Im going to stick with <flush>

the first thing i learned in statistics class is that if you cant control all factors that influence the said activity, then your measurement  is not valid...

is the wind being measured? the sunny field? the wet, heavy air? the velocity of the ball hit? are all ballparks the same size? do all players have the same reflexes (wouldnt that make as much sense as tracking their positioning?)  the variables are endless which makes UZR moot...

Remember, this is the stat that said Cameron was a better center fielder than Elllsbury...why would anyone even consider this stat useful?

Using your eyes is a much more accurate way of judging a fielder....your brain is the greatest computer ever created and it is quite capable of judging a ball player defensivily

 

In response to georom4's comment:

+1

But Jeter is, in some ways, awful. And these measures, albeit flawed, have reflected that.

In response to notin's comment:

And, sometimes, the reverse is true. History is rife with examples.

This post has been removed.

In response to georom4's comment:

For the most part, I agree with you. I don't trust defensive stats. However, if you're going to do that, you need a large sample so one or two bad days or one or two great days don't distort your analysis.

And to be fair to Cameron -- Cameron at his best (before coming to the Sox) was a better defensive center fielder than Ellsbury. This isn't a knock on Ellsbury as much as it it a statement on how good Cameron once was.

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

In response to pinstripezac's comment:

1) I have never said it is impossible to win without a great fielding SS. I do think we have a better chance at winning with a .220 Iggy rather than a .280 hobbled Drew.

2) My philosophy is that a great ranged SS goes a long way to helping a team win, but of course no one player, let alone one portion of a players total package is the difference maker.

3) The fact that the Yankess one one WS in the decade of jeter's statue like defense does not shoot any holes in my philosophy or position.

4) Range is way more important at the SS position than making 5-10 less errors than most other SSs (and even the amount of his errors are in question due to the Yankee score-keeper giving their hero free passes for years and years).

5) Is counting rings for the decade's SSs  your stat of choice for judging a SS's defense now? I hope not. Jeter's bat helped difuse some of his poor range. Jeter making the sure plays helped difuse a tiny bit too. The rest of that 2009 Yankee team's offense was so awesome, they covered up a lot of weaknesses beyong just SS defense. No one thing wins or loses rings and never has. Anytime anyone says otherwise, an example can be found to show nothing in baseball is absolute. I have never tried to say SS play wins rings and poor SS range makes it impossible to win rings. It's a foolish argument from any angle.

 

Great fielding SSs can make 80-120 more plays a year than the worst (like Jeter). The fact that Jeter makes the plays hit right to him does not even come close to making up for even a small fraction of his plays he misses due to his statue-like qualities.

 

He is easily one of the worst 3 defensive SSs over the last decade. I think he is the worst, but would not argue with you if you said he was 3rd worst, and I'm talking about FT SSs who qualify by innings played at SS over the last decade. There may be a few worse ones who played a few innings here and there.

the first thing i learned in statistics class is that if you cant control all factors that influence the said activity, then your measurement  is not valid...

No baseball stat or metric is totally valid. Nobody is arguing any are. That does not mean they have no significance at all. Correlations have been identified between certain stats and runs scored or allowed or not. Runs scored and allowed are clearly related to improving the chances of winning or not. Winning more games certainly improives your odds of winning a ring.

Stats do not win games. Nobody here is claiming they do. This is a thread about what stats better reflect a player's true skill level... the old traditional ones or the newer ones. The game is still played on the field.

is the wind being measured? the sunny field? the wet, heavy air? the velocity of the ball hit? are all ballparks the same size? do all players have the same reflexes (wouldnt that make as much sense as tracking their positioning?)  the variables are endless which makes UZR moot...

Just because a stat is flawed does make it meaningless.

Remember, this is the stat that said Cameron was a better center fielder than Elllsbury...why would anyone even consider this stat useful?

You find one example and that throws out any possible validity of UZR? Did they teach you that is stats class? Besides, UZR did not "say" anything about Cam vs Ells. Theo & Tito did. Past UZR is not a predictor of future UZR, especially at the age differences between Cam and Ells.

Using your eyes is a much more accurate way of judging a fielder....your brain is the greatest computer ever created and it is quite capable of judging a ball player defensivily.

