I don't go along with that crowd. I'm the founder and leader of that crowd...since day 1.

 

 

 

Why is it flawed, then? Provide an explanation.

I don't go along with that crowd. I'm the founder and leader of that crowd...since day 1.

 

 

 

Why is it flawed, then? Provide an explanation.

I really don't want to get in a stat fight. I find them boring, and I'd lose. You know the stats and how they're derived better than I. I simply made the broad statement that defensive stats need refinements more than the offensive stats. And the broad statement that any stat that showed Sheffield as -3 vs. +9 is flawed just by virtue of it's result. I don't even know exactly what this particular stat is, I'm assuming it means Jeremy is +9 games per season defensively? That's just absurd. My eyes tell me different. Those dreaded eyes. I don't see how he's +9 in anything defensively.

.

.

I do think that Jeremy could be better on defense and become a much much better batter. He lacks confidence and aggresivness in both areas. I shudder to think how fantastic he could be at bat if he was more aggressive. There'd be less walks, but his sweet swing would make up for that, if he'd somehow acquire that confident/aggressive approach.

He's had his chance here, but he can't seem to get his mind to catch up with his ability.

So, basically, you don't have an argument for why the stat is flawed. You just think it's flawed because it makes Hermida better than Sheffield.

LOL. It's incredible how silly you sound. Your eyes >>>>>>>>>>>>> quantitative stats. Duh.

So, basically, you don't have an argument for why the stat is flawed. You just think it's flawed because it makes Hermida better than Sheffield.

 

Like I said, I can't argue the point, even badly, if I don't even know what this stat exactly measures.......but to answer your question....Yea, what's wrong with that?

Happens all the time with stats. Like a political poll that shows some disparate result from others. You look for faults in the methodology that shows an aberrant result.

.

.

.

The last time I got involved in a stat discussion here was back when the debate was Cabs or Lowell at 3rd. All the stats apparantly showed that Cabs was better? I questioned that result at the time as all the statheads got up in arms saying it wasn't even close, just look at the stats. That was another defensive stat. And as I've said, I do think that we all agree that the defensive stats need more refinement than the offensive stats.

So? At least we have a basis for our argument. All you've got is your eyes?!? Well my eyes say you're completely wrong and being ridiculous ............AND the numbers agree.

To be fair, defensive stats do need refinement. (although, it'd be nice if you can search the stat, and tell us why, instead of just going with your eyes).

Anyways...I was checking UZR stats the other day, and they had Teixiera as one of the worst defensive 1B in baseball. That can't be true, can it?

To be fair, defensive stats do need refinement. (although, it'd be nice if you can search the stat, and tell us why, instead of just going with your eyes).

Anyways...I was checking UZR stats the other day, and they had Teixiera as one of the worst defensive 1B in baseball. That can't be true, can it?

 

 

Sure, they do. But it's such a silly argument to make. Especially when we don't even watch Sheffield every day.

To be fair, defensive stats do need refinement. (although, it'd be nice if you can search the stat, and tell us why, instead of just going with your eyes).

Anyways...I was checking UZR stats the other day, and they had Teixiera as one of the worst defensive 1B in baseball. That can't be true, can it?

 

I get the idea I'd have to devote 500-1000 hours studying the subject before I'd even get close to knowing what you do about stats. As far as Teizera goes, I don't know. I haven't seen enough of him play? What do you think?

.

And what's that UZR stat? Might that be U something zone rating? I believe that it was some zone rating stat that proved that Cabs was and would be better at 3rd than Lowell, much better. What do you think about that result?

To be fair, defensive stats do need refinement. (although, it'd be nice if you can search the stat, and tell us why, instead of just going with your eyes).

Anyways...I was checking UZR stats the other day, and they had Teixiera as one of the worst defensive 1B in baseball. That can't be true, can it?

 

I get the idea I'd have to devote 500-1000 hours studying the subject before I'd even get close to knowing what you do about stats. As far as Teizera goes, I don't know. I haven't seen enough of him play? What do you think?

