Some of the new stats are kind of redundant. If a shortstop has a lot of assists, he probably has good range. Either that or he knows how to position himself for the situation. Some outfielders never seem to change position from batter to batter, while others move around according to the situation . A pitcher's won/loss record in conjunction with his ERA is more telling than a stat like WHIP , which ignores extra base hits, as well as a pitcher's ability to pitch out of a jam.  All in all the new stats are okay , but you really can evaluate a player from the old stats. That and watching the games. I think to some fans , fantasy baseball has replaced actual baseball.

In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

In response to pinstripezac's comment:

I'm suggesting pitching today for a team

with a good offense hurts a pitchers era

I'm under the impression in the old days

the starters stayed in the game much longer

no matter what the score was

today a tired pitcher with a lot of runs to work with

will stay in the game and be allowed to give up a few more

while the pitcher with no lead to work with

will be pulled B4 he gives up the few more runs

even today how  fair is it  to compare a starters era

with a great  BP vs  one with a bad BP

All good points zac.  A starter's ERA can be greatly impacted by how his innings are managed and the bullpen behind him.

ERA is relevant when compared to the norm as means to reach a conclusion...Although there're are many factors that have to be weighed...the park being the chief among them...and the weighted difference in pitching to NL vs. AL lineups. As a historical measure the size of the parks today vs days gone by are a factor that can't be dismissed...

My greatest issue with ERA is that it is based on 9 innings...Back in the old days when pitchers were expected to go nine. ERA was in fact a great measure for expected results...if A guy had a 4.5 ERA back in 1970 it 's a good bet that your team would score at least four...Today if a starter has 4.5 ERA it means your team s likely to score 3 heading into the 7th. 

For bullpen guys I'd prefer they used the runs allow per appearance. ERA for relievers is perhaps the single least relevant stat...

In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

For the average fan I think one of the issues with UZR stats is the evidence factor.  If a fielder is charged with an error, it's easy to track down and watch the specific play he made the error on.  But if there's a ball he didn't get to that he should have, it's much harder to find the evidence.

One problem I have with UZR is there is no way to know if the two defenders would have been positioned the same for that particular play.

It is like when a star player goes down, and people blame the loss on having the back up in.

Even is the star player is a .325 hitter, there's no way to tell if he would have gotten a hit when the back up didn't.

The player with the better UZR may have been leaning the other way on a certain play, might have been positioned differently due to the capabilities of players around him, etc.

Too many variables.

In response to dgalehouse's comment:

Some of the new stats are kind of redundant. If a shortstop has a lot of assists, he probably has good range. Either that or he knows how to position himself for the situation. Some outfielders never seem to change position from batter to batter, while others move around according to the situation . A pitcher's won/loss record in conjunction with his ERA is more telling than a stat like WHIP , which ignores extra base hits, as well as a pitcher's ability to pitch out of a jam.  All in all the new stats are okay , but you really can evaluate a player from the old stats. That and watching the games. I think to some fans , fantasy baseball has replaced actual baseball.

Not necessarily true.

He could get a lot of assists because the pitching staff gives ua lot of ground balls.

Much like with RBI, it can be about opportunity.

Not to mention,  a SS playing on turf would probably have fewer assists than an equivalent counterpart playing on grass.   Does that make the grass SS a better defender?

In response to HelloItsMeAgain1's comment:

In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

For the average fan I think one of the issues with UZR stats is the evidence factor.  If a fielder is charged with an error, it's easy to track down and watch the specific play he made the error on.  But if there's a ball he didn't get to that he should have, it's much harder to find the evidence.

One problem I have with UZR is there is no way to know if the two defenders would have been positioned the same for that particular play.

It is like when a star player goes down, and people blame the loss on having the back up in.

Even is the star player is a .325 hitter, there's no way to tell if he would have gotten a hit when the back up didn't.

The player with the better UZR may have been leaning the other way on a certain play, might have been positioned differently due to the capabilities of players around him, etc.

Too many variables.

Don't quote me on this, but i am farily certain that UZR not only takes into account the positioning of a player but also the distance traveled to make the play

In response to mef429's comment:

In response to HelloItsMeAgain1's comment:

In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

For the average fan I think one of the issues with UZR stats is the evidence factor.  If a fielder is charged with an error, it's easy to track down and watch the specific play he made the error on.  But if there's a ball he didn't get to that he should have, it's much harder to find the evidence.

