# Defensive Metrics Topic

But if Maddox was getting to balls that Luzinski should otherwise have played, then Luzinski doesn't get penalized?
9/6/2013 3:32 PM
I don't think so. Maddux would get extra credit for ranging so far. It would be a non play for the LF.
9/6/2013 3:48 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 9/6/2013 2:43:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 9/6/2013 2:35:00 PM (view original):
There's a much larger difference between 300 and 800 as opposed to 750 and 500.   "Roughly" twice as much.

As for F%, same for most % stats, you have to look deeper.    If a 990% fielder had 400 chances and a 987% had 750 chances, you'd have to find out why.
OK. How exactly do you recommend we find out why?

I suggest we find a better way to evaluate defense.
copy and paste and bold and italicized for the purposes of elaboration on the "suggest", guess, maybe, and predictable next "ok" that u will be forced to type.

my reply follows in the next few posts, because nobody wants u to be the leader of the "we" who find a better way to evaluate defense.
9/6/2013 3:54 PM
QUOTED:
I suggest we find a better way to evaluate defense.

a good piece? that declares the defensive metric as BASICALLY an offensive equivalent of a batter going 0-7 ?

the wisest comment, in simplicity, that algorithms only prove algorithmic numbers that determine how many pupil dilations when trout plays centerfield versus when he is as a leftfielder, will never predict with any accuracy what will happen on the next pitch.

however, there are still rules in algorithms and their usefulness as pertaining to value in sports numbers in all arenas of our society. those algorithms cannot be understood, unless the guiding principle is to always use the "rules" and the "tools", to prove the equation. cannot possibly show u the serious problems of the defensive metrics if u cannot use a slide-rule, algebra, trigonometry, an abacus, the bell curve, or even the parabola.

your blind acceptance of a number not first mathematically proven, is exactly why u, not we, find a better way to evaluate defense.
9/6/2013 4:24 PM
Posted by lad_buck on 9/6/2013 4:24:00 PM (view original):
QUOTED:
I suggest we find a better way to evaluate defense.

a good piece? that declares the defensive metric as BASICALLY an offensive equivalent of a batter going 0-7 ?

the wisest comment, in simplicity, that algorithms only prove algorithmic numbers that determine how many pupil dilations when trout plays centerfield versus when he is as a leftfielder, will never predict with any accuracy what will happen on the next pitch.

however, there are still rules in algorithms and their usefulness as pertaining to value in sports numbers in all arenas of our society. those algorithms cannot be understood, unless the guiding principle is to always use the "rules" and the "tools", to prove the equation. cannot possibly show u the serious problems of the defensive metrics if u cannot use a slide-rule, algebra, trigonometry, an abacus, the bell curve, or even the parabola.

your blind acceptance of a number not first mathematically proven, is exactly why u, not we, find a better way to evaluate defense.
the first lame rule that u brought to the math table here, was establishing that defensive metrics have an offensive equivalent,

start there, mr. bad_luck guesser. stargell at the plate, or mario mendoza at the plate? u got the ball, now pitch. show your skills at player evaluations, defensively, with two sets of fielders.

a GREAT defenseman at first, to maybe dent stargells 44 doubles in a major league season? u would then have to pour and sweat over hours of unreliable data to finally put a fielder there, and stargell still belts liners down the line. defensive metrics dont prevent that. the bell curve will. thats how simple that is.
9/6/2013 4:36 PM
what mathematical sports number best describes value in what can happen when mario mendoza is in the batters box? do u really need defense, when the essence of the mendoza line is actually about to be pitched to? does the batter most infamously known as "theeeee" .200 hitter, warrant any defensive concern or metrics for the twenty percent of the time that he does bat safely?

the parabola is what mathematically proves the result of the mario mendoza plate appearance. will give u the specifics and dynamics of the parabola, which is in simple words, two bell curves. the equation sets the simple rule when using two bell curves. this is where the parabola resembles a football.

take any plate appearance against a right hander. that is the top laces of the curve. take any plate appearance against a left hander, and it travels the gravity side, under arch of the other half of the football. simply. place both mendoza at bats at one end of the ball, let them both follow their distinct lines, to the other end of the football. that is your measure on a bell curve, and is the rule when using two bell curves.

9/6/2013 6:19 PM (edited)
two mendoza plate appearances. the sun, and the moon. objects with mathematical precision, when recorded. the sun and the moon start the race, from one end of the football, to the other end. the equation of the parabola is simplified with a very simple answer below. it takes the moon 17,787 days for the moon to reach the other end of the measuring stick. the sun also arrives at the mark that time:stamps 17,787 days, on the bell curve. both arrived at both those points, in time, that was enumerated. but, the valuable result of this test, the other checks and balances, to level the playing field here, simply measure with precision that it will take the sun only 49 years to tally 17,787 days, while the moon has taken 50 years to tally 17,787 days.

does the defensive metrics consider the tried and true mathematical reasoning that keeps the mendoza line, in its equation? in other words, why is trout obligated to make great defensive plays against every other mario mendoza in baseball history?

get it? the next at bat can only be recorded as an event. a number. the football must hold still. the parabola makes it obey its gravity, in math. measure it right, as there is no offensive equivalent that mathematically validates, or proves its value, in math, or society.
9/10/2013 12:03 AM (edited)
figure it out, mr, bad_luck bright-boy?

