The 2013 Sox and OPS

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

    Re: The 2013 Sox and OPS

    In response to mef429's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    Looking at OPS+, here were the leaders in 2012 (baseball ref)

    1) Posey 172

    2) Trout  171

    3) Miggy 165

    4) McCutch 164

    5) Braun 159

    6) Fielder 152

    7) Encarnacion 152

    8) Cano 149

    9) Willingham 144

    10) Headley 144

     


    This list really shows some up and comers.

    Those who wanted Willingham last winter appear to have been on the right track.

     




    cartainly expected Braun to fall off last season too. I was certain we was guilty and was waiting for his numbers to drop dramaticallly. Then again, who knows how long it takes before your body reverts and the effects wear off. We could see it this season perhaps.

     



    Maybe, but it's hard to know for sure.

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

    Re: The 2013 Sox and OPS

    In response to mef429's comment:

     

    Looking at OPS+, here were the leaders in 2012 (baseball ref)

    1) Posey 172

    2) Trout  171

    3) Miggy 165

    4) McCutch 164

    5) Braun 159

    6) Fielder 152

    7) Encarnacion 152

    8) Cano 149

    9) Willingham 144

    10) Headley 144

     
    cartainly expected Braun to fall off last season too. I was certain we was guilty and was waiting for his numbers to drop dramaticallly. Then again, who knows how long it takes before your body reverts and the effects wear off. We could see it this season perhaps.




    It's impossible to know due to the number of variables.  Maybe he was innocent?  Maybe in 2011 he had an off-year skill-wise augmented by PEDs?  Maybe he did use PEDs in 2011, didn't in 2012 but was extra motivated?  Pitched differently?  Etc.  I don't think it's worth speculating on because nothing can ever be proven.

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

    Re: The 2013 Sox and OPS

    Maybe he found a new drug.

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

    Re: The 2013 Sox and OPS

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    A shortstop making plays that others cannot is speculation. Which others are we talking about ?

    You said you watched the games and can tell who is good and who is not. Isn't prt of that watching a guy like Iggy cover twice s as much ground as Scoo, Aviles, or Lowrie did? It's painfully obvious who gets to more balls than others... be obserrvation or by the numbers and metrics.

     I agree that a guy who can make the great play is worth a few more errors. The only way you can know that is by watching the games. However , an error is a reality.

    No, actually, they are not. They are highly subjective calls made by subjective scorekeepers that often reward the home team. There are also flaws in the way traditional errors are called. An OF'er who runs hard and gets to the ball, but drops it is charged with an error. On Of'er who gets a late break or misjudges a ball, but does not touch it, is often given a break.

    It's not reality. Error calls are little different from the guy making judgements on the data for UZR.

    A reality that can cost you the game. Many are throwing errors that result in extra bases , and have nothing to do with range.

    Yes, I mentioned throwing errors and how they can effect more than just allowing a guy to 1B.

    When a guy like Miggy wins the triple crown ( batting average , home runs and rbis) ,  you can be pretty sure that he will be right up there in OPS and WAR. Basically , I am trying to make two points. 1 -  The old , standard stats tell you what you need to know.  2 -  There is nothing like watching the games objectively , with an open mind , and forming your opinions based on what you see. If you prefer the newer metrics , fine , but most of it is redundant and a waste of time. 

    Like I said, I do watch the games. I do make my determinations on Sox players based on my eyes, but when the numbers disagree with what I am seeing, I look closer. Usually, I realize I have been mistaken and the numbers don't lie. Sometimes, however, I disagree with some numbers or metrics.

    My point is that you seem fine using outdated and seriusly flawed numbers like Fielding% to support your position, but criticize others for using RF/9 and UZR to support our positions, maybe because you don't fully understand them, or maybe because you don't realize that UZR is based on observations- the same as errors.

     




    There may be a few controversial calls , but most errors are obvious. Some mysterious guy sitting somewhere and computing UZR is not so obvious. I could give my top ten list that would be just as valid as that WAR list.  Like I said , I have no idea how WAR is calculated.  I don't really have a problem with Range Factor , since it is based on real stats ( putouts and assists ) as opposed to some UZR guys opinion. I don't really have a problem with OPS , except that we have always had On Base Percentage and Slugging Percentage , so OPS is nothing more than that.

     

     




     

     

    The arguments you make against UZR are actually pretty good arguments for it.

     

    UZR was designed for infielders, and really, works better for them than outfielders, where it has no ability to compensate for flyball height, etc. It involves laying out the entire ballpark into two dimensional zones, and giving credit for each play made within the zone, more credit to pays made outside of the zone, and assigning demerited values for plays in the zone not made, whether they are errors or hits (not sure if both are demerited equally). With groundballs, speed of the grounder is a little less important, as the fielder still has the ticking clock to get the play made. He has about 4 seconds before the batter reaches first, so this compensates for weak grounders against hard hit ones, etc. With flyballs, there is no compensation for a line drive landing in zone as opposed to a popup, and the assumption is everything equals out in volume. It doesn’t.

     

    So, particularly for infielders, UZR basically allows for a nice comparison for infielders without watching every single player make every single play. That is being done for you by some objective third party.

     

    Simply using putout or assists has definite flaws, too. These are the only factors in the Range Factor ratings, but the real issue is that they become heavily dependent on pitching staff and ballpark (re: infield surface for infielders). If a shortstop was on a team with that had a rotation of Derek Lowe, Rick Porcello, Aaron Cook and Charlie Morton, he would undoubtedly get a TON of chances and might even get some 700 assists, especially if they are on a grass infield. But does this make him a more capable fielder? It does make him a more relied upon fielder, but that is not the same.

     

    Errors on their own are indeed flawed. Proponents of errors operate on the assumption that errors are always obvious, and while most are, they others still represent a small sample of fielding. League leaders only have maybe 30 per year (2012 leader – Starlin Castro with 27), so if 3 or 4 are subjective, and usually more than that are, it drastically skews the sample. At this point, errors fall into the category of “some guy’s opinion.” If you are a proponent watching games to evaluate defense, it seems odd to accept the scorer’s opinion as valid, yet the system that involves watching every play against a standardized zone as not making sense. One observer is using a standard to measure plays against, the other is just making a decision about whether or not a player should have done something.

     

    I know some criticize UZR because it varies from year to year. Well, some players simply have bad defensive seasons, just like they have bad offensive seasons. A player with a bothersome wrist will suffer at the plate. And a player with a sore knee will see his defense hampered, for example These are human beings after all, and they are not subject to maintaining repeat performances annually in any aspect of the game.

     

    But if you like to use FP vs. UZR, last year’s top ten shortstops were as follows:

     

    FP “ 1. Hardy 2. Peralta 3. Ryan 4. Y Escobar 5. Ramirez 6. Jeter 7. Rollins 8. Andrus 9. Cozart 10. Aybar

     

    UZR “ 1. Ryan 2. Barmes 3. Hardy 4. Peralta 5. Andrus 6. Crawford 7. Cozart 8. Ramirez 9. Aviles 10. Desmond.

     

    As UZR is a tabulation that tends to accumulate, and FP is a percentage, playing more often can influence UZR more. In this respect, UZR/150 is preferable, as it pro-rates the tabulation over 150 games. The 2012 Top Ten Shortstops become

     

    UZR/150. 1. Ryan 2. Barmes 3. Peralta 4. Hardy 5. Crawford 6. Andrus 7. Cozart 8. Desmond 9.Aviles 10.Ramirez.

     

    Really, no matter the system the same names are at or near the top of all three lists – Ryan, Hardy, Peralta, with only Barmes standing out in the UZR world. But overall the cream still rises to the top.

     

    If you are a fan of players making great plays, FP has no means of accommodating this – all plays are equal. UZR has OOZ plays, allowing for defensive standouts like Elvis Andrus to get more credit for fielding prowess than statues like Derek Jeter, which FP does not do, and why Jeter placed ahead of Andrus using fielding percentage.

     

    OOZ. 1.Hardy 2.Castro 3.Ryan 4. Andrus 5.Ramirez 6. A Cabrera 7. A Escobar 8.Y Escobar 9. Aviles 10.Furcal.

     

    While players like Castro and Asdrubal Cabrera showed great range and was rewarded for this, they were also penalized for his numerous errors. UZR ranked them 14 and 19 respectively out of 21 qualified shortstops. Derek Jeter is the polar opposite, as his FP ranked 6 overall, but his weak range and inability to make a lot of plays in or out of zone relegated him to a UZR/150 of -16.4, 21 out of 21 qualified shortstops. Jeter only made 10 errors, however. The only qualified shortstops with fewer? Hardy, Ryan and Peralta.

     

    So if you like fielding percentage and errors, you must think Jeter is better defensively than Andrus, I guess…

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

    Re: The 2013 Sox and OPS

    In response to notin's comment:

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    A shortstop making plays that others cannot is speculation. Which others are we talking about ?

    You said you watched the games and can tell who is good and who is not. Isn't prt of that watching a guy like Iggy cover twice s as much ground as Scoo, Aviles, or Lowrie did? It's painfully obvious who gets to more balls than others... be obserrvation or by the numbers and metrics.

     I agree that a guy who can make the great play is worth a few more errors. The only way you can know that is by watching the games. However , an error is a reality.

    No, actually, they are not. They are highly subjective calls made by subjective scorekeepers that often reward the home team. There are also flaws in the way traditional errors are called. An OF'er who runs hard and gets to the ball, but drops it is charged with an error. On Of'er who gets a late break or misjudges a ball, but does not touch it, is often given a break.

    It's not reality. Error calls are little different from the guy making judgements on the data for UZR.

    A reality that can cost you the game. Many are throwing errors that result in extra bases , and have nothing to do with range.

    Yes, I mentioned throwing errors and how they can effect more than just allowing a guy to 1B.

    When a guy like Miggy wins the triple crown ( batting average , home runs and rbis) ,  you can be pretty sure that he will be right up there in OPS and WAR. Basically , I am trying to make two points. 1 -  The old , standard stats tell you what you need to know.  2 -  There is nothing like watching the games objectively , with an open mind , and forming your opinions based on what you see. If you prefer the newer metrics , fine , but most of it is redundant and a waste of time. 

    Like I said, I do watch the games. I do make my determinations on Sox players based on my eyes, but when the numbers disagree with what I am seeing, I look closer. Usually, I realize I have been mistaken and the numbers don't lie. Sometimes, however, I disagree with some numbers or metrics.

    My point is that you seem fine using outdated and seriusly flawed numbers like Fielding% to support your position, but criticize others for using RF/9 and UZR to support our positions, maybe because you don't fully understand them, or maybe because you don't realize that UZR is based on observations- the same as errors.

     




    There may be a few controversial calls , but most errors are obvious. Some mysterious guy sitting somewhere and computing UZR is not so obvious. I could give my top ten list that would be just as valid as that WAR list.  Like I said , I have no idea how WAR is calculated.  I don't really have a problem with Range Factor , since it is based on real stats ( putouts and assists ) as opposed to some UZR guys opinion. I don't really have a problem with OPS , except that we have always had On Base Percentage and Slugging Percentage , so OPS is nothing more than that.

     

     




     

     

    The arguments you make against UZR are actually pretty good arguments for it.

     

    UZR was designed for infielders, and really, works better for them than outfielders, where it has no ability to compensate for flyball height, etc. It involves laying out the entire ballpark into two dimensional zones, and giving credit for each play made within the zone, more credit to pays made outside of the zone, and assigning demerited values for plays in the zone not made, whether they are errors or hits (not sure if both are demerited equally). With groundballs, speed of the grounder is a little less important, as the fielder still has the ticking clock to get the play made. He has about 4 seconds before the batter reaches first, so this compensates for weak grounders against hard hit ones, etc. With flyballs, there is no compensation for a line drive landing in zone as opposed to a popup, and the assumption is everything equals out in volume. It doesn’t.

