PDA

View Full Version : Brantley's Rant Against Sabermetrics



redssince75
09-11-2012, 11:09 PM
Did anyone hear that tonight on the radio broadcast? I know this is a sabermetrics-heavy board, but I loved it! You go, Jeff!

Wheelhouse
09-11-2012, 11:15 PM
Love the Cowboy! He speaks it like it is!

Tom Servo
09-11-2012, 11:18 PM
http://omgreds.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/jeff-brantley_wings-650x889.jpg

RedsManRick
09-11-2012, 11:22 PM
Didn't hear it, but most rants against sabermetrics are tear-downs of straw men rather than legitimate critiques.

Razor Shines
09-11-2012, 11:23 PM
Personally I think all stats are worthless. They just shouldn't be kept. Why do I need some nerd with a calculator to tell me Joey Votto's Batting Average is? I can tell if I guy can hit just by watching.

The Operator
09-11-2012, 11:28 PM
Sabremetrics aren't the end-all be-all that some make them out to be, but it's silly to discount them altogether.

It seems to me when people go on those over the top rants against them, it's generally because they either don't or aren't capable of understanding them.

WVRedsFan
09-11-2012, 11:38 PM
Sabremetrics aren't the end-all be-all that some make them out to be, but it's silly to discount them altogether.

It seems to me when people go on those over the top rants against them, it's generally because they either don't or aren't capable of understanding them.

Or don't want to. Many fans like to watch baseball and not analyze it so much. I'm between the two extremes, but I admit it's annoying when you make a statement based on observation and one of the stat geeks come back with all kinds of stats to tell you that what you just saw was bad luck or just plain luck. No fun.

The Operator
09-11-2012, 11:39 PM
Or don't want to. Many fans like to watch baseball and not analyze it so much. I'm between the two extremes, but I admit it's annoying when you make a statement based on observation and one of the stat geeks come back with all kinds of stats to tell you that what you just saw was bad luck or just plain luck. No fun.True. I've always been a guy who thinks both methods have their merit.

What I don't understand is why so many people are so adamant about being only on one side of the argument. Why can't they embrace both?

IslandRed
09-11-2012, 11:44 PM
Sabremetrics aren't the end-all be-all that some make them out to be, but it's silly to discount them altogether.

It seems to me when people go on those over the top rants against them, it's generally because they either don't or aren't capable of understanding them.

When delivered by baseball lifers like Brantley, I'd bet the rants are often a defensive reflex to something they've heard or read -- something that usually translates to "you and the people in the game you admire don't know (bleep) about baseball." Which doesn't mean the offending opinion is necessarily wrong, mind you, but I can understand the reaction.

Johnny Footstool
09-11-2012, 11:47 PM
When I'm watching baseball, I don't think about sabermetrics at all. Ever.

But during the downtime between games, my mind needs something baseball-related to occupy itself. That's when sabermetrics come in handy.

Brutus
09-11-2012, 11:48 PM
Sabremetrics aren't the end-all be-all that some make them out to be, but it's silly to discount them altogether.

It seems to me when people go on those over the top rants against them, it's generally because they either don't or aren't capable of understanding them.

There's probably some extremes to both the rants and (some) saber users. Sabermetric stats are very useful in context. Unfortunately there are also some that use them religiously and make matter-of-fact conclusions from them. That is probably the fringe that also creates stereotyping of all sabermetric stats.

Brutus
09-11-2012, 11:50 PM
When I'm watching baseball, I don't think about sabermetrics at all. Ever.

But during the downtime between games, my mind needs something baseball-related to occupy itself. That's when sabermetrics come in handy.

This is how I am. During the game, I think there are traditional baseball fundamentals and scouting that have a place for discussion. I think sabermetrics shouldn't drastically dictate the game as much as quantify what's happened.

I truly don't think sabermetrics have changed the game too much, nor should they. They've merely led to better quantification of things.

redssince75
09-11-2012, 11:51 PM
He had 3 points.

1) Defensive sabermetrics don't capture plays like the one that set him off on his rant -- BP covering first and getting a flip from Votto on a ball hit to the outfield, tagging a guy between his legs. Numbers measure the put-out, but not the instincts to be in the right place, or the athleticism to make the tag.

2) Defensive sabermetrics would put Alfonso Soriano first at his position (according to Jeff), which is absolutely ludicrous (again according to Jeff).

3) Jeff himself would have never made it out of the minors under a pure numbers analysis...so maybe this is personal?

Anyway, I completely agree with him about some of the most important parts of the game not being measurable by numbers.

Vottomatic
09-12-2012, 12:43 AM
At 47 years old, I never needed Sabermetrics to tell me who the good/great players were in the 70's, 80's, 90's and now.

Team Clark
09-12-2012, 12:48 AM
I like everyone :D. "how we lookin'?"

WVRedsFan
09-12-2012, 12:55 AM
I like everyone :D. "how we lookin'?"

Come on, TC. How do you really feel ? :).

redsfandan
09-12-2012, 04:58 AM
I only caught the tail end of the rant. It sounded like he was simply saying stats aren't everything. Hard to argue with that. He also compared Darwin Barney to BP and said something like when it came to the gold glove Barney's error less streak is overrated.

LoganBuck
09-12-2012, 07:45 AM
His rant was about UZR, and the idea that Soriano was the top rated left fielder, and defensive metrics. I agree with him. As I have said in another thread, Drew Stubbs is a superior defensive player to Chris Heisey. The defensive metrics don't show that.

redsmetz
09-12-2012, 07:51 AM
Did anyone hear that tonight on the radio broadcast? I know this is a sabermetrics-heavy board, but I loved it! You go, Jeff!

I'm probably viewed as a non-sabermetric member of the board, but how is one supposed to know whether they agree with Brantley's "rant" when you don't tell us what exactly he said? Not meaning to be snarky, but enlighten us about his comments and why you loved them. This is a serious question, then we can decide whether he's off base or raising valid complaints.

LoganBuck
09-12-2012, 08:02 AM
I'm probably viewed as a non-sabermetric member of the board, but how is one supposed to know whether they agree with Brantley's "rant" when you don't tell us what exactly he said? Not meaning to be snarky, but enlighten us about his comments and why you loved them. This is a serious question, then we can decide whether he's off base or raising valid complaints.