So, do you watch every play every player has made or not made over a season? How can simple observation ever tell you that a player is the best, worst of average by just watching a tiny fraction of all the plays made over a season?

It's like saying that because in the game I watched Verlander pitch this year, he got lit up, I can't trust any stats I read that show he had a great year, because my great computer of a brain beats out any stats or metric effected by the sun, moon, and stars. Verlander stunk last year, because I saw it with my own two eyes.

Give me a break!

This post has been removed.

In response to nhsteven's comment:

So you have seen him fail to make players others would have, and seen the opposite, which would be failing to make plays others would not have?

 

I rest my case....

In response to royf19's comment:

Don't quite understand taking away their two worst starts, or figuring, for example,

Beckett's ERA taking away his first innings.  The bad starts, the bad innings, count.

 

 

In response to georom4's comment:

 

Your teacher was horrible if he/she taught you that.  However, to rise to defense, I do not beielve you, and certainly not that it was the first thing you were taught.

 

By the way, the same logic also negates batting average, ERA,, and, well, every statitistic in baseball.  After all, doesn't the wind, and the position of the fielder, and the reflexes have effect there too?  What factors are controlled by batting average?

 

The reflexes one was funny, by the way.  Really?  You are going to use that?  Hey, why not argue that we cannot use these statistics to grade defenders since the defenders are different, too?

 

You, know, I bet somewhere on the web, someone is defending Terry Francona right now.  Are you just going to sit there and let that happen?

In response to notin's comment:

 

In response to nhsteven's comment:

 

In response to notin's comment:

 

In response to nhsteven's comment:

 

 

 

While Jeter''s defensive proficiency is certainly a topic for debate, so are these new fangled defensive metrics.

 

Jeter's defensive proficiency is legendary. 

 

 

And by legendary, I mean mythical.  As in, very few have seen it, and none of them who have are reliable.

 

He should exchange his Gold Gloves and be awarded a Golden Sasquatch instead.

 

 

 

How is THAT for debate?

 

 

 

I have seen Jeter not make plays that most others would have. I've also seen the opposite. He is IMO, a defensive paradox. And, just like me, you're entitled to your opinion.  

 

 

So you have seen him fail to make players others would have, and seen the opposite, which would be failing to make plays others would not have?

 

 

I rest my case....

 

 

I didn't think I'd have to explain, so here I go. To paraphrase for those not challenged intellectually, but via other fandom inspired comedic attributes (or lack thereof):

I've seen him make plays likely nobody would make; the flip play, several in the stands, some miraculous DPs, and he is the best relay man I've ever seen (recall the 1999 PS Series, Yankees vs Red Sox for an example); Pesky could have learned something if he played 60 yrs later. Pedroia is good at this as well, but he doesn't quite have Jeter's relay arm.

This post has been removed.

In response to georom4's comment:

Geo, that makes no sense at all.  What baseball activities have completely controllable variables and therefore are, in your eyes, valid?

• BA? - nope, sun in the batter's eyes
• HR? - nope, wind can carry or hold back a fly ball
• Any pitching activity? - nope, pitcher could have a hangnail

• Any batting activity? - nope, batter could have a hangover

A good statistic should minimise the noise around the measurement of a specific activity.  That's why an individual's runs, RBIs and wins are such poor statistics....they are team activities (other than a home run) and come nowhere near isolating an individual's performance.   

No one is claiming UZR or any statistic is perfect....only "anti-stat" people like you are claiming that "pro-stat" people are making that claim!   It clearly has some validity....just look at the top and bottom of the UZR list posted earlier and compare it to your and most people's observation.  How do you propose to evaluate the range of all MLB SSs when you only watch most of them on television a handful of times over a season?  

 

 

A stat that was used for a few years and then totally discarded was GWIB (game winning RBI's). I'm not sure of the reasoning but when a player was coming to bat that I wasn't totally familiar with it gave me a sense of what even a weak hitter could do in a clutch situation and whether or not the pitcher could or should go after him. Also, whether a manager should be looking to make a pitching change against a hitter with a good GWIB in the late innings. Maybe it proved to be a useless stat but while it was used I enjoyed it.

no problem with the he has worse range stuff

but not buying  the worse defensively stuff

[/QUOTE]

Zac, You are a fair poster IMO, but I think you are missing something on this one.  

