Nick's defense..UZR

[MatthewW]

Not knowing much about UZR myself, but I definitely disagree with it.

Like you his "defense by the eye". Is much better this year. It seems like when ever I'm watching highlights from a game or a game at self he's always in there at some point making a great play.

I have made this argument a lot. 'Great plays' on highlights are usually the result of an initial below average read. How many times have we seen Jim Edmonds on highlight reels making 'great plays'. His circus catch is a ball that (vintage) Andruw Jones gets to, settles under and makes it look routine.

Nick has a tremendous arm, but to me anyway he is an average OF with average range. who makes the 'highlight' plays because of his below average reads and jumps. The -5.5 is still slightly surprising though. He is able to make up for this, with his athletic ability to make up ground. By no means is he a 'below average' OF as a whole.

When it comes to SS, there are a number of guys who have been able to make the 'unbelievable play' over the years. But honestly Cesar Izturis (not so much this year) and Mike Bordick where two of the best SS I have seen, and you will see neither on a highlight reel.

[Sports Guy]

I have made this argument a lot. 'Great plays' on highlights are usually the result of an initial poor read. How many times have we seen Jim Edmonds on highlight reels making 'great plays'. His circus catch is a ball that (vintage) Andruw Jones gets to, settles under and makes it look routine.

Nick has a tremendous arm, but to me anyway he is an average OF with average range. who makes the 'highlight' plays because of his poor reads and bad jumps. The -5.5 is still slightly surprising though. By no means is he a 'below average' OF.

Yea..Nick is no defensive wizard or anything.

I disagree that he gets poor reads and bad jumps...I think he is a smart OFer that positions himself reasonably well and gets to most balls...and he has an accurate and strong arm.

If you were to go on a scale of 1-10, 1 being low, 10 being high and 7 being average, I would probably give Nick an 8.

UZR has him at like a 5 and I just don't see that at all. i saw it last year in the first half of the season but not this year.

[Mackus]

If you were to go on a scale of 1-10, 1 being low, 10 being high and 7 being average.

That's a weird scale

[MatthewW]

Yea..Nick is no defensive wizard or anything.

I disagree that he gets poor reads and bad jumps...I think he is a smart OFer that positions himself reasonably well and gets to most balls...and he has an accurate and strong arm.

If you were to go on a scale of 1-10, 1 being low, 10 being high and 7 being average, I would probably give Nick an 8.

UZR has him at like a 5 and I just don't see that at all. i saw it last year in the first half of the season but not this year.

'Poor reads and bad jumps' is probably too strong in my post. Below average is probably more appropriate. He moves pretty good to his left, while he is below average in my opinion moving to his left and moving back.

[maudibjr]

UZR can be useful when used with other stats to evaluate a player. I put low emhesis on it.

[freethebirds]

But are we been a hypocrite here?

I mean, for all of the talk about how the defensive metrics are inconsistent, did anyone complain about the for Nick in 2008? If it showed him above average this year, would this thread have been made?

It seems as if we only want to believe what we want to believe sometimes when it comes to UZR.

I just have a real issue with his this year...he just doesn't look that bad at all out there.

I think the point is that they're consistent with a large sample size and require much more data than offensive stats. His career UZR/150 is 2.2 which would make him a slightly above average RFer. My inclination is that with increase sample size his career UZR will improve, but you sort of have to trust the data in front of you unless you have a substantive reason not to. Unless you think the dimensions of the yard or something like that is tainting the data, you have to assume the data is more reliable than your hunch. Ask yourself how good a judge of offensive talent you would if you didn't look at the stats. There are certainly some players who don't stick in your head for whatever reason as being a "good hitter" that you would be surprised to see with good numbers. The human mind is less reliable than stats, in my opinion.

[SilentJames]

This doesn't make any sense to me. He Nick has made 46 OOZ outs this year, already 12 more than all of last year and well on his way to matching his best defensive year in 08.

Yet his RngR has him as the WORST RF'r in the AL. Basically saying he is having trouble getting to balls in his zone. so how does a guy with only one error have that many OOZ outs but at the same time have trouble getting to ball in his zone?

[TiredofLosing20]

I struggle with a stat that has Adam Jones and Adam Dunn as better defenders and Bobby Abreu as equal to NM...

For the record it looks like Mark Teixiera is a -6. Does that mean Dunn deserves a Gold Glove over Tex this year?

Maybe we are way underselling Dunn's defense.

[AgentOrange]

I don't know why we keep trying to use defensive metrics to evaluate players.

[Mackus]

I don't know why we keep trying to use defensive metrics to evaluate players.

Because they are a hell of a lot more accurate than just trying to remember who you think is good or not.

[AgentOrange]

Because they are a hell of a lot more accurate than just trying to remember who you think is good or not.

I don't think they are.

[ShaneDawg85]

This would be one of the reasons I've grown out of just looking at fielding percentage as a means of defensive ability, but not fallen in love with some of the defensive measuring systems. Until something better comes along I'll be quite content in the middle of the two extremes.

[Mackus]

I don't think they are.

Its not really an opinion.

They aren't absolute facts, as there are obviously some significant advances that still need to be made, but they are far better than basing opinions on small samples of observations without any sort of tracking system (just remembering how many good plays versus how many bad plays one single guy you follow all year is probably impossible, yet alone dozens of guys on dozens of teams).

How would you rate Seth Smith's defense this year?

You use your observations, I'll use the various defensive metrics, and we'll see who comes closer to the truth.

[El Gordo]

But are we been a hypocrite here?

I mean, for all of the talk about how the defensive metrics are inconsistent, did anyone complain about the for Nick in 2008? If it showed him above average this year, would this thread have been made?

It seems as if we only want to believe what we want to believe sometimes when it comes to UZR.

I just have a real issue with his this year...he just doesn't look that bad at all out there.

If what Drungo is referring to is correct, then in '08, the Fielding Bible had him at a+10, +4 medium, and -4 deep. With the exception of his first season he has been consistently worse deep than in his other numbers. If the wall is affecting his numbers that would account for it. This season he is improved shallow, the same medium -4, and the same deep -8 as last. His throwing numbers are the best so far of his career.

[AgentOrange]

Its not really an opinion.

Actually, everything is opinion. I would take a scouting report over a defensive metric any day of the week.