Defense?

[El Gordo]

I've never thought Nick looked particularly good in right field in OPACY. Yes he can field a ball bare-handed off the wall and fire into second, but I hate his range. I think he's below average coming in on the ball and not particularly good going over his shoulder either.

Yes you're right about this, but that is because Nick and PA are not really Greek but from Krypton and PA has his cache of kryptonite (worth millions of shekels) buried in the mysterious RF corner at OPACY. Consequently the young Nick(beautiful when he is hot) endowed with super powers, is rendered weaker the closer he gets to that corner. When he plays away from OPACY he is the super star we would expect him to be. The real down side of all of this, is Kryptonians have a normal life expectancy of 200 years, so we are stuck with PA for another 120 .

[Hallas]

I wasn't referring to the UZR arm rating system, I was referring to the FB's. This is their explaination:

How do you measure an Outfield Arm Runs Saved?

We account for the strength and accuracy of an outfielder’s arm by comparing the rates at which runners advance in potential extra-base situations. In extra base situations, the runner could either 1) advance safely, 2) get thrown out attempting to advance, or 3) hold at the previous base and not challenge the outfielder. Based on average 24-states run expectancies of each outcome, we award the outfielder the appropriate credit/penalty for his contributions above/below the average fielder at his position.

We also account for miscellaneous “kills”, where the outfielder directly guns down an opposing baserunner in a situation we haven’t already covered. Each of these plays is a 0.75-run credit to the outfielder. Adam Jones led baseball in 2009 with 12 Outfield Arm Runs Saved

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

I'm pretty sure that this is no different from the way UZR handles arm runs, minus some tweaks here and there. However, this is irrelevant for batter-runners. For them, I am also fairly certain that enhanced +/- and UZR have a similar weighted runs system, where balls of a certain type of a certain vector are assigned a run value based on previous data. This system, by virtue of using a pre-determined run value rather than the run value of the actual event, eliminates any possible credit/debit as a result of holding batter-runners to singles, or as a result of allowing a triple on a ball that most players would have cut off and given up only a double.

[TGO]

My point isn't that he was a good RF only that he only had one year where he had home splits worse than his away splits. If Gibbons could maintain a plus UZR in OPACY RF when he played there, how is it that Marakakis can't? They haven't changed the park that much have they?

Obviously Gibbons had a magic beanstalk growing in his locker, but everyone knows that magic beans have to be eaten right off the stalk. Their magical powers don't travel well.

Look, I'm on your side in believing Markakis is worse in the field than most here want to think, but you're talking about smaller and smaller sample sizes here with this Gibbons argument. I go back to what Frobby said originally, which is that you've basically hurt your argument even bringing Gibbons into this.

[CA-ORIOLE]

This is what the FB says about park adjustments:

How do you handle the Green Monster in Boston and other strange park oddities?

In 2007, we introduced the “Manny Adjustment.” In this adjustment we eliminate any ball that hits an outfield wall that is out of reach of the outfielder (i.e. too high on the wall). Basically, we’re treating a ball hitting a wall out of reach in the same way we treat a home run. They can’t be caught so they are left out of the universe of plays to consider.

As for non-wall park peculiarities, we only compare balls that are in play in one park to other parks where the ball was also in play. In other words, a hard fly ball hit 405 feet to Vector 183 in center field is only compared to other hard fly balls that stayed in play when hit 405 feet to Vector 183. The system doesn’t know that this particular ball was a home run in other ballparks; it only knows that when that particular ball was in play, it was caught X% of the time. This is a de facto park effect- because the plus/minus zones are so precise, it handles strange wall and park configurations pretty well.

Might not be a bad idea to read the whole FAQ section: http://fieldingbible.com/Fielding-Bible-FAQ.asp

Doesn't adress the issue of guys having slow up near the wall at all. Ellsbury's 13 home/away split differntial in LF and Crawford's going from a consistent plus 17 average to a minus 4 doesn't convince me they've got Fenway Park figured out "pretty well". The again maybe I'm too blind to see that Crawford is really a below average defender now. We'll see what happens next year. Maybe we'll have a Crawford adjustment.