One problem I have with UZR is there is no way to know if the two defenders would have been positioned the same for that particular play.

It is like when a star player goes down, and people blame the loss on having the back up in.

Even is the star player is a .325 hitter, there's no way to tell if he would have gotten a hit when the back up didn't.

The player with the better UZR may have been leaning the other way on a certain play, might have been positioned differently due to the capabilities of players around him, etc.

Too many variables.

Don't quote me on this, but i am farily certain that UZR not only takes into account the positioning of a player but also the distance traveled to make the play

I believe it does not. I think each position defnds an overlaid zone, and the player is credited for all plays in zone, penalized for every in zone play with no play made. And awarded bonuz for plays outside the zone.

The lack of accomodation for playeposition is a criticism I have heard about using UZR for outfielders...si

so moon

did you just debunk the theory

about how important defense  up the middle is

For the average fan I think one of the issues with UZR stats is the evidence factor.  If a fielder is charged with an error, it's easy to track down and watch the specific play he made the error on.  But if there's a ball he didn't get to that he should have, it's much harder to find the evidence.

One thing that suggested to me that UZR ratings had merit was watching the Red Sox in 2009 for a stretch when they had what might have been the least mobile left side of the infield in history.  Lowell was at third and Lugo at short, and both of them had injuries that affected their lateral movement.  I remember some balls getting by Lowell and him showing his frustration because it was usually a play he should have made.

FanGraphs UZR/150 for Lugo for 2009 was -50.4 and for Lowell it was -14.4.  

Great thread.  Like OBP and WHIP and still like BA as telling measures, but don't care for UZR much as a measure or WAR, dubious concerning the value of those two.  Excuse my ignorance, but would appreciate an explanation of RF/9.  Anyone?

In response to notin's comment:

I believe it does not. I think each position defnds an overlaid zone, and the player is credited for all plays in zone, penalized for every in zone play with no play made. And awarded bonuz for plays outside the zone.

The lack of accomodation for playeposition is a criticism I have heard about using UZR for outfielders...si

That's what I thought.

Let's say we have an outfield where the left fielder is considered average and the right fielder is horrible.

The centerfielder is going to shade a touch towards RF (also depends on L/R hitter, pitchers, etc) so if he doesn't get to a ball hit on the LF side of his zone, he will then be penalized.

Same could be said with a SS that has a 3B with limited range, he will shade towards the hole thus allowing more balls up the middle.

Too many variables. I'm not saying it's horrible, but it needs to be viewed in conjunction with other tools we have at our disposal.

In response to notin's comment:

I believe it does not. I think each position defnds an overlaid zone, and the player is credited for all plays in zone, penalized for every in zone play with no play made. And awarded bonuz for plays outside the zone.

The lack of accomodation for playeposition is a criticism I have heard about using UZR for outfielders...si

That's what I thought.

Let's say we have an outfield where the left fielder is considered average and the right fielder is horrible.

The centerfielder is going to shade a touch towards RF (also depends on L/R hitter, pitchers, etc) so if he doesn't get to a ball hit on the LF side of his zone, he will then be penalized.

Same could be said with a SS that has a 3B with limited range, he will shade towards the hole thus allowing more balls up the middle.

Too many variables. I'm not saying it's horrible, but it needs to be viewed in conjunction with other tools we have at our disposal.

the best stat is this one....wins. never fails if you don't have enough, you suck, if you have 95 or more, you got a good shot of making the playoffs.

In response to soxnewmex's comment:

Great thread.  Like OBP and WHIP and still like BA as telling measures, but don't care for UZR much as a measure or WAR, dubious concerning the value of those two.  Excuse my ignorance, but would appreciate an explanation of RF/9.  Anyone?

It is simple: PO + A/inn x 9.

It is how many plays a fielder makes per 9 innings.

It is flawed due to several factors (some SSs play on teams where they get more of less chances due to the staff's K and Fb rates, or grass vs turf surfaces, a 3Bman who has great range, etc...). However, it is still one useful tool to use as part of an overall evaluation.

UZR/150 takes out some of those factors, since it only judges on the plays made and not made in the zone, and does not penalize a SS for having less balls hit to him.

Great post.

Being a stats nut I love both the old and new numbers, but honestly there is now and has always been only one stat that matters - WINS.  All old and new stats are essentially independent of the game situation.  How many times have the Sox crushed a team one game then lost 2 close ones.  The individual stats look great, but the series is lost.