Old school stats vs. new school stats

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

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to georom4's comment:

    UZR <flush>


    Geo - It would be very interesting and lend you credibility if you were to write a few succinct sentences defining what UZR is, then a few more explaining why you don't think it has any value and what you use to evaluate the range of players, particularly those you rarely/never see play.

     

    Are you willing to do that, or are you sticking with "<flush>"?

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

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    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?

     

     

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

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    While Jeter''s defensive proficiency is certainly a topic for debate...

    Actually, I think it is beyond debate, but I know many feel otherwise, including the insane GG voters.

     



    It appears it's debateable whether it's a debate. While I agree his 5th GG was not deserved, (i.e, a sure handed SS with intangibles and postage stamp range does not merit a GG) the guys who vote on this likely see him day in day out far more than you do. However, as in life, reputations, good or bad, create a lag which adversely impacts proper assessment when things change.  

     



    I probably saw Jeter play more than some of the GG voters.

    The numbers don't lie either. They back up my observations.

    Since 2003, his UZR/150 has been:

    03  -6.0

    04  -0.7   GG   Joke

    05 -13.4  GG   Bigger Joke

    06  -7.7   GG   Joke

    07 -17.9

    08  -0.4

    09  +8.0  GG  Still a Joke

    10  -5.4   GG  Big Joke

    11  -8.8

    12  -16.4

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

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    While Jeter''s defensive proficiency is certainly a topic for debate...

    Actually, I think it is beyond debate, but I know many feel otherwise, including the insane GG voters.

     



    It appears it's debateable whether it's a debate. While I agree his 5th GG was not deserved, (i.e, a sure handed SS with intangibles and postage stamp range does not merit a GG) the guys who vote on this likely see him day in day out far more than you do. However, as in life, reputations, good or bad, create a lag which adversely impacts proper assessment when things change.  

     

     



    I probably saw Jeter play more than some of the GG voters.

     

    The numbers don't lie either. They back up my observations.

    Since 2003, his UZR/150 has been:

    03  -6.0

    04  -0.7   GG   Joke

    05 -13.4  GG   Bigger Joke

    06  -7.7   GG   Joke

    07 -17.9

    08  -0.4

    09  +8.0  GG  Still a Joke

    10  -5.4   GG  Big Joke

    11  -8.8

    12  -16.4

     



    Except I think UZR is a joke. One could also claim using one suspect defensive metric to draw global conclusions would fall under the category of cherry picking. As far as you seeing him more than some of the voters, while I believe you (based on what I know about you); you must watch alot of games. And I'm pretty sure most weren't in person, unless you're a scout.

     

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

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    While Jeter''s defensive proficiency is certainly a topic for debate...

    Actually, I think it is beyond debate, but I know many feel otherwise, including the insane GG voters.

     



    It appears it's debateable whether it's a debate. While I agree his 5th GG was not deserved, (i.e, a sure handed SS with intangibles and postage stamp range does not merit a GG) the guys who vote on this likely see him day in day out far more than you do. However, as in life, reputations, good or bad, create a lag which adversely impacts proper assessment when things change.  

     

     



    I probably saw Jeter play more than some of the GG voters.

     

    The numbers don't lie either. They back up my observations.

    Since 2003, his UZR/150 has been:

    03  -6.0

    04  -0.7   GG   Joke

    05 -13.4  GG   Bigger Joke

    06  -7.7   GG   Joke

    07 -17.9

    08  -0.4

    09  +8.0  GG  Still a Joke

    10  -5.4   GG  Big Joke

    11  -8.8

    12  -16.4

     



    Except I think UZR is a joke. As far as you seeing him more than some of the voters, while I believe you (based on what I know about you); you must watch alot of games. And I'm pretty sure most weren't in person, unless you're a scout.

     



    How many live games do you think the GG voters see of each and every SS in MLB over a season?

    UZR/150 is not a joke. It is based on actual observations of each and every play by each and every player over a full season.

    RF/9 does not lie.

    Other stats do not lie.

    Jeter is a statue out there and has been for 10 years.

     

    It's not some Yankee hating position I have, as I have given many a Yankee his due props. Jeter is a great offensive player who plays in the media center of the world. He gets all the hype. He gets the home field calls on errors. He has about the worst range I have ever seen in a SS. I've seen dozens of Yankee games live and many many more on TV, and yes, you can determine poor or great range from watching TV.

    Jeter has been horrible in the field, but because he makes the plays hit right at him and a few highlight reel nice plays, he gets the votes based on his offense, his WS rings, and his expansive exposure.

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

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    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?

     

     



    ...thus spoke Zaranotin ...

     
  7. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    While Jeter''s defensive proficiency is certainly a topic for debate...

    Actually, I think it is beyond debate, but I know many feel otherwise, including the insane GG voters.

     



    It appears it's debateable whether it's a debate. While I agree his 5th GG was not deserved, (i.e, a sure handed SS with intangibles and postage stamp range does not merit a GG) the guys who vote on this likely see him day in day out far more than you do. However, as in life, reputations, good or bad, create a lag which adversely impacts proper assessment when things change.  

     

     



    I probably saw Jeter play more than some of the GG voters.

     

    The numbers don't lie either. They back up my observations.

    Since 2003, his UZR/150 has been:

    03  -6.0

    04  -0.7   GG   Joke

    05 -13.4  GG   Bigger Joke

    06  -7.7   GG   Joke

    07 -17.9

    08  -0.4

    09  +8.0  GG  Still a Joke

    10  -5.4   GG  Big Joke

    11  -8.8

    12  -16.4

     



    Except I think UZR is a joke. As far as you seeing him more than some of the voters, while I believe you (based on what I know about you); you must watch alot of games. And I'm pretty sure most weren't in person, unless you're a scout.