.

And what's that UZR stat? Might that be U something zone rating? I believe that it was some zone rating stat that proved that Cabs was and would be better at 3rd than Lowell, much better. What do you think about that result?

 

 

UZR = Ultimate Zone Rating.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/uzr-on-fangraphs/

 

Definition's at the bottom of the page.

 

As far as Mike Lowell, his range isn't all that great anymore.

 

The Teixiera thing I saw on the ESPN message board the other day, and I'd have to question a stat that puts him as a not so good defensive 1B.

 

I don't know...as the book I'm reading says (Moneyball), they know the defensive stats, but they also know that they aren't absolute, like offensive statistics are. I'm pretty sure as the years go on, there will be more defensive stats.

Even if you push statistics aside, I don't think the argument has much merit.

 

I agree that Jeremy Hermida is far from a defensive wiz (I've seen several girlie man throws from him this season), but to advocate that 40 year old Gary Sheffield be a defensive upgrade and start in RF everyday is absurd.

 

Gary Sheffield has not played regular defense since 2005. He was injured througout most of 2006 and was the DH almost exclusively in Detroit. This should be some indication that he can't hack it defensively.

 

Many Mets fans were opposed to the Sheffield addition because their eyes told them that he couldn't play defense and they were concerned that he would steal innings from Ryan Church, who could at least play the position competently.

 

If there was such a severe danger with Hermida's defense, the Marlins should look to bring back Carroll or trade for someone (other than Sheffield) that actually has some defensive ability.

To be fair, defensive stats do need refinement. (although, it'd be nice if you can search the stat, and tell us why, instead of just going with your eyes).

Anyways...I was checking UZR stats the other day, and they had Teixiera as one of the worst defensive 1B in baseball. That can't be true, can it?

 

 

 

UZR is not a great stat to use, expecially for first basemen.

To be fair, defensive stats do need refinement. (although, it'd be nice if you can search the stat, and tell us why, instead of just going with your eyes).

Anyways...I was checking UZR stats the other day, and they had Teixiera as one of the worst defensive 1B in baseball. That can't be true, can it?

 

 

 

UZR is not a great stat to use, expecially for first basemen.

And outfielders. It also doesn't help that the formulas for UZR are constantly changing.

why isn't UZR a good stat?

 

it's the same basic thing as plus/minus, same data. one of the biggest differences is in how much value it awards/deducts from players (i.e. is utley so good because howard is so bad? plus/minus gives most credit to utley, but uzr instead discredits howard more and doesn't credit utley as much)

And what's that UZR stat? Might that be U something zone rating? I believe that it was some zone rating stat that proved that Cabs was and would be better at 3rd than Lowell, much better. What do you think about that result?

 

 

Although it's shares the same "zone rating" name, UZR and the old ZR are very different.

 

Also something to remember about defensive stats is that it's a lot like ERA: it tells how a player peformed during that time period but does not say their actual defensive skills nor is a good predictor of future performance.

why isn't UZR a good stat?

 

it's the same basic thing as plus/minus, same data. one of the biggest differences is in how much value it awards/deducts from players (i.e. is utley so good because howard is so bad? plus/minus gives most credit to utley, but uzr instead discredits howard more and doesn't credit utley as much)

 

 

 

A few things, but to name a quick example: Mark Texeira scoops up a tough ball in the dirt that most first basemen would not have been able to do. As far as I am concerned, UZR does not take that into account, while +/- does.

are you talking about throws? If so, last I checked plus/minus doesn't account for that. I'd say with 90% certainty that it doesn't, since it specifically said it doesn't account for it in the first volume and didn't say otherwise in the second volume.