[Frobby]

Yes you're right about this, but that is because Nick and PA are not really Greek but from Krypton and PA has his cache of kryptonite (worth millions of shekels) buried in the mysterious RF corner at OPACY. Consequently the young Nick(beautiful when he is hot) endowed with super powers, is rendered weaker the closer he gets to that corner. When he plays away from OPACY he is the super star we would expect him to be. The real down side of all of this, is Kryptonians have a normal life expectancy of 200 years, so we are stuck with PA for another 120 .

You are really coming off like a jerk in this thread. I've made it clear that I don't completely trust UZR and FB, but I don't discount them, either. That has been my position for years, over a very wide range of threads about many different players.

Just for perspective, I remember when "range factor" was first developed, and that was the cutting-edge defensive statistic that supposedly was far more revealing that fielding percentage. And that stat showed that Mike Schmidt, Greg Nettles and several other 3B (including some of Brooks's contemporaries) were superior to Brooks Robinson. That was the prevailing sabermetric view for about 5 years, despite the protests of those who saw Brooks play. Well, guess what, it was eventually shown that range factor was deeply flawed for a whole variety of reasons, and now the more sophisticated restrospective stats show that Brooks was the best 3B of all time by a very wide margin. For all I know, the statistical landscape will change numerous more times before I die, and maybe Brooks will be up, or maybe he'll be down. But at this point, it isn't going to change my opinion.

That's the lens through which I look at UZR and FB. When they come up with results that seem counterintuitive to me, I tend to believe that there are three possible explanations: (1) I am biased, (2) there are certain things you can't easily discern by watching games on TV, or (3) the stat has flaws. Any of those are possible, but I see plently of anomolies where UZR and FB don't agree with, not only me, but the vast majority of fans who vote in Tango's polls. So I refuse to slavishly accept those stats as the gospel, and even Michael Lichtman says that I shouldn't.

[Lucky Jim]

That's the lens through which I look at UZR and FB. When they come up with results that seem counterintuitive to me, I tend to believe that there are three possible explanations: (1) I am biased, (2) there are certain things you can't easily discern by watching games on TV, or (3) the stat has flaws. Any of those are possible, but I see plently of anomolies where UZR and FB don't agree with, not only me, but the vast majority of fans who vote in Tango's polls. So I refuse to slavishly accept those stats as the gospel, and even Michael Lichtman says that I shouldn't.

Exactly. Anyone who rigidly denies any of these three possibilities is failing the stats. The stats aren't failing them.

[El Gordo]

You are really coming off like a jerk in this thread. I've made it clear that I don't completely trust UZR and FB, but I don't discount them, either. That has been my position for years, over a very wide range of threads about many different players.

Just for perspective, I remember when "range factor" was first developed, and that was the cutting-edge defensive statistic that supposedly was far more revealing that fielding percentage. And that stat showed that Mike Schmidt, Greg Nettles and several other 3B (including some of Brooks's contemporaries) were superior to Brooks Robinson. That was the prevailing sabermetric view for about 5 years, despite the protests of those who saw Brooks play. Well, guess what, it was eventually shown that range factor was deeply flawed for a whole variety of reasons, and now the more sophisticated restrospective stats show that Brooks was the best 3B of all time by a very wide margin. For all I know, the statistical landscape will change numerous more times before I die, and maybe Brooks will be up, or maybe he'll be down. But at this point, it isn't going to change my opinion.

That's the lens through which I look at UZR and FB. When they come up with results that seem counterintuitive to me, I tend to believe that there are three possible explanations: (1) I am biased, (2) there are certain things you can't easily discern by watching games on TV, or (3) the stat has flaws. Any of those are possible, but I see plently of anomolies where UZR and FB don't agree with, not only me, but the vast majority of fans who vote in Tango's polls. So I refuse to slavishly accept those stats as the gospel, and even Michael Lichtman says that I shouldn't.

Jerk or not, I'd say that your assessment of Markakis' fielding is a) biased b) based on watching him mostly on TV where you can't see him "off ball", as Buck would say, and see things like positioning and first step, and c) taking admitted flaws and blowing them out of proportion. You seem to think Nick is an above average RF with average to above range. The Numbers show him to be a below average RF with very poor range. The numbers certainly may be flawed but not so much as to make up that extreme of a difference IMO. I don't slavishly adhere to them, but as I have said many times before, when all three systems, Rtot, UZR, and FB are in agreement, I take that as a general indication of the player's level of ability. Really, what is the % of times they grossly mischaracterize players fielding? How often do they have a player in the top 10 at their position, who should be in the bottom 10 and vice versa?