     

     



    How many live games do you think the GG voters see of each and every SS in MLB over a season?

     

    UZR/150 is not a joke. It is based on actual observations of each and every play by each and every player over a full season.

    RF/9 does not lie.

    Other stats do not lie.

    Jeter is a statue out there and has been for 10 years.

     

    It's not some Yankee hating position I have, as I have given many a Yankee his due props. Jeter is a great offensive player who plays in the media center of the world. He gets all the hype. He gets the home field calls on errors. He has about the worst range I have ever seen in a SS. I've seen dozens of Yankee games live and many many more on TV, and yes, you can determine poor or great range from watching TV.

    Jeter has been horrible in the field, but because he makes the plays hit right at him and a few highlight reel nice plays, he gets the votes based on his offense, his WS rings, and his expansive exposure.



    The GG voters from what I understand are coaches & managers. There is also a cogent difference between 2 dimensional narrow view TV (although HD has helped) and live. As far as "home" town calls, we're probably talking a couple a season, and this is not restricted to him. Also, while I in general I partly agree with you, I'm also going to have to agree that we partly disagree, metrics, Jeter, and so on. To each his own. 

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    I haven't read all the posts yet, but I just wanted to weigh in with a thought or two.

    Regardless of whether or not they're old school or new school, any one stat is useless unless they're used in context with other stats.

    For example, OPS is a great stat, but if the batter has a low BA w/RISP -- Drew a couple of years ago -- then in my opinion that great OPS loses some luster. If a hitter has 40 HRs, that looks great, but if he's batting .210 with 70 RBIs and a .280 OBP in 600 PA, then those 40 HRs aren't so great.

    ERA is a great stat and a lousy stat. A low ERA tells a lot about a pitcher. It's hard to distort a bad (or even mediocre) ERA with two or three great starts. Yeah, those great starts will help but only two a point. On the other hand, two or three really horrible stats can easily distort an otherwise great ERA. Look at Lester and Beckett last year. I forget the exact numbers, but Beckett and Lester each had ERAs in the mid- to high 4.00s (maybe even low) after 13 starts for Beckett and 15 (maybe 17 starts) for Lester. But if you took away their two worst starts, Beckett's ERA was around 2.50 and Lester's 3.50 -- something like that. (WHIP is the same way).

    So no matter what stats you are looking at, you need to look at more than one stat and you have too look deep into individual stats to see what's going on.

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

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to georom4's comment:

    UZR <flush>



    You might think a history teacher would knoe that people resistant to new ways of thinking frequently become obsolete as fast as the opinions they defend...

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

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    what roy said

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

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to mef429's comment:

    thanks for the info Kimmi. BTW, can you post a link to that article?




    Here's the link to the chat:

    http://sonsofsamhorn.net/topic/46840-chat-with-john-dewan/

    The particular quotes I posted came from reply #27 and reply #36.

    Here's a link to FAQ on The Fielding Bible regarding the Plus/Minus system.  Towards the bottom there are some questions regarding the scouts who score these plays.

    http://www.fieldingbible.com/Fielding-Bible-FAQ.asp

    Here is a link to The Fielding Bible that explains BIS data collection, the data that is used for UZR and Plus/Minus rankings.

     

     

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

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    Oops, forgot the last link:

    http://www.fieldingbible.com/methodology-bisdatacollection.asp

     

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

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    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.  

     

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

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to LR3683paw's comment:

    Read it all Kimmi, it just details for you how advanced they have become. I'm sure that many of the best franchises are on top of this and hire the best professionals to implement it. So much goes on that the average fan is not aware of. Of course the best analysis through data, models, software, all go down the drain is a team is saddled with injuries and underperformance.



    It's amazing what these guys can do with the technology that they have.  They have stats on everything, and they have become very advanced at accounting for so many of the different variables that go into every play.  UZR is a lot less subjective and random than fielding % is.  Personally, I love this stuff.

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to moonslav59'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?

     

     

     



    ...thus spoke Zaranotin ...

     



    Before or after the breakdown?

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

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to pinstripezac's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to pinstripezac's comment:

     

    so moon

    did you just debunk the theory

    about how important defense  up the middle is

     



    No. Where did I come close to doing that?

     

    To me, range at SS is one of the most undervalued aspects of many fan's view on what wins baseball games. I have consistently held and defended that view with numbers and observations.

     




    really moon

    U or notin have no idea where I'm coming from ?

     



    I hope it's not "if Jeter is the worst SS, how have the Yanks won with him as their SS if SS is so important argument."

    Baseball is a team sport, and maybe the one ring the Yanks won the last decade was due to having 7 guys with 22 or more HRs and the other 2 with 31 combined.

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from georom4. Show georom4's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    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

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to georom4's comment:

    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

     




    +1

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

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to notin's comment:

    In response to georom4's comment:

     

    UZR <flush>

     



    You might think a history teacher would knoe that people resistant to new ways of thinking frequently become obsolete as fast as the opinions they defend...

     



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

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to georom4's comment:

    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

     



    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.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to pinstripezac's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     



    I hope it's not "if Jeter is the worst SS, how have the Yanks won with him as their SS if SS is so important argument."

    U bet it is

    I can buy 1 or the other moon

    just having a hard time buying both

    my original Q was

    '' did you just debunk the theory''

    surely you can admit that

    you shot a few holes in it



    Baseball is a team sport, and maybe the one ring the Yanks won the last decade was due to having 7 guys with 22 or more HRs and the other 2 with 31 combined.



    how many SS have more than 1 ring this decade

    we'll just pretend he didn't win any others

    is there 1 SS with more wins this decade

     

    no problem with the he has worse range stuff

    but not buying  the worse defensively stuff




    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.

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

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    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!

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share