Jump to content

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


Frobby

Recommended Posts

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.

No, we don't feel like it is worth discussion because it is analogous to making a thread about Davis not hitting for power after the first week of the season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 95
  • Created
  • Last Reply
No, we don't feel like it is worth discussion because it is analogous to making a thread about Davis not hitting for power after the first week of the season.

It's not analogous to that at all... Davis didn't hit for heavy power the first week of the season. That's a fact. I feel like Frobby explained this. Drawing conclusions based on a SSS is a mistake, like saying that Davis won't hit for power this season or that Nick will be poor defensively this season. But saying that Davis had one HR so far is a verifiable fact. Markakis has a busted UZR so far this season is a fact. The point of the thread is to figure out why he would have that busted UZR, not to make judgments about Markakis's defensive abilities and outlook for the season. Have there been balls he hasn't been getting to? Where does this negative UZR come from? That's the root question trying to be dug out.

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.
OK, he's had 24 total chances. Agreed that the UZR number itself tells us nothing about Nick, with it being determined based on such a small sample. But can we figure out which of those chances he fielded in a subpar manner? Or which chances UZR thinks, anyway, he fielded poorly in order to arrive at that number?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, we don't feel like it is worth discussion because it is analogous to making a thread about Davis not hitting for power after the first week of the season.

It's absolutely not the same. Davis did not hit any home runs. Thats a fact. Dumb to project based on SSS, but still a fact. Frobby is basically saying that Markakis has looks good in the field but the defensive metric says he sucks. Yes, small sample size and worthless for projection but Frobby is basically asking why would the system seem so misaligned with Markakis' actual play to date.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not analogous to that at all... Davis didn't hit for heavy power the first week of the season. That's a fact. I feel like Frobby explained this. Drawing conclusions based on a SSS is a mistake, like saying that Davis won't hit for power this season or that Nick will be poor defensively this season. But saying that Davis had one HR so far is a verifiable fact. Markakis has a busted UZR so far this season is a fact. The point of the thread is to figure out why he would have that busted UZR, not to make judgments about Markakis's defensive abilities and outlook for the season. Have there been balls he hasn't been getting to? Where does this negative UZR come from? That's the root question trying to be dug out.

OK, he's had 24 total chances. Agreed that the UZR number itself tells us nothing about Nick being determined based on such a small sample. But can we figure out which of those chances he fielded in a subpar manner? Or which chances UZR thinks, anyway, he fielded poorly in order to arrive at that number?

i think DRS or UZR publish charts at the end of the year. There were pretty detailed ones comparing Jones and Trout in previous years as I recall. The Fielding Bible lays it out in tabular format but you have to be a subscriber or get the book at the end of the year to get the rating data. A small percentage of plays make the difference. Figure 80% (maybe more of these chances are routine), So at this point we're probably talking about 4-5 "measurable" plays that are separating outfielders right now. Not only that, this is a dynamic structure so a play that was made earlier in the year may be worth more or less at the end of the year as the sample size increases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not analogous to that at all... Davis didn't hit for heavy power the first week of the season. That's a fact. I feel like Frobby explained this. Drawing conclusions based on a SSS is a mistake, like saying that Davis won't hit for power this season or that Nick will be poor defensively this season. But saying that Davis had one HR so far is a verifiable fact. Markakis has a busted UZR so far this season is a fact. The point of the thread is to figure out why he would have that busted UZR, not to make judgments about Markakis's defensive abilities and outlook for the season. Have there been balls he hasn't been getting to? Where does this negative UZR come from? That's the root question trying to be dug out.

OK, he's had 24 total chances. Agreed that the UZR number itself tells us nothing about Nick, with it being determined based on such a small sample. But can we figure out which of those chances he fielded in a subpar manner? Or which chances UZR thinks, anyway, he fielded poorly in order to arrive at that number?

It's absolutely not the same. Davis did not hit any home runs. Thats a fact. Dumb to project based on SSS, but still a fact. Frobby is basically saying that Markakis has looks good in the field but the defensive metric says he sucks. Yes, small sample size and worthless for projection but Frobby is basically asking why would the system seem so misaligned with Markakis' actual play to date.

It is the same.

Defensive metrics take TWO SEASONS to reach a point where the data sample is large enough. 12/2=6. Talking about 12 games worth of defensive metrics is the same as talking about six games of offensive data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is the same.

Defensive metrics take TWO SEASONS to reach a point where the data sample is large enough. 12/2=6. Talking about 12 games worth of defensive metrics is the same as talking about six games of offensive data.

Most of the stuff I've read says average 3-4, but yeah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, we don't feel like it is worth discussion because it is analogous to making a thread about Davis not hitting for power after the first week of the season.