     

    So, particularly for infielders, UZR basically allows for a nice comparison for infielders without watching every single player make every single play. That is being done for you by some objective third party.

     

    Simply using putout or assists has definite flaws, too. These are the only factors in the Range Factor ratings, but the real issue is that they become heavily dependent on pitching staff and ballpark (re: infield surface for infielders). If a shortstop was on a team with that had a rotation of Derek Lowe, Rick Porcello, Aaron Cook and Charlie Morton, he would undoubtedly get a TON of chances and might even get some 700 assists, especially if they are on a grass infield. But does this make him a more capable fielder? It does make him a more relied upon fielder, but that is not the same.

     

    Errors on their own are indeed flawed. Proponents of errors operate on the assumption that errors are always obvious, and while most are, they others still represent a small sample of fielding. League leaders only have maybe 30 per year (2012 leader – Starlin Castro with 27), so if 3 or 4 are subjective, and usually more than that are, it drastically skews the sample. At this point, errors fall into the category of “some guy’s opinion.” If you are a proponent watching games to evaluate defense, it seems odd to accept the scorer’s opinion as valid, yet the system that involves watching every play against a standardized zone as not making sense. One observer is using a standard to measure plays against, the other is just making a decision about whether or not a player should have done something.

     

    I know some criticize UZR because it varies from year to year. Well, some players simply have bad defensive seasons, just like they have bad offensive seasons. A player with a bothersome wrist will suffer at the plate. And a player with a sore knee will see his defense hampered, for example These are human beings after all, and they are not subject to maintaining repeat performances annually in any aspect of the game.

     

    But if you like to use FP vs. UZR, last year’s top ten shortstops were as follows:

     

    FP – 1. Hardy 2. Peralta 3. Ryan 4. Y Escobar 5. Ramirez 6. Jeter 7. Rollins 8. Andrus 9. Cozart 10. Aybar

     

    UZR – 1. Ryan 2. Barmes 3. Hardy 4. Peralta 5. Andrus 6. Crawford 7. Cozart 8. Ramirez 9. Aviles 10. Desmond.

     

    As UZR is a tabulation that tends to accumulate, and FP is a percentage, playing more often can influence UZR more. In this respect, UZR/150 is preferable, as it pro-rates the tabulation over 150 games. The 2012 Top Ten Shortstops become

     

    UZR/150. 1. Ryan 2. Barmes 3. Peralta 4. Hardy 5. Crawford 6. Andrus 7. Cozart 8. Desmond 9.Aviles 10.Ramirez.

     

    Really, no matter the system the same names are at or near the top of all three lists – Ryan, Hardy, Peralta, with only Barmes standing out in the UZR world. But overall the cream still rises to the top.

     

    If you are a fan of players making great plays, FP has no means of accommodating this – all plays are equal. UZR has OOZ plays, allowing for defensive standouts like Elvis Andrus to get more credit for fielding prowess than statues like Derek Jeter, which FP does not do, and why Jeter placed ahead of Andrus using fielding percentage.

     

    OOZ. 1.Hardy 2.Castro 3.Ryan 4. Andrus 5.Ramirez 6. A Cabrera 7. A Escobar 8.Y Escobar 9. Aviles 10.Furcal.

     

    While players like Castro and Asdrubal Cabrera showed great range and was rewarded for this, they were also penalized for his numerous errors. UZR ranked them 14 and 19 respectively out of 21 qualified shortstops. Derek Jeter is the polar opposite, as his FP ranked 6 overall, but his weak range and inability to make a lot of plays in or out of zone relegated him to a UZR/150 of -16.4, 21 out of 21 qualified shortstops. Jeter only made 10 errors, however. The only qualified shortstops with fewer? Hardy, Ryan and Peralta.

     

    So if you like fielding percentage and errors, you must think Jeter is better defensively than Andrus, I guess…



    Well said, and how many of us have seen some SSs play no more than maybe 2-3 games a year? 

    Another guage by observation is the "Fielding Bible". I trust them more than the GG voting or one fan who might watch 150 Sox games and 20 non-Sox games a year opinion.

    Jeter is the worst fielding SS of the decade. Hands down. Yet, he has won GG awards in that timeframe. His fielding % is usually great. He's the poster child of just how wrong judging a fielder by Flg% is.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Drewski5. Show Drewski5's posts

    Re: The 2013 Sox and OPS

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to notin's comment:

     

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    A shortstop making plays that others cannot is speculation. Which others are we talking about ?

    You said you watched the games and can tell who is good and who is not. Isn't prt of that watching a guy like Iggy cover twice s as much ground as Scoo, Aviles, or Lowrie did? It's painfully obvious who gets to more balls than others... be obserrvation or by the numbers and metrics.

     I agree that a guy who can make the great play is worth a few more errors. The only way you can know that is by watching the games. However , an error is a reality.

    No, actually, they are not. They are highly subjective calls made by subjective scorekeepers that often reward the home team. There are also flaws in the way traditional errors are called. An OF'er who runs hard and gets to the ball, but drops it is charged with an error. On Of'er who gets a late break or misjudges a ball, but does not touch it, is often given a break.

    It's not reality. Error calls are little different from the guy making judgements on the data for UZR.

    A reality that can cost you the game. Many are throwing errors that result in extra bases , and have nothing to do with range.

    Yes, I mentioned throwing errors and how they can effect more than just allowing a guy to 1B.

    When a guy like Miggy wins the triple crown ( batting average , home runs and rbis) ,  you can be pretty sure that he will be right up there in OPS and WAR. Basically , I am trying to make two points. 1 -  The old , standard stats tell you what you need to know.  2 -  There is nothing like watching the games objectively , with an open mind , and forming your opinions based on what you see. If you prefer the newer metrics , fine , but most of it is redundant and a waste of time. 

    Like I said, I do watch the games. I do make my determinations on Sox players based on my eyes, but when the numbers disagree with what I am seeing, I look closer. Usually, I realize I have been mistaken and the numbers don't lie. Sometimes, however, I disagree with some numbers or metrics.

    My point is that you seem fine using outdated and seriusly flawed numbers like Fielding% to support your position, but criticize others for using RF/9 and UZR to support our positions, maybe because you don't fully understand them, or maybe because you don't realize that UZR is based on observations- the same as errors.

     




    There may be a few controversial calls , but most errors are obvious. Some mysterious guy sitting somewhere and computing UZR is not so obvious. I could give my top ten list that would be just as valid as that WAR list.  Like I said , I have no idea how WAR is calculated.  I don't really have a problem with Range Factor , since it is based on real stats ( putouts and assists ) as opposed to some UZR guys opinion. I don't really have a problem with OPS , except that we have always had On Base Percentage and Slugging Percentage , so OPS is nothing more than that.

     

     




     

     

    The arguments you make against UZR are actually pretty good arguments for it.

     

    UZR was designed for infielders, and really, works better for them than outfielders, where it has no ability to compensate for flyball height, etc. It involves laying out the entire ballpark into two dimensional zones, and giving credit for each play made within the zone, more credit to pays made outside of the zone, and assigning demerited values for plays in the zone not made, whether they are errors or hits (not sure if both are demerited equally). With groundballs, speed of the grounder is a little less important, as the fielder still has the ticking clock to get the play made. He has about 4 seconds before the batter reaches first, so this compensates for weak grounders against hard hit ones, etc. With flyballs, there is no compensation for a line drive landing in zone as opposed to a popup, and the assumption is everything equals out in volume. It doesn’t.

     

    So, particularly for infielders, UZR basically allows for a nice comparison for infielders without watching every single player make every single play. That is being done for you by some objective third party.

     

    Simply using putout or assists has definite flaws, too. These are the only factors in the Range Factor ratings, but the real issue is that they become heavily dependent on pitching staff and ballpark (re: infield surface for infielders). If a shortstop was on a team with that had a rotation of Derek Lowe, Rick Porcello, Aaron Cook and Charlie Morton, he would undoubtedly get a TON of chances and might even get some 700 assists, especially if they are on a grass infield. But does this make him a more capable fielder? It does make him a more relied upon fielder, but that is not the same.

     

    Errors on their own are indeed flawed. Proponents of errors operate on the assumption that errors are always obvious, and while most are, they others still represent a small sample of fielding. League leaders only have maybe 30 per year (2012 leader – Starlin Castro with 27), so if 3 or 4 are subjective, and usually more than that are, it drastically skews the sample. At this point, errors fall into the category of “some guy’s opinion.” If you are a proponent watching games to evaluate defense, it seems odd to accept the scorer’s opinion as valid, yet the system that involves watching every play against a standardized zone as not making sense. One observer is using a standard to measure plays against, the other is just making a decision about whether or not a player should have done something.

     

    I know some criticize UZR because it varies from year to year. Well, some players simply have bad defensive seasons, just like they have bad offensive seasons. A player with a bothersome wrist will suffer at the plate. And a player with a sore knee will see his defense hampered, for example These are human beings after all, and they are not subject to maintaining repeat performances annually in any aspect of the game.

     

    But if you like to use FP vs. UZR, last year’s top ten shortstops were as follows:

     

    FP – 1. Hardy 2. Peralta 3. Ryan 4. Y Escobar 5. Ramirez 6. Jeter 7. Rollins 8. Andrus 9. Cozart 10. Aybar

     

    UZR – 1. Ryan 2. Barmes 3. Hardy 4. Peralta 5. Andrus 6. Crawford 7. Cozart 8. Ramirez 9. Aviles 10. Desmond.

     

    As UZR is a tabulation that tends to accumulate, and FP is a percentage, playing more often can influence UZR more. In this respect, UZR/150 is preferable, as it pro-rates the tabulation over 150 games. The 2012 Top Ten Shortstops become

     

    UZR/150. 1. Ryan 2. Barmes 3. Peralta 4. Hardy 5. Crawford 6. Andrus 7. Cozart 8. Desmond 9.Aviles 10.Ramirez.

     

    Really, no matter the system the same names are at or near the top of all three lists – Ryan, Hardy, Peralta, with only Barmes standing out in the UZR world. But overall the cream still rises to the top.

     

    If you are a fan of players making great plays, FP has no means of accommodating this – all plays are equal. UZR has OOZ plays, allowing for defensive standouts like Elvis Andrus to get more credit for fielding prowess than statues like Derek Jeter, which FP does not do, and why Jeter placed ahead of Andrus using fielding percentage.

     

    OOZ. 1.Hardy 2.Castro 3.Ryan 4. Andrus 5.Ramirez 6. A Cabrera 7. A Escobar 8.Y Escobar 9. Aviles 10.Furcal.

     

    While players like Castro and Asdrubal Cabrera showed great range and was rewarded for this, they were also penalized for his numerous errors. UZR ranked them 14 and 19 respectively out of 21 qualified shortstops. Derek Jeter is the polar opposite, as his FP ranked 6 overall, but his weak range and inability to make a lot of plays in or out of zone relegated him to a UZR/150 of -16.4, 21 out of 21 qualified shortstops. Jeter only made 10 errors, however. The only qualified shortstops with fewer? Hardy, Ryan and Peralta.

     

    So if you like fielding percentage and errors, you must think Jeter is better defensively than Andrus, I guess…

     



    Well said, and how many of us have seen some SSs play no more than maybe 2-3 games a year? 

     

    Another guage by observation is the "Fielding Bible". I trust them more than the GG voting or one fan who might watch 150 Sox games and 20 non-Sox games a year opinion.

    Jeter is the worst fielding SS of the decade. Hands down. Yet, he has won GG awards in that timeframe. His fielding % is usually great. He's the poster child of just how wrong judging a fielder by Flg% is.



    Jhonny Peralta was a terrible defensive SS.  Jeter is the most overrated SS of the decade (from a defensive standpoint), hands down.  But I wouldnt say hes teh hands down worst.