I posted the jist of it two posts above. There were also several derogatory comments about slide rules, and pocket protectors, aimed at Billy Beane and others of his SABR centric ilk. The main point was that the defensive stats are seriously flawed. Any system that points out Soriano as a plus defender should have some added scrutiny.

LoganBuck
09-12-2012, 08:08 AM
Jeff also showed a lack of understanding about SABR types in general with his comments. He said something close to "Those guys wouldn't have liked me very much being 5'10" and only throwing 89-90 coming up." On the contrary while the rest of the baseball community would have suggested that he was "too short", the stat guys would have ignored the stigma of height, and viewed him on performance, without the assumed bias against "short" guys.

Brutus
09-12-2012, 08:26 AM
I still don't get the logic behind saying that because defensive metrics don't conform to what you think you see, thereby they must be wrong.

It's possible what one thinks they see isn't what they're really seeing. There's also a lot of room for in-between.

Nasty_Boy
09-12-2012, 08:26 AM
His rants are normally uniformed and played up to his "banana phone" audience... That being said, I'm not a fan of UZR either. I think the SABR stuff is extremely useful, but not by itself. It needs to be coupled with scouts input and the players "feel for the game." And I'm with Logan Buck on Stubbs and Heisey's CF ratings... The numbers may tell me they are eqaul in CF, but my eyes tell me differently.

Honestly though, I only listen to him and Marty when I have no other alternative. I like what Welsh brings to the TV broadcast, but I find myself watching with no sound most of the time... mostly because my son gets distracted from his homework! :) And with the MLB '12 app, I listen to opposing broadcasts a quite often.

RollyInRaleigh
09-12-2012, 08:41 AM
I think you would have a hard time finding many scouts or baseball people who would argue that Heisey is as good as Stubbs, defensively, in CF.

LoganBuck
09-12-2012, 08:52 AM
The better argument is on what planet is Alphonso Soriano the top defensive left fielder?

Brutus
09-12-2012, 08:52 AM
I think you would have a hard time finding many scouts or baseball people who would argue that Heisey is as good as Stubbs, defensively, in CF.

The baseball people were also responsible for hiring consultants and analysts to quantify defense based on these newer metrics. Doesn't that suggest perhaps the scouting isn't flawless and is less reliable in quantifying defense? By no means am I suggesting UZR, DRS or other metrics are yet perfectly refined. In terms of quantification, I think they're nowhere near as reliable as offense. But I do think they put you in the park better than the eye test.

After all, they're based on pretty thorough research of each play and where balls were fielded. I suppose that's still the 'eye test,' but it's one that is thoroughly reviewed more than just seeing each game once in passing.

wolfboy
09-12-2012, 09:03 AM
Or don't want to. Many fans like to watch baseball and not analyze it so much. I'm between the two extremes, but I admit it's annoying when you make a statement based on observation and one of the stat geeks come back with all kinds of stats to tell you that what you just saw was bad luck or just plain luck. No fun.


I find the "stat geeks" label annoying.

redssince75
09-12-2012, 09:05 AM
I'm probably viewed as a non-sabermetric member of the board, but how is one supposed to know whether they agree with Brantley's "rant" when you don't tell us what exactly he said? Not meaning to be snarky, but enlighten us about his comments and why you loved them. This is a serious question, then we can decide whether he's off base or raising valid complaints.

I did, later in the thread. A common message board mistake, quoting an earlier post without reading through the entire thread to see if the question is answered.

RedsManRick
09-12-2012, 09:18 AM
I still don't get the logic behind saying that because defensive metrics don't conform to what you think you see, thereby they must be wrong.

It's possible what one thinks they see isn't what they're really seeing. There's also a lot of room for in-between.

I also find it interesting that so many people treat sabermetric stats like they're necessarily about judging talent. Can't players have good and bad defensive years?

redsmetz
09-12-2012, 09:18 AM
I did, later in the thread. A common message board mistake, quoting an earlier post without reading through the entire thread to see if the question is answered.

Seriously? Why not lay it out in your original post and not waste folks' time with people shadow boxing at an incomplete post. Sorry, I don't get rankled by much, but to suggest that I've made a mistake by not reading the entire thread. Again, put it up front and not force us to guess at what you're talking about. You know, the old "log in your eye" thought.

Strikes Out Looking
09-12-2012, 09:22 AM
Brantley is lucky that there is no Sabrmetric equal for announcers because he'd be ranked down with Milo Hamilton.

Crumbley
09-12-2012, 09:30 AM
I'm all for a round of UZR bashing, I'll buy him a cone from UDF next time I'm in town.

REDREAD
09-12-2012, 09:44 AM
Brantley is lucky that there is no Sabrmetric equal for announcers because he'd be ranked down with Milo Hamilton.

Marty would've never made the HOF with the new broadcasting stats.

His SOTR (Stay on topic rating) and DBADHR (Don't beat a dead horse rating) would be too low.

RollyInRaleigh
09-12-2012, 09:45 AM
The baseball people were also responsible for hiring consultants and analysts to quantify defense based on these newer metrics. Doesn't that suggest perhaps the scouting isn't flawless and is less reliable in quantifying defense? By no means am I suggesting UZR, DRS or other metrics are yet perfectly refined. In terms of quantification, I think they're nowhere near as reliable as offense. But I do think they put you in the park better than the eye test.

After all, they're based on pretty thorough research of each play and where balls were fielded. I suppose that's still the 'eye test,' but it's one that is thoroughly reviewed more than just seeing each game once in passing.

No one said that scouting is flawless. I'm just of the opinion that there aren't many baseball people who would consider Heisey better defensively in CF than Stubbs.

jojo
09-12-2012, 09:47 AM
Rants by their nature tend to lack a certain coherence. Rants from a guy known to be a bit of a airbag to begin with, well, enough said.

I'm not sure why Brantley would use an example of a solid defensive play between two players that UZR suggests are plus defenders at their positions as a catalyst to complain about defensive metrics. But OK.

Sea Ray
09-12-2012, 10:01 AM
Brantley is lucky that there is no Sabrmetric equal for announcers because he'd be ranked down with Milo Hamilton.

What's this supposed to mean? Milo Hamilton is one of the best active broadcasters. Were I Jeff Brantley, I'd be honored to be ranked with him...


