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

[CA-ORIOLE]

I think this is what is being questioned by Frobby and others. Do you guys that champion the defensive metrics believe that Nick hasn't gotten to a few balls that he should have gotten to? If so, do you believe it because of how you've seen him play in those 12 games or because his UZR is negative and therefore that must be the case?

It means the UZR for 10 games means almost nothing. He is about minus 0.59 runs below average based on about 1/4 of 1 % of a stable sample size.

[mark_beckens]

Frobby himself said that there was one ball.

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.

I will say that over the course of last season I saw, with my eyes, what looked to be a below average right fielder.

What exactly does that have to do with his UZR this season or this conversation?

[Outlander]

It is impossible to do. There is no way to factor in wind, spin on the ball, weather conditions, turf conditions. It isn't math. There is a huge human factor. As I said, junk science. But if it makes you happy to believe in something that you admit you don't understand, then have at it.

Well I think that's why it takes a few seasons to level all that out. I'm not an expert on this, but I would think that things would level out over time. Sure, there are some fluky things with wind and spin, but it's not crazy to think that everyone at some point deals with that. So, over 3 seasons, if a guy is continually not catching balls that others are, it's not crazy to judge him on that. Wind be damned. Now I'm not saying it's perfect, in fact, I think most agree that it is not. But when the numbers, over a long time, keep suggesting this, then it's not crazy to think it may be on to something.

[notyourbuddy]

To give an example of what they have the technology to do...

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article/mlb/mlbam-introduces-new-way-to-analyze-every-play?ymd=20140301&content_id=68514514

Epic video. :thumbsup1:

Gonna be fun once they get that technology up and running in every ballpark and start crunching the numbers. Could drastically change defensive evaluation as we know it.

[Frobby]

Frobby himself said that there was one ball.

I haven't watched every inning of Oriole defense so I am not fit to compare.

I will say that over the course of last season I saw, with my eyes, what looked to be a below average right fielder.

I'm specifically interested in what folks have seen this year, in the limited number of games. Like you, I haven't seen all the games, or all parts of the games I've seen. I'm not arguing about last year, I'm just trying to get a feel where the early numbers this year have come from.

[weams]

I'm specifically interested in what folks have seen this year, in the limited number of games. Like you, I haven't seen all the games, or all parts of the games I've seen. I'm not arguing about last year, I'm just trying to get a feel where the early numbers this year have come from.

I've seen ever pitch and every play of this season so far. To me Nick looks to be defending reasonably well. I think having good defenders with good range at second base has helped him cover right field as well.

[El Gordo]

I like the Fielding Bible/DRS system. Any one who wants to know how they gather the data and arrive at their ratings can go to their web suite and read a very clear explanation. I am no stat genius and if I can get it, almost anyone else can. I think people are just too lazy to make the effort, or they prefer their head in the sand to dealing with new ideas. Fangraphs has Nick's UZR at -1.3 R below average and DRS has him at -1. In general the numbers indicate that other RF get to more balls than Nick does. But it this point because of the sample size it is basically meaningless IMO. The three year numbers and the basic donward trend does have meaning. What we see on TV doesn't tell us the whole story because we don't see the fielders positioning, his read, and first step. My take on Nick is he doesn't always get a quick read, make a good first step, and isnt particularly fast. The shallowness of RF at OPACY, plus his speed, requires him to play deep to cut of balls in the gap and closer to the gap than the line. Thus he often doesn't catch balls hit shallow and near the line that other RF get too. He is well coordinated and has great hands so he catches what he can get to, and makes few errors. He has an above average arm and and base runners advance at a less than 50/50 rate.

[CA-ORIOLE]

I'm specifically interested in what folks have seen this year, in the limited number of games. Like you, I haven't seen all the games, or all parts of the games I've seen. I'm not arguing about last year, I'm just trying to get a feel where the early numbers this year have come from.

He looks like Nick Markakis. Below average range. Plus (though not as good as it used to be) and accurate arm and a pretty smart outfielder. Seems better/healthier than last years version which is good but he doesn't look like a guy with a rocket in his ass either. I know I'm the rude one, but there really is no reason to think about the numbers for a guy that is -0.59 runs below average over 11 games imo. When I do (in another month or so) I'll look at the DRS numbers first for the outfielders as they are more accurate imo. Somebody said today that he missed a ball by about 5 inches that a faster right fielder would have gotten to. He was probably right.

Yes the metrics do count run suppression/advancing baserunners. They also park adjust and RF in OPACY makes it harder to take extra bases.

In the end (assuming good health) I'd guess Nick will be better than last years DRS and somewhere close to his 2011/2012 numbers.

[ledzepp8]

Defensive metrics are such a load of crap. That's about all there is to discuss. Great question by Frobby. I've seen nothing from Nick that would give him such a bad hit in the metrics. You have to question what it is even measuring in these first bunch of games.

I just don't get what he did in 2008 to be so good that he apparently hasn't done since?

