Reynolds: one error since July 4th

[BaltimoreTerp]

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.

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=3b&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=y&type=6&season=2011&month=0&season1=2011&ind=0

[allstar1579]

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=3b&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=y&type=6&season=2011&month=0&season1=2011&ind=0

Do you know how they calculate value? I don't know if they are taking all unearned runs they are responsible for, plus the range factors or what. I tried to find their definition of the term but I didn't see it.

Thanks though, I always forget FG for random stats.

[CA-ORIOLE]

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.

Simple, you compare overall WAR (OWAR and DWAR) to other third baseman and you have the answer.

[CA-ORIOLE]

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=3b&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=y&type=6&season=2011&month=0&season1=2011&ind=0

When you consider the "unqualified" list it looks a lot worse.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Do you know how they calculate value? I don't know if they are taking all unearned runs they are responsible for, plus the range factors or what. I tried to find their definition of the term but I didn't see it.

Thanks though, I always forget FG for random stats.

Wins Above Replacement (WAR) is extracted from overall run value. Uses woba (adjusted) for offense and UZR for defense.

[allstar1579]

Wins Above Replacement (WAR) is extracted from overall run value. Uses woba (adjusted) for offense and UZR for defense.

Gotcha.

This is why I'll never be a saber guy. Too many stats these days, you can invent a statistic to prove any agenda you want. (Not saying that's the case here, just in general.)

I've got about 10 statistics I really pay attention to, the rest is scouting.

[Phantom]

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).

First, prove it (I am not trying to be jerky, I have just never seen this broken down anywhere). Second, even if what you say is true, there are several large problems. To begin with, you are counting on official scorers to do a good job. Next, let's say you have a player with great range (oh, let's say Adrian Beltre) who makes tough plays look easy. What if he boots a few of those easy balls, or, as you say, muffs a few more throws than someone with less range? He now has more errors and a worse fielding percentage than a mediocre defender, despite being a better defender and saving his team runs.

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.

.

If errors are not meaningless, I have to ask, what conclusion can one draw from looking at them?

[Sports Guy]

Are some of you serious? Every time Reynolds made an error, there would multiple threads crying about ut. Now, Frobby starts a thread talking about his improvement in the error dept and people are complaining about that? This is obviously worthwhile to point out.

[GoldGlove21]

If errors are not meaningless, I have to ask, what conclusion can one draw from looking at them?

Errors are not meaningless, but they do not tell the whole story either. A fielder getting to more balls causes him to have more attempts and that range can often lead to an error itself. The whole, half of a great play argument. Also, I would like to know how many of Reynolds errors actually led to actual runs. A guy can get lucky and make 20 errors, but due to some good fortune maybe only 5 of those runners allowed on base or advanced score in the same inning as an error.

I like the range factor, but I wonder how that is actually calculated. Does someone actually watch every play to see how far a guy went to his left or right to snag a ball? What about diving plays? What about balls hit harder than 85 mph? Was the play that had to be made across the body or bare-handed on the run. I think good fielders pass the eyeball test. You can look at defensive metrics all day long, but a lot of people in baseball think they need to be fine tuned. If stats told the entire story then teams wouldn't need to send scouts out to watch a guy field, hit, or throw. I think stats have a place in the game, but building a team can't be as easy as getting hitters with a high OPS, fielders with a high UZR/150 and pitchers with a low WHIP, right?

[allstar1579]

First, prove it (I am not trying to be jerky, I have just never seen this broken down anywhere). Second, even if what you say is true, there are several large problems. To begin with, you are counting on official scorers to do a good job. Next, let's say you have a player with great range (oh, let's say Adrian Beltre) who makes tough plays look easy. What if he boots a few of those easy balls, or, as you say, muffs a few more throws than someone with less range? He now has more errors and a worse fielding percentage than a mediocre defender, despite being a better defender and saving his team runs.

.

If errors are not meaningless, I have to ask, what conclusion can one draw from looking at them?

As was just explained to me a little while ago, the defense stuff figures into WAR, so a guy with a higher WAR is saving more runs than he is giving up. Reynolds WAR would unquestionably be higher if he was better defensively, but he is still in the positives, which means he's not giving away more runs than he is generating.

Yes, all of baseball is counting on official scorers to do a good job, saying that is like saying the Redskins would be a good team if the referees would just make all penalties in their favor all game. It's just a part of the sport, and at the ML level if you have an official scorer that isn't doing a good job, they are replaced right away. There are checks and balances from MLB and they have very strict standards.

A player can have all the range in the world, but if he doesn't make the play on a ball he should be making a play on (we aren't talking about plays ranging to his right on the run off balance throw, we are talking body in front of the ball and the play is expected from an average defensive player at the position), then he is not a good defensive player. If you have a guy that is quick laterally and can get close to balls but can't make the play on it, they are going to move him to a new position. Range is nice, but it's a luxury compared to fielding and accuracy. Everything balances out with # of chances, if Beltre is getting to 100 more balls than another guy, an error is going to lower his % by less, so the stats work themselves out. You are just referring to the perception of how good a player is versus the reality. People get reputations for being better than they actually are, see: Jones, Adam.

One can draw from errors that a player makes mistakes, either physically or mentally more than another player.

[GoldGlove21]

Are some of you serious? Every time Reynolds made an error, there would multiple threads crying about ut. Now, Frobby starts a thread talking about his improvement in the error dept and people are complaining about that? This is obviously worthwhile to point out.

I agree 100%. We all knew that Reynolds history as a 3B does not show that he would continue that trend over the course of an entire year+. Does anyone know how many games we have played him at first since July 4th? I have seen them there a handful of times.