     

     

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

    Re: The 2013 Sox and OPS

    In response to Drewski5's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to notin's comment:

     

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    A shortstop making plays that others cannot is speculation. Which others are we talking about ?

    You said you watched the games and can tell who is good and who is not. Isn't prt of that watching a guy like Iggy cover twice s as much ground as Scoo, Aviles, or Lowrie did? It's painfully obvious who gets to more balls than others... be obserrvation or by the numbers and metrics.

     I agree that a guy who can make the great play is worth a few more errors. The only way you can know that is by watching the games. However , an error is a reality.

    No, actually, they are not. They are highly subjective calls made by subjective scorekeepers that often reward the home team. There are also flaws in the way traditional errors are called. An OF'er who runs hard and gets to the ball, but drops it is charged with an error. On Of'er who gets a late break or misjudges a ball, but does not touch it, is often given a break.

    It's not reality. Error calls are little different from the guy making judgements on the data for UZR.

    A reality that can cost you the game. Many are throwing errors that result in extra bases , and have nothing to do with range.

    Yes, I mentioned throwing errors and how they can effect more than just allowing a guy to 1B.

    When a guy like Miggy wins the triple crown ( batting average , home runs and rbis) ,  you can be pretty sure that he will be right up there in OPS and WAR. Basically , I am trying to make two points. 1 -  The old , standard stats tell you what you need to know.  2 -  There is nothing like watching the games objectively , with an open mind , and forming your opinions based on what you see. If you prefer the newer metrics , fine , but most of it is redundant and a waste of time. 

    Like I said, I do watch the games. I do make my determinations on Sox players based on my eyes, but when the numbers disagree with what I am seeing, I look closer. Usually, I realize I have been mistaken and the numbers don't lie. Sometimes, however, I disagree with some numbers or metrics.

    My point is that you seem fine using outdated and seriusly flawed numbers like Fielding% to support your position, but criticize others for using RF/9 and UZR to support our positions, maybe because you don't fully understand them, or maybe because you don't realize that UZR is based on observations- the same as errors.

     




    There may be a few controversial calls , but most errors are obvious. Some mysterious guy sitting somewhere and computing UZR is not so obvious. I could give my top ten list that would be just as valid as that WAR list.  Like I said , I have no idea how WAR is calculated.  I don't really have a problem with Range Factor , since it is based on real stats ( putouts and assists ) as opposed to some UZR guys opinion. I don't really have a problem with OPS , except that we have always had On Base Percentage and Slugging Percentage , so OPS is nothing more than that.

     

     




     

     

    The arguments you make against UZR are actually pretty good arguments for it.

     

    UZR was designed for infielders, and really, works better for them than outfielders, where it has no ability to compensate for flyball height, etc. It involves laying out the entire ballpark into two dimensional zones, and giving credit for each play made within the zone, more credit to pays made outside of the zone, and assigning demerited values for plays in the zone not made, whether they are errors or hits (not sure if both are demerited equally). With groundballs, speed of the grounder is a little less important, as the fielder still has the ticking clock to get the play made. He has about 4 seconds before the batter reaches first, so this compensates for weak grounders against hard hit ones, etc. With flyballs, there is no compensation for a line drive landing in zone as opposed to a popup, and the assumption is everything equals out in volume. It doesn’t.

     

    So, particularly for infielders, UZR basically allows for a nice comparison for infielders without watching every single player make every single play. That is being done for you by some objective third party.

     

    Simply using putout or assists has definite flaws, too. These are the only factors in the Range Factor ratings, but the real issue is that they become heavily dependent on pitching staff and ballpark (re: infield surface for infielders). If a shortstop was on a team with that had a rotation of Derek Lowe, Rick Porcello, Aaron Cook and Charlie Morton, he would undoubtedly get a TON of chances and might even get some 700 assists, especially if they are on a grass infield. But does this make him a more capable fielder? It does make him a more relied upon fielder, but that is not the same.

     

    Errors on their own are indeed flawed. Proponents of errors operate on the assumption that errors are always obvious, and while most are, they others still represent a small sample of fielding. League leaders only have maybe 30 per year (2012 leader – Starlin Castro with 27), so if 3 or 4 are subjective, and usually more than that are, it drastically skews the sample. At this point, errors fall into the category of “some guy’s opinion.” If you are a proponent watching games to evaluate defense, it seems odd to accept the scorer’s opinion as valid, yet the system that involves watching every play against a standardized zone as not making sense. One observer is using a standard to measure plays against, the other is just making a decision about whether or not a player should have done something.

     

    I know some criticize UZR because it varies from year to year. Well, some players simply have bad defensive seasons, just like they have bad offensive seasons. A player with a bothersome wrist will suffer at the plate. And a player with a sore knee will see his defense hampered, for example These are human beings after all, and they are not subject to maintaining repeat performances annually in any aspect of the game.

     

    But if you like to use FP vs. UZR, last year’s top ten shortstops were as follows:

     

    FP – 1. Hardy 2. Peralta 3. Ryan 4. Y Escobar 5. Ramirez 6. Jeter 7. Rollins 8. Andrus 9. Cozart 10. Aybar

     

    UZR – 1. Ryan 2. Barmes 3. Hardy 4. Peralta 5. Andrus 6. Crawford 7. Cozart 8. Ramirez 9. Aviles 10. Desmond.

     

    As UZR is a tabulation that tends to accumulate, and FP is a percentage, playing more often can influence UZR more. In this respect, UZR/150 is preferable, as it pro-rates the tabulation over 150 games. The 2012 Top Ten Shortstops become

     

    UZR/150. 1. Ryan 2. Barmes 3. Peralta 4. Hardy 5. Crawford 6. Andrus 7. Cozart 8. Desmond 9.Aviles 10.Ramirez.

     

    Really, no matter the system the same names are at or near the top of all three lists – Ryan, Hardy, Peralta, with only Barmes standing out in the UZR world. But overall the cream still rises to the top.

     

    If you are a fan of players making great plays, FP has no means of accommodating this – all plays are equal. UZR has OOZ plays, allowing for defensive standouts like Elvis Andrus to get more credit for fielding prowess than statues like Derek Jeter, which FP does not do, and why Jeter placed ahead of Andrus using fielding percentage.

     

    OOZ. 1.Hardy 2.Castro 3.Ryan 4. Andrus 5.Ramirez 6. A Cabrera 7. A Escobar 8.Y Escobar 9. Aviles 10.Furcal.

     

    While players like Castro and Asdrubal Cabrera showed great range and was rewarded for this, they were also penalized for his numerous errors. UZR ranked them 14 and 19 respectively out of 21 qualified shortstops. Derek Jeter is the polar opposite, as his FP ranked 6 overall, but his weak range and inability to make a lot of plays in or out of zone relegated him to a UZR/150 of -16.4, 21 out of 21 qualified shortstops. Jeter only made 10 errors, however. The only qualified shortstops with fewer? Hardy, Ryan and Peralta.

     

    So if you like fielding percentage and errors, you must think Jeter is better defensively than Andrus, I guess…

     



    Well said, and how many of us have seen some SSs play no more than maybe 2-3 games a year? 

     

    Another guage by observation is the "Fielding Bible". I trust them more than the GG voting or one fan who might watch 150 Sox games and 20 non-Sox games a year opinion.

    Jeter is the worst fielding SS of the decade. Hands down. Yet, he has won GG awards in that timeframe. His fielding % is usually great. He's the poster child of just how wrong judging a fielder by Flg% is.

     



    Jhonny Peralta was a terrible defensive SS.  Jeter is the most overrated SS of the decade (from a defensive standpoint), hands down.  But I wouldnt say hes teh hands down worst.

     

     

     



    Worst out of SSs who played most of the decade in a FT role...yes.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: The 2013 Sox and OPS

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to Drewski5's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to notin's comment:

     

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    A shortstop making plays that others cannot is speculation. Which others are we talking about ?

    You said you watched the games and can tell who is good and who is not. Isn't prt of that watching a guy like Iggy cover twice s as much ground as Scoo, Aviles, or Lowrie did? It's painfully obvious who gets to more balls than others... be obserrvation or by the numbers and metrics.

     I agree that a guy who can make the great play is worth a few more errors. The only way you can know that is by watching the games. However , an error is a reality.

    No, actually, they are not. They are highly subjective calls made by subjective scorekeepers that often reward the home team. There are also flaws in the way traditional errors are called. An OF'er who runs hard and gets to the ball, but drops it is charged with an error. On Of'er who gets a late break or misjudges a ball, but does not touch it, is often given a break.

    It's not reality. Error calls are little different from the guy making judgements on the data for UZR.

    A reality that can cost you the game. Many are throwing errors that result in extra bases , and have nothing to do with range.

    Yes, I mentioned throwing errors and how they can effect more than just allowing a guy to 1B.

    When a guy like Miggy wins the triple crown ( batting average , home runs and rbis) ,  you can be pretty sure that he will be right up there in OPS and WAR. Basically , I am trying to make two points. 1 -  The old , standard stats tell you what you need to know.  2 -  There is nothing like watching the games objectively , with an open mind , and forming your opinions based on what you see. If you prefer the newer metrics , fine , but most of it is redundant and a waste of time. 

    Like I said, I do watch the games. I do make my determinations on Sox players based on my eyes, but when the numbers disagree with what I am seeing, I look closer. Usually, I realize I have been mistaken and the numbers don't lie. Sometimes, however, I disagree with some numbers or metrics.

    My point is that you seem fine using outdated and seriusly flawed numbers like Fielding% to support your position, but criticize others for using RF/9 and UZR to support our positions, maybe because you don't fully understand them, or maybe because you don't realize that UZR is based on observations- the same as errors.

     




    There may be a few controversial calls , but most errors are obvious. Some mysterious guy sitting somewhere and computing UZR is not so obvious. I could give my top ten list that would be just as valid as that WAR list.  Like I said , I have no idea how WAR is calculated.  I don't really have a problem with Range Factor , since it is based on real stats ( putouts and assists ) as opposed to some UZR guys opinion. I don't really have a problem with OPS , except that we have always had On Base Percentage and Slugging Percentage , so OPS is nothing more than that.

     

     




     

     

    The arguments you make against UZR are actually pretty good arguments for it.

     

    UZR was designed for infielders, and really, works better for them than outfielders, where it has no ability to compensate for flyball height, etc. It involves laying out the entire ballpark into two dimensional zones, and giving credit for each play made within the zone, more credit to pays made outside of the zone, and assigning demerited values for plays in the zone not made, whether they are errors or hits (not sure if both are demerited equally). With groundballs, speed of the grounder is a little less important, as the fielder still has the ticking clock to get the play made. He has about 4 seconds before the batter reaches first, so this compensates for weak grounders against hard hit ones, etc. With flyballs, there is no compensation for a line drive landing in zone as opposed to a popup, and the assumption is everything equals out in volume. It doesn’t.

     

    So, particularly for infielders, UZR basically allows for a nice comparison for infielders without watching every single player make every single play. That is being done for you by some objective third party.

     

    Simply using putout or assists has definite flaws, too. These are the only factors in the Range Factor ratings, but the real issue is that they become heavily dependent on pitching staff and ballpark (re: infield surface for infielders). If a shortstop was on a team with that had a rotation of Derek Lowe, Rick Porcello, Aaron Cook and Charlie Morton, he would undoubtedly get a TON of chances and might even get some 700 assists, especially if they are on a grass infield. But does this make him a more capable fielder? It does make him a more relied upon fielder, but that is not the same.

     

    Errors on their own are indeed flawed. Proponents of errors operate on the assumption that errors are always obvious, and while most are, they others still represent a small sample of fielding. League leaders only have maybe 30 per year (2012 leader – Starlin Castro with 27), so if 3 or 4 are subjective, and usually more than that are, it drastically skews the sample. At this point, errors fall into the category of â€ÂÂœsome guy’s opinion.” If you are a proponent watching games to evaluate defense, it seems odd to accept the scorer’s opinion as valid, yet the system that involves watching every play against a standardized zone as not making sense. One observer is using a standard to measure plays against, the other is just making a decision about whether or not a player should have done something.

