Reynolds: one error since July 4th

[GoldGlove21]

Except when he doesn't. Then you are bringing opinions into the realm of numbers. You don't use opinions to form numbers, you use numbers to form opinions.

Besides, if I don't like that the homer scorekeeper called a hit an error or vice-versa, am I allowed to consider that decision invalid and thus refer to a different number of errors for my opinions?

The argument here is that numbers do not tell the entire story. Every error is not equal and neither is every hit. Fielder missing a easy grounder is an error and Bletre making a diving stop on a ball down the line before getting to a knee and throwing it away allows a runner to advance. They both go down as errors, yet they are not the same play. In baseball an official scorer determines if a ball played is an error or a ball hit is a hit, so the human factor is an actual factor in the number. Balls being called a hit or error have a human factor to them which means that the stats have a human factor to them as well. Stats are never going to tell the entire picture in baseball nor should they.

[GoldGlove21]

Except when he doesn't. Then you are bringing opinions into the realm of numbers. You don't use opinions to form numbers, you use numbers to form opinions.

Besides, if I don't like that the homer scorekeeper called a hit an error or vice-versa, am I allowed to consider that decision invalid and thus refer to a different number of errors for my opinions?[/QUOTE]

I would imagine this is what a team who is scouting a given player does, right? If not then there would not be a human factor involved. You could just use statistics to identify everything you need to know. When baseball stops being about what you see with your own keen eye and more about a depository of mathematical calibrations, then that is the day I stop watching the game. I like that the game is slightly flawed, it is how we can argue as sports fans. Stat A shows that Derek Jeter is not a good fielder, but stat B does and it is considered to be more accurate, "Damn you got me!". How much fun would that be?

[Phantom]

The argument here is that numbers do not tell the entire story. Every error is not equal and neither is every hit. Fielder missing a easy grounder is an error and Bletre making a diving stop on a ball down the line before getting to a knee and throwing it away allows a runner to advance. They both go down as errors, yet they are not the same play. In baseball an official scorer determines if a ball played is an error or a ball hit is a hit, so the human factor is an actual factor in the number. Balls being called a hit or error have a human factor to them which means that the stats have a human factor to them as well. Stats are never going to tell the entire picture in baseball nor should they.

We all agree with that, but again you are missing the point. The issue is what meaningful part of the story they tell. Advanced fielding metrics attempt to tell how many runs a player saves or loses, compared to an average fielder at that position. SLG is not a perfect stat, but certainly tells a part of the story well (hitting for bases). I am not even sure what part of the story errors attempt to tell, but I am sure they don't tell it in any way accurately, and thus are not worth looking at.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Well it depends on who the best fielder in baseball is. Are we basing this off of Gold Gloves, because how popular you are, what team you play for and how well you hit help decide that award. Until they come up with a stat that measures where a guy was playing in relation to where the bal was hit, while factoring speed of the ball and distance traveled by the fielder t make a given play before cross checking statistics to show which other fielders would have made the catch I will continue to find defensive metrics lacking. If player A can get to a ball on the infield that player B can not then you would have to factor in where both players were standing, how fast the ball was hit and ease in which the player made the play to decide who was the better fielder. You can't just look at errors, but that doesn't mean they don't have a place in the game either.

Fielding metrics are something I put minimal stock into for a bunch of reasons.

1.) Spin of the ball off of the bat makes one routine play hard than another

2.) Shorthops do much of the same

3.) The speed of the runner putting pressure on the fielder to make a given throw

4.) The ability of the first baseman or other fielder who receives the ball

5.) The range of the fielder to his left or right to field a given ball

6.) The range of the fielder coming in to field a ball

7.) The speed at which the ball was struck

There are many factors that lead to errors and poor metrics that you would have to have someone review them on a case by case basis to identify fault. We compare things as Apples to Apples, but in order for stats to be really accurate we would have to compare Player A- Apples to Oranges to Bananas verses Player B- Apples to Oranges to Bananas. That, or you could just watch the plays yourself and see that there is a higher probability of a given player making that play over another. The same can be said about hitting, but the stats are what they are and they kind of all stink in their own way.

Those are all good points, but I think you have to assume there is some evening out. It's unlikely that one player is unlucky enough to be significantly more prone to bad hops than another. Nor is it likely that one fielder gets exposed to fast runners any more than another. You need large sample size (at least 3 years of full time data) to get something fairly stable. The latter 3 points are already accounted for and will be refined better with field fx. The ability of the first baseman is a good one, but if I had my guess, I'd bet height is a bigger factor than scooping the ball out of the dirt. The other factor is positioning, which may fall more on the team (coaching/pitching) more than the indivdual players.

