Jump to content

Does this make sense based on what you've seen this year?


Frobby

Recommended Posts

Nick Markakis has a -8.9 UZR/150 through 12 games. Thinking back on the season so far, I can only think of one ball he could have caught, but didn't -- a diving play where he gloved it but the ball escaped his mitt when he hit the ground. Other than that, he's looked great playing the RF wall, has thrown out a runner at 2B, and made one really nice diving play (the game before the one he missed). It's things like this that make me wonder how these stats are designed. That said, I haven't watched every minute of every game, so if there are other plays Nick could have made but didn't, I'd like to hear it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 95
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Nick Markakis has a -8.9 UZR/150 through 12 games. Thinking back on the season so far, I can only think of one ball he could have caught, but didn't -- a diving play where he gloved it but the ball escaped his mitt when he hit the ground. Other than that, he's looked great playing the RF wall, has thrown out a runner at 2B, and made one really nice diving play (the game before the one he missed). It's things like this that make me wonder how these stats are designed. That said, I haven't watched every minute of every game, so if there are other plays Nick could have made but didn't, I'd like to hear it.

Makes perfect sense. Defense metrics are BS!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nick Markakis has a -8.9 UZR/150 through 12 games. Thinking back on the season so far, I can only think of one ball he could have caught, but didn't -- a diving play where he gloved it but the ball escaped his mitt when he hit the ground. Other than that, he's looked great playing the RF wall, has thrown out a runner at 2B, and made one really nice diving play (the game before the one he missed). It's things like this that make me wonder how these stats are designed. That said, I haven't watched every minute of every game, so if there are other plays Nick could have made but didn't, I'd like to hear it.

And that play he missed was certainly not an easy play. It was a play that Nick usually makes, but it was not easy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a question. Does talking about 12 games of defensive metrics even worth discussing?

Yes, it IS worth discussing, if what you are discussing is what the metric is measuring. Let me explain.

If Chris Davis has hit one home run in the first 12 games, that's a verifiable fact. It may not be indicative of how many home runs he will hit in 162 games, but it is 100% indicative of what he has done so far.

Nick's negative UZR says that he has been below average in RF so far this year. It may not be indicative of what he will do for 162 games, but it should measure how he has played to date. And, in this manageable sample of games, I do not feel that is what I have seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL at the SSS! mob.

Yes it makes perfect sense to discuss. Good question.

Re-read Frobby's OP and the question he is raising is well timed since this particular SSS is one that most of us have the capacity to remember Nick's actual defensive play. Unlike some of the other threads that are jumping to conclusion about a player's fate, this one is calling in to question the nebulous way in which we measure a player's worth.

From what I have seen, it has appeared that some balls are landing in shallow right or near the line in fair territory that I would have assumed our RF could catch *if we were not playing some kind of shift*. But its not always clear to me where the OF is playing when the broadcast follows the ball into the right field area. Hard to say, IMO, but his -8.9 UZR/150 seems a bit surprising.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it IS worth discussing, if what you are discussing is what the metric is measuring. Let me explain.

If Chris Davis has hit one home run in the first 12 games, that's a verifiable fact. It may not be indicative of how many home runs he will hit in 162 games, but it is 100% indicative of what he has done so far.

Nick's negative UZR says that he has been below average in RF so far this year. It may not be indicative of what he will do for 162 games, but it should measure how he has played to date. And, in this manageable sample of games, I do not feel that is what I have seen.

Not imo. You'd have to be discussing Davis's performance in about 3-4 games to be analagous to 12 games of defense and that would be incredibly dumb. Worrying about Davis's HR totals now is just relatively dumb unless there's some blatant like and injury concern. Not only that, a -8.9 is close to Nicks's 3 year trend so it's not even that we have some extraordinarily abnormal number here.

...but it should measure how he has played to date. And, in this manageable sample of games, I do not feel that is what I have seen

Then you simply don't understand or want to understand the metric. Not like this hasn't been discussed a million times already. Have fun though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL at the SSS! mob.

Yes it makes perfect sense to discuss. Good question.

Re-read Frobby's OP and the question he is raising is well timed since this particular SSS is one that most of us have the capacity to remember Nick's actual defensive play. Unlike some of the other threads that are jumping to conclusion about a player's fate, this one is calling in to question the nebulous way in which we measure a player's worth.

From what I have seen, it has appeared that some balls are landing in shallow right or near the line in fair territory that I would have assumed our RF could catch *if we were not playing some kind of shift*. But its not always clear to me where the OF is playing when the broadcast follows the ball into the right field area. Hard to say, IMO, but his -8.9 UZR/150 seems a bit surprising.

It's idiotic. He has 11 games in RF and 10 starts. He has 24 total chances. These stats need 3-4 years to approximate the stability of one years worth of offensive stats. He has less that 1/2 of 1% of that sample. DRS says he is 1 play below average on 24 chances which gives him a rate of minus 13 runs below average. The rate stat is useless at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it IS worth discussing, if what you are discussing is what the metric is measuring. Let me explain.