     

    I know some criticize UZR because it varies from year to year. Well, some players simply have bad defensive seasons, just like they have bad offensive seasons. A player with a bothersome wrist will suffer at the plate. And a player with a sore knee will see his defense hampered, for example These are human beings after all, and they are not subject to maintaining repeat performances annually in any aspect of the game.

     

    But if you like to use FP vs. UZR, last year’s top ten shortstops were as follows:

     

    FP – 1. Hardy 2. Peralta 3. Ryan 4. Y Escobar 5. Ramirez 6. Jeter 7. Rollins 8. Andrus 9. Cozart 10. Aybar

     

    UZR – 1. Ryan 2. Barmes 3. Hardy 4. Peralta 5. Andrus 6. Crawford 7. Cozart 8. Ramirez 9. Aviles 10. Desmond.

     

    As UZR is a tabulation that tends to accumulate, and FP is a percentage, playing more often can influence UZR more. In this respect, UZR/150 is preferable, as it pro-rates the tabulation over 150 games. The 2012 Top Ten Shortstops become

     

    UZR/150. 1. Ryan 2. Barmes 3. Peralta 4. Hardy 5. Crawford 6. Andrus 7. Cozart 8. Desmond 9.Aviles 10.Ramirez.

     

    Really, no matter the system the same names are at or near the top of all three lists – Ryan, Hardy, Peralta, with only Barmes standing out in the UZR world. But overall the cream still rises to the top.

     

    If you are a fan of players making great plays, FP has no means of accommodating this – all plays are equal. UZR has OOZ plays, allowing for defensive standouts like Elvis Andrus to get more credit for fielding prowess than statues like Derek Jeter, which FP does not do, and why Jeter placed ahead of Andrus using fielding percentage.

     

    OOZ. 1.Hardy 2.Castro 3.Ryan 4. Andrus 5.Ramirez 6. A Cabrera 7. A Escobar 8.Y Escobar 9. Aviles 10.Furcal.

     

    While players like Castro and Asdrubal Cabrera showed great range and was rewarded for this, they were also penalized for his numerous errors. UZR ranked them 14 and 19 respectively out of 21 qualified shortstops. Derek Jeter is the polar opposite, as his FP ranked 6 overall, but his weak range and inability to make a lot of plays in or out of zone relegated him to a UZR/150 of -16.4, 21 out of 21 qualified shortstops. Jeter only made 10 errors, however. The only qualified shortstops with fewer? Hardy, Ryan and Peralta.

     

    So if you like fielding percentage and errors, you must think Jeter is better defensively than Andrus, I guess…

     



    Well said, and how many of us have seen some SSs play no more than maybe 2-3 games a year? 

     

    Another guage by observation is the "Fielding Bible". I trust them more than the GG voting or one fan who might watch 150 Sox games and 20 non-Sox games a year opinion.

    Jeter is the worst fielding SS of the decade. Hands down. Yet, he has won GG awards in that timeframe. His fielding % is usually great. He's the poster child of just how wrong judging a fielder by Flg% is.

     



    Jhonny Peralta was a terrible defensive SS.  Jeter is the most overrated SS of the decade (from a defensive standpoint), hands down.  But I wouldnt say hes teh hands down worst.

     

     

     

     



    Worst out of SSs who played most of the decade in a FT role...yes.

     




    imagine how dreadful he will be this year coming off of a broken ankle..

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

    Re: The 2013 Sox and OPS

    Jeter has the lowest UZR from 2003-2012 (23 qualified):

     

    23) Jeter -65

    22) Betancourt -49

    21) HanRam -48

    20) Furcal  -27

    19) S Drew  -22

     

    To be fair, UZR/150 is more accurate, so I guess he has company:

    HanRam  -9.1

    Betanc    -8.2

    Jeter       -7.2

     

    However, I admit I am partial to range, and Jeter has been a statue.

    Fangraph's RangeR factor (10 years):

    23) Jeter -92.5

    22) Betan -43.6

    21) Drew -35.1

    20) Perra -34.8

    Jete's worse than the bottom 2 combined. The only thing that "saves" him is that he makes the plays hit right at him very well.

    He's 2nd in Error R and 21st in DP R

     

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

    Re: The 2013 Sox and OPS

    In response to mef429's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to Drewski5's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to notin's comment:

     

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    A shortstop making plays that others cannot is speculation. Which others are we talking about ?

    You said you watched the games and can tell who is good and who is not. Isn't prt of that watching a guy like Iggy cover twice s as much ground as Scoo, Aviles, or Lowrie did? It's painfully obvious who gets to more balls than others... be obserrvation or by the numbers and metrics.

     I agree that a guy who can make the great play is worth a few more errors. The only way you can know that is by watching the games. However , an error is a reality.

    No, actually, they are not. They are highly subjective calls made by subjective scorekeepers that often reward the home team. There are also flaws in the way traditional errors are called. An OF'er who runs hard and gets to the ball, but drops it is charged with an error. On Of'er who gets a late break or misjudges a ball, but does not touch it, is often given a break.

    It's not reality. Error calls are little different from the guy making judgements on the data for UZR.

    A reality that can cost you the game. Many are throwing errors that result in extra bases , and have nothing to do with range.

    Yes, I mentioned throwing errors and how they can effect more than just allowing a guy to 1B.

    When a guy like Miggy wins the triple crown ( batting average , home runs and rbis) ,  you can be pretty sure that he will be right up there in OPS and WAR. Basically , I am trying to make two points. 1 -  The old , standard stats tell you what you need to know.  2 -  There is nothing like watching the games objectively , with an open mind , and forming your opinions based on what you see. If you prefer the newer metrics , fine , but most of it is redundant and a waste of time. 

    Like I said, I do watch the games. I do make my determinations on Sox players based on my eyes, but when the numbers disagree with what I am seeing, I look closer. Usually, I realize I have been mistaken and the numbers don't lie. Sometimes, however, I disagree with some numbers or metrics.

    My point is that you seem fine using outdated and seriusly flawed numbers like Fielding% to support your position, but criticize others for using RF/9 and UZR to support our positions, maybe because you don't fully understand them, or maybe because you don't realize that UZR is based on observations- the same as errors.

     




    There may be a few controversial calls , but most errors are obvious. Some mysterious guy sitting somewhere and computing UZR is not so obvious. I could give my top ten list that would be just as valid as that WAR list.  Like I said , I have no idea how WAR is calculated.  I don't really have a problem with Range Factor , since it is based on real stats ( putouts and assists ) as opposed to some UZR guys opinion. I don't really have a problem with OPS , except that we have always had On Base Percentage and Slugging Percentage , so OPS is nothing more than that.

     

     




     

     

    The arguments you make against UZR are actually pretty good arguments for it.

     

    UZR was designed for infielders, and really, works better for them than outfielders, where it has no ability to compensate for flyball height, etc. It involves laying out the entire ballpark into two dimensional zones, and giving credit for each play made within the zone, more credit to pays made outside of the zone, and assigning demerited values for plays in the zone not made, whether they are errors or hits (not sure if both are demerited equally). With groundballs, speed of the grounder is a little less important, as the fielder still has the ticking clock to get the play made. He has about 4 seconds before the batter reaches first, so this compensates for weak grounders against hard hit ones, etc. With flyballs, there is no compensation for a line drive landing in zone as opposed to a popup, and the assumption is everything equals out in volume. It doesn’t.

     

    So, particularly for infielders, UZR basically allows for a nice comparison for infielders without watching every single player make every single play. That is being done for you by some objective third party.

     

    Simply using putout or assists has definite flaws, too. These are the only factors in the Range Factor ratings, but the real issue is that they become heavily dependent on pitching staff and ballpark (re: infield surface for infielders). If a shortstop was on a team with that had a rotation of Derek Lowe, Rick Porcello, Aaron Cook and Charlie Morton, he would undoubtedly get a TON of chances and might even get some 700 assists, especially if they are on a grass infield. But does this make him a more capable fielder? It does make him a more relied upon fielder, but that is not the same.

     

    Errors on their own are indeed flawed. Proponents of errors operate on the assumption that errors are always obvious, and while most are, they others still represent a small sample of fielding. League leaders only have maybe 30 per year (2012 leader – Starlin Castro with 27), so if 3 or 4 are subjective, and usually more than that are, it drastically skews the sample. At this point, errors fall into the category of â€ÂÂÂœsome guy’s opinion.” If you are a proponent watching games to evaluate defense, it seems odd to accept the scorer’s opinion as valid, yet the system that involves watching every play against a standardized zone as not making sense. One observer is using a standard to measure plays against, the other is just making a decision about whether or not a player should have done something.

     

    I know some criticize UZR because it varies from year to year. Well, some players simply have bad defensive seasons, just like they have bad offensive seasons. A player with a bothersome wrist will suffer at the plate. And a player with a sore knee will see his defense hampered, for example These are human beings after all, and they are not subject to maintaining repeat performances annually in any aspect of the game.

     

    But if you like to use FP vs. UZR, last year’s top ten shortstops were as follows:

     

    FP – 1. Hardy 2. Peralta 3. Ryan 4. Y Escobar 5. Ramirez 6. Jeter 7. Rollins 8. Andrus 9. Cozart 10. Aybar

     

    UZR – 1. Ryan 2. Barmes 3. Hardy 4. Peralta 5. Andrus 6. Crawford 7. Cozart 8. Ramirez 9. Aviles 10. Desmond.

     

    As UZR is a tabulation that tends to accumulate, and FP is a percentage, playing more often can influence UZR more. In this respect, UZR/150 is preferable, as it pro-rates the tabulation over 150 games. The 2012 Top Ten Shortstops become

     

    UZR/150. 1. Ryan 2. Barmes 3. Peralta 4. Hardy 5. Crawford 6. Andrus 7. Cozart 8. Desmond 9.Aviles 10.Ramirez.

     

    Really, no matter the system the same names are at or near the top of all three lists – Ryan, Hardy, Peralta, with only Barmes standing out in the UZR world. But overall the cream still rises to the top.

     

    If you are a fan of players making great plays, FP has no means of accommodating this – all plays are equal. UZR has OOZ plays, allowing for defensive standouts like Elvis Andrus to get more credit for fielding prowess than statues like Derek Jeter, which FP does not do, and why Jeter placed ahead of Andrus using fielding percentage.

     

    OOZ. 1.Hardy 2.Castro 3.Ryan 4. Andrus 5.Ramirez 6. A Cabrera 7. A Escobar 8.Y Escobar 9. Aviles 10.Furcal.

     

    While players like Castro and Asdrubal Cabrera showed great range and was rewarded for this, they were also penalized for his numerous errors. UZR ranked them 14 and 19 respectively out of 21 qualified shortstops. Derek Jeter is the polar opposite, as his FP ranked 6 overall, but his weak range and inability to make a lot of plays in or out of zone relegated him to a UZR/150 of -16.4, 21 out of 21 qualified shortstops. Jeter only made 10 errors, however. The only qualified shortstops with fewer? Hardy, Ryan and Peralta.

     

    So if you like fielding percentage and errors, you must think Jeter is better defensively than Andrus, I guess…

     



    Well said, and how many of us have seen some SSs play no more than maybe 2-3 games a year? 

     

    Another guage by observation is the "Fielding Bible". I trust them more than the GG voting or one fan who might watch 150 Sox games and 20 non-Sox games a year opinion.

    Jeter is the worst fielding SS of the decade. Hands down. Yet, he has won GG awards in that timeframe. His fielding % is usually great. He's the poster child of just how wrong judging a fielder by Flg% is.

     



    Jhonny Peralta was a terrible defensive SS.  Jeter is the most overrated SS of the decade (from a defensive standpoint), hands down.  But I wouldnt say hes teh hands down worst.