[El Gordo]

For the record, the Fielding Bible currently ranks Reynolds #35 of 3B. He has a .306 on bunts for an F, he is -10 to his right -14 striaght on, and -6 to his left. He is -1 on fly balls, and his enhanced score is -34. In terms of total runs he is 55 Runs Created, 1 run for baserunning, -31 Runs Saved, and a positional adjustment of 16, for a total value of 41 Runs.(Originally published in The Fielding Bible Volume II, Total Runs calculates a total value for each player based on his contributions on offense and on defense. There are four elements to Total Runs: runs created, runs saved, baserunning runs, and a positional adjustment that enables a comparison of players across positions.)

[CA-ORIOLE]

For the record, the Fielding Bible currently ranks Reynolds #35 of 3B. He has a .306 on bunts for an F, he is -10 to his right -14 striaght on, and -6 to his left. he is - on fy balls his enhanced score is -34. In terms of total runs he is 55 Runs Created, 1 run for baserunning, -31 Runs Saved, and a positional adjustment of 16, for a total value of 41 Runs.(Originally published in The Fielding Bible Volume II, Total Runs calculates a total value for each player based on his contributions on offense and on defense. There are four elements to Total Runs: runs created, runs saved, baserunning runs, and a positional adjustment that enables a comparison of players across positions.)

I'm not surpised by the bunt score. Is it all bunts or do they group slow rollers in with bunts?

[Phantom]

I would imagine this is what a team who is scouting a given player does, right? If not then there would not be a human factor involved. You could just use statistics to identify everything you need to know. When baseball stops being about what you see with your own keen eye and more about a depository of mathematical calibrations, then that is the day I stop watching the game. I like that the game is slightly flawed, it is how we can argue as sports fans. Stat A shows that Derek Jeter is not a good fielder, but stat B does and it is considered to be more accurate, "Damn you got me!". How much fun would that be?

So you want arguments to be:

A: "Jeter is a bad fielder...UZR says so"

B: "No he's a great fielder because he is tall"

A: "Well, that's just as valid"

[CA-ORIOLE]

So you want arguments to be:

A: "Jeter is a bad fielder...UZR says so"

B: "No he's a great fielder because he is tall"

A: "Well, that's just as valid"

Hey, he patented the "Jeter Jump".

[El Gordo]

I'm not surpised by the bunt score. Is it all bunts or do they group slow rollers in with bunts?

I'm sure they consider a swinging bunt the same as an intentional bunt. Not sure wht you mean by a slow roller. It may be regarded as a slow GB. They compAre it to other players success on similar balls. the information they give on the Bill James site is not as detailed as the info they provide teams. I would guess they make more distinctions between bunts, slow rollers, and swinging bunts, in that case.

[GoldGlove21]

We all agree with that, but again you are missing the point. The issue is what meaningful part of the story they tell. Advanced fielding metrics attempt to tell how many runs a player saves or loses, compared to an average fielder at that position. SLG is not a perfect stat, but certainly tells a part of the story well (hitting for bases). I am not even sure what part of the story errors attempt to tell, but I am sure they don't tell it in any way accurately, and thus are not worth looking at.

If this is the argument then we should get rid of batting average in place on OBP, right? OBP is a much more accurate stat of how to determine a players ability to get on base. Who cares how they did it, just as long as they did. A walk is as good as a hit, right?

What I mentioned above could be true, but if a guy gets on via a walk did he do anything special or just stand there while a wild pitcher threw 4 straight balls? Was he pitched around for some reason. Maybe the guy batting behind him causes him to see better pitch's or maybe he doesn't get anything to hit because of the guy behind him. I like batting average because it takes luck out of the question. Player A put the ball in play and it was declared a hit. You have to take individual stats with a grain of salt and errors fall into the saem category. Like walks or stolen bases they are not all created equally. Alex Gordon has an .872 OPS this season, Tex has an .852 OPS who is the better hitter? Who would you rather have? Tex is SLG .510 and Gordon is at .495, but Gordon has the ability to get on base therefore score more runs.

You can look at stats all day, but they NEVER tell the entire story and you can't just leave out basic stats for the hell of it. Errors are not going to be an effective way to determine how a person fields without further analysis like watching the play in question. Same goes for UZR/150 in my mind, if it doesn't take it account the position of player A and B before the ball was struck then how can it possibly determine if either, neither or both would have caught the ball. Watch the play and decide for yourself. That is how you and probably a lot of scouts determine things about players. Using one flawed stat verses another is just as bad. You are going to ignore errors, but focus on UZR/150 which is not entirely accurate in and of itself.

[GoldGlove21]

Those are all good points, but I think you have to assume there is some evening out. It's unlikely that one player is unlucky enough to be significantly more prone to bad hops than another. Nor is it likely that one fielder gets exposed to fast runners any more than another. You need large sample size (at least 3 years of full time data) to get something fairly stable. The latter 3 points are already accounted for and will be refined better with field fx. The ability of the first baseman is a good one, but if I had my guess, I'd bet height is a bigger factor than scooping the ball out of the dirt. The other factor is positioning, which may fall more on the team (coaching/pitching) more than the indivdual players.

