has never had elite (or even good) range. He's been average to below average.

He covers a lot of ground - in that sense, his "range" is pretty good. As for measuring range in terms of metrics, he comes up short on more than his fair share of balls by playing way too shallow, which I suspect is the primary reason for his poor numbers, and rightfully so.