[Hallas]

Jerk or not, I'd say that your assessment of Markakis' fielding is a) biased b) based on watching him mostly on TV where you can't see him "off ball", as Buck would say, and see things like positioning and first step, and c) taking admitted flaws and blowing them out of proportion. You seem to think Nick is an above average RF with average to above range. The Numbers show him to be a below average RF with very poor range. The numbers certainly may be flawed but not so much as to make up that extreme of a difference IMO. I don't slavishly adhere to them, but as I have said many times before, when all three systems, Rtot, UZR, and FB are in agreement, I take that as a general indication of the player's level of ability. Really, what is the % of times they grossly mischaracterize players fielding? How often do they have a player in the top 10 at their position, who should be in the bottom 10 and vice versa?

You have no basis to say that the numbers are not flawed enough to make an extreme difference. Even if the numbers say he was below average, we *know* that short porches with high walls tend to distort in-play stats, and we have no way of knowing that our park adjustments are good enough to compensate for this difference.

One example: Nick plays a ball that bounces off the wall about 3-4 feet above the ground. Because Nick is in 3 dimensions, we have no way of knowing that, even if he had positioned himself flush against the wall, he would have a serious play on the ball, because the trajectory of the ball might have been such that Nick might not have had a serious play on the ball without risking injury.

It's extremely naive and arrogant to think that just because you can't think of a way that the stats are flawed, that they must be nearly perfect. I have no doubt that UZR/FB are very good stats; certainly a major improvement in defensive stats compared to what we have had in the past, but that does not mean that they work for everyone.

[El Gordo]

You have no basis to say that the numbers are not flawed enough to make an extreme difference. Even if the numbers say he was below average, we *know* that short porches with high walls tend to distort in-play stats, and we have no way of knowing that our park adjustments are good enough to compensate for this difference.

One example: Nick plays a ball that bounces off the wall about 3-4 feet above the ground. Because Nick is in 3 dimensions, we have no way of knowing that, even if he had positioned himself flush against the wall, he would have a serious play on the ball, because the trajectory of the ball might have been such that Nick might not have had a serious play on the ball without risking injury.

It's extremely naive and arrogant to think that just because you can't think of a way that the stats are flawed, that they must be nearly perfect. I have no doubt that UZR/FB are very good stats; certainly a major improvement in defensive stats compared to what we have had in the past, but that does not mean that they work for everyone.

This example is irrelevant, at least for the FB. They don't count balls hit out of reach on walls. "Basically, we’re treating a ball hitting a wall out of reach in the same way we treat a home run. They can’t be caught so they are left out of the universe of plays to consider." http://fieldingbible.com/Fielding-Bible-FAQ.asp

What I find naive and stupid, if not arrogant, is thinking that a system that is generally accurate for the great majority of players, is suddenly grievously wrong for one park, where it just so happens that two favorite players happen to play.

If you can demonstrate that OPACY penalizes opposing teams RF as much as it does Nick, or that UZR and the FB are inaccurate to a great degree for players in general, I would accept that there might be something to the mysterious OPACY park factors. I can invent as many non park related reasons for the home away splits as you can imagine negative park factors.

[CA-ORIOLE]

This example is irrelevant, at least for the FB. They don't count balls hit out of reach on walls. "Basically, we’re treating a ball hitting a wall out of reach in the same way we treat a home run. They can’t be caught so they are left out of the universe of plays to consider." http://fieldingbible.com/Fielding-Bible-FAQ.asp

If you can demonstrate that OPACY penalizes opposing teams RF as much as it does Nick, or that UZR and the FB are inaccurate to a great degree for players in general, I would accept that there might be something to the mysterious OPACY park factors. I can invent as many non park related reasons for the home away splits as you can imagine negative park factors.

But it is relevant. It's 3-4 feet above the ground and within reach. Read your own reference. It would be counted against Nick. So would a ball that landed at the foot of the wall. Do you understand the concept of physics and the issues with that? Like how it might be easier to catch a ball hit in the same spot with no wall present.

What I find naive and stupid, if not arrogant, is thinking that a system that is generally accurate for the great majority of players, is suddenly grievously wrong for one park, where it just so happens that two favorite players happen to play.