You can't assume an evening out because by doing so you are ignoring part of a play and each play is not created equal. As logical thinkers we like to compare things, but in order to prove something without a reasonable doubt we need to incorporate the fact that there are variables. Those variables can not be ignored and they alter the outcome. I just think that putting little stock in statistics is as foolish as putting all of your decision making behind a single stat. in order to determine the big picture then some form of stats and scouting should be compiled. I think ignoring one in favor of the other is short-sighted.

[GoldGlove21]

Hey, he patented the "Jeter Jump".

He did and the dude had a high baseball IQ. Do you remember the A's game in the playoffs where he cut off the overthrow and flipped it to the catcher to tag Giambi? Stats had nothing to do with Jeter being in that spot and probably winning that series for them. I look at Jeter and see an average fielder with limited range on balls to his left. That being said, he has always seemed to go to his right well and make some terrific throws in the hole. His arm is league average at best, but the guy is just a winner and I would have been happy if he would have replaced Cal Ripken as our shortstop for the decade and a half after Cal retired.

Baseball and the rest of the world still puts more stock in winning championships than a UZR/150 rating. Jeter's awesomeness resided in his ability to rise to the moment and his intangibles. He really did do numerous things pretty well and he did them year after year. I will sit here and destroy his defense as well, but I do not think anyone here could knock the effect he had on those championship teams. Even with the defensive issues Jeter has been worth 73.9 WAR over his last 15 seasons which is 4.92 WAR/yr. As good as Hardy has hit and fielded this year his WAR is likely to be at least 1 WAR behind Jeter's average in that same span. Jeter's WAR last season was 2.8 and Hardy's is currently 2.0. We can focus on whatever we want, but there is still a chance that a 36-year old Jeter was better than a 28-year old Hardy.

I don't know about anyone here, but I would take a near 5 WAR from my shortstop over a 15-year career any day of the week! That being said, I suppose arguing over Jeter's defensive metrics is still fun to do. Especially in the same year that he became the first Yankees player to EVER get 3,000 hits.

[CA-ORIOLE]

You can't assume an evening out because by doing so you are ignoring part of a play and each play is not created equal. As logical thinkers we like to compare things, but in order to prove something without a reasonable doubt we need to incorporate the fact that there are variables. Those variables can not be ignored and they alter the outcome. I .

As a logical thinker, would what lead you to conclude that one fielder would be exposed to more bad bounces and faster runners than another fielder in any significant way, especially when considered over a larger sample/3 year period? I suppose a hard home field might cause more bad bounces. I could perhaps buy into that being possible. Is that what you think?

I just think that putting little stock in statistics is as foolish as putting all of your decision making behind a single stat. in order to determine the big picture then some form of stats and scouting should be compiled. I think ignoring one in favor of the other is short-sighted

I've seen several people accuse others of this but nobody actually say it. It depends, both have their places. As far as evaluating existing ML players, statistics are far more telling imo. Minor leaguers or players with injuries/aging issues etc, then you need to get more into the scouting.

[Phantom]

If this is the argument then we should get rid of batting average in place on OBP, right? OBP is a much more accurate stat of how to determine a players ability to get on base. Who cares how they did it, just as long as they did. A walk is as good as a hit, right?

What I mentioned above could be true, but if a guy gets on via a walk did he do anything special or just stand there while a wild pitcher threw 4 straight balls? Was he pitched around for some reason. Maybe the guy batting behind him causes him to see better pitch's or maybe he doesn't get anything to hit because of the guy behind him. I like batting average because it takes luck out of the question. Player A put the ball in play and it was declared a hit. You have to take individual stats with a grain of salt and errors fall into the saem category. Like walks or stolen bases they are not all created equally. Alex Gordon has an .872 OPS this season, Tex has an .852 OPS who is the better hitter? Who would you rather have? Tex is SLG .510 and Gordon is at .495, but Gordon has the ability to get on base therefore score more runs.

You can look at stats all day, but they NEVER tell the entire story and you can't just leave out basic stats for the hell of it. Errors are not going to be an effective way to determine how a person fields without further analysis like watching the play in question. Same goes for UZR/150 in my mind, if it doesn't take it account the position of player A and B before the ball was struck then how can it possibly determine if either, neither or both would have caught the ball. Watch the play and decide for yourself. That is how you and probably a lot of scouts determine things about players. Using one flawed stat verses another is just as bad. You are going to ignore errors, but focus on UZR/150 which is not entirely accurate in and of itself.

So your argument is, all stats are flawed, and thus, equal?

Height is as good a measurement of defensive ability as anything. You cant just ignore it because it's basic.

Leeching is a flawed system of treating heart disease, but then again, so is surgery. Equal!

[Remember The Alomar]

Do you remember the A's game in the playoffs where he cut off the overthrow and flipped it to the catcher to tag Giambi?

Well, now that you mention it, I don't think I do! If only ESPN could constantly re-air such a seminal moment in baseball lore!