     

     

     

     



    Worst out of SSs who played most of the decade in a FT role...yes.

     

     




    imagine how dreadful he will be this year coming off of a broken ankle..

     



    A little worse than Drew maybe?

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: The 2013 Sox and OPS

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to mef429's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to Drewski5's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to notin's comment:

     

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    A shortstop making plays that others cannot is speculation. Which others are we talking about ?

    You said you watched the games and can tell who is good and who is not. Isn't prt of that watching a guy like Iggy cover twice s as much ground as Scoo, Aviles, or Lowrie did? It's painfully obvious who gets to more balls than others... be obserrvation or by the numbers and metrics.

     I agree that a guy who can make the great play is worth a few more errors. The only way you can know that is by watching the games. However , an error is a reality.

    No, actually, they are not. They are highly subjective calls made by subjective scorekeepers that often reward the home team. There are also flaws in the way traditional errors are called. An OF'er who runs hard and gets to the ball, but drops it is charged with an error. On Of'er who gets a late break or misjudges a ball, but does not touch it, is often given a break.

    It's not reality. Error calls are little different from the guy making judgements on the data for UZR.

    A reality that can cost you the game. Many are throwing errors that result in extra bases , and have nothing to do with range.

    Yes, I mentioned throwing errors and how they can effect more than just allowing a guy to 1B.

    When a guy like Miggy wins the triple crown ( batting average , home runs and rbis) ,  you can be pretty sure that he will be right up there in OPS and WAR. Basically , I am trying to make two points. 1 -  The old , standard stats tell you what you need to know.  2 -  There is nothing like watching the games objectively , with an open mind , and forming your opinions based on what you see. If you prefer the newer metrics , fine , but most of it is redundant and a waste of time. 

    Like I said, I do watch the games. I do make my determinations on Sox players based on my eyes, but when the numbers disagree with what I am seeing, I look closer. Usually, I realize I have been mistaken and the numbers don't lie. Sometimes, however, I disagree with some numbers or metrics.

    My point is that you seem fine using outdated and seriusly flawed numbers like Fielding% to support your position, but criticize others for using RF/9 and UZR to support our positions, maybe because you don't fully understand them, or maybe because you don't realize that UZR is based on observations- the same as errors.

     




    There may be a few controversial calls , but most errors are obvious. Some mysterious guy sitting somewhere and computing UZR is not so obvious. I could give my top ten list that would be just as valid as that WAR list.  Like I said , I have no idea how WAR is calculated.  I don't really have a problem with Range Factor , since it is based on real stats ( putouts and assists ) as opposed to some UZR guys opinion. I don't really have a problem with OPS , except that we have always had On Base Percentage and Slugging Percentage , so OPS is nothing more than that.

     

     




     

     

    The arguments you make against UZR are actually pretty good arguments for it.

     

    UZR was designed for infielders, and really, works better for them than outfielders, where it has no ability to compensate for flyball height, etc. It involves laying out the entire ballpark into two dimensional zones, and giving credit for each play made within the zone, more credit to pays made outside of the zone, and assigning demerited values for plays in the zone not made, whether they are errors or hits (not sure if both are demerited equally). With groundballs, speed of the grounder is a little less important, as the fielder still has the ticking clock to get the play made. He has about 4 seconds before the batter reaches first, so this compensates for weak grounders against hard hit ones, etc. With flyballs, there is no compensation for a line drive landing in zone as opposed to a popup, and the assumption is everything equals out in volume. It doesn’t.

     

    So, particularly for infielders, UZR basically allows for a nice comparison for infielders without watching every single player make every single play. That is being done for you by some objective third party.

     

    Simply using putout or assists has definite flaws, too. These are the only factors in the Range Factor ratings, but the real issue is that they become heavily dependent on pitching staff and ballpark (re: infield surface for infielders). If a shortstop was on a team with that had a rotation of Derek Lowe, Rick Porcello, Aaron Cook and Charlie Morton, he would undoubtedly get a TON of chances and might even get some 700 assists, especially if they are on a grass infield. But does this make him a more capable fielder? It does make him a more relied upon fielder, but that is not the same.

     

    Errors on their own are indeed flawed. Proponents of errors operate on the assumption that errors are always obvious, and while most are, they others still represent a small sample of fielding. League leaders only have maybe 30 per year (2012 leader – Starlin Castro with 27), so if 3 or 4 are subjective, and usually more than that are, it drastically skews the sample. At this point, errors fall into the category of â€ÂÂÂÂœsome guy’s opinion.” If you are a proponent watching games to evaluate defense, it seems odd to accept the scorer’s opinion as valid, yet the system that involves watching every play against a standardized zone as not making sense. One observer is using a standard to measure plays against, the other is just making a decision about whether or not a player should have done something.

     

    I know some criticize UZR because it varies from year to year. Well, some players simply have bad defensive seasons, just like they have bad offensive seasons. A player with a bothersome wrist will suffer at the plate. And a player with a sore knee will see his defense hampered, for example These are human beings after all, and they are not subject to maintaining repeat performances annually in any aspect of the game.

     

    But if you like to use FP vs. UZR, last year’s top ten shortstops were as follows:

     

    FP – 1. Hardy 2. Peralta 3. Ryan 4. Y Escobar 5. Ramirez 6. Jeter 7. Rollins 8. Andrus 9. Cozart 10. Aybar

     

    UZR – 1. Ryan 2. Barmes 3. Hardy 4. Peralta 5. Andrus 6. Crawford 7. Cozart 8. Ramirez 9. Aviles 10. Desmond.

     

    As UZR is a tabulation that tends to accumulate, and FP is a percentage, playing more often can influence UZR more. In this respect, UZR/150 is preferable, as it pro-rates the tabulation over 150 games. The 2012 Top Ten Shortstops become

     

    UZR/150. 1. Ryan 2. Barmes 3. Peralta 4. Hardy 5. Crawford 6. Andrus 7. Cozart 8. Desmond 9.Aviles 10.Ramirez.

     

    Really, no matter the system the same names are at or near the top of all three lists – Ryan, Hardy, Peralta, with only Barmes standing out in the UZR world. But overall the cream still rises to the top.

     

    If you are a fan of players making great plays, FP has no means of accommodating this – all plays are equal. UZR has OOZ plays, allowing for defensive standouts like Elvis Andrus to get more credit for fielding prowess than statues like Derek Jeter, which FP does not do, and why Jeter placed ahead of Andrus using fielding percentage.

     

    OOZ. 1.Hardy 2.Castro 3.Ryan 4. Andrus 5.Ramirez 6. A Cabrera 7. A Escobar 8.Y Escobar 9. Aviles 10.Furcal.

     

    While players like Castro and Asdrubal Cabrera showed great range and was rewarded for this, they were also penalized for his numerous errors. UZR ranked them 14 and 19 respectively out of 21 qualified shortstops. Derek Jeter is the polar opposite, as his FP ranked 6 overall, but his weak range and inability to make a lot of plays in or out of zone relegated him to a UZR/150 of -16.4, 21 out of 21 qualified shortstops. Jeter only made 10 errors, however. The only qualified shortstops with fewer? Hardy, Ryan and Peralta.

     

    So if you like fielding percentage and errors, you must think Jeter is better defensively than Andrus, I guess…

     



    Well said, and how many of us have seen some SSs play no more than maybe 2-3 games a year? 

     

    Another guage by observation is the "Fielding Bible". I trust them more than the GG voting or one fan who might watch 150 Sox games and 20 non-Sox games a year opinion.

    Jeter is the worst fielding SS of the decade. Hands down. Yet, he has won GG awards in that timeframe. His fielding % is usually great. He's the poster child of just how wrong judging a fielder by Flg% is.

     



    Jhonny Peralta was a terrible defensive SS.  Jeter is the most overrated SS of the decade (from a defensive standpoint), hands down.  But I wouldnt say hes teh hands down worst.

     

     

     

     



    Worst out of SSs who played most of the decade in a FT role...yes.

     

     




    imagine how dreadful he will be this year coming off of a broken ankle..

     

     



    A little worse than Drew maybe?

     




    i'm thinking so. but Drew seems to be fully healed from the injury so i imagine he will be moving around much better now.

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

    Re: The 2013 Sox and OPS

    In response to mef429's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to mef429's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to Drewski5's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to notin's comment:

     

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    A shortstop making plays that others cannot is speculation. Which others are we talking about ?

    You said you watched the games and can tell who is good and who is not. Isn't prt of that watching a guy like Iggy cover twice s as much ground as Scoo, Aviles, or Lowrie did? It's painfully obvious who gets to more balls than others... be obserrvation or by the numbers and metrics.

     I agree that a guy who can make the great play is worth a few more errors. The only way you can know that is by watching the games. However , an error is a reality.

    No, actually, they are not. They are highly subjective calls made by subjective scorekeepers that often reward the home team. There are also flaws in the way traditional errors are called. An OF'er who runs hard and gets to the ball, but drops it is charged with an error. On Of'er who gets a late break or misjudges a ball, but does not touch it, is often given a break.

    It's not reality. Error calls are little different from the guy making judgements on the data for UZR.

    A reality that can cost you the game. Many are throwing errors that result in extra bases , and have nothing to do with range.

    Yes, I mentioned throwing errors and how they can effect more than just allowing a guy to 1B.

    When a guy like Miggy wins the triple crown ( batting average , home runs and rbis) ,  you can be pretty sure that he will be right up there in OPS and WAR. Basically , I am trying to make two points. 1 -  The old , standard stats tell you what you need to know.  2 -  There is nothing like watching the games objectively , with an open mind , and forming your opinions based on what you see. If you prefer the newer metrics , fine , but most of it is redundant and a waste of time. 

    Like I said, I do watch the games. I do make my determinations on Sox players based on my eyes, but when the numbers disagree with what I am seeing, I look closer. Usually, I realize I have been mistaken and the numbers don't lie. Sometimes, however, I disagree with some numbers or metrics.

    My point is that you seem fine using outdated and seriusly flawed numbers like Fielding% to support your position, but criticize others for using RF/9 and UZR to support our positions, maybe because you don't fully understand them, or maybe because you don't realize that UZR is based on observations- the same as errors.

     




    There may be a few controversial calls , but most errors are obvious. Some mysterious guy sitting somewhere and computing UZR is not so obvious. I could give my top ten list that would be just as valid as that WAR list.  Like I said , I have no idea how WAR is calculated.  I don't really have a problem with Range Factor , since it is based on real stats ( putouts and assists ) as opposed to some UZR guys opinion. I don't really have a problem with OPS , except that we have always had On Base Percentage and Slugging Percentage , so OPS is nothing more than that.

     

     




     

     

    The arguments you make against UZR are actually pretty good arguments for it.

     

    UZR was designed for infielders, and really, works better for them than outfielders, where it has no ability to compensate for flyball height, etc. It involves laying out the entire ballpark into two dimensional zones, and giving credit for each play made within the zone, more credit to pays made outside of the zone, and assigning demerited values for plays in the zone not made, whether they are errors or hits (not sure if both are demerited equally). With groundballs, speed of the grounder is a little less important, as the fielder still has the ticking clock to get the play made. He has about 4 seconds before the batter reaches first, so this compensates for weak grounders against hard hit ones, etc. With flyballs, there is no compensation for a line drive landing in zone as opposed to a popup, and the assumption is everything equals out in volume. It doesn’t.

     

    So, particularly for infielders, UZR basically allows for a nice comparison for infielders without watching every single player make every single play. That is being done for you by some objective third party.

     

    Simply using putout or assists has definite flaws, too. These are the only factors in the Range Factor ratings, but the real issue is that they become heavily dependent on pitching staff and ballpark (re: infield surface for infielders). If a shortstop was on a team with that had a rotation of Derek Lowe, Rick Porcello, Aaron Cook and Charlie Morton, he would undoubtedly get a TON of chances and might even get some 700 assists, especially if they are on a grass infield. But does this make him a more capable fielder? It does make him a more relied upon fielder, but that is not the same.

