Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats
posted at 1/30/2013 10:39 PM EST
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.