I'll go with all of those as well. Add in people who think they know it all (when they clearly don't), are lazy and can't critically think.

Your proof that Nick's 16 point differential at home vesus away is of no concern is ? Your eyes ? Carl Crawford's minus 4 last year in Fenway ?

I can invent as many non park related reasons for the home away splits as you can imagine negative park factors

Give me a few and the reasons why Nick would logically be better over a large sample size of less familiar and more conventional sized parks than he is in his more familiar abnormal one.

[Frobby]

What I find naive and stupid, if not arrogant, is thinking that a system that is generally accurate for the great majority of players, is suddenly grievously wrong for one park, where it just so happens that two favorite players happen to play.

Thanks for the insulting adjectives, that always helps to further an argument. In my opinion, this is not just about OPACY, and not just about Markakis and Jones. Just to give one example (I had researched this a while back in another thread), Magglio Ordonez always has better numbers on the road than in Comerica.

What I think would be an interesting measurement is how other outfielders do at OPACY. It seems to me that when you are playing in a particular stadium, what these systems ought to be measuring is how you do compared to how others do when playing at that stadium. It strikes me that the creators of UZR and +/- undoubtedly have this information.

[CA-ORIOLE]

What I think would be an interesting measurement is how other outfielders do at OPACY.

Yep. All players in all parks. Just like offense. Tom Tango agrees with you. I read it awhile back as he thinks it's a real concern. So do I.

The funny thing about this is I actually agree with El Gordo about this more than I do with you. I think Nick is below average. I think he has issues playing the park but is not as bad overall as the stats say he is. What I don't know is how many other players have issues playing there and to what extent.

[El Gordo]

Thanks for the insulting adjectives, that always helps to further an argument. In my opinion, this is not just about OPACY, and not just about Markakis and Jones. Just to give one example (I had researched this a while back in another thread), Magglio Ordonez always has better numbers on the road than in Comerica.

What I think would be an interesting measurement is how other outfielders do at OPACY. It seems to me that when you are playing in a particular stadium, what these systems ought to be measuring is how you do compared to how others do when playing at that stadium. It strikes me that the creators of UZR and +/- undoubtedly have this information.

The insulting adjectives are a response to the earlier insulting adjectives. I refer you to post #119 since you obviously haven't read it. I imagine they do have that information, but consider it proprietory. Let me try to repeat for one last time, that in the absence of any clear evidence of severely negative park factors, it makes more sense to accept that Markakis defense has declined. He had one good year where OPACY didn't seem to present that much of a problem. After that it has, but so have away parks to a lesser degree. In 2008 the difference in UZR home and away was 0.5, in 2009 0.2, in 2010 13.9. Did OPACY suddenly change configuration in 2010, or did something happen with Markakis that year that made him do poorly at home. Things were certainly happening to affect his offensive numbers, particularly power numbers. Power comes from the lower half as does speed. 2007 was his first full year in RF so given the peculiarities of the wall and the corner one might expect poor home numbers just as one might have expected them from Ellsbury in his first full year in Fenway CF. 2008 there was little difference home and away, he did very well in both, so he seemed to be solving OPACY's idiosyncrasies. The next year he droped of condiderably both home and away but the diference between was negligible. In 2010 the numers really divereged. It will be interesting to see what they are this year, but I see no more evidence of mysterious park factors than I do with a decline in speed from Markakis.

[Frobby]

I have never disputed that Markakis' defense has declined.

[El Gordo]

I have never disputed that Markakis' defense has declined.

But you consider him to be average to above average with the glove, correct? And because the defensive metrics show him to be below average,about about -4 RS total, a -10 for range and +6 for arm, give or take a RS, you have serious doubts about the accuracy of the systems and attribute those numbers to unexpalined park effects? Am I correct here? It sure seems to be an accurate picture of Nick's defense to me. You watch Hardy as frequently as you do Nick. Do you have a problems with how the metrics characterize him? It's too bad we don't have more position players who have played for several years, to compare with, and see if the metrics accurately reflect their play in accordance with what we see on the field. Andino is adjusting to 2B, Weiters is a C and the metrics are poor for that. Reimold has SSS problems in LF, and we have only seen Reynolds for one season at 3B and 1B.