And if defensive metrics are based off balls that all average fielders are getting to, is it possible that a player could be deemed good for a couple of years due to the players he is being compared to and then be deemed bad for a couple of years because (while he is playing exactly the same defense) the metrics think his contemporaries are much better than in prior years?

[El Gordo]

I just don't get what he did in 2008 to be so good that he apparently hasn't done since?

And if defensive metrics are based off balls that all average fielders are getting to, is it possible that a player could be deemed good for a couple of years due to the players he is being compared to and then be deemed bad for a couple of years because (while he is playing exactly the same defense) the metrics think his contemporaries are much better than in prior years?

Yes. The numbers are in comparison to what other players at his position do. Say 90 % of all RF catch a pop fly hit to bucket A6 and Nick doesn't then he gets a .10 of a play on that ball. If no one has ever gotten to that particular ball then he gets 100% for that play.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Epic video. :thumbsup1:

Gonna be fun once they get that technology up and running in every ballpark and start crunching the numbers. Could drastically change defensive evaluation as we know it.

Maybe, but I have my doubts. I do think it will increase stability/accuracy. The stability will never be near the level of offense though. We'll have more data available (assuming it's going to be disseminated).

In the end, Field FX is a means to collect more precise data and not an evaluation system itself. DRS has been using Field FX timed data for a couple years now. They can measure the speed and location of a ball much more accurately than UZR from my understanding. The UZR and DRS systems are still "basically" the same though with an assumed neutral positioning and defined zone aspect. DRS has more nuances. Maybe they'll adjust those basic systems when the full Field Fx packages come on line or come up with a new one, but I haven't heard anything about such an undertaking.

The positioning aspect (particularly the increased IF overshifts) are petty valid concerns imo. I think it's less of a concern for the OF as hitters generally hit better to all fields to the OF than the IF. Though the overshifts are "accounted" for as COC said, it has to cause some issues with the individual credit as they are becoming almost standard alignments nowadays. The accounting may have start to shift more toward the team and the pitchers than the individual fielder for credit. Which leads to a whole other issue of how pitching and fielding interrelate and how do you assign such credit and if this even possible to measure or extract. The Cardinals for example are one of the few teams that rarely overshift. They say they would rather not have their pitchers burdened by the overshift as it constrains their ability to cover the plate. Hard to argue with their success on the pitching front.

[BohKnowsBmore]

Did anyone ever get to the Bottom of the seeming abnormalities associated with OPACY?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[CA-ORIOLE]

UZR is not to be trusted. And its a part of WAR which is not to be trusted either.

Garbage in, garbage out.

So says the guy who told us for an entire offseason that Chris Davis should never touch a glove.

[wildcard]

So says the guy who told us for an entire offseason that Chris Davis should never touch a glove.

You should listen to Chris Davis. He says his fielding at 1B was terrible in 2012. He lost his 1B job to Mark Reynolds who had terrible defensive foot work.

Chris worked very hard in the off season of 2012/2013 and ST with infield coach Bobby Dickerson to make himself a better 1B. Dickerson is the same coach the helped transition Manny from a SS to a Platinum Glove winner at 3B. Chris deserves all the credit in the world for working hard to improve his 1B defense. But even he says the he was terrible a 1B in 2012.

I don't know that I ever said that Davis should never touch a glove but I surely said that his defense in 2012 at 1B was terrible and it was. He did pretty well in right and left field in 2012 as well as a pretty good pitching performance vs Boston.

[CA-ORIOLE]

You should listen to Chris Davis. He says his fielding at 1B was terrible in 2012. He lost his 1B job to Mark Reynolds who had terrible defensive foot work.

Chris worked very hard in the off season of 2012/2013 and ST with infield coach Bobby Dickerson to make himself a better 1B. Dickerson is the same coach the helped transition Manny from a SS to a Platinum Glove winner at 3B. Chris deserves all the credit in the world for working hard to improve his 1B defense. But even he says the he was terrible a 1B in 2012.

I don't know that I ever said that Davis should never touch a glove but I surely said that his defense in 2012 at 1B was terrible and it was. He did pretty well in right and left field in 2012 as well as a pretty good pitching performance vs Boston.

i did, and Buck as well. When you drop 5-6 easy catches/throws, you know it wasn't a good year and it wasn't. Objectively and subjectively. Not that I think Davis is some great defensive first baseman, because he's not. He's ok there. Below average imo. The point is, his track record indicated he was much better than 2012, so I don't really have to listen to every players evaluation of their performance. I have an idea based on the track record and watching all the Orioles games myself.

The garbage metrics were (and are) a better indicator of his performance and a better predictor of his future performance at first base than the chicken without a head prognostications that were flying around, and they are also a likely a better gauge of Nick's performance in RF than Frobby's (and other Oriole fans) bias is.

I don't know that I ever said that Davis should never touch a glove but I surely said that his defense in 2012 at 1B was terrible and it was.

Either you have have a short/selective memory or i have a bias, but i sure seem to recall you being the leader of the "We have to keep Reynolds at first base because Davis is horrible" contingent. Since I'm too lazy to look up those Davis defense threads, you get the pass.