Jeter is sure handed, he comes straight in well and he makes plays in the outfield well.  Even with all those positives he has been a terrible liability in the field for a long time because he allows a large amount of hits b/c of his poor range.

The same numbers that show he makes way less plays than he should, show that Cano made more than Pedroia last year.

2012  Range Factor,  Total Chances,  Games:

Ped          4.59              625               139  

Cano       4.82              726               154

Aviles      4.68              591               128

Jeter      3.76               506              135

ESPN DWAR had him as the worst fielding player at SS or 3B in MLB.

In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

i agree with both you and Notin that ANY stat can be incomplete....but the worst of the lot have to be defensive stats - they do not monitor production as batting stats do...im simply saying you are better off taking a holistic view of defense than relying on any metric....there is such a thing as a Triple crown winner - are you really comparing UZR to HRs? RBI's? BA?

Its funny that the argument that UZR proponents use is that errors are not a good stat to guage defense...really?

I came across an article in 2010 about UZR and it was quite funny that Sox players like Youk and Cameron had no idea what theirs were...they didnt even take it seriously....then of course the article jumped the shark by saying this is why cameron has to play centerfield...But it also ended with francona and the theo saying that they have their own ddefensive metrics that they rely on/not uzr (they didnt specify) and that a 7th inning defensive replacement would not be based on uzr...

In response to georom4's comment:

We also agree that defensive stats have not been developed to the same level as offensive and pitching stats......yet.  They probably will never reach the same level of detail and accuracy because as you say there are so many variables plus there are far fewer component parts.  But those are all reasons to be cautious when using them, fully understand them and use them in conjunction with observation....not reasons to categorically reject them.

Since Jeter became the starting SS in 1996 the Yankees have made the playoffs 16 out of 17 years and won about 60% of their games.  So it would seem to indicate that his defence has had very little negative impact on the team.

Here's one: are there any specific games the Yankees lost because of Jeter's poor defence?  If so which ones?

That's one of the challenges of these new stats.  Where are the specific plays that matter?  Without them it's just a mass of abstract numbers.

 

Old school vs new school. Probably some combination of both is the best school. Baseball can be a product of luck as well, a ball hitting the line vs. just missing, a player getting a seeing eye groundball thru the infield in a big spot being called "clutch hitters' the arguements could go on for ever and what makes baseball so fun to talk about. If a guy consistently drives in over a 100 runs year after year don't need anyone to tell me the guy is or isn't a productive run producer. If stats are consisistent they do tell a story regardless of what stat geeks might say are a useless stat. The eye test can be very useful as well, for me doesn't matter if it is the 4th or 9th inning if player consistently [more than others] gets that tieing or go ahead run home for me he is clutch, if another player seems to pad his stats in blow outs or against bad pitchers but consisently fails to get that big run home [Arod] he is not clutch in my book. Remember even some defensive rating are human eye test, would another fielder make that play, but did the judge of this take into account the wind or sun or light towers that might have blocked that players chance to make that play in that given moment? Most of us watch a player play game after game and know he is good defensively or see an opponent come in for 3-4 games and are impressed with a certain players defensive game, thats the eye test. But the numbers don't lie as well.

In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

This post has been removed.

In response to georom4's comment:

 

In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

Since Jeter became the starting SS in 1996 the Yankees have made the playoffs 16 out of 17 years and won about 60% of their games.  So it would seem to indicate that his defence has had very little negative impact on the team.

Here's one: are there any specific games the Yankees lost because of Jeter's poor defence?  If so which ones?

That's one of the challenges of these new stats.  Where are the specific plays that matter?  Without them it's just a mass of abstract numbers.

 

one more reason why i refuse to accept this uzr nonsense...jeter is a champ - the joe D of his generation....sox fans who come on here and say he's the worst shortstop make no sense to me...i cant remember anyone saying "the yanks would win more if jeter didnt play ss"...

 

C'mon guys, not the Loscutoff Argument a.k.a. the Silvera Corollary?  I think Jeter overall is a great player, even a great shortstop, but his defense is sub-standard for a SS....certainly in the latter half of his career to date.  Perhaps being one part of a great team for 17 years had something to do with 16 playoff appearances?