Also Teixeria is at -0.8 runs going by UZR. Going by plus/minus he's at +1. So there is less than a two run difference between the two, and both are saying he's been average. What am I missing that you guys are bitching about?

are you talking about throws? If so, last I checked plus/minus doesn't account for that

 

 

 

Yes, I'm talking about when a SS throws to a 1B on a hop, and the first baseman makes a scoop that many others would not. I also don't think UZR takes into account a players vertical ability, and +/- does. Some other minor flaws are that I don't think it involves sifts, movement of the ball, etc.

are you talking about throws? If so, last I checked plus/minus doesn't account for that

 

 

 

Yes, I'm talking about when a SS throws to a 1B on a hop, and the first baseman makes a scoop that many others would not. I also don't think UZR takes into account a players vertical ability, and +/- does. Some other minor flaws are that I don't think it involves sifts, movement of the ball, etc.

 

Can you provide proof that plus/minus accounts for it? They specifically said it doesn't in the first volume, and didn't say otherwise in the second.

 

Also, unless things have changed again again if they have please link me, but plus/minus doesn't account for shifts (positioning is the whole reason Utley has such a high plus/minus after all), doesn't account for movement of the ball (if by that you mean stuff like funny hops, which I think you mean), and I'm not exactly sure what you mean by vertical ability. I mean, I understand what you mean, but plus/minus doesn't check for that. I mean, really, they both look at the same exact data. They both buy the same exact hit data from the same exact place. What they use is the same exact stuff. The main difference is the formula they use after that info.

are you talking about throws? If so, last I checked plus/minus doesn't account for that

 

 

 

Yes, I'm talking about when a SS throws to a 1B on a hop, and the first baseman makes a scoop that many others would not. I also don't think UZR takes into account a players vertical ability, and +/- does. Some other minor flaws are that I don't think it involves sifts, movement of the ball, etc.

 

Can you provide proof that plus/minus accounts for it? They specifically said it doesn't in the first volume, and didn't say otherwise in the second.

 

Also, unless things have changed again again if they have please link me, but plus/minus doesn't account for shifts (positioning is the whole reason Utley has such a high plus/minus after all), doesn't account for movement of the ball (if by that you mean stuff like funny hops, which I think you mean), and I'm not exactly sure what you mean by vertical ability. I mean, I understand what you mean, but plus/minus doesn't check for that. I mean, really, they both look at the same exact data. They both buy the same exact hit data from the same exact place. What they use is the same exact stuff. The main difference is the formula they use after that info.

 

 

Sorry, I don't have a link. I'm going by speculation, as I thought I heard someone say that it does. Just the small things that I don't think it takes into account (i.e. how fast the ball is moving, etc.) I could be wrong, and there is probably a decent chance I am, as again, I'm going by speculation.

UZR takes how hard a ball is hit/how fast it moves into account. All those things like that, it's all the same source, both UZR and plus/minus are looking at the same data and information, things like that are the same on both ends. It's the formula after the data the differs.

 

And yeah then, very very unlikely plus/minus accounts for fielding throws then. That'd be shown by the fact that plus/minus and uzr both say the same basic thing for Teix too.

To be fair, defensive stats do need refinement. (although, it'd be nice if you can search the stat, and tell us why, instead of just going with your eyes).

Anyways...I was checking UZR stats the other day, and they had Teixiera as one of the worst defensive 1B in baseball. That can't be true, can it?

 

 

 

UZR is not a great stat to use, expecially for first basemen.

And outfielders. It also doesn't help that the formulas for UZR are constantly changing.

 

ugh since the site that gets censored here went down and google didn't cache the thread I lost the thread and it doesn't look like I made the post here but I'm pretty sure the difference between UZR and plus/minus for OFers is negligible outside of arms, because plus/minus f***s up on rating OF arms (doesn't rate it based off average, and is instead a strait +run stat).

Y'all could just place more weight on your eyes as a stat tool defensively as you try to figure out the formulas that the stats presently use... :thumbup

Y'all could just place more weight on your eyes as a stat tool defensively as you try to figure out the formulas that the stats presently use... :thumbup

 

And that's how Jeter wins 3 Gold Gloves.