If Chris Davis has hit one home run in the first 12 games, that's a verifiable fact. It may not be indicative of how many home runs he will hit in 162 games, but it is 100% indicative of what he has done so far.

Nick's negative UZR says that he has been below average in RF so far this year. It may not be indicative of what he will do for 162 games, but it should measure how he has played to date. And, in this manageable sample of games, I do not feel that is what I have seen.

They don't feel it's worth discussing because it calls into question the whole sabermetrics calculations. They can't quantify how Nick could have a -8.9 after only 12 games in which he has actually played well defensively. So saying it's a SSS and not worth discussing pushes off the discussion until the number of games and the plays in those games is too numerous to remember them all. So it's easier to verify he's played poorly and deserves his ranking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • Posts

    • emmett16 is right. Uppercut swings produce a lot of groundouts because the bat is not on the same plane as the ball for very long. The best swing stays on the same plane as the ball for a longer time. This will produce contact that creates backspin on the ball which makes it carry. That Ted Williams book is one of the best hitting books ever written.
    • I have to admit. I'm an addict. I'm an addict not of booze or drugs. I'm an addict for baseball .... It's still THE game for me and I love almost any team sport. But for me, when it's great, it's still the greatest game of them all. I hate to say it, but when my team wins ...it's like a hit of crack or coke and I have never and will never try those drugs. This one is a better high anyway. It's an adrenaline rush for me. It comes from my heart and soul. Like the other night in Anaheim I sat transfixed on the game. I dont need to look at the silly shell games on a scoreboard, nor hear what the players favorite singer is.. or eat a lot of junk, but I DO have to have my bag of peanuts. The Orioles were clinging to a one run lead, when, with the bases loaded, Mike Trout stepped up to the plate...a single and the game is tied...an extra base hit and the Orioles lose. Our pitcher Craig Kimbrel had to throw a strike to one of the all time greats, and somehow, someway, Trout looked at a third strike and the Orioles won. I lept into the air as if I had a million dollars on the game. I never bet on sports, but this was a better high than winning any bet anyway. Because it is pure and it comes from my deep place of caring when the 'Birds' win. Today in Anaheim, another nail biter, the game was in the ninth with two out and a runner on first. Suddenly the runner broke for second and catcher James McCann threw a strike to second base. Gunnar Henderson covering, made the tag and the ump called the runner out. And the game ended that way. Bang Bang. Personally I thought it was a blown call, but after review the call was upheld and the Orioles won another nail biter. I dont watch many other games, but every night I hit the crack pipe" of baseball. It's my addiction. I also love watching fantastic performers. Mookie Betts is an electric ballplayer . can do anything at the plate and in the field. The Orioles' Henderson is a must see ballplayer like Betts is. On Wednesday he hit a home run, a double, a single, drove in 3 runs got hit by a pitch , stole a base and made two game saving plays in the field. Baseball is a team sport but it's also watching the brilliant, mesmerizing individual performances. It's watching the best players in the world do what I think is the most difficult thing in sports , hit a baseball, throw a baseball, and field a baseball. It's hard to do. Anyway,it's still just April and it's a long, long season. Bryant Gumble once had a great line about the difference between football and baseball. He said "Baseball, is a never ending romance, but football is a one night stand." Yep, I'm an addict, a baseball junkie, and I make no apologies for it. I'll never go to rehab for my baseball addiction. I don't NEED to be cured. And I never will be. Jim Bouton said it best in "Ball Four" his great book. "In all the years you grip a baseball...you suddenly remember, it's really the other way around" Exactly.
    • Especially when you factor in the DL Hall trade too.  Suarez and Wells get bumped to the pen only if Bradish and Means are effective starters a decent part of the season.  Would the O's promote Povich or McDermott to pitch relief?  My guess is not anytime soon, but I dunno. A trade would for one or two arms would be best, but trading for good relief pitching is only harder now because so many teams can make the playoffs.  
    • But O'Hearn's numbers are inflated because he never bats against lefties, plus he's trash in the outfield.  If Santander's hitting does not improve this season of course you don't give him a QO, but that's unlikely.  He'll probably pick it up as the weather heats up.  Plus Tony plays at least a decent RF and can play first base too.   Like others have said, should the O's offer Santander a QO?  Maybe -- it depends on how he performs and how Kjerstad and Stowers perform.  
    • Wait, since when is money no object? It remains to be seen what the budget constraints are going to be with the new ownership, but if Santander is projected to put up 3.0 WAR for $20 million and his replacement (Kjerstad/Cowser/Stowers...) can put up 2.5 WAR for less than a million then that will be factored in.  The goal will never be about being better than the other 29 teams in a payroll vacuum.
    • I think you have a good understanding and I assume you’ve read Ted Williams Science of Hitting.  It’s all about lining up planes of pitch and bat.  Historically with sinkers and low strikes a higher attack angle played and was more in alignment with pitch plane.  In today’s game of spin and high zone fastball an uppercut swing gives you minimal chance and results in top spin grounders and swing & miss. 
    • I'll bow to your expertise even if it seems unlikely to my laymen understanding. 
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...