Jump to content

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


Frobby

Recommended Posts

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)

Chris Davis hits a long fly ball that is killed by the wind -- usually a home run but is caught. Next at bat line drive out to first base. Next at bat umpire misses a called strike three on Davis, who eventually walks. Next at bat he singles off the end of the bat after being fooled badly on an off-speed pitch down and away.

Which of these stats is accurately judging Davis?

AVG - .333

OBP - .500

SLG - .333

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 95
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Chris Davis hits a long fly ball that is killed by the wind -- usually a home run but is caught. Next at bat line drive out to first base. Next at bat umpire misses a called strike three on Davis, who eventually walks. Next at bat he singles off the end of the bat after being fooled badly on an off-speed pitch down and away.

Which of these stats is accurately judging Davis?

AVG - .333

OBP - .500

SLG - .333

For that game, all three!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For that game, all three!

I don't think so. That's only true if you believe the quality of the player's performance will continue to yield the same results. What makes those stats worthy of note is that we know there is a point at which they normalize and GENERALLY the noise caused by the bloops and the line outs and the missed calls and the whatnots become secondary to the skill set that is driving those numbers.

If Davis were to end each game with two incredibly hard struck balls and two at bats where he was out maneuvered by the pitcher, do you think it's reasonable to expect his season triple-slash to be .333/.500/.333?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think so. That's only true if you believe the quality of the player's performance will continue to yield the same results. What makes those stats worthy of note is that we know there is a point at which they normalize and GENERALLY the noise caused by the bloops and the line outs and the missed calls and the whatnots become secondary to the skill set that is driving those numbers.

If Davis were to end each game with two incredibly hard struck balls and two at bats where he was out maneuvered by the pitcher, do you think it's reasonable to expect his season triple-slash to be .333/.500/.333?

His stats are based on what he did that game. You add them to the next game and all future games and you get the full picture. But for that one game, those are his stats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His stats are based on what he did that game. You add them to the next game and all future games and you get the full picture. But for that one game, those are his stats.

That's the deal with UZR too. But one play, where Markakis happened to be shading over to center field, could lead him to not getting to a catchable ball. Over the course of a couple seasons of data that noise becomes background (e.g. Nick will get credit for catching a "tough ball" while he is shaded to center), but its impact is magnified over a 12 game sample.

UZR over 12 games is NOT indicative of the player's ability over those 12 games just like a single game's worth of data is almost never indicative of the actual skill level of that player. There's too much noise in the numbers at that level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the deal with UZR too. But one play, where Markakis happened to be shading over to center field, could lead him to not getting to a catchable ball. Over the course of a couple seasons of data that noise becomes background (e.g. Nick will get credit for catching a "tough ball" while he is shaded to center), but its impact is magnified over a 12 game sample.

UZR over 12 games is NOT indicative of the player's ability over those 12 games just like a single game's worth of data is almost never indicative of the actual skill level of that player. There's too much noise in the numbers at that level.

Not counting tonight's game. Nick was batting 14-52 for a .269 average. His average is based on his hits divided by his at bats. If that continues at that rate his batting average after 150 games is projected to be, .269

Now can you or anyone else explain UZR and what he has done to warrant a negative number and how they project that number over 150 games to be -8.9

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not counting tonight's game. Nick was batting 14-52 for a .269 average. His average is based on his hits divided by his at bats. If that continues at that rate his batting average after 150 games is projected to be, .269

Now can you or anyone else explain UZR and what he has done to warrant a negative number and how they project that number over 150 games to be -8.9

Why bother, you aren't listening?

I will try, again.

Nick didn't get to one or more balls your average right fielder gets to. Since such a large percentage of those balls are caught, it is a major demerit when he failed to make the play.

Now lets say he makes a bad throw to third and a runner advances, the defensive metrics also take that into account.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why bother, you aren't listening?

I will try, again.

Nick didn't get to one or more balls your average right fielder gets to. Since such a large percentage of those balls are caught, it is a major demerit when he failed to make the play.

Now lets say he makes a bad throw to third and a runner advances, the defensive metrics also take that into account.

What's the formula? How do they know he should have had it or someone else would have? Who makes the determinations?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did I say that? Where did I say that?

I said ask the folks that designed it, since they are, you know, the experts on it.

Also mystical /=/ math.

So it's a mystical formula only the people who designed and track it know?

Where did I say you said that? I asked you a question.

IF the only people who know how it's derived are the people who made it and track it. How do you or anyone else know it's accurate? Do you just take everything they say as fact?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where did I say you said that? I asked you a question.

IF the only people who know how it's derived are the people who made it and track it. How do you or anyone else know it's accurate? Do you just take everything they say as fact?

Where did I say that?

You sure think I say a lot of things I don't say.

I am not a math guy. The minutia of the mathematical formula they use is of no interest to me.

I also don't know all the math needed to make a 747 fly, it doesn't stop me from getting on a plane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And how do we know they designed it right?

Sounds like player position based around coaching decisions and team scouting (things the player has no control over) can have a meaningful effect on whether or not a fielder is deemed good or bad.

That ground ball that Wieters hit to 3B. Routine play! Oop except the coaching staff made the 3B shift over to SS. Boy 3B you really sucked on that one. Negative points for you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And how do we know they designed it right?

Sounds like player position based around coaching decisions and team scouting (things the player has no control over) can have a meaningful effect on whether or not a fielder is deemed good or bad.

That ground ball that Wieters hit to 3B. Routine play! Oop except the coaching staff made the 3B shift over to SS. Boy 3B you really sucked on that one. Negative points for you!

Except for the fact that they factor in shifts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • Posts

    • Kjerstad does not have to play every day for him to be here.  He should be able to start 3+ times a week. He’s hitting right now so I would get him in the lineup immediately and see if there is any carry over from AAA.  
    • They needed to replace Hays and he's already on the 40. I don't think it goes much deeper.
    • A lot of people didn’t like this signing.  It was a few bad outings last year but otherwise, he was very good. He will have some bumps in the road but he’s a very capable guy still.
    • I agree. It has to be anticipating Mountcastle being out a little longer, maybe they will IL him too if his knee doesn’t improve quickly. But if Hays is out the minimum 10 days (one of which already passed), maybe Kjerstad gets 3 starts from Mountcastle and 1-2 from rest days for others, available to pinch hit the rest. That wouldn’t be so bad. 
    • I trust the O’s and Elias’ handling of him.  Similar to Decosta and the Ravens, they seem to make more good decisions than other clubs do.     I think he can work it out at the major league level if they do.  Wouldn’t be worried if he got sent down to regain some confidence.
    • I don’t see Wells coming back to the rotation. That was never the plan to begin with. Also, I’m not sure it’s a given that Means can make effective starts at the Bug League level right now. He’s been legit terrible against AAA hitters on a pretty consistent basis so far this season. Now Bradish on the other hand, if he can return, he will probably bump one of Suarez or Irvin to the pen (the one who is pitching the worse).  If Suarez keeps performing (I don’t think his current level is realistic to expect) but at a good level for a back end starter, he stays.
    • Remove Bradish and I will maybe agree. To me this guy is destined for the pen, where hopefully his swing and miss stuff plays up even more. Could be an important piece, but I’m not getting my hopes up too far after two appearances.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...