The voice of the Houston Astros is one of six living members of the Broadcasters' Wing of the Baseball Hall of Fame.

Team Clark
09-12-2012, 10:02 AM
Come on, TC. How do you really feel ? :).

I feel great! Thank you for asking. :laugh:

westofyou
09-12-2012, 10:04 AM
Brantley is a bore.

Worst announcer I've ever heard next to Randy Hundley

He doesn't like new stats, fine, good for him.

He's still a bore and evidently he's an ill informed bore

Blitz Dorsey
09-12-2012, 10:06 AM
"That's good, that's hot, that's nice!" just doesn't fit in well in the sabermetric world.

cumberlandreds
09-12-2012, 10:07 AM
What's this supposed to mean? Milo Hamilton is one of the best active broadcasters. Were I Jeff Brantley, I'd be honored to be ranked with him...

That's a matter of opinion. Hamilton, IMO, is one of the worst. I had to listen to him on XM for a few games when the Astros played the Reds. You could not follow the action at all. Maybe he was good in the past but not anymore.
Brantley is OK as an analyst but as PBP is horrible. Another one who you can't follow what is going on.

cumberlandreds
09-12-2012, 10:08 AM
Brantley gets confused between the UZR ratings and the UDF ratings. That's highly understandable.

Sea Ray
09-12-2012, 10:14 AM
This subject comes up often here on RZ and IMO the problem stems from the arrogance of the sabermetric crowd. Anybody who's been around RZ for awhile knows what I'm referring to. Moderating has shut this sort of thing down in recent years but ten yrs ago it was really bad. Someone would make a comment about a player and the saber crowd would yell Prove it!. After quoting some stats the saber crowd would respond with stats of his own to which the original fan would say Ok, we'll have to agree to disagree but it wouldn't stop there. He then had to listen to the saber person saying "my stats are better than your stats so you lose and I'm smarter than you". There's also the issue of the saber person not even knowing how his favorite stats are calculated. Here he's swearing by his stats like Win Shares, VORP or WAR and he can't even tell you how it's calculated. The saber people even argue about their pet stats. For example whose WAR stat is better, BP or BR. This sort of pettiness is irritating to say the least and takes away more than it gives to the enjoyment of baseball.

dougdirt
09-12-2012, 10:17 AM
I listened. Marty made it worse by chiming in with about 5-10 insults of about 5-7 'new school' GM's that he called out by name. I really enjoyed when he called them "guys in propeller hats".

Sea Ray
09-12-2012, 10:19 AM
That's a matter of opinion. Hamilton, IMO, is one of the worst. I had to listen to him on XM for a few games when the Astros played the Reds. You could not follow the action at all. Maybe he was good in the past but not anymore.
Brantley is OK as an analyst but as PBP is horrible. Another one who you can't follow what is going on.

I must say that I haven't heard Milo much recently but his Hall of Fame credentials are well deserved. I doubt Brantley will ever be associated in any way with the name Ford Frick.

westofyou
09-12-2012, 10:24 AM
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2740




Numbers may tell you that a pitcher had a 1.50 ERA last year, but they don't tell you that he throws across his body, his neck may snap with every pitch, he's aroused by underage livestock, his personal habits are so bad that like the colonial terrorist Nathaniel Bacon he may be devoured from within by his own body lice, and whenever a runner reaches third his he loses control of his curve and his bladder. You need an experienced scout to tell you that, and you always will.

Moneyball gives the 2002 amateur draft as an example of these two forms of analysis in conflict, but in reality their complementary relationship goes back to the beginning of time. Due to an ill-timed injury in 1934, some scouts advised their teams to take a pass on Joe DiMaggio. Here were the two competing inputs teams faced when the Clipper was a 20-year-old with the San Francisco Seals:

Performance analysis: "He's hitting .350 with a ton of doubles and homers."
Scouting: "Forget it. He's got a bad knee."

That's where the discussion ended for a lot of teams, but the Yankees continued the conversation.

Performance analysis: "Yeah, but even with the bad knee he's hitting like crazy. There must be more to this story. Go get a second opinion."
Scouting [after heading out to the coast for another look]: "Forget the bleeping knee and sign this guy in a hurry."

Statistics are a tool, not unlike a microscope. Statistics are a hammer, a speculum, a thermometer. A statistics-based approach to understanding of baseball is one of many paths to knowledge of the game. Calling those who take that path "freaks" or "Nazis" makes as much sense as calling a Ph.D. chemist a wimp because he tests the qualities of his cyanide compound by means of Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy rather than just drinking the thing.

Kc61
09-12-2012, 10:25 AM
Sabermetrics are a huge advance in baseball. They also give baseball a special touch - what other sport has player and team performances analyzed in such a granular, in depth fashion? None, I'd say.

But you can't just throw around these stats at face value. For example, people use BABIP as a synonym for luck. It isn't. Luck is one factor of BABIP but there are others.

Similarly, UZR is debatable but the proponents will tell you it requires a large sample size to be meaningful. Soriano has a good UZR THIS year. But there are wide fluctuations in his UZR year to year. Just reciting the 2012 number and bashing it doesn't account for this sample size issue.

I tend to be old school, but sabermetrics are very helpful if taken in context with some analysis of what the numbers really mean.

Chip R
09-12-2012, 10:26 AM
If I were a hard-core Sabremetric guy, I would just consider the source. What did Lincoln say? "It's better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubts."

M2
09-12-2012, 11:51 AM
This one strikes me as a classic case of blind squirrel finds nut. Brantley spews plenty of nonsense, but he's got a point on Soriano. Statistically speaking, Soriano has established himself as a bad fielder. We can debate the actual value of his bad fielding, but he's been consistently poor in the field. So if he's ranking high in UZR at the moment, we can safely say it's not because he's a good fielder.

What does that mean then? Well, it's yet more evidence that there's a ton of noise/luck/variance/circumstance built into defensive metrics. If Soriano is posting those numbers, then pretty much anyone else could do the same. That takes us back to how much "value" to ascribe to fielding metrics, especially in the OF. If an arguably replacement-level fielder like Soriano can post good numbers, then it calls into question the meaning of the numbers. This isn't defensive metrics failing to conform to Brantley's world view, it's defensive metrics having a problematic internal logic.

In short, Brantley's got a point.

