Statcast introduces Catch Probability for 2017: Where will Jones fall?

[Spy Fox]

Looking through the charts. Keeping in mind that this data is less than half of the games, but some interesting facts I observed in the charts, O's related and non:

• In 2016 Juan Lagares made every single play rated 4 Stars and below. 
• With the 100 Opportunities threshold, Hyun Soo Kim was one of six players credited with 0 catches of 4 Stars or better. One of the others was Nolan Reimold. 
• When you lower the thresholds you get some interesting outliers. Big Miguel Sano only saw three 5 Star opportunities in 2016, but he caught two of them. 
• For most players, there are more 5 Star and 1 Star opportunities than there are in the middle. That seems to make sense--most hits are either clearly in a fieldable zone or clearly not.
• From 2015 to 2016, Adam Jones held steady in the 1 Star category but his percentages dropped in all other categories. 
• I haven't found any player in 2016 with more than Mark Trumbo's 8 fails in 1 Star plays, despite the fact that Trumbo's 19 1 Star opportunities are near the bottom of the list. The much maligned Mr. McCutchen also had 8 fails, but in 53 attempts.  
• The stats suggest that Seth Smith doesn't have great range but is indeed a solid upgrade over Trumbo in the field. In 2016 Smith was below average in the Five and Four Star categories, but did well in the Three Star (7/11), Two Star (9/9), and One Star (22/24) categories.  

Where's the Pedro Alvarez data?

[El Gordo]

Fangraphs has a defensive metric called inside edge which seems similar. According to it Kim had 159 chances. 40 were in the impossible range, and he made none. 7 were remote 1-10%, again none. 0% of 0 were unlikely 10-40%. 2 0f 4 were even 40-60%, 2 of 2 likely 60-90 %, 106 of 106 routine 90-100%  Doesn't seem like that much of a liabilty.

[SilverRocket]

1 hour ago, El Gordo said:

Fangraphs has a defensive metric called inside edge which seems similar. According to it Kim had 159 chances. 40 were in the impossible range, and he made none. 7 were remote 1-10%, again none. 0% of 0 were unlikely 10-40%. 2 0f 4 were even 40-60%, 2 of 2 likely 60-90 %, 106 of 106 routine 90-100%  Doesn't seem like that much of a liabilty.

For Rickard it shows: 0 of 47 Impossible, 1 of 7 Remote, 2 of 3 Unlikely, 3 of 5 Even, 5 of 7 Likely, 114 of 114 Routine.

For Trumbo: 0 of 48 Impossible, 0 of 3 Remote, 0 of 7 Unlikely, 0 of 1 Even, 2 of 7 Likely, 162 of 166 Routine.

For Jones: 0 of 62 Impossible, 1 of 9 Remote, 1 of 7 Unlikely, 2 of 2 Even, 10 of 12 Likely, 333 of 336 Routine.

Considering Statcast's data is incomplete, this looks like it's in the ballpark of what they have. A small sample size of non-routine plays, but Trumbo looks really bad either way.

[Babypowder]

I'm definitely interested to see more. Of course, I'm sure the same sample size cautions that are applicable to the other metrics still apply. One season of data probably doesn't tell you much about true talent level. A partial season, even less.