Old school stats vs. new school stats

1. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

In response to devildavid's comment:

Hypothetical question about UZR. Imagine that there is a season when most of the fielders at a particular position have poor range and don't get to many balls in their zone. How does this impact the calculation for what constitutes an average fielder at that position for that season? And does it make the few superior fielders look better?

It's not a comparative stat. Each player is judged on plays in his zone and plays he makes outside his zone.

What a player does on another team has nothing to do with someone else's score.

2. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

In response to moonslav59's comment:

In response to devildavid's comment:

Hypothetical question about UZR. Imagine that there is a season when most of the fielders at a particular position have poor range and don't get to many balls in their zone. How does this impact the calculation for what constitutes an average fielder at that position for that season? And does it make the few superior fielders look better?

It's not a comparative stat. Each player is judged on plays in his zone and plays he makes outside his zone.

What a player does on another team has nothing to do with someone else's score.

That's not the impression I get from this UZR primer on fangraphs. It is a measure against the average fielder for that position for that season.

"As many of you already know, UZR is an advanced defensive metric that uses play-by-play data recorded by Baseball Info Solutions (BIS) to estimate each fielder’s defensive contribution in theoretical runs above or below an average fielder at his position in that player’s league and year. Thus, a SS with a UZR of zero is exactly average as compared to a SS in the same year and in the same league. If his UZR is plus, he is above average, and if it is minus, he is below average."

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-fangraphs-uzr-primer/

3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

In response to devildavid's comment:

In response to moonslav59's comment:

In response to devildavid's comment:

Hypothetical question about UZR. Imagine that there is a season when most of the fielders at a particular position have poor range and don't get to many balls in their zone. How does this impact the calculation for what constitutes an average fielder at that position for that season? And does it make the few superior fielders look better?

It's not a comparative stat. Each player is judged on plays in his zone and plays he makes outside his zone.

What a player does on another team has nothing to do with someone else's score.

That's not the impression I get from this UZR primer on fangraphs. It is a measure against the average fielder for that position for that season.

As I read it, the 'average fielder' data is a 6-year average.

4. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

"Thus, a SS with a UZR of zero is exactly average as compared to a SS in the same year and in the same league. If his UZR is plus, he is above average, and if it is minus, he is below average"

It is a comparative stat. A fielder is compared to the "average fielder" at the same position. That is how they come up with the plays that they "should" have made. It is not the same as measuring batting stats. A batting average is calculated solely by the results of the individual player, not as a comparison to other hitters.

5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

In response to devildavid's comment:

"Thus, a SS with a UZR of zero is exactly average as compared to a SS in the same year and in the same league. If his UZR is plus, he is above average, and if it is minus, he is below average"

It is a comparative stat. A fielder is compared to the "average fielder" at the same position. That is how they come up with the plays that they "should" have made. It is not the same as measuring batting stats. A batting average is calculated solely by the results of the individual player, not as a comparison to other hitters.

Right, but if you read it in detail they explain that the determination of 'average fielder' is based on 6 years of data, so it's going to be a composite value that would not vary much from year to year because there is so much data composing the average.

6. This post has been removed.

7. This post has been removed.

8. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

In response to LR3683paw's comment:

In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

In response to devildavid's comment:

"Thus, a SS with a UZR of zero is exactly average as compared to a SS in the same year and in the same league. If his UZR is plus, he is above average, and if it is minus, he is below average"

It is a comparative stat. A fielder is compared to the "average fielder" at the same position. That is how they come up with the plays that they "should" have made. It is not the same as measuring batting stats. A batting average is calculated solely by the results of the individual player, not as a comparison to other hitters.

Right, but if you read it in detail they explain that the determination of 'average fielder' is based on 6 years of data, so it's going to be a composite value that would not vary much from year to year because there is so much data composing the average.

So Moonslav was wrong?

No, I wasn't really wrong.

It doesn't matter if fielders don't have balls hit in their zone. It's not like RF/9. A fielder is rated only on balls hit in his zone and ones he gets outside his zone.

As for making superior fielders look better because there were many poor ones, I guess technically they may since there will be a big gap between the top ones and the big bunch of poor ones, but the top players' UZR actual specific numbers will hardly be effected at all. I guess the 6 year average may be effected some by the awful season by all but a few positional players, so technically, yes, I was wrong.

Throw a party.

9. This post has been removed.

10. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedSoxKimmi. Show RedSoxKimmi's posts

Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

In response to HelloItsMeAgain1's comment:

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/8900693/call-moderation-use-wins-replacement-stat

Good read.  The author's main point is that, as with any stat, WAR should not be the be all end all stat.  It doesn't mean it's not useful though.

11. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedSoxKimmi. Show RedSoxKimmi's posts

Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

Here's a good read on UZR, from the one and only Joe Posnanski:

http://wgntv.com/2013/01/17/stats-sunday-uzr-and-defensive-metrics/

12. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

My point is that if you are going to use one stat or metric to judge a player's defense, one of the worst to use is Flg%.

UZR/150 over a large enough sample size is probably one of the best single numbers to compare player's defense.

If you like personal observation (which UZR/150 actually uses), I'd trust the Fielding Bible over GG votes.

13. You have chosen to ignore posts from tom-uk. Show tom-uk's posts

Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

Brian Cashman: The thought process incorporates communication and information as the most important aspects. The more accurate information that you can obtain and dissect, the better informed you’ll be to make safe bets, safe investments. My investments are into players. As an industry, we have seen a radical change. “Moneyball” is a term that people repeat too often—the movie and the book—but essentially we have gotten to the point with technology that we can measure everything that takes place on the field. We’ve hired some really smart people to educate us on what statistics are more meaningful than others. This allows you to make safer bets and manage the risk in a much smarter way than I think the old-school regimes used to do.

IU: So you have essentially an analytic process, right?

Cashman: Big time. I’ve been with the team here about 15 years now, and going on my 16thyear, and I have changed over time as a department head. One of the changes I’ve made is to take the Yankees into the 21st century. When you see things in the industry improve and change, you’ve got to keep up with the challenges. We have created a quantitative analysis department and hired a director of quantitative analysis. That department has grown to some 14 people who manage a number of different information streams. Not only do they pool that information, but then it is dissected and produced in a meaningful way about what is truly taking place on the field in present performance and then future predictable performance. That has certainly allowed us to make safer, more informed decisions.

You’ll never be perfect or right all the time, but I think I’m in a much better position to make decisions and be comfortable with those decisions if they are educated-based.

http://www.indexuniverse.com/sections/features/15847-yankees-gm-quant-analysis-key-to-winning.html?fullart=1&start=4

14. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

You can be pretty sure one stat way down on the list of consideration is Flg%.