On a number of levels, whether offense or in this case defense, 2007 numbers have to be looked at in the context of his limited play that season. He missed all of April and part of May, and offensively didn't start to hit until the first or second week of July where his average had fallen below .220 and he began a torrid eleven week run. I would question any numbers that might be calculated on plate appearances or defensive chances, etc., because the less the number of opportunities the greater value (good or bad) each one has.

 

 

This is especially true on defense, where you get about as half as many chances than you do on offense. Just one season is a small sample size when it comes to judging a fielder.

Per the Fielding Bible

'06 - 24th out of 35 (this is bad)

'07 - 11th out of 35 (this is good)

'08 - 25th out of 35 (this is bad)

 

 

Also, not sure where you got these numbers, but in my book it says he was ranked 21st in '06, 9th in '07, and 13 in '08

hermida is a below average outfielder . what is most frustrating is he sems to have a depth perception problem . He will get a ball , get a glove in a position to make the catch , than we will miss judge where the ball is an miss the ball completely or have it hit off his glove .

 

 

I think he looks a lot worse than he is, because his mistakes are very easy to tell and are easily remembered, though he is worse than the numbers say. He's not very good at making catches and makes a lot of dumb mistakes, to sum it up he's a "dumb fielder", but he has the tools and range to allow him to get to balls.

Hermida's biggest problem, and Nny had posted an article detailing as much somewhere, is that Hermida's biggest weakness is that he gives up a lot of XBHs. This is HIGHLY negated by playing in LF, where, because Fredi deems Coghlan to be a better option there (than say, IF... the kid's natural position) , Hermida can't play/learn the position.

 

 

Not an article, just a plus/minus stat. It rates how often a runner advances for a XBH out of the opportunities they have.

 

(lower the % the better)

in 06 they advanced 46.6% of the time (22nd)

in 07 50.9% (13th)

in 08 53.3% (32nd)

 

Ranks 29th in that time span.

 

UZR also says basically the same thing

 

-4.5 runs in '06

+1.7 runs in '07

-2.9 runs last year.

 

Don't have access to his plus/minus numbers this year for that but his LF arm rating going by UZR wasn't good, -0.8 runs in 288 innings, though again, small sample size.

Per the Fielding Bible

'06 - 24th out of 35 (this is bad)

'07 - 11th out of 35 (this is good)

'08 - 25th out of 35 (this is bad)

 

 

Also, not sure where you got these numbers, but in my book it says he was ranked 21st in '06, 9th in '07, and 13 in '08

It's on page 15:

http://sabernomics.com/sabernomics/FieldingBibleVII_Excerpt.pdf

Per the Fielding Bible

'06 - 24th out of 35 (this is bad)

'07 - 11th out of 35 (this is good)

'08 - 25th out of 35 (this is bad)

 

 

Also, not sure where you got these numbers, but in my book it says he was ranked 21st in '06, 9th in '07, and 13 in '08

It's on page 15:

http://sabernomics.c...VII_Excerpt.pdf

 

Oh, I see where the problem is, I was looking at just his plus/minus number and that takes his arm into account.

 

Should be noted though that the arm ratings are completely f***ed up though. Like I said before, it's completely based off an average of 0 = average. That isn't the case for plus/minus's run saved on arm ratings. You add them up and they're in the hundreds.

 

Probably hurts him more than help me but I'd ignore anything involving runs saved on arm going by plus/minus until that gets addressed.

I'll say 21st out of 35 is below average.. below average drifting towards bad. I meant to edit my previous post but I can't edit anymore.

 

 

Both UZR and plus/minus are based off that 0 = dead average.

 

You can say good/bad based off qualified innings/starter/whatever, but based off every RFer, you go by 0 = average.

If you add the runs saved of the 35 fielders in each position that they list, the runs saved don't add to zero.

I'll say 21st out of 35 is below average.. below average drifting towards bad. I meant to edit my previous post but I can't edit anymore.

 

 

Both UZR and plus/minus are based off that 0 = dead average.

 

You can say good/bad based off qualified innings/starter/whatever, but based off every RFer, you go by 0 = average.

If you add the runs saved of the 35 fielders in each position that they list, the runs saved don't add to zero.

 

That's because it's not every single fielder. :thumbup

 

0 = average of EVERY RFer (or whatever position). Doesn't matter if 1 IP played. Just like how the ML average RF OPS last year was .797, every single AB as a RFer was taken in, even if it was just 1 PA.

And also like I said, that takes arm into the equation, which isn't going to equal 0 because average arm doesn't = 0, and until that gets fixed, you can only go based off of their range plus/minus

Per the Fielding Bible

'06 - 24th out of 35 (this is bad)

'07 - 11th out of 35 (this is good)

'08 - 25th out of 35 (this is bad)

 

 

Also, not sure where you got these numbers, but in my book it says he was ranked 21st in '06, 9th in '07, and 13 in '08

 

In your book, how many fielders did they include each year?

 

In what I posted they included the 35 fielders in each position with the most innings.

Per the Fielding Bible

'06 - 24th out of 35 (this is bad)

'07 - 11th out of 35 (this is good)

'08 - 25th out of 35 (this is bad)

 

 

Also, not sure where you got these numbers, but in my book it says he was ranked 21st in '06, 9th in '07, and 13 in '08

 

In your book, how many fielders did they include each year?