     

    Errors on their own are indeed flawed. Proponents of errors operate on the assumption that errors are always obvious, and while most are, they others still represent a small sample of fielding. League leaders only have maybe 30 per year (2012 leader – Starlin Castro with 27), so if 3 or 4 are subjective, and usually more than that are, it drastically skews the sample. At this point, errors fall into the category of â€ÂÂÂÂÂœsome guy’s opinion.” If you are a proponent watching games to evaluate defense, it seems odd to accept the scorer’s opinion as valid, yet the system that involves watching every play against a standardized zone as not making sense. One observer is using a standard to measure plays against, the other is just making a decision about whether or not a player should have done something.

     

    I know some criticize UZR because it varies from year to year. Well, some players simply have bad defensive seasons, just like they have bad offensive seasons. A player with a bothersome wrist will suffer at the plate. And a player with a sore knee will see his defense hampered, for example These are human beings after all, and they are not subject to maintaining repeat performances annually in any aspect of the game.

     

    But if you like to use FP vs. UZR, last year’s top ten shortstops were as follows:

     

    FP – 1. Hardy 2. Peralta 3. Ryan 4. Y Escobar 5. Ramirez 6. Jeter 7. Rollins 8. Andrus 9. Cozart 10. Aybar

     

    UZR – 1. Ryan 2. Barmes 3. Hardy 4. Peralta 5. Andrus 6. Crawford 7. Cozart 8. Ramirez 9. Aviles 10. Desmond.

     

    As UZR is a tabulation that tends to accumulate, and FP is a percentage, playing more often can influence UZR more. In this respect, UZR/150 is preferable, as it pro-rates the tabulation over 150 games. The 2012 Top Ten Shortstops become

     

    UZR/150. 1. Ryan 2. Barmes 3. Peralta 4. Hardy 5. Crawford 6. Andrus 7. Cozart 8. Desmond 9.Aviles 10.Ramirez.

     

    Really, no matter the system the same names are at or near the top of all three lists – Ryan, Hardy, Peralta, with only Barmes standing out in the UZR world. But overall the cream still rises to the top.

     

    If you are a fan of players making great plays, FP has no means of accommodating this – all plays are equal. UZR has OOZ plays, allowing for defensive standouts like Elvis Andrus to get more credit for fielding prowess than statues like Derek Jeter, which FP does not do, and why Jeter placed ahead of Andrus using fielding percentage.

     

    OOZ. 1.Hardy 2.Castro 3.Ryan 4. Andrus 5.Ramirez 6. A Cabrera 7. A Escobar 8.Y Escobar 9. Aviles 10.Furcal.

     

    While players like Castro and Asdrubal Cabrera showed great range and was rewarded for this, they were also penalized for his numerous errors. UZR ranked them 14 and 19 respectively out of 21 qualified shortstops. Derek Jeter is the polar opposite, as his FP ranked 6 overall, but his weak range and inability to make a lot of plays in or out of zone relegated him to a UZR/150 of -16.4, 21 out of 21 qualified shortstops. Jeter only made 10 errors, however. The only qualified shortstops with fewer? Hardy, Ryan and Peralta.

     

    So if you like fielding percentage and errors, you must think Jeter is better defensively than Andrus, I guess…

     



    Well said, and how many of us have seen some SSs play no more than maybe 2-3 games a year? 

     

    Another guage by observation is the "Fielding Bible". I trust them more than the GG voting or one fan who might watch 150 Sox games and 20 non-Sox games a year opinion.

    Jeter is the worst fielding SS of the decade. Hands down. Yet, he has won GG awards in that timeframe. His fielding % is usually great. He's the poster child of just how wrong judging a fielder by Flg% is.

     



    Jhonny Peralta was a terrible defensive SS.  Jeter is the most overrated SS of the decade (from a defensive standpoint), hands down.  But I wouldnt say hes teh hands down worst.

     

     

     

     



    Worst out of SSs who played most of the decade in a FT role...yes.

     

     




    imagine how dreadful he will be this year coming off of a broken ankle..

     

     



    A little worse than Drew maybe?

     

     




    i'm thinking so. but Drew seems to be fully healed from the injury so i imagine he will be moving around much better now.

     



    Better as in what? The 4th worst in the decade?

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: The 2013 Sox and OPS

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to mef429's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to mef429's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to Drewski5's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to notin's comment:

     

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    A shortstop making plays that others cannot is speculation. Which others are we talking about ?

    You said you watched the games and can tell who is good and who is not. Isn't prt of that watching a guy like Iggy cover twice s as much ground as Scoo, Aviles, or Lowrie did? It's painfully obvious who gets to more balls than others... be obserrvation or by the numbers and metrics.

     I agree that a guy who can make the great play is worth a few more errors. The only way you can know that is by watching the games. However , an error is a reality.

    No, actually, they are not. They are highly subjective calls made by subjective scorekeepers that often reward the home team. There are also flaws in the way traditional errors are called. An OF'er who runs hard and gets to the ball, but drops it is charged with an error. On Of'er who gets a late break or misjudges a ball, but does not touch it, is often given a break.

    It's not reality. Error calls are little different from the guy making judgements on the data for UZR.

    A reality that can cost you the game. Many are throwing errors that result in extra bases , and have nothing to do with range.

    Yes, I mentioned throwing errors and how they can effect more than just allowing a guy to 1B.

    When a guy like Miggy wins the triple crown ( batting average , home runs and rbis) ,  you can be pretty sure that he will be right up there in OPS and WAR. Basically , I am trying to make two points. 1 -  The old , standard stats tell you what you need to know.  2 -  There is nothing like watching the games objectively , with an open mind , and forming your opinions based on what you see. If you prefer the newer metrics , fine , but most of it is redundant and a waste of time. 

    Like I said, I do watch the games. I do make my determinations on Sox players based on my eyes, but when the numbers disagree with what I am seeing, I look closer. Usually, I realize I have been mistaken and the numbers don't lie. Sometimes, however, I disagree with some numbers or metrics.

    My point is that you seem fine using outdated and seriusly flawed numbers like Fielding% to support your position, but criticize others for using RF/9 and UZR to support our positions, maybe because you don't fully understand them, or maybe because you don't realize that UZR is based on observations- the same as errors.

     




    There may be a few controversial calls , but most errors are obvious. Some mysterious guy sitting somewhere and computing UZR is not so obvious. I could give my top ten list that would be just as valid as that WAR list.  Like I said , I have no idea how WAR is calculated.  I don't really have a problem with Range Factor , since it is based on real stats ( putouts and assists ) as opposed to some UZR guys opinion. I don't really have a problem with OPS , except that we have always had On Base Percentage and Slugging Percentage , so OPS is nothing more than that.

     

     




     

     

    The arguments you make against UZR are actually pretty good arguments for it.

     

    UZR was designed for infielders, and really, works better for them than outfielders, where it has no ability to compensate for flyball height, etc. It involves laying out the entire ballpark into two dimensional zones, and giving credit for each play made within the zone, more credit to pays made outside of the zone, and assigning demerited values for plays in the zone not made, whether they are errors or hits (not sure if both are demerited equally). With groundballs, speed of the grounder is a little less important, as the fielder still has the ticking clock to get the play made. He has about 4 seconds before the batter reaches first, so this compensates for weak grounders against hard hit ones, etc. With flyballs, there is no compensation for a line drive landing in zone as opposed to a popup, and the assumption is everything equals out in volume. It doesn’t.

     

    So, particularly for infielders, UZR basically allows for a nice comparison for infielders without watching every single player make every single play. That is being done for you by some objective third party.

     

    Simply using putout or assists has definite flaws, too. These are the only factors in the Range Factor ratings, but the real issue is that they become heavily dependent on pitching staff and ballpark (re: infield surface for infielders). If a shortstop was on a team with that had a rotation of Derek Lowe, Rick Porcello, Aaron Cook and Charlie Morton, he would undoubtedly get a TON of chances and might even get some 700 assists, especially if they are on a grass infield. But does this make him a more capable fielder? It does make him a more relied upon fielder, but that is not the same.

     

    Errors on their own are indeed flawed. Proponents of errors operate on the assumption that errors are always obvious, and while most are, they others still represent a small sample of fielding. League leaders only have maybe 30 per year (2012 leader – Starlin Castro with 27), so if 3 or 4 are subjective, and usually more than that are, it drastically skews the sample. At this point, errors fall into the category of â€ÂÂÂÂÂÂœsome guy’s opinion.” If you are a proponent watching games to evaluate defense, it seems odd to accept the scorer’s opinion as valid, yet the system that involves watching every play against a standardized zone as not making sense. One observer is using a standard to measure plays against, the other is just making a decision about whether or not a player should have done something.

     

    I know some criticize UZR because it varies from year to year. Well, some players simply have bad defensive seasons, just like they have bad offensive seasons. A player with a bothersome wrist will suffer at the plate. And a player with a sore knee will see his defense hampered, for example These are human beings after all, and they are not subject to maintaining repeat performances annually in any aspect of the game.

     

    But if you like to use FP vs. UZR, last year’s top ten shortstops were as follows:

     

    FP – 1. Hardy 2. Peralta 3. Ryan 4. Y Escobar 5. Ramirez 6. Jeter 7. Rollins 8. Andrus 9. Cozart 10. Aybar

     

    UZR – 1. Ryan 2. Barmes 3. Hardy 4. Peralta 5. Andrus 6. Crawford 7. Cozart 8. Ramirez 9. Aviles 10. Desmond.

     

    As UZR is a tabulation that tends to accumulate, and FP is a percentage, playing more often can influence UZR more. In this respect, UZR/150 is preferable, as it pro-rates the tabulation over 150 games. The 2012 Top Ten Shortstops become

     

    UZR/150. 1. Ryan 2. Barmes 3. Peralta 4. Hardy 5. Crawford 6. Andrus 7. Cozart 8. Desmond 9.Aviles 10.Ramirez.

     

    Really, no matter the system the same names are at or near the top of all three lists – Ryan, Hardy, Peralta, with only Barmes standing out in the UZR world. But overall the cream still rises to the top.

     

    If you are a fan of players making great plays, FP has no means of accommodating this – all plays are equal. UZR has OOZ plays, allowing for defensive standouts like Elvis Andrus to get more credit for fielding prowess than statues like Derek Jeter, which FP does not do, and why Jeter placed ahead of Andrus using fielding percentage.

     

    OOZ. 1.Hardy 2.Castro 3.Ryan 4. Andrus 5.Ramirez 6. A Cabrera 7. A Escobar 8.Y Escobar 9. Aviles 10.Furcal.

     

    While players like Castro and Asdrubal Cabrera showed great range and was rewarded for this, they were also penalized for his numerous errors. UZR ranked them 14 and 19 respectively out of 21 qualified shortstops. Derek Jeter is the polar opposite, as his FP ranked 6 overall, but his weak range and inability to make a lot of plays in or out of zone relegated him to a UZR/150 of -16.4, 21 out of 21 qualified shortstops. Jeter only made 10 errors, however. The only qualified shortstops with fewer? Hardy, Ryan and Peralta.

     

    So if you like fielding percentage and errors, you must think Jeter is better defensively than Andrus, I guess…

     



    Well said, and how many of us have seen some SSs play no more than maybe 2-3 games a year? 

     

    Another guage by observation is the "Fielding Bible". I trust them more than the GG voting or one fan who might watch 150 Sox games and 20 non-Sox games a year opinion.

    Jeter is the worst fielding SS of the decade. Hands down. Yet, he has won GG awards in that timeframe. His fielding % is usually great. He's the poster child of just how wrong judging a fielder by Flg% is.

     



    Jhonny Peralta was a terrible defensive SS.  Jeter is the most overrated SS of the decade (from a defensive standpoint), hands down.  But I wouldnt say hes teh hands down worst.