two different mario mendoza plate apearances. simplify them, to identify them. one against a righty. one against a lefty.

the sun and the moon, are the results. two different objects. both have the same number of days. the mendoza line and the result of the 17,787 are weighted as exactly the same. both are measured and proven in the simple equation of equivalency, that 17,787 days = the .200 mendoza-line batting average.

now, the equation reveals that we still need to have verifiable valuable proof of a right-hander or left-hander prevailing, to get mendoza out 80% of the time. notice the word "time". the parabola measured time, when 2 forces met, and crossed paths. exactly what happens when ball meets bat.

if the sun takes 49 years, and the moon takes 50 years, then the variance must have rules, tools, and a simple equation, always being the goal. the mendoza line involves both lefty's and righty's, of course. but the sun and the moon are two different numbers in this equation.

our society uses the sun, and solar calendar, which is proven to not accurately keep time. the moon and lunar calendar is proven on the parabola, as the truest and most accurate way to keep time. the moon does not require adding an additional day, the 29th of february, every 4 years, to re-adjust the clock, or hourglass. a goal in math and numbers, is that we may be taught to number our days. we do that. thiry days this month, 31 days next january, etcetera. it works.

figure it out, bad_luck bright boy. does mendoza hit righties better, or lefties? the result is the same overall out rate of .800. which is the sun? which is the moon? which defensive metrics, the bell curve, the parabola, any certain other formulas which are distinctly different, as more valuable?

do we keep time accurately, or do we keep adjusting something as simple as time? defensive metrics have no offensive mathematical equivalent. period.
9/6/2013 6:37 PM (edited)
the sun, and the moon, and baseball, and bookies, have survived together, in total association.

bookies did not appear in the credited 1849 california gold rush, carrying shovels with them. a bookie has successfully maintained business, using valuable numbers to profit from. his goal acheived through simple math. what are the odds of mine "A" caving in, and collapsing? gold mine "B" also has odds of also caving in and collapsing. ask the bookie, and he has different odds, for the exact same thing happening in either gold mine. and he profits, for the entire recorded history of baseball. the dinosaur still thrives today in baseball, disguised as a bookie.

there must be something in the main-stay numbers used by bookies, forever. future events can pay-out, only if u can successfully beat the odds. many scenes have been played-out in this thread, illustrating where defensive metrics fail as an equation of simplicity, in both weights and measures of numbers.

u show ignorance of the earned run average. the defensive calculations of the earned run average, by the general rule that what happens AFTER what would have been the third out, is not applied to the amount of runs that are normally credited to the pitcher. it is why cy young is second to ruth in total WAR, but does not define the 10% that seperates two distinct entities, both ruth and young.

mr. bad_luck maybe man does just that. his WAR numbers give credit to rickey henderson, and doubles, and stolen bases AFTER the third out should have been made. mvp credits. hall of fame credits. get real, and weigh those numbers properly. measure them according to existing mathematical rules. the defensive metric touted as neccessary for every baseball event must somehow be present in all future decisions, is simply folly, from a vain foolish person.

are your numbers for sale or not? and how much does it cost me so that u can prove those numbers as accurate in translating baseball, and valuable as far as money goes? or, can u explore other ways to evaluate baseball, as a fielder, runner, batter, or pitcher?
9/6/2013 7:22 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 9/6/2013 3:48:00 PM (view original):
I don't think so. Maddux would get extra credit for ranging so far. It would be a non play for the LF.
So UZR is misleading for Luzinski.  Or, UZR is misleading for some players.
9/6/2013 8:00 PM
UZR isnt perfect and there are always outliers. But if his range was really that bad, he'd have a hard time getting to anything other than a routine fly ball. That would be reflected in his UZR.
9/6/2013 9:58 PM
Sounds like UZR is your new "flavor of the week" in terms of the advanced metric "God" stat.

"UZR, ************!!!"

Can't wait to see what next week will bring.
9/6/2013 10:58 PM
Just glancing... That's all the time eye have 4 this... Follow ???...

Yesterday, there were 7 categories for ALL of the WAR numbers;
we are officially up to 9 categories, again, as follows, Mr. MTrout
now has an 11.1% chance of handling any ball in play, as listed;

A) ...GREAT
B) ...good
C) ...above average
D) ...average
E) ...below average
F) ...would have a hard time
G) ...iffy
.I ) ...stinky

9 of 'em... Count 'em... An 11.1% chance that such will be THE
CASE, in the play-by-play dept, of the bad_luck announcer guy.

Nice... Short-cut City Limits... Stay awhile?... NO THANX... No...
9/6/2013 11:02 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 9/6/2013 10:58:00 PM (view original):
Sounds like UZR is your new "flavor of the week" in terms of the advanced metric "God" stat.

"UZR, ************!!!"

Can't wait to see what next week will bring.
When it comes to evaluating defense with a stat, UZR is pretty much everyone's flavor of the week.
9/7/2013 1:30 PM
If everybody thought that defense could be evaluated by jumping off a cliff, would you also jump off a cliff?
9/7/2013 9:11 PM
◂ Prev 1...17|18|19|20|21...23 Next ▸
Defensive Metrics Topic