 

In what I posted they included the 35 fielders in each position with the most innings.

 

It's the same book, we were just looking at two different stats.

 

Both are rated off the 35 fielders with most inn

I also think it should be noted that I think the amount of runs saved and by UZR is overstated and is about 1/2-2/3rd of what they actually say. I'm sorry but allowing a hit is not worth 0.7 runs. Closer to 0.3-0.5. The way they come to that run total, which you can read in the exert, is retarded. Both UZR and plus/minus go by that same system really when it comes to converting to runs.

It depends what kind of hit it is. A single is worth 0.50 run, a double is worth 0.72 and a triple 1.04 runs.

It depends what kind of hit it is. A single is worth 0.50 run, a double is worth 0.72 and a triple 1.04 runs.

 

 

Right

 

it's saying that a single is worth .7 runs

Well when it comes to IF anyway

 

This is how it rates runs based off one "base" aka single

 

first base = .73 runs

second base = .76 runs

third base = .76 runs

ss = .76 runs

lf = .56 runs

cf = .56 runs

rf = .58 runs

 

I'm not sure what UZR goes by but it should be close to that.

 

So is closer for OF, though again we then can't take arm ratings into account for plus/minus because it then isn't based off an average

Hermida's biggest problem, and Nny had posted an article detailing as much somewhere, is that Hermida's biggest weakness is that he gives up a lot of XBHs. This is HIGHLY negated by playing in LF, where, because Fredi deems Coghlan to be a better option there (than say, IF... the kid's natural position) , Hermida can't play/learn the position.

 

But, when it comes to getting to balls, in his career, he's ranked an average of 16th overall in RF. That being said, he's got a plus arm, and below average RF range, making him an ideal LFer, but that 'experiment' got nixed.

 

I don't know what Nny wrote but I think he struggles going back on balls and coming in on balls. I guess in theory playing LF in Landshark stadium should negate some of his issues because he would have less ground to cover going back on balls but his UZR/150 in LF was horrific. It was almost as bad as Dunn's and worse than Coghlan's and Coghlan has never played the OF.

 

Hermida's Career +/-

 

Deep +17

Medium +3

Shallow -12

 

Hermida actually should play a tad more shallow in RF.

This is how it rates runs based off one "base" aka single

 

first base = .73 runs

second base = .76 runs

third base = .76 runs

ss = .76 runs

lf = .56 runs

cf = .56 runs

rf = .58 runs

 

I'm not sure what UZR goes by but it should be close to that.

 

So is closer for OF, though again we then can't take arm ratings into account for plus/minus because it then isn't based off an average

 

Those numbers seem reasonable.

 

If a fielder's screw-up turns a likely out into a "single" the cost of the screw-up is not only the "single" but also the out he gave away. An out is worth -0.09 runs.

 

So for example a CF drops a fly ball and the hitter ends up at 1B. The cost of the screw-up is the 0.50 for a single plus the 0.09 of the out he gave away. For IF the numbers are probably higher because some of the screw-ups give away potential double plays and a double play is worth 0.37 runs.

This is how it rates runs based off one "base" aka single

 

first base = .73 runs

second base = .76 runs

third base = .76 runs

ss = .76 runs

lf = .56 runs

cf = .56 runs

rf = .58 runs

 

I'm not sure what UZR goes by but it should be close to that.

 

So is closer for OF, though again we then can't take arm ratings into account for plus/minus because it then isn't based off an average

 

Those numbers seem reasonable.

 

If a fielder's screw-up turns a likely out into a "single" the cost of the screw-up is not only the "single" but also the out he gave away. An out is worth -0.09 runs.

 

So for example a CF drops a fly ball and the hitter ends up at 1B. The cost of the screw-up is the 0.50 for a single plus the 0.09 of the out he gave away. For IF the numbers are probably higher because some of the screw-ups give away potential double plays and a double play is worth 0.37 runs.

 

Fair enough but IF still seems extremely high for me. I don't know if you read all the exert you posted or only looked at the numbers but it explains in there how they reach the numbers if you haven't read it.

 

My problem is that it takes things outside of the fielders control into account.

 

For instance, let's say a runner is on third with no outs and a SS boots a ball.

Next instance, there's nobody on with 2 outs, same ball hit to the same spot, ss boots the ball.

 

It hurts the fielder more on the first instance than on the second instance because of the runner on third, which the SS had ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with.

 

They bring that up, kinda, and explain how they deal with it

 

"After repeating this procedure for every play, we found that there was still plenty of "noise" in the run values that had nothing to do with a fielder's defensive ability. FOr example, converting a difficult play with two outs and the bases loaded could be worht two full runs, but the same play with two outs and nobody on was worht a tenth of that, at no fault of the fielder. This is a situational bias that the fielder has little control over.

 

To adjust for this bias, we took a look at how many runs each plus/minus was worth. How many runs was Chase Utley's +46 plays worth? At second base, it turned out that the avreage plus/minus point was worth .76 runs. That's 35 plus/minus runs saved for Utley in 2008"

 

To me, averaging all of that out of the plays at the position doesn't fix the problem. Averaging out idiotic results doesn't make them less idiotic.