Jump to content

Reynolds: one error since July 4th


Frobby

Recommended Posts

UZR is pretty objective as compared to Plus Minus. Unless you believe the technology is not precise enough to plot the location of a batted ball through film and other tools, the only subjective thing is the error component. You can omit that if you want.

What plus minus are you referring to? The BIS info is used for both UZR and the Fielding Bible +- ratings. How is one more objective than the other?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 123
  • Created
  • Last Reply
What plus minus are you referring to? The BIS info is used for both UZR and the Fielding Bible +- ratings. How is one more objective than the other?

UZR uses field adjustments, Fielding Bible does not (for infielders anyways). Fielding Bible categorizes each hit by complexity (hard/soft etc), UZR does not do this. One applies a more objective/mathematical approach, the other a more subjective approach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

Also, last week when Buck had Bell at 3B and Reynolds at DH for a game, Reynolds pleaded with Buck to let him play third. Buck did, and not only did Ryenolds not make an error, he made several excellent plays that game. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point of this thread was merely that Reynolds has not been making as many glaring defensive mistakes over the last 24 games as he did in the previous 80. I stand by that statement. I'm not claiming he's been Brooks Robinson during that period. However, based on tracing through an old thread that said his UZR was -18.5 as of July 4, I believe his UZR has been slightly positive over the period that he has been relatively error-free.

Now, with that said, I've been looking at some range statistics, and it certainly appears that his range has been quite poor, as well. According to fangraphs, Reynolds' RZR (revised zone rating) is .615, worst of any 3B who has played 500 innings in the field. His range factor (which is just chances per 9 innings) is worst among qualified AL 3B at 2.02. I don't recall his range stats being that low when I looked earlier in the year, but I could be wrong about that.

His .615 RZR is far lower than he has had in any other year. His other seasons have ranged from .657 to .687. That's quite a big drop-off -- about 12 extra balls that he didn't reach in 2/3 of a season. Plus, even his normal range is a bit below average. A .700 RZR is about average for a 3B.

So, on the bigger question of whether Reynolds is playing a tolerable 3B this year, I'm going to have to say no. He was below average before 2011, and this year he's been worse than usual both in terms of range and error-proneness. The team is going to have to seriously consider doing something else at 3B next year.

Edit -- I previously said Reynolds hadn't reached about 20 extra balls that he typically would reach. That's wrong -- more like 12. I edited accordingly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

UZR uses field adjustments, Fielding Bible does not (for infielders anyways). Fielding Bible categorizes each hit by complexity (hard/soft etc), UZR does not do this. One applies a more objective/mathematical approach, the other a more subjective approach.
What do you mean by field adjustments? FB is employing velocity to further individuate their system.

This is Dewan on the similarities/differemces between UZR and his +-:

Similarities

Both use BIS Data. UZR started with STATS data, but the most commonly referenced version uses BIS data.

Both have the same idea- break down balls in play by type, location, velocity.

Both are measured on an above/below average scale.

Both have runs saved systems with components for GDP, OF Arms, Range.

We use similar run value multipliers at each position.

Both are available online (Fangraphs or Bill James Online).

Technical Differences

UZR uses multi-year samples, while Plus/Minus adjusts for year-to-year league changes. As teams are increasingly recognizing the importance of a strong defense, the league as a whole will be stronger defensively. It is important to handle this trend appropriately.

Plus/Minus uses smaller, more precise zones, or “buckets” of plays.

UZR has several minute adjustments, such as batter hand, pitcher hand, base/out state, and pitcher groundball/flyball tendencies. We remain focused on the value contributed to the team in the player’s specific context.

Park adjustments are handled differently- I believe UZR applies blanket adjustment across all buckets, while Plus/Minus has park factors in form of more precise buckets. A ball hit 395 feet to Vector 190 that stays in the park is only compared to all other balls hit 395 feet to Vector 190 that stay in the park. If it leaves the park, it neither helps nor hurts the fielder. Also, we added the “Manny Adjustment”, which removes fly balls hit unreachably high off a wall. We named the system after the Green Monster’s most notable victim, who went from being by far the worst left fielder in baseball before the adjustment to being only arguably the worst left fielder after the adjustment.

Plus/Minus accommodates plays where the first baseman holds the runner and middle infielders are covering second on hit-and-run plays. UZR adjusts for all base/out states.

The two systems apply the run values at different stages in the calculations. UZR applies runs right away, while we convert to Enhanced PM then apply the Run Factors.

Plus/Minus is a little more aggressive in awarding credit/penalty. An example: 100 balls in a ‘bucket’ (specified type, velocity, location), 30 fielded by the 2B, 20 by the 1B, 50 go through for singles. On a groundout to the second baseman, we give +50/(50+30) = 5/8 = +.625. UZR gives +50/100 = +.50. On a single through both fielders, Plus/Minus gives -30/80 = -.375 to the 2B, and -20/70 = -.29 to the 1B. UZR gives -30/100 = -.3 to the 2B, and -20/100 = -.2 to the 1B. You could make an argument for either method of accounting, but neither one is better than the other. The differences are the greatest at the middle infield positions, where overlap between fielders is the highest.