You can't explain it. So you hide behind SSS. What has Nick done to warrant a -8.9? He must have played poorly to garner such a poor rating. You should be able to explain how.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't explain it. So you hide behind SSS. What has Nick done to warrant a -8.9? He must have played poorly to garner such a poor rating. You should be able to explain how.

The one ball Frobby is referring to, over the course of a 12 game sample size, could be enough to skew his numbers. Almost all outfielders make the plays they are supposed to, you miss just a few of them, and the rating is going to suffer.

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.

I'll try and take a stab at it in, what I hope, is the spirit in which you asked. I think it's hard for us to assess someone defensively because, and in particular someone like Markakis, because only see the plays he makes and we may tend to assume that the plays he didn't make wouldn't have been made by someone else. I think unless you are looking at video of two different players attempting to make the same type of play, whether on overlay or side by side, it's can be hard to judge. Add to that the Nick, at least IMO other may disagree, never really looks bad, he always seems to be in proper position to get to balls that he doesn't catch and seems to play caroms very well.

Nelson Cruz, OTOH (and I realize that his UZR numbers career wise, don't know about thus far this year, are similar if not better than Nick's), often looks bad or uncomfortable in the OF even on plays that he makes. It is quite easy for me to imagine David Lough in Cruz's place and making the play on at least 3 balls hit to Cruz in LF this year so far that I have seen. And although I imagine Lough would play a much better RF than Nick, it is not as easy to visualize as it is with Cruz in LF.

Does that make any sense? Long story short, even though I agree that it looks as though Nick has played a solid RF so far this season I can imagine how my eyes might be deceiving me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The one ball Frobby is referring to, over the course of a 12 game sample size, could be enough to skew his numbers. Almost all outfielders make the plays they are supposed to, you miss just a few of them, and the rating is going to suffer.

So 1 out of 24 = -8.9. Gotcha!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His UZR would be approximately minus 1. Actually a fraction of minus 1 at this point by UZR. His projected rate would be -8.9 per 150 games. -8.9 is a rate stat. Using small sample size UZR/DRS is dumb. Using small sample rate stats is moronic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The hostility in this thread is hilarious. I think the answer has already been stated, but essentially with a small collection of plays one or two balls can vastly skew the rate stat. If Nick were to play the exact same thirteen and a half times it would ultimately come out to around -8.9. That doesn't seem that crazy to me. He'll go through 12 game spurts where his "rate" over that period will be +22, and others where it will be 0 or -15.

The Davis HR was not a great example because it's a counting stat. It's closer to looking at Davis' slugging percentage over a series where he collected a couple of singles and asking if that was a fair representation of his power. Maybe; maybe not. Was he making lots of loud contact and finding gloves, or was he swinging through pitches and generally looking toothless?

Estimating the UZR rating as appropriate or not is a tough exercise to consider over twelve games. Even more so if you enter the exercise with preconceived notions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a stat isn't judging a player properly it shouldn't matter if its over 1 game or 20 the merits of that stat become suspect. Seems worth discussing to me.

(that being said a fly ball to right field just landed 5 inches out of Markakis' reach. I bet a better RF would have caught that)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • Posts

    • I am not worried.  It just doesn’t remotely meet the eye test.  He has been great in the field . I can think of at least 3 outstanding plays he has made and not any that I thought he should have gotten but didn’t. Meanwhile Holliday is 3 OAA and I can’t think of an outstanding play and can think of a number I thought he should have made. 
    • Nicely stated Roy. Every since I was 9 years old and saw the O's vs. the Tokyo Giants in Tokyo in 1971, I've been infected with the Orange/Black virus. There is no cure and I don't want one. You and I sat at the lunch table with Jim Palmer at the 1970 World Series Champs reunion, and its still one of my enduring baseball memories. You said I looked like Carlton Fisk! I was at all 3 games in this Angels series, right behind the O's dugout. I got to see all our boys, and just simply love to watch this team play. And in true baseball fashion, the one game on paper we should have dominated (GRod vs. 8+ ERA Channing), we end up down 7-0 and lose. But watching Gunnar's homers, his electric triple, and he made a fantastic play today on a ball that went under Westburg's glove, Adley do Adley things, Cowser, holy crap. Kimbrel v. Trout with bases loaded, bottom of 9th, 2 outs, down by 2? That was fun. Next game Trout bats leadoff and torches a GRod fastball for a homer to the opposite field.  An observation.... If you didn't know anything about the team, and you only watched game 1 batting practice, you'd think Cowser and O'Hearn were the studs of the team. Mountcastle was taking BP with the reserves and he put on a show as well.  Home after 3 straight days watching this O's team, so jealous of the Balt fans in Balt that get to see the team with regularity. It's a special bunch.
    • 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.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...