     

     

     

     



    Worst out of SSs who played most of the decade in a FT role...yes.

     

     




    imagine how dreadful he will be this year coming off of a broken ankle..

     

     



    A little worse than Drew maybe?

     

     




    i'm thinking so. but Drew seems to be fully healed from the injury so i imagine he will be moving around much better now.

     

     



    Better as in what? The 4th worst in the decade?

     




    i've only seen his defense when healthy very few times so i couldn't begin to tell you. People were saying Aviles has horrendous defense and he actually had great defense last year. So i generally don't listen to posters opinions on a players defense. I will see him action in a few months and make the judgment myself.

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

    Re: The 2013 Sox and OPS

    In response to mef429's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to mef429's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to mef429's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to Drewski5's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to notin's comment:

     

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    A shortstop making plays that others cannot is speculation. Which others are we talking about ?

    You said you watched the games and can tell who is good and who is not. Isn't prt of that watching a guy like Iggy cover twice s as much ground as Scoo, Aviles, or Lowrie did? It's painfully obvious who gets to more balls than others... be obserrvation or by the numbers and metrics.

     I agree that a guy who can make the great play is worth a few more errors. The only way you can know that is by watching the games. However , an error is a reality.

    No, actually, they are not. They are highly subjective calls made by subjective scorekeepers that often reward the home team. There are also flaws in the way traditional errors are called. An OF'er who runs hard and gets to the ball, but drops it is charged with an error. On Of'er who gets a late break or misjudges a ball, but does not touch it, is often given a break.

    It's not reality. Error calls are little different from the guy making judgements on the data for UZR.

    A reality that can cost you the game. Many are throwing errors that result in extra bases , and have nothing to do with range.

    Yes, I mentioned throwing errors and how they can effect more than just allowing a guy to 1B.

    When a guy like Miggy wins the triple crown ( batting average , home runs and rbis) ,  you can be pretty sure that he will be right up there in OPS and WAR. Basically , I am trying to make two points. 1 -  The old , standard stats tell you what you need to know.  2 -  There is nothing like watching the games objectively , with an open mind , and forming your opinions based on what you see. If you prefer the newer metrics , fine , but most of it is redundant and a waste of time. 

    Like I said, I do watch the games. I do make my determinations on Sox players based on my eyes, but when the numbers disagree with what I am seeing, I look closer. Usually, I realize I have been mistaken and the numbers don't lie. Sometimes, however, I disagree with some numbers or metrics.

    My point is that you seem fine using outdated and seriusly flawed numbers like Fielding% to support your position, but criticize others for using RF/9 and UZR to support our positions, maybe because you don't fully understand them, or maybe because you don't realize that UZR is based on observations- the same as errors.

     




    There may be a few controversial calls , but most errors are obvious. Some mysterious guy sitting somewhere and computing UZR is not so obvious. I could give my top ten list that would be just as valid as that WAR list.  Like I said , I have no idea how WAR is calculated.  I don't really have a problem with Range Factor , since it is based on real stats ( putouts and assists ) as opposed to some UZR guys opinion. I don't really have a problem with OPS , except that we have always had On Base Percentage and Slugging Percentage , so OPS is nothing more than that.

     

     




     

     

    The arguments you make against UZR are actually pretty good arguments for it.

     

    UZR was designed for infielders, and really, works better for them than outfielders, where it has no ability to compensate for flyball height, etc. It involves laying out the entire ballpark into two dimensional zones, and giving credit for each play made within the zone, more credit to pays made outside of the zone, and assigning demerited values for plays in the zone not made, whether they are errors or hits (not sure if both are demerited equally). With groundballs, speed of the grounder is a little less important, as the fielder still has the ticking clock to get the play made. He has about 4 seconds before the batter reaches first, so this compensates for weak grounders against hard hit ones, etc. With flyballs, there is no compensation for a line drive landing in zone as opposed to a popup, and the assumption is everything equals out in volume. It doesn’t.

     

    So, particularly for infielders, UZR basically allows for a nice comparison for infielders without watching every single player make every single play. That is being done for you by some objective third party.

     

    Simply using putout or assists has definite flaws, too. These are the only factors in the Range Factor ratings, but the real issue is that they become heavily dependent on pitching staff and ballpark (re: infield surface for infielders). If a shortstop was on a team with that had a rotation of Derek Lowe, Rick Porcello, Aaron Cook and Charlie Morton, he would undoubtedly get a TON of chances and might even get some 700 assists, especially if they are on a grass infield. But does this make him a more capable fielder? It does make him a more relied upon fielder, but that is not the same.

     

    Errors on their own are indeed flawed. Proponents of errors operate on the assumption that errors are always obvious, and while most are, they others still represent a small sample of fielding. League leaders only have maybe 30 per year (2012 leader – Starlin Castro with 27), so if 3 or 4 are subjective, and usually more than that are, it drastically skews the sample. At this point, errors fall into the category of â€ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂœsome guy’s opinion.” If you are a proponent watching games to evaluate defense, it seems odd to accept the scorer’s opinion as valid, yet the system that involves watching every play against a standardized zone as not making sense. One observer is using a standard to measure plays against, the other is just making a decision about whether or not a player should have done something.

     

    I know some criticize UZR because it varies from year to year. Well, some players simply have bad defensive seasons, just like they have bad offensive seasons. A player with a bothersome wrist will suffer at the plate. And a player with a sore knee will see his defense hampered, for example These are human beings after all, and they are not subject to maintaining repeat performances annually in any aspect of the game.

     

    But if you like to use FP vs. UZR, last year’s top ten shortstops were as follows:

     

    FP – 1. Hardy 2. Peralta 3. Ryan 4. Y Escobar 5. Ramirez 6. Jeter 7. Rollins 8. Andrus 9. Cozart 10. Aybar

     

    UZR – 1. Ryan 2. Barmes 3. Hardy 4. Peralta 5. Andrus 6. Crawford 7. Cozart 8. Ramirez 9. Aviles 10. Desmond.

     

    As UZR is a tabulation that tends to accumulate, and FP is a percentage, playing more often can influence UZR more. In this respect, UZR/150 is preferable, as it pro-rates the tabulation over 150 games. The 2012 Top Ten Shortstops become

     

    UZR/150. 1. Ryan 2. Barmes 3. Peralta 4. Hardy 5. Crawford 6. Andrus 7. Cozart 8. Desmond 9.Aviles 10.Ramirez.

     

    Really, no matter the system the same names are at or near the top of all three lists – Ryan, Hardy, Peralta, with only Barmes standing out in the UZR world. But overall the cream still rises to the top.

     

    If you are a fan of players making great plays, FP has no means of accommodating this – all plays are equal. UZR has OOZ plays, allowing for defensive standouts like Elvis Andrus to get more credit for fielding prowess than statues like Derek Jeter, which FP does not do, and why Jeter placed ahead of Andrus using fielding percentage.

     

    OOZ. 1.Hardy 2.Castro 3.Ryan 4. Andrus 5.Ramirez 6. A Cabrera 7. A Escobar 8.Y Escobar 9. Aviles 10.Furcal.

     

    While players like Castro and Asdrubal Cabrera showed great range and was rewarded for this, they were also penalized for his numerous errors. UZR ranked them 14 and 19 respectively out of 21 qualified shortstops. Derek Jeter is the polar opposite, as his FP ranked 6 overall, but his weak range and inability to make a lot of plays in or out of zone relegated him to a UZR/150 of -16.4, 21 out of 21 qualified shortstops. Jeter only made 10 errors, however. The only qualified shortstops with fewer? Hardy, Ryan and Peralta.

     

    So if you like fielding percentage and errors, you must think Jeter is better defensively than Andrus, I guess…

     



    Well said, and how many of us have seen some SSs play no more than maybe 2-3 games a year? 

     

    Another guage by observation is the "Fielding Bible". I trust them more than the GG voting or one fan who might watch 150 Sox games and 20 non-Sox games a year opinion.

    Jeter is the worst fielding SS of the decade. Hands down. Yet, he has won GG awards in that timeframe. His fielding % is usually great. He's the poster child of just how wrong judging a fielder by Flg% is.

     



    Jhonny Peralta was a terrible defensive SS.  Jeter is the most overrated SS of the decade (from a defensive standpoint), hands down.  But I wouldnt say hes teh hands down worst.

     

     

     

     



    Worst out of SSs who played most of the decade in a FT role...yes.

     

     




    imagine how dreadful he will be this year coming off of a broken ankle..

     

     



    A little worse than Drew maybe?

     

     




    i'm thinking so. but Drew seems to be fully healed from the injury so i imagine he will be moving around much better now.

     

     



    Better as in what? The 4th worst in the decade?

     

     




    i've only seen his defense when healthy very few times so i couldn't begin to tell you. People were saying Aviles has horrendous defense and he actually had great defense last year. So i generally don't listen to posters opinions on a players defense. I will see him action in a few months and make the judgment myself.

     



    You got me.

    I was one who was bashing Mike's defense until i saw him play a full season last year. He wasn't great, but he was bertter than I thought, and certainly not 100 plays worse than Iggy (as I had projected might happen)

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: The 2013 Sox and OPS

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to mef429's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to mef429's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to mef429's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to Drewski5's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to notin's comment:

     

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    A shortstop making plays that others cannot is speculation. Which others are we talking about ?

    You said you watched the games and can tell who is good and who is not. Isn't prt of that watching a guy like Iggy cover twice s as much ground as Scoo, Aviles, or Lowrie did? It's painfully obvious who gets to more balls than others... be obserrvation or by the numbers and metrics.

     I agree that a guy who can make the great play is worth a few more errors. The only way you can know that is by watching the games. However , an error is a reality.

    No, actually, they are not. They are highly subjective calls made by subjective scorekeepers that often reward the home team. There are also flaws in the way traditional errors are called. An OF'er who runs hard and gets to the ball, but drops it is charged with an error. On Of'er who gets a late break or misjudges a ball, but does not touch it, is often given a break.

    It's not reality. Error calls are little different from the guy making judgements on the data for UZR.

    A reality that can cost you the game. Many are throwing errors that result in extra bases , and have nothing to do with range.

    Yes, I mentioned throwing errors and how they can effect more than just allowing a guy to 1B.

    When a guy like Miggy wins the triple crown ( batting average , home runs and rbis) ,  you can be pretty sure that he will be right up there in OPS and WAR. Basically , I am trying to make two points. 1 -  The old , standard stats tell you what you need to know.  2 -  There is nothing like watching the games objectively , with an open mind , and forming your opinions based on what you see. If you prefer the newer metrics , fine , but most of it is redundant and a waste of time. 

    Like I said, I do watch the games. I do make my determinations on Sox players based on my eyes, but when the numbers disagree with what I am seeing, I look closer. Usually, I realize I have been mistaken and the numbers don't lie. Sometimes, however, I disagree with some numbers or metrics.

    My point is that you seem fine using outdated and seriusly flawed numbers like Fielding% to support your position, but criticize others for using RF/9 and UZR to support our positions, maybe because you don't fully understand them, or maybe because you don't realize that UZR is based on observations- the same as errors.

     




    There may be a few controversial calls , but most errors are obvious. Some mysterious guy sitting somewhere and computing UZR is not so obvious. I could give my top ten list that would be just as valid as that WAR list.  Like I said , I have no idea how WAR is calculated.  I don't really have a problem with Range Factor , since it is based on real stats ( putouts and assists ) as opposed to some UZR guys opinion. I don't really have a problem with OPS , except that we have always had On Base Percentage and Slugging Percentage , so OPS is nothing more than that.

     

     




     

     

    The arguments you make against UZR are actually pretty good arguments for it.

     

    UZR was designed for infielders, and really, works better for them than outfielders, where it has no ability to compensate for flyball height, etc. It involves laying out the entire ballpark into two dimensional zones, and giving credit for each play made within the zone, more credit to pays made outside of the zone, and assigning demerited values for plays in the zone not made, whether they are errors or hits (not sure if both are demerited equally). With groundballs, speed of the grounder is a little less important, as the fielder still has the ticking clock to get the play made. He has about 4 seconds before the batter reaches first, so this compensates for weak grounders against hard hit ones, etc. With flyballs, there is no compensation for a line drive landing in zone as opposed to a popup, and the assumption is everything equals out in volume. It doesn’t.

     

    So, particularly for infielders, UZR basically allows for a nice comparison for infielders without watching every single player make every single play. That is being done for you by some objective third party.

     

    Simply using putout or assists has definite flaws, too. These are the only factors in the Range Factor ratings, but the real issue is that they become heavily dependent on pitching staff and ballpark (re: infield surface for infielders). If a shortstop was on a team with that had a rotation of Derek Lowe, Rick Porcello, Aaron Cook and Charlie Morton, he would undoubtedly get a TON of chances and might even get some 700 assists, especially if they are on a grass infield. But does this make him a more capable fielder? It does make him a more relied upon fielder, but that is not the same.

     

    Errors on their own are indeed flawed. Proponents of errors operate on the assumption that errors are always obvious, and while most are, they others still represent a small sample of fielding. League leaders only have maybe 30 per year (2012 leader – Starlin Castro with 27), so if 3 or 4 are subjective, and usually more than that are, it drastically skews the sample. At this point, errors fall into the category of â€ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂœsome guy’s opinion.” If you are a proponent watching games to evaluate defense, it seems odd to accept the scorer’s opinion as valid, yet the system that involves watching every play against a standardized zone as not making sense. One observer is using a standard to measure plays against, the other is just making a decision about whether or not a player should have done something.

     

    I know some criticize UZR because it varies from year to year. Well, some players simply have bad defensive seasons, just like they have bad offensive seasons. A player with a bothersome wrist will suffer at the plate. And a player with a sore knee will see his defense hampered, for example These are human beings after all, and they are not subject to maintaining repeat performances annually in any aspect of the game.

     

    But if you like to use FP vs. UZR, last year’s top ten shortstops were as follows:

     

    FP – 1. Hardy 2. Peralta 3. Ryan 4. Y Escobar 5. Ramirez 6. Jeter 7. Rollins 8. Andrus 9. Cozart 10. Aybar

     

    UZR – 1. Ryan 2. Barmes 3. Hardy 4. Peralta 5. Andrus 6. Crawford 7. Cozart 8. Ramirez 9. Aviles 10. Desmond.

     

    As UZR is a tabulation that tends to accumulate, and FP is a percentage, playing more often can influence UZR more. In this respect, UZR/150 is preferable, as it pro-rates the tabulation over 150 games. The 2012 Top Ten Shortstops become

     

    UZR/150. 1. Ryan 2. Barmes 3. Peralta 4. Hardy 5. Crawford 6. Andrus 7. Cozart 8. Desmond 9.Aviles 10.Ramirez.

     

    Really, no matter the system the same names are at or near the top of all three lists – Ryan, Hardy, Peralta, with only Barmes standing out in the UZR world. But overall the cream still rises to the top.

     

    If you are a fan of players making great plays, FP has no means of accommodating this – all plays are equal. UZR has OOZ plays, allowing for defensive standouts like Elvis Andrus to get more credit for fielding prowess than statues like Derek Jeter, which FP does not do, and why Jeter placed ahead of Andrus using fielding percentage.

     

    OOZ. 1.Hardy 2.Castro 3.Ryan 4. Andrus 5.Ramirez 6. A Cabrera 7. A Escobar 8.Y Escobar 9. Aviles 10.Furcal.

     

    While players like Castro and Asdrubal Cabrera showed great range and was rewarded for this, they were also penalized for his numerous errors. UZR ranked them 14 and 19 respectively out of 21 qualified shortstops. Derek Jeter is the polar opposite, as his FP ranked 6 overall, but his weak range and inability to make a lot of plays in or out of zone relegated him to a UZR/150 of -16.4, 21 out of 21 qualified shortstops. Jeter only made 10 errors, however. The only qualified shortstops with fewer? Hardy, Ryan and Peralta.

     

    So if you like fielding percentage and errors, you must think Jeter is better defensively than Andrus, I guess…

     



    Well said, and how many of us have seen some SSs play no more than maybe 2-3 games a year? 

     

    Another guage by observation is the "Fielding Bible". I trust them more than the GG voting or one fan who might watch 150 Sox games and 20 non-Sox games a year opinion.

    Jeter is the worst fielding SS of the decade. Hands down. Yet, he has won GG awards in that timeframe. His fielding % is usually great. He's the poster child of just how wrong judging a fielder by Flg% is.

     



    Jhonny Peralta was a terrible defensive SS.  Jeter is the most overrated SS of the decade (from a defensive standpoint), hands down.  But I wouldnt say hes teh hands down worst.

     

     

     

     



    Worst out of SSs who played most of the decade in a FT role...yes.

     

     




    imagine how dreadful he will be this year coming off of a broken ankle..

     

     



    A little worse than Drew maybe?

     

     




    i'm thinking so. but Drew seems to be fully healed from the injury so i imagine he will be moving around much better now.

     

     



    Better as in what? The 4th worst in the decade?

     

     




    i've only seen his defense when healthy very few times so i couldn't begin to tell you. People were saying Aviles has horrendous defense and he actually had great defense last year. So i generally don't listen to posters opinions on a players defense. I will see him action in a few months and make the judgment myself.

     

     



    You got me.

     

    I was one who was bashing Mike's defense until i saw him play a full season last year. He wasn't great, but he was bertter than I thought, and certainly not 100 plays worse than Iggy (as I had projected might happen)




    i was overstepping a bit when i said he played "great" defense... maybe it was "great" in comparison to what most people were expecting from him.

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

    Re: The 2013 Sox and OPS

    You got me.

     

    I was one who was bashing Mike's defense until i saw him play a full season last year. He wasn't great, but he was bertter than I thought, and certainly not 100 plays worse than Iggy (as I had projected might happen)

     




    i was overstepping a bit when i said he played "great" defense... maybe it was "great" in comparison to what most people were expecting from him.

     

    Is UZR/150 numbers were very good (+6.3), placing him 9th.

    What shocked me most was his RangR or +4.9 (7th in MLB).

     

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

    Re: The 2013 Sox and OPS

    i was overstepping a bit when i said he played "great" defense... maybe it was "great" in comparison to what most people were expecting from him.

    The same happened to Scoot, then the same guys blasting him when we signed him later blasted Ben for trading him.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: The 2013 Sox and OPS

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    i was overstepping a bit when i said he played "great" defense... maybe it was "great" in comparison to what most people were expecting from him.

    The same happened to Scoot, then the same guys blasting him when we signed him later blasted Ben for trading him.




    huh.... i seem to remember the same thing happening with Aviles too. Geo was a huge basher of Aviles and lamented BC because he traded him away for "a losing manager"

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

    Re: The 2013 Sox and OPS

    In response to mef429's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    i was overstepping a bit when i said he played "great" defense... maybe it was "great" in comparison to what most people were expecting from him.

    The same happened to Scoot, then the same guys blasting him when we signed him later blasted Ben for trading him.

     




    huh.... i seem to remember the same thing happening with Aviles too. Geo was a huge basher of Aviles and lamented BC because he traded him away for "a losing manager"

     



    Yes, and softy bashed Scoot mercilessly when signed. 

    When I said he might end up being an average fielder, but hit somewhere between his 2009 OPS of .789 and his career OPS at the time of .721, he went off on me for several pages claiming that Scoot's 2009 season was a "fluke" driven by his "contract year status". He complained about his pending "age regression" and "no range" fielding. He called him a "utility IF'er at best". (BTW, Scoot ended up hitting .744 with the Sox... pretty much right inbetween.)

    Then, after Scoot aged more and no longer could play FT SS, and was essentially a Utility IF'er or 2Bman, we rightly traded him to free up money to sign Ross, Shoppach and Padilla, and to replace him with a SS who ended up actually playing a decent SS on defense. Of course softy could not admit this, or his whole house of cards would collapse.

    At least I admitted I was wrong about Aviles' fielding. He wasn't great, but he wasn't 100 plays worse than Iggy either.

    I suppose I should learn from that lesson, but I really don't see Drew as an above average fielder. In fact, my guess is he will be bottom 3 to 5, even if close to 100% healthy. I hope I'm wrong again.

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

    Re: The 2013 Sox and OPS

    I suppose I should learn from that lesson, but I really don't see Drew as an above average fielder. In fact, my guess is he will be bottom 3 to 5, even if close to 100% healthy. I hope I'm wrong again.

    I'm not sure why?  Up until last year, when he was injured, he has been an above average fielder.  If he is playing close to 100% healthy, I think his defense should be good.  Not Iglesias good, by any means, but he should be able to hold his own.

     

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

    Re: The 2013 Sox and OPS

    Dgale, I think you would be surprised at how comprehensive UZR is, even for outfielders.  With the advancement of technology, these baseball geeks have all kinds of information at their disposal.  UZR accounts for all types of variables, like handedness of pitcher and how many outs and baserunners there are, just to name a couple. 

    It's not some random guy making a random call on whether he thinks a fielder should make a play or not.  The people who developed UZR and the plus/minus rating system have gone through great lengths to eliminate the randomness and bias out of these ratings as much as possible.

    Of course, as long as humans are involved, you will never eliminate these things 100%.   But I am very sure that the randomness and bias behind a scout's UZR or plus/minus rating are far less than that of an official scorer's and far less than that of any fan watching the games.  These guys watch every play of every game.

     

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

    Re: The 2013 Sox and OPS

    In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:

    I suppose I should learn from that lesson, but I really don't see Drew as an above average fielder. In fact, my guess is he will be bottom 3 to 5, even if close to 100% healthy. I hope I'm wrong again.

    I'm not sure why?  Up until last year, when he was injured, he has been an above average fielder.  If he is playing close to 100% healthy, I think his defense should be good.  Not Iglesias good, by any means, but he should be able to hold his own.

     




    Above average?

    His career UZR/150 was negative before 2012. Yes, he had a couple plus years right before 2012, but I'm not sure I'd call him above average based on a 2 year sample size.

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

    Re: The 2013 Sox and OPS

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    Above average?

    His career UZR/150 was negative before 2012. Yes, he had a couple plus years right before 2012, but I'm not sure I'd call him above average based on a 2 year sample size.




    He had a negative UZR/150 the first 3 years of his career.  The next 3, 2009-2011, his UZR/150 was positive, as was his DRS.  Isn't it possible that maybe he developed and improved defensively? 

     

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

    Re: The 2013 Sox and OPS

    In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    Above average?

    His career UZR/150 was negative before 2012. Yes, he had a couple plus years right before 2012, but I'm not sure I'd call him above average based on a 2 year sample size.

     




     

    He had a negative UZR/150 the first 3 years of his career.  The next 3, 2009-2011, his UZR/150 was positive, as was his DRS.  Isn't it possible that maybe he developed and improved defensively? 

     



    Yes, but isn't it also extremely possible that his injury will forever effect his future range?

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: The 2013 Sox and OPS

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    Above average?

    His career UZR/150 was negative before 2012. Yes, he had a couple plus years right before 2012, but I'm not sure I'd call him above average based on a 2 year sample size.

     




     

    He had a negative UZR/150 the first 3 years of his career.  The next 3, 2009-2011, his UZR/150 was positive, as was his DRS.  Isn't it possible that maybe he developed and improved defensively? 

     

     



    Yes, but isn't it also extremely possible that his injury will forever effect his future range?

     



    ^^this is my biggest concern with drew. No way of knowing just yet. But i will be watching every ball hit to SS in spring training and see how he is moving

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share