Fundamental Differences

Runs Saved includes Bunt Runs Saved for corner infielders, pitcher fielding (Plus/Minus and holding runners), and catcher fielding (handling the pitching staff and the running game).

Runs Saved measures the extra impact of HR Saving Catches. Runs Saved will add other Defensive Misplay/Good Fielding Play runs in the future.

Don't see how one is more objective than the other. I would say the greater idividuation of the +- might make it more accurate.

http://sonsofsamhorn.net/topic/46840-chat-with-john-dewan/page__st__20

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you mean by field adjustments? FB is employing velocity to further individuate their system.

I stated FB does not use field adjustments for groundballs. They do not. The more "precise buckets" with fielding Bible are likely accomplished by subjective assignment of speed/complexity (hard/slow etc). UZR does not do this. It utilizes mathematical adjustments (field/pitching etc.) across a spectrum of plays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here you go.

'>www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-fangraphs-uzr-primer/

Batted Ball Types (UZR)

A bunt ground ball is treated as a separate kind of a batted ball than a non-bunt ground ball, but only for the first, second, and third baseman. In fact, bunt ground balls are ignored when figuring the UZR of the SS (I realize that once in a blue moon the SS fields a bunt). The types of batted balls that UZR processes are ground balls, bunt ground balls, outfield line drives, and outfield fly balls (including so-called pop flies). All batted balls are put in one of those categories. No other batted ball type distinctions are used, such as “fliners,” which are used in Dewan’s plus/minus system. The speed of the each batted ball is also considered and is indicated in the data as “slow/soft, medium, or fast/hard” (3 categories).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I stated FB does not use field adjustments for groundballs. They do not. The more "precise buckets" with fielding Bible are likely accomplished by subjective assignment of speed/complexity (hard/slow etc). UZR does not do this. It utilizes mathematical adjustments (field/pitching etc.) across a spectrum of plays.
FB is going to be employng specific velocity readings for each batted ball shortly, if they are not doing so already.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FB is going to be employng specific velocity readings for each batted ball shortly, if they are not doing so already.

Yeah I was under the impression that FB always did this and UZR did not. After reading that piece on Fangraphs again, it sounds like UZR is doing it also. It does sound like FB is ready to incorporate more specific field Fx data it that's what you're talking about by velocity readings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I was under the impression that FB always did this and UZR did not. After reading that piece on Fangraphs again, it sounds like UZR is doing it also. It does sound like FB is ready to incorporate more specific field Fx data it that's what you're talking about by velocity readings.
I am.

lettuce

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's not as good offensively as Mora was in his best seasons. Nor is he as good defensively. But his offense is pretty solid, and if he can get his defense back to "below average but acceptable" (which is where I believe he has been in his career prior to 2011), he's a pretty decent player.

I'd like to take this opportunity to comment on how lucky we got on Mora, and how badly we squandered his (impressive) production.

He's a good example of how we can catch lightning in a bottle from time to time. But generally only when everything else is going so badly that it hardly matters.

Maybe Chris Davis can make that kind of turnaround.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, every study of defensive value has showed virtually no correlation between errors and defensive value (EDIT: to my knowledge). They are a stat that penalizes people for getting to balls that other players do not, and rewards players for not attempting to get to balls that are difficult to play. They suffer from so many more issues than this, (such as subjectivity). Even if they were a good metric, analyzing them over such a short time period and drawing any conclusion would be ludicrous. Even "good" defensive measurements can't be trusted for an entire years worth of data.

No, RANGE is more what you are thinking of. Most errors (especially from the left side) are on throws, not for what you are attempting to describe. The % of errors that are attributed when a player makes a great play to get to something difficult is miniscule because the official scorers take this into account when giving out errors. There are criteria for giving an error and one of them takes into account whether it is considered a routine play or not. An error is not automatically given for getting glove on a ball, an error is given for booting a routine ball (think ball right at you without moving).

Long story short, an error is given for good reason, and there is a difference between someone getting a lot of errors for bobbling balls and someone making inaccurate throws, so they are not a meaningless stat by any means, but I wish there was a difference between throwing errors and glove errors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Reynolds. At the end of the day you have to ask yourself, is he creating more runs than he is costing us? As Frobby mentioned earlier, his range is allowing something like 12 balls through that wouldn't get by an avg. 3B, if you could track the number of runs that have scored due to his E and the number of runs that scored on those 12 extra base hits, and subtract the average runs allowed by a ML avg. 3B you'd have the negative total. Then you'd have to figure out the number of runs over an avg. ML 3B that he generates.

I don't know where to find all that raw data, but I am willing to guess his bat comes out a little ahead in the end, and would be much more ahead if he had any protection in the order, or didn't have to hit 7th/8th all year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...