[wildcard]

Are some of you serious? Every time Reynolds made an error, there would multiple threads crying about ut. Now, Frobby starts a thread talking about his improvement in the error dept and people are complaining about that? This is obviously worthwhile to point out.

You must have missed this in the thread.

From Frobby:

The team is going to have to seriously consider doing something else at 3B next year.

[GoldGlove21]

As was just explained to me a little while ago, the defense stuff figures into WAR, so a guy with a higher WAR is saving more runs than he is giving up. Reynolds WAR would unquestionably be higher if he was better defensively, but he is still in the positives, which means he's not giving away more runs than he is generating.

Yes, all of baseball is counting on official scorers to do a good job, saying that is like saying the Redskins would be a good team if the referees would just make all penalties in their favor all game. It's just a part of the sport, and at the ML level if you have an official scorer that isn't doing a good job, they are replaced right away. There are checks and balances from MLB and they have very strict standards.

A player can have all the range in the world, but if he doesn't make the play on a ball he should be making a play on (we aren't talking about plays ranging to his right on the run off balance throw, we are talking body in front of the ball and the play is expected from an average defensive player at the position), then he is not a good defensive player. If you have a guy that is quick laterally and can get close to balls but can't make the play on it, they are going to move him to a new position. Range is nice, but it's a luxury compared to fielding and accuracy. Everything balances out with # of chances, if Beltre is getting to 100 more balls than another guy, an error is going to lower his % by less, so the stats work themselves out. You are just referring to the perception of how good a player is versus the reality. People get reputations for being better than they actually are, see: Jones, Adam.

One can draw from errors that a player makes mistakes, either physically or mentally more than another player.

Right, but there are certain guys that look mighty good at third. Zimmerman is one of the better if not the best fielder at third IMO. I watch him and he does really well on tough plays and has soft hands. His footwork is good as well. One thing people never seem to understand is that making a play from start to finish is just as much about footwork as it is accuracy or arm strength.

[Phantom]

Errors are not meaningless, but they do not tell the whole story either. A fielder getting to more balls causes him to have more attempts and that range can often lead to an error itself. The whole, half of a great play argument. Also, I would like to know how many of Reynolds errors actually led to actual runs. A guy can get lucky and make 20 errors, but due to some good fortune maybe only 5 of those runners allowed on base or advanced score in the same inning as an error.

I appreciate the measured response. You say that errors do not tell the whole story, but I ask, what story do they tell at all? They do not show if a player has a bad arm, a bad glove, or poor range. So what do they tell?

Yes, all of baseball is counting on official scorers to do a good job, saying that is like saying the Redskins would be a good team if the referees would just make all penalties in their favor all game. It's just a part of the sport, and at the ML level if you have an official scorer that isn't doing a good job, they are replaced right away. There are checks and balances from MLB and they have very strict standards.

Actually, none of baseball counts on the official scorer. They are so bad that no advanced stats go off them (same goes for advanced Football stats, btw).

A player can have all the range in the world, but if he doesn't make the play on a ball he should be making a play on (we aren't talking about plays ranging to his right on the run off balance throw, we are talking body in front of the ball and the play is expected from an average defensive player at the position), then he is not a good defensive player. If you have a guy that is quick laterally and can get close to balls but can't make the play on it, they are going to move him to a new position. Range is nice, but it's a luxury compared to fielding and accuracy. Everything balances out with # of chances, if Beltre is getting to 100 more balls than another guy, an error is going to lower his % by less, so the stats work themselves out. You are just referring to the perception of how good a player is versus the reality. People get reputations for being better than they actually are, see: Jones, Adam.

Then why is Beltre's % so crappy, when he is widely regarded as an amazing 3B by both scouts and advanced metrics? You have proved your own point invalid. Errors do not balance themselves out.

One can draw from errors that a player makes mistakes, either physically or mentally more than another player.

So Franklin Gutierrez somehow had one of the best defensive season ever in 2009, while making more physical or mental mistakes than 90% of CF? Laughable.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Errors are not meaningless, but they do not tell the whole story either. A fielder getting to more balls causes him to have more attempts and that range can often lead to an error itself. The whole, half of a great play argument.

Right, but in Reynolds case his range component is far worse than his error component this year. So he's not making more overall plays. His past range components, while not as bad, have been pretty underwhelming.

Also, I would like to know how many of Reynolds errors actually led to actual runs. A guy can get lucky and make 20 errors, but due to some good fortune maybe only 5 of those runners allowed on base or advanced score in the same inning as an error.

It's a statistical average. You can't predict that errors a certain guy makes will count less than somebody else.

I like the range factor, but I wonder how that is actually calculated. Does someone actually watch every play to see how far a guy went to his left or right to snag a ball? What about diving plays? What about balls hit harder than 85 mph? Was the play that had to be made across the body or bare-handed on the run. I think good fielders pass the eyeball test. You can look at defensive metrics all day long, but a lot of people in baseball think they need to be fine tuned.

I'll take the stats needing fine tuning over the eyeball test. Used properly they provide a lot. In Reynolds case he doesn't pass the eyball test. The advanced stats do what you're asking. They don't care if he made a one hand grab or just made a play look easy.

If stats told the entire story then teams wouldn't need to send scouts out to watch a guy field, hit, or throw.

Nobody said they tell the entire story. Scouts can observe and tell a lot. As far as defense goes, they probably can't gauge consistency over a long period of time and compare performance relative to every other individual player at a similar position.

I think stats have a place in the ? but building a team can't be as easy as getting hitters with a high OPS, fielders with a high UZR/150 and pitchers with a low WHIP, right

The team with the best stats usually ends up doing pretty well.