RollyInRaleigh
09-12-2012, 11:56 AM
This one strikes me as a classic case of blind squirrel finds nut. Brantley spews plenty of nonsense, but he's got a point on Soriano. Statistically speaking, Soriano has established himself as a bad fielder. We can debate the actual value of his bad fielding, but he's been consistently poor in the field. So if he's ranking high in UZR at the moment, we can safely say it's not because he's a good fielder.

What does that mean then? Well, it's yet more evidence that there's a ton of noise/luck/variance/circumstance built into defensive metrics. If Soriano is posting those numbers, then pretty much anyone else could do the same. That takes us back to how much "value" to ascribe to fielding metrics, especially in the OF. If an arguably replacement-level fielder like Soriano can post good numbers, then it calls into question the meaning of the numbers. This isn't defensive metrics failing to conform to Brantley's world view, it's defensive metrics having a problematic internal logic.

In short, Brantley's got a point.

Probably just showing us something about Soriano's defense that we aren't seeing with the eye.;) Soriano is really a bad outfielder.

RollyInRaleigh
09-12-2012, 11:58 AM
With that said, the stats aren't totally useless, but need to be taken with what the eyes tell us.

pedro
09-12-2012, 12:04 PM
This one strikes me as a classic case of blind squirrel finds nut. Brantley spews plenty of nonsense, but he's got a point on Soriano. Statistically speaking, Soriano has established himself as a bad fielder. We can debate the actual value of his bad fielding, but he's been consistently poor in the field. So if he's ranking high in UZR at the moment, we can safely say it's not because he's a good fielder.

What does that mean then? Well, it's yet more evidence that there's a ton of noise/luck/variance/circumstance built into defensive metrics. If Soriano is posting those numbers, then pretty much anyone else could do the same. That takes us back to how much "value" to ascribe to fielding metrics, especially in the OF. If an arguably replacement-level fielder like Soriano can post good numbers, then it calls into question the meaning of the numbers. This isn't defensive metrics failing to conform to Brantley's world view, it's defensive metrics having a problematic internal logic.

In short, Brantley's got a point.

I agree but I was listening when this went down and Marty and the Cowboy acted like gleeful little children who were proud that they'd pulled the wings off a fly. Marty ended it with saying that "those guys wear propeller hats".

It was completely obnoxious.

Kc61
09-12-2012, 12:04 PM
With that said, the stats aren't totally useless, but need to be taken with what the eyes tell us.

Maybe it's the opposite. Maybe the stats are more correct than the eyes.

Particularly with fielding. Some players (take Drew Stubbs) glide in the outfield. They look great fielding the ball. Smooth. Fast. Polished.

But does that mean that they actually catch more balls, cut off balls in the gaps better, throw better, handle balls over their heads, handle balls hit in front of them?

Soriano looks like a terrible fielder. He is not graceful. He doesn't SEEM to be a good fielder.

But maybe his UZR this year is correct. Maybe in reality he's getting to the ball, catching more balls, and making more plays than other left fielders.

With fielding it's tricky, but maybe the eyes focus more on style than substance.

pedro
09-12-2012, 12:05 PM
I like Milo Hamilton too.

jojo
09-12-2012, 12:25 PM
UZR and Dewan's disagree about Soriano. He's just one of those guys.

I'll certainly agree that Brantley and Marty are blind squirrels but I'm personally not all that offended about UZR suggesting Soriano may be one of the better fielders in a position populated by bad fielders this year and this really isn't a case of Brantley and Marty tripping over a poison nut.

M2
09-12-2012, 12:28 PM
Maybe it's the opposite. Maybe the stats are more correct than the eyes.

Particularly with fielding. Some players (take Drew Stubbs) glide in the outfield. They look great fielding the ball. Smooth. Fast. Polished.

But does that mean that they actually catch more balls, cut off balls in the gaps better, throw better, handle balls over their heads, handle balls hit in front of them?

Fair point, Juan Castro masked a lack of range with smooth actions in the field, made people think he was way better than he was. Though with Stubbs I think the statheads and seamheads generally agree that he's a good but not elite fielder.


Soriano looks like a terrible fielder. He is not graceful. He doesn't SEEM to be a good fielder.

But maybe his UZR this year is correct. Maybe in reality he's getting to the ball, catching more balls, and making more plays than other left fielders.

The bigger issue might be that he's making more plays, but it's pure circumstance (which would explain disagreement between different metric system - some might be catching the circumstance while others arent). In other words, a bad fielder is having a good season. The question is how much importance do you place on that. With hitters we tend to give the hitter credit for an unusually good season. Yet with hitters the sample size is large and geography of the strike zone is constrained. Soriano might just be experiencing a high rate of right place right time.

M2
09-12-2012, 12:29 PM
I agree but I was listening when this went down and Marty and the Cowboy acted like gleeful little children who were proud that they'd pulled the wings off a fly. Marty ended it with saying that "those guys wear propeller hats".

It was completely obnoxious.

That certainly sounds like the Marty and Jeff I know and avoid.

RollyInRaleigh
09-12-2012, 12:38 PM
Maybe it's the opposite. Maybe the stats are more correct than the eyes.

Particularly with fielding. Some players (take Drew Stubbs) glide in the outfield. They look great fielding the ball. Smooth. Fast. Polished.

But does that mean that they actually catch more balls, cut off balls in the gaps better, throw better, handle balls over their heads, handle balls hit in front of them?

Soriano looks like a terrible fielder. He is not graceful. He doesn't SEEM to be a good fielder.

But maybe his UZR this year is correct. Maybe in reality he's getting to the ball, catching more balls, and making more plays than other left fielders.

With fielding it's tricky, but maybe the eyes focus more on style than substance.

This is the problem that I have. I said to take what the stats tell and use them with the eyes, and I get back, "the stats are better than the eyes." I guess it depends on what stats and whose eyes. Seeing the type of jumps that outfielders get on a regular basis has a lot to do with the balls they catch. Sometimes guys that make the spectacular diving play sometimes are the ones that get the worst jumps. Knowing the situation and playing accordingly is sometimes overlooked. Taking the correct angle to the ball is another thing that gets overlooked. Those are things that the defensive stats don't tell very well. I think it's a plus to use both in judging a defender.

jojo
09-12-2012, 12:52 PM
This is the problem that I have. I said to take what the stats tell and use them with the eyes, and I get back, "the stats are better than the eyes." I guess it depends on what stats and whose eyes.

