Jump to content

Adam Jones voted 2d best defensive outfielder in the AL by AL Managers


wildcard

Recommended Posts

To further my point:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/j/jonesad01-field.shtml

Look at Jones' Rtot and Rdrs numbers from last year. Two companies giving an assessment of one player. One company feels he was 13 runs ABOVE average, the other 16 runs BELOW.

I don't get how two companies can get such a WIDE variation of numbers on something that is supposed to be an objective measure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply
To further my point:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/j/jonesad01-field.shtml

Look at Jones' Rtot and Rdrs numbers from last year. Two companies giving an assessment of one player. One company feels he was 13 runs ABOVE average, the other 16 runs BELOW.

I don't get how two companies can get such a WIDE variation of numbers on something that is supposed to be an objective measure.

Total Zone (Rtot) is not really an advanced metric and is rarely referenced anymore. It is basic location data and a step above Range Factor (RF). RF may actually be more useful. It does not measure the speed and complexity of batted balls as both UZR and DRS do. It is used mostly for historical cases when DRS/UZR was not available. DRS started to incorporate hit fx data last year and more accurately measures the complexity of batted balls than UZR does. This is especially more useful for outfield defense imo. DRS was more harsh on Jones than UZR was last year. DRS has been more favorable so far this year and generally a little more favorable overall. Both systems rate him negative for his career.

DRS is has become a more complex and comprehensive metric than UZR. Still UZR and DRS correlate fairly closely in most cases.

There are cases where DRS and UZR are beginning to show some wide variations, but Adam Jones really isn't a significant one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for the explanation but it also kind of proves my point. There is so much innovation going on right now in defensive metrics, especially for outfielders that are leading to drastic swings in numbers and our understanding of what they mean.

They are changing so much and coming from different sources that it seems there is a new interpretation every year that somehow makes the previous year's interpretation null, or at the very least less respectable.

Again. Do not take my skepticism as denouncing them outright.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're welcome, but showing "some" wide variations among two different systems does not show the systems are somehow seriously flawed imo. As I stated, both systems correlate very well in most cases. I do think DRS is on a better (more accurate) track in general. I'd take it over OF defense (particulalry) in case of a conflict (ie. Alfonso Soriano) with UZR. I don't like some of the stuff DRS does with catchers though. That said, if you take 3-4 years windows (as you should with defensive stats anyways) they correlate very well.

As far as the new technology is considered, I actually don't think it has mattered that much. We'll probably see 3 years out. But I'm not seeing guys (good or bad) drop or gain based on what DRS did last year and this year by incorporating more precise hit data. If anything I'd say it validated the previous system (particlularly in the 3-4 year windows). Lets face it, defensive is never going to have the stability of offense. You just have look at it over a larger time frame than offense. Drungo and I both posted links to CF defense over several years time frame and I noticed nobody really responded to them (even to say I don't agree with this guy over that guy). Sorry, but I'll take them over Wildcard's eye (or the managers poll) and his opinion that Jones is a top rated CF any day of the week.

The more challenging issues appear to be with over shifts, procedural issues, and individual accounting rather than more technology. The shifts being more relevant to the IF than the OF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...