Base Stealing Opinion Thread

[Larry18]

Errors have to make the list. For so many reasons.

Fast CFer runs 150 feet and ball glances off his glove, error. Delmon Young doesn't come within 3/4ths of a mile of same ball, no error.

Error could be ball is dropped in foul territory, next pitch is strike three to end inning. Or an error could be muffing deep flyball with the bases loaded in the bottom of the ninth down three. Both are just an "E" in the box score.

UZR incorporates errors into it's ratings.

[srock]

Errors have to make the list. For so many reasons.

Fast CFer runs 150 feet and ball glances off his glove, error. Delmon Young doesn't come within 3/4ths of a mile of same ball, no error.

Error could be ball is dropped in foul territory, next pitch is strike three to end inning. Or an error could be muffing deep flyball with the bases loaded in the bottom of the ninth down three. Both are just an "E" in the box score.

Errors is stupid as well. Unfortunately the new defensive metrics aren't exactly a model of consistency either. Long way go on that front.

On the other hand, I don't think people over value errors, even lay people take that stat with a grain of salt. In my experience at least.

[Phantom]

Errors is stupid as well. Unfortunately the new defensive metrics aren't exactly a model of consistency either. Long way go on that front.

On the other hand, I don't think people over value errors, even lay people take that stat with a grain of salt. In my experience at least.

New defensive metrics have the correct ideas, they just need the proper tools to come of age.

Errors should not be taken with a grain of salt. They should not be taken at all. They are less informative than even something as illogical as pitching Wins.

[Sessh]

I don't think that means anything. You can cherry pick all kinds of things, but since WS winners are 1/30th of the set of teams you can probably find all kinds of things that don't correlate to WS wins. I'd be more impressed by a lack of correlation between regular season wins and HRs.

Players don't do that because hitting is difficult and the other team is doing everything they can to stop them. Quality of play drives specialization. Being a dead-pull power hitter can be very productive. If Chris Davis spent a lot of time focusing on completely altering his approach for certain situations that almost certainly detract from what he currently does well. Of course if the shift completely sapped his productivity he would have to change or be bounced out of the league. But the shift was so detrimental last year that he was a 5+ win player with a .900+ OPS. Not sure I'd change a whole lot.

First off, I gave you a link showing a lack of correlation between home runs and wins over a 15 year period and on top of that, a lack in World Series titles as well. You're content with being regular season champions even

if no World Series titles come of it? Doesn't sound like good priorities. I showed correlation and you say it "doesn't mean anything", then ask for something I just gave you that you disregarded.

Ortiz batted 266 balls into the shift (home runs, of course, were not counted). When there was no shift, his BABIP (batting average on balls in play) was .330; against the shift, it was .312, a drop of 18 percentage points. When there was no shift, Ortiz?s percentage of doubles and triples was 14.7 percent; against the shift, it was 8.7 percent, a decline of 6 percent.

No American League hitter was impacted more by shifts than Orioles slugger Chris Davis. With no shift, Davis had a .425 BABIP and a 17 percent extra-base hit rate (not including homers). Against the shift, his BABIP was .302 (123 percentage points less) and his extra-base hit percentage dropped to 10.1 percent.

Source

You were saying? Davis is hugely affected by the shift and could be a LOT[/b} better if he would learn to stop hitting into it.

[weams]

He could have shortened up his swing.

[srock]

He could have shortened up his swing.

Crush Davis can shorten up his swing and still hit one 480 feet opposite field!

[srock]

New defensive metrics have the correct ideas, they just need the proper tools to come of age.

Errors should not be taken with a grain of salt. They should not be taken at all. They are less informative than even something as illogical as pitching Wins.

New defense has good math but the inputs aren't good enough (which is probably just restating your opinion). Which is why I can't for the life me understand dWAR for a guy in the 80's. The data is useless!

[Can_of_corn]

New defense has good math but the inputs aren't good enough (which is probably just restating your opinion). Which is why I can't for the life me understand dWAR for a guy in the 80's. The data is useless!

How about for the 1880's? Did you know King Kelly had a -1.2 dWAR in 1887?

[DrungoHazewood]

New defense has good math but the inputs aren't good enough (which is probably just restating your opinion). Which is why I can't for the life me understand dWAR for a guy in the 80's. The data is useless!

I think recalculation of defensive metrics for seasons prior to play-by-play data is much better than either a) not trying or b) trying to somehow use unadjusted numbers or tease ratings out of subjective opinions. Basically the Total Zone type metrics take something like range factor and adjust for what we now know about biases such as pitcher handedness, park effects, GB/FB tendencies, number of runners on base, etc. They're not 1:1 with play-by-play metrics, but I think they're reasonable.

[DrungoHazewood]

You were saying? Davis is hugely affected by the shift and could be a LOT[/b} better if he would learn to stop hitting into it.

It's a massive leap to suggest Davis could "learn to stop hitting into" the shift and still be as effective as he is today. I'm highly skeptical of ideas along the lines of "I know this one simple trick that would turn a .923 OPS hitter into a 1.100 hitter!" Most of the time a player who's progressed into the top 0.05% of baseball players isn't going to move up into the top 0.01% by changing his most basic approaches.

[DrungoHazewood]

How about for the 1880's? Did you know King Kelly had a -1.2 dWAR in 1887?

While modern figuring of past defensive seasons is laudable and probably better than not doing it, you have to put pretty wide error bars on a lot of stuff from eras where some of the basic playing rules and baseline assumptions about how to play were different. For example, we know there are years where King Kelly had OF assist rates that are something like five standard deviations above the mean, almost certainly because half the time he was listed as an outfielder he was really playing 5th infielder in a Precambrian version of the modern shift.

[Can_of_corn]

While modern figuring of past defensive seasons is laudable and probably better than not doing it, you have to put pretty wide error bars on a lot of stuff from eras where some of the basic playing rules and baseline assumptions about how to play were different. For example, we know there are years where King Kelly had OF assist rates that are something like five standard deviations above the mean, almost certainly because half the time he was listed as an outfielder he was really playing 5th infielder in a Precambrian version of the modern shift.

Almost like I had a reason for using him as my example.

[weams]

It's a massive leap to suggest Davis could "learn to stop hitting into" the shift and still be as effective as he is today. I'm highly skeptical of ideas along the lines of "I know this one simple trick that would turn a .923 OPS hitter into a 1.100 hitter!" Most of the time a player who's progressed into the top 0.05% of baseball players isn't going to move up into the top 0.01% by changing his most basic approaches.

The man got a 161 million dollar contract doing it his way. I'd say the facts are on his side.

[Can_of_corn]

It's a massive leap to suggest Davis could "learn to stop hitting into" the shift and still be as effective as he is today. I'm highly skeptical of ideas along the lines of "I know this one simple trick that would turn a .923 OPS hitter into a 1.100 hitter!" Most of the time a player who's progressed into the top 0.05% of baseball players isn't going to move up into the top 0.01% by changing his most basic approaches.

You read the Fangraphs piece on Donaldson today?

[DrungoHazewood]

You read the Fangraphs piece on Donaldson today?

No. Does he make me look brilliant or rubbish?