Here's the thing..... Most of us hate the Cubs. Other then when they've played the Reds (he's only actually played 11 games or roughly 100 defensive innings against the Reds) I doubt many of us have seen a whole lot of Soriano this year.

Literally, I have no firm eyeball basis for doubting that Soriano has been better than his left side of the diamond contempories. That said, Dewan's disagrees with UZR so there is statistical reason to doubt his UZR.

RollyInRaleigh
09-12-2012, 12:56 PM
If the stats tell someone that Soriano is a good fielder and they want to believe it, I say go for it. I watch the Cubs, frequently, here in the Indy area as they are one of the sports channels that I get in the DirecTV Fox Sports package and I haven't seen anything this season that tells me that Soriano is a much better fielder than he has ever been. He's still really bad.

edabbs44
09-12-2012, 12:57 PM
UZR claims that, over their OF careers, Soriano is a better fielder than Crawford, Ichiro and Jay Bruce.

Those were the first 3 names I tested.

No matter what, I have a difficult time accepting that.

RedsManRick
09-12-2012, 01:03 PM
With that said, the stats aren't totally useless, but need to be taken with what the eyes tell us.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find a sabermetrician, particularly a "stats guy" who actually works in the game, who disagrees with that statement.

Obviously there are many examples of people using sabermetric stats inappropriately -- drawing conclusions without sufficient appreciation for the stats' limitations. But when a guy like Brantley rants about UZR and then turns around and cites fielding percentage the next night, the hypocracy is a bit much. Often, it is suggested that sabermetricians only care about stats and yet, when the time comes for that person to use some stats, they use worse stats in even more inappropriate ways.

And then, the actual limitations of observation are rarely, if ever, discussed. It is extremely frustrating for many sabermetric types when a guy like Brantley fails to recognize, let alone appreciate, the limitations of the powers of observation. The amount of information tat the eyes can take in is somewhat limited by the reality of physical existence -- we can't watch every play by every player. And further, the "computer" that crunches visual data is extremely powerful, but is also biased.

For example, I'd like to hear Brantley discuss the impact of Soriano's throwing arm THIS YEAR and the degree to which that has contributed to (or detracted from) his overall defensive value this year. I'd like to hear him discuss Soriano's range and what percentage of balls he has gotten to compared to his peers. Jeff has watched Soriano what, 10 times this year? And somehow that's supposed to be a more reliable way of measuring his performance over 130+ games?

Sure, UZR can't do much with unusual plays. But that actually highlights what might be the biggest limitation of "scouting" analysis -- the human brain is not wired to place appropriate weight on a large number of observations. The outliers stick out like a sore thumb while we overlook smaller differences -- even if they're much more frequent. Jeter is basically the embodiment of this. Sure, UZR may not capture the Giambi play. But your brain may see that play and give it more weight than the fact that he is among the worst SS in baseball at going to his left -- something that happens every single day.

I know none of this is news to you, Randy -- nor most people on RedsZone. It's just really frustrating to see guys like Brantley have their anti-intellectualism celebrated as they misrepresent what's really happening on the frontier of baseball analysis.

traderumor
09-12-2012, 01:06 PM
Like most disciplines, being a capable baseball analyst is both an art and a science. It usually requires a healthy balance between the use of observation and data. It has always been that way. Appreciating both sides of the equation is what winners will do. Those who skew too far in either direction will be at a competitive disadvantage.

RichRed
09-12-2012, 01:09 PM
Like most disciplines, being a capable baseball analyst is both an art and a science.

That doesn't leave much room for Brantley.

RollyInRaleigh
09-12-2012, 01:10 PM
I think you'd be hard pressed to find a sabermetrician, particularly a "stats guy" who actually works in the game, who disagrees with that statement.

Obviously there are many examples of people using sabermetric stats inappropriately -- drawing conclusions without sufficient appreciation for the stats' limitations. But when a guy like Brantley rants about UZR and then turns around and cites fielding percentage the next night, the hypocracy is a bit much.

It is extremely frustrating for many sabermetric types when a guy like Brantley fails to recognize, let alone appreciate, the limitations of the powers of observation. The amount of information tat the eyes can take in is somewhat limited by the reality of physical existence -- we can't watch every play by every player. And further, the "computer" that crunches visual data is extremely powerful, but is also biased.

For example, I'd like to hear Brantley discuss the impact of Soriano's throwing arm and the degree to which that contributes to (or detracts from) his overall defensive value. I'd like to hear him discuss Soriano's range and what percentage of balls he gets to compared to his peers.

Sure, UZR can't do much with unusual plays. But that actually highlights what might be the biggest limitation of "scouting" analysis -- the human brain is not wired to place appropriate weight on a large number of observations. The outliers stick out like a sore thumb while we overlook smaller differences -- even if they're much more frequent. Jeter is basically the embodiment of this. Sure, UZR may not capture the Giambi play. But your brain may see that play and give it more weight than the fact that he is among the worst SS in baseball at going to his left -- something that happens every single day.

I know none of this is news to you, Randy -- nor most people on RedsZone. It's just really frustrating to see guys like Brantley have their anti-intellectualism celebrated as they misrepresent what's really happening on the frontier of baseball analysis.

Wasn't defending Brantley. I am not a big fan. Your Jeter analysis is good, and while i have watched him play throughout his career, my eyes have told me the same thing about his range to the left without looking at a stat sheet.

Just note this. For some of us, it is equally frustrating to hear the stat intellectuals do the same thing that Brantley does, just on the opposite end of the spectrum.

Rojo
09-12-2012, 01:17 PM
Jeter is basically the embodiment of this. Sure, UZR may not capture the Giambi play. But your brain may see that play and give it more weight than the fact that he is among the worst SS in baseball at going to his left -- something that happens every single day.

Smart observers have been weeding out hot-doggery long before UZR.

RedsManRick
09-12-2012, 01:19 PM
Wasn't defending Brantley. I am not a big fan. Your Jeter analysis is good, and while i have watched him play throughout his career, my eyes have told me the same thing about his range to the left without looking at a stat sheet.

Just note this. For some of us, it is equally frustrating to hear the stat intellectuals do the same thing that Brantley does, just on the opposite end of the spectrum.

I agree and understand. But I question how many, how often sabermetricians -- particularly ones with the kind of audience Brantley has -- actually do the opposite of what he did.

If Brantley is ranting against amateur statheads like us RedsZone posters, that strikes me as awfully silly and petty (particularly considering the volume of uninformed gibberish from the broader fan commentariet). And if he's ranting against the likes of Tom Tango, Michael Lichtmen or Dave Cameron, I'd suggest he's not well informed about their views. I just don't know who, specifically, he's actually got a beef with and suspect that much of the misuse of sabermetric stats is coming from people like him who don't really understand what they're looking at.

Hoosier Red
09-12-2012, 01:19 PM
UZR claims that, over their OF careers, Soriano is a better fielder than Crawford, Ichiro and Jay Bruce.

Those were the first 3 names I tested.

No matter what, I have a difficult time accepting that.

To get back to RedManRick's point, part of the problem is reading too much value judgement into a stat.

UZR doesn't claim that Soriano's a better outfielder than Crawford, Ichiro or Jay Bruce any more than SLG% claims than Dmitri Yount (.488% SLG as a Red) was a better hitter than Barry Larkin(.440)

Recognizing that a stat's specific limitations doesn't mean it's totally worthiless. In fact, if we understand that SLG% is looking at one skill set but not others, we can can better incorporate it's role in overall evaluation.

(To be fair, it works the other way too. I've seen arguments made around the idea that a players UZR proves they are either better/worse than what is percieved. I don't think any one stat "proves" any conclusion over whether or not a player is good or not.)
In the case of Soriano, I think UZR shows that he's pretty good at getting to balls "in his zone" but it doesn't say anything about how many bases he prevents a runner from taking because he took a good route, or how good his throwing arm is.

jojo
09-12-2012, 01:20 PM
I agree and understand. But I question how many, how often sabermetricians -- particularly ones with the kind of audience Brantley has -- actually do the opposite of what he did.

If Brantley is ranting against amateur statheads like us RedsZone posters, that strikes me as awfully silly and petty (particularly considering the volume of uninformed gibberish from the broader fan commentariet). And if he's ranting against the likes of Tom Tango, Michael Lichtmen or Dave Cameron, I'd suggest he's not well informed about their views. I just don't know who, specifically, he's actually got a beef with and suspect that much of the misuse of sabermetric stats is coming from people like him who don't really understand what they're looking at.

I think he's got a beef with Seargent Straw.

RollyInRaleigh
09-12-2012, 01:26 PM
When it becomes frustrating to me is when I am told that my eyes are not really seeing what I am seeing. I've heard that more than a few times here.

RedsManRick
09-12-2012, 01:27 PM
In the case of Soriano, I think UZR shows that he's pretty good at getting to balls "in his zone" but it doesn't say anything about how many bases he prevents a runner from taking because he took a good route, or how good his throwing arm is.

UZR actually is broken out by its components on Fangraphs. For OFs, that means arm (preventing base advancement), range (what they get to) and errors (what they do with the balls they get to).

Again, it's not perfect, but it does look at the components. From 2010 to 2012, Soriano's arm has been close to average, his errors have been below average but his range has been excellent.

But perhaps to your point, it doesn't say exactly how what he does prevents guys from advancing -- but it does tell us that fewer players advance on Soriano than against the average LF. UZR isn't attempting to suggest that "Soriano's arm is the best in baseball". Though somebody might try to UZR to support that argument, at that point the problem is with the analyst not the stat.

bucksfan2
09-12-2012, 01:29 PM
Was Brantly wrong on anything he said?

Soriano with a good UZR?

How do you measure the play Bruce, Votto, and Phillips made?

Would he have gotten a chance on a Saber heavy organization?

Soriano is awful in LF. There are Cubs game in which the Reds scored runs because Soriano was out there in LF. He loafs to the ball, doesn't always make the smart play, and no longer has the foot speed that allowed him to get away with it when he was younger.

The play in question last night was just fundamental baseball at its best. Bruce hits the cutoff man and Phillips runs behind the base runner. It doesn't happen much but outs like that can change the game.

Brantly had a successful career playing a position that many have said anyone pitcher can do. In general I think he has a bone to pick with saber guys and I don't really blame him for those feelings.

RedsManRick
09-12-2012, 01:37 PM
When it becomes frustrating to me is when I am told that my eyes are not really seeing what I am seeing. I've heard that more than a few times here.

So you believe that the conclusions you reach through observation are infallible? A position which says "my eyes are always right, regardless of what the data says" is a pretty extreme position. Though I'm guessing your frustration is more with the tone and inappropriate certainty of the stats person rather than the possibility that your conclusion might not be exactly correct -- or perhaps more accurately, that both angles provide useful, but incomplete insight.

I'm not saying that you were wrong in those particular cases, nor that the stats person (perhaps me) was using the data appropriately. But in those cases where there is a conflict like you've described, there's an opportunity from both sides to try and bridge the gap. What are the eyes seeing that the stat is missing? Or vice-versa?

One of the places I've seen this particular point of contention come up is when the discussion is based on the disconnect where one side is discussing the sum of a players' performance whereas the other is discussing his talent/ability. Or when the argument is actually about interpretation of the information rather than the accuracy of it (e.g. you see a hole in the guy's swing and the stats say he's killing it and the discussion is about what the guy is likely to do at the next level).

pedro
09-12-2012, 01:38 PM
Was Brantly wrong on anything he said?

Soriano with a good UZR?

How do you measure the play Bruce, Votto, and Phillips made?

Would he have gotten a chance on a Saber heavy organization?

Soriano is awful in LF. There are Cubs game in which the Reds scored runs because Soriano was out there in LF. He loafs to the ball, doesn't always make the smart play, and no longer has the foot speed that allowed him to get away with it when he was younger.

The play in question last night was just fundamental baseball at its best. Bruce hits the cutoff man and Phillips runs behind the base runner. It doesn't happen much but outs like that can change the game.

Brantly had a successful career playing a position that many have said anyone pitcher can do. In general I think he has a bone to pick with saber guys and I don't really blame him for those feelings.

Were you listening?

I was and while I don't think what he said was necessarily wrong regarding UZR the way that he and Marty went about getting their point across was completely obnoxious and mean spirited.

RollyInRaleigh
09-12-2012, 01:53 PM
So you believe that the conclusions you reach through observation are infallible? A position which says "my eyes are always right, regardless of what the data says" is a pretty extreme position. Though I'm guessing your frustration is more with the tone and inappropriate certainty of the stats person rather than the possibility that your conclusion might not be exactly correct -- or perhaps more accurately, that both angles provide useful, but incomplete insight.

I'm not saying that you were wrong in those particular cases, nor that the stats person (perhaps me) was using the data appropriately. But in those cases where there is a conflict like you've described, there's an opportunity from both sides to try and bridge the gap. What are the eyes seeing that the stat is missing? Or vice-versa?

One of the places I've seen this particular point of contention come up is when the discussion is based on the disconnect where one side is discussing the sum of a players' performance whereas the other is discussing his talent/ability. Or when the argument is actually about interpretation of the information rather than the accuracy of it (e.g. you see a hole in the guy's swing and the stats say he's killing it and the discussion is about what the guy is likely to do at the next level).

I never said that my eyes are infallible, but I am not one that makes rash judgments based on a single play or instance or even events over a single season. I'm not going to say that Johnny Bench's arm was not accurate because I saw him throw a ball into CF on a steal by Ralph Garr when I was attending a game at Riverfront in 1974. Or maybe that Joe Morgan couldn't hit lefties because I saw John Candelaria have his way with him in 1977. You are correct, I do have a problem with the typical "certainty" that a few of the stat folks spout at most every instance, regardless of what I may have observed.

Blitz Dorsey
09-12-2012, 01:54 PM
UZR claims that, over their OF careers, Soriano is a better fielder than Crawford, Ichiro and Jay Bruce.

Those were the first 3 names I tested.

No matter what, I have a difficult time accepting that.

UZR has zero validity IMO.

BTW, I think the "hats with propellers" comment was funny from Marty. Lighten up gents! (That part not directed at you, EDabbs.)

M2
09-12-2012, 01:56 PM
Soriano is awful in LF..

And I suspect most stats-bent organizations, including the Cubs, agree with that. Most defensive metrics show him to be a poor fielder over the years. The strawman here is Brantley. The questions are, how is UZR missing this badly and is it shedding light on the subject or just a different glob of mud in our eyes?

RollyInRaleigh
09-12-2012, 02:02 PM
And I suspect most stats-bent organizations, including the Cubs, agree with that. Most defensive metrics show him to be a poor fielder over the years. The strawman here is Brantley. The questions are, how is UZR missing this badly and is it shedding light on the subject or just a different glob of mud in our eyes?

I'd say it points out that you might want to use your eyes along with their stats.

westofyou
09-12-2012, 02:06 PM
I'd say it points out that you might want to use your eyes along with their stats.

Yep, but instead of saying that the voice of the Reds on the radio decide that deriding and insulting the stats side of the game was a safe avenue to take.

Pretty weak

Kc61
09-12-2012, 02:19 PM
The bigger issue might be that he's making more plays, but it's pure circumstance (which would explain disagreement between different metric system - some might be catching the circumstance while others arent). In other words, a bad fielder is having a good season. The question is how much importance do you place on that. With hitters we tend to give the hitter credit for an unusually good season. Yet with hitters the sample size is large and geography of the strike zone is constrained. Soriano might just be experiencing a high rate of right place right time.

Since he became a full time left fielder in 2006, here are Soriano's UZR and UZR/150 ratings in LF:

2006 6.6 UZR, 5.5 UZR/150
2007 32.0 UZR, 39.2 UZR/150
2008 16.1 UZR, 26.0 UZR/150
2009 -2.9 UZR, -4.8 UZR/150
2010 5.1 UZR, 6.3 UZR/150
2011 3.4 UZR, 4.7 UZR/150
2012 15.2 UZR, 20.1 UZR/150

Altogether a pretty big sample size, shows generally an above average LFer.

IMO this is probably valid. Anecdotal instances of "loafing" and not looking very good out there hurts him with the public perception, but this is a pretty good set of ratings over seven seasons.

RedsManRick
09-12-2012, 02:28 PM
Since he became a full time left fielder in 2006, here are Soriano's UZR and UZR/150 ratings in LF:

2006 6.6 UZR, 5.5 UZR/150
2007 32.0 UZR, 39.2 UZR/150
2008 16.1 UZR, 26.0 UZR/150
2009 -2.9 UZR, -4.8 UZR/150
2010 5.1 UZR, 6.3 UZR/150
2011 3.4 UZR, 4.7 UZR/150
2012 15.2 UZR, 20.1 UZR/150

Altogether a pretty big sample size, shows generally an above average LFer.

IMO this is probably valid. Anecdotal instances of "loafing" and not looking very good out there hurts him with the public perception, but this is a pretty good set of ratings over seven seasons.

My question is: If Soriano is truly a poor defender as some insist, what is UZR doing wrong? What is it missing or misunderstanding? How do the scouts arrive at their conclusion and where are the specific points of disagreement with how UZR is handling what it "sees"?

If one is willing to concede that his eyes and/or brain may deceive him, I would think there'd be an interest in trying to figure out where and why that happens. There has to be some sort of a feedback mechanism or else improvement is impossible.

traderumor
09-12-2012, 02:28 PM
I think its entirely possible that Brantley doesn't necessarily have a basis for his opinion, but doesn't do one at anything other than a basic level (statistical analysis) and thinks that the other is superior because that's the one he is familiar with and practices. He's a nuts and bolts machinist railing against management for using "numbers" to make decisions.

Rojo
09-12-2012, 02:41 PM
If one is willing to concede that his eyes and/or brain may deceive him, I would think there'd be an interest in trying to figure out where and why that happens. There has to be some sort of a feedback mechanism or else improvement is impossible.

Doesn't UZR require observation?

RedsManRick
09-12-2012, 02:43 PM
I'd say it points out that you might want to use your eyes along with their stats.

But who is suggesting that one should use the stats blindly? That the stats and eyes disagree shouldn't be treated as proof that the stats are wrong. Rather it should beg both sides to explore the limits of their information and how they've analyzed it.

M2
09-12-2012, 02:47 PM
Since he became a full time left fielder in 2006, here are Soriano's UZR and UZR/150 ratings in LF:

2006 6.6 UZR, 5.5 UZR/150
2007 32.0 UZR, 39.2 UZR/150
2008 16.1 UZR, 26.0 UZR/150
2009 -2.9 UZR, -4.8 UZR/150
2010 5.1 UZR, 6.3 UZR/150
2011 3.4 UZR, 4.7 UZR/150
2012 15.2 UZR, 20.1 UZR/150

Altogether a pretty big sample size, shows generally an above average LFer.

IMO this is probably valid. Anecdotal instances of "loafing" and not looking very good out there hurts him with the public perception, but this is a pretty good set of ratings over seven seasons.

And Dewan and BIS give him big negatives, especially from 2009-11. Given that he's been all right at the plate in Chicago and regularly gets listed as one of the worst contracts in the game, I suspect that means most organizations have internal defensive metrics that agree with Dewan/BIS.

If other teams actually bought into the UZR ratings, Soriano would have been a pretty hot commodity for his power and defense. However, they stay away from him like he's got leprosy.

WrongVerb
09-12-2012, 02:48 PM
Seems to me this is pretty simple:

Use your eyes to judge a player's overall baseball talent
Use the stats to determine how well that player is applying his talent, and how well he might do so in the future.

Wonderful Monds
09-12-2012, 02:51 PM
Though I'm not the biggest fan of UZR, in the case of Soriano, I think it's right. From having seen the guy play a lot of LF for a while now, I've always thought he was a good OF. Erratic, but with good range and a good arm.

jojo
09-12-2012, 02:57 PM
My question is: If Soriano is truly a poor defender as some insist, what is UZR doing wrong?


UZR and Dewan's generally agree very well on the vast majority of players. Soriano is an interesting case because UZR and Dewan's have disagreed alot about him. Here's Soriano's defensive run value as measured by both:



UZR Dewan
2007 32 17
2008 16 2
2009 -3 -14
2010 5 -14
2011 3.4 -9
2012 15.2 -2


Rather than ask what is wrong with UZR (because that's actually begging the question and there is plenty of reason to believe UZR is doing it's business correctly), the proper question is "what bias is this wierd guy Soriano revealing that doesnt seem to manifest with the majority of other players"?

It's an interesting question.

jojo
09-12-2012, 02:58 PM
Seems to me this is pretty simple:

Use your eyes to judge a player's overall baseball talent
Use the stats to determine how well that player is applying his talent, and how well he might do so in the future.

And this is another major advantage-how his value compares to all other players.

Wonderful Monds
09-12-2012, 03:07 PM
Here's a couple stray observations I have about UZR

Again on Soriano, I'll take a stab at why the metrics fluctuate a bit. Watching him play, it seems like he has good range, but bad instincts which cause him to take bad routes to the ball sometimes. Sometimes this might come back to bite him, sometimes his range might make up for it. That's what I see when I watch Soriano.

The other thing I've noticed is a couple types of players UZR likes that many of us don't. The first is the sure handed but stone ranged IF types. For example, UZR did like Orlando Cabrera while he was here a couple years ago despite many of us trashing his defense on a daily basis. UZR also liked Juan Castro for his career as a middle infielder, even more as a SS. It doesn't like him as a 3B for whatever reason though.

The other is the break neck hustle types. UZR frequently gave high marks to Ryan Freel, particularly as an OF though as I recall many thought he was rough out there. It also likes Darwin Barney a lot who plays similarly. I have a theory too that's why it likes Chris Heisey, who plays an aggressive CF, more than Drew Stubbs.

Sea Ray
09-12-2012, 03:08 PM
My question is: If Soriano is truly a poor defender as some insist, what is UZR doing wrong? What is it missing or misunderstanding? How do the scouts arrive at their conclusion and where are the specific points of disagreement with how UZR is handling what it "sees"?

If one is willing to concede that his eyes and/or brain may deceive him, I would think there'd be an interest in trying to figure out where and why that happens. There has to be some sort of a feedback mechanism or else improvement is impossible.

Maybe some things cannot be boiled down to stats. LF defense is probably one of them

Kc61
09-12-2012, 03:18 PM
UZR and Dewan's generally agree very well on the vast majority of players. Soriano is an interesting case because UZR and Dewan's have disagreed alot about him. Here's Soriano's defensive run value as measured by both:



UZR Dewan
2007 32 17
2008 16 2
2009 -3 -14
2010 5 -14
2011 3.4 -9
2012 15.2 -2


.

Notice though - the absolute numbers on Dewan are lower. But the trend line is very similar between the two. Not identical, but close.

This tends to support the validity of these stats. Both measures agree that Soriano's defense fell off in 2009. Both agree it picked up again in 2011 and more so in 2012.

If the two use the same scales, the UZR is more optimistic about Soriano's defense. Probably, someone very smart can figure out why based on the component parts of these calculations.

But I do see a consistency between the two on Soriano which, to me, tends to validate the usefulness of the defensive statistics.

Notice also that in 2006, Soriano's first year in LF with the Nats, his DRS (Dewans) was 18 and his UZR was 6.6. Both quite positive, but back then Dewans was MORE positive about Soriano's LF defense than UZR.

RedsManRick
09-12-2012, 03:20 PM
Maybe some things cannot be boiled down to stats. LF defense is probably one of them

Yes. Much easier to dismiss the question than try to address it.

If the stats are failing, especially if they're failing badly, we should be able to describe what they're doing wrong/missing pretty easily, no?

Does Soriano actually get to fewer balls than the defensive stats suggest he does? Does he misplay more of them? Does he allow more runners to advance?

Nobody is suggesting that things can be "boiled down" to stats. But it is just as ridiculous to suggest that some things just can be measured at all.

Sea Ray
09-12-2012, 03:23 PM
Yes. Much easier to dismiss the question than try to address it.



Perhaps but my take is you're making it more complicated than it needs to be. Just accept the fact that not everything can be boiled down to stats, move on and enjoy watching your next game. :)

M2
09-12-2012, 03:32 PM
Rather than ask what is wrong with UZR (because that's actually begging the question and there is plenty of reason to believe UZR is doing it's business correctly), the proper question is "what bias is this wierd guy Soriano revealing that doesnt seem to manifest with the majority of other players"?

It's an interesting question.

I agree it's worth further investigation. Yet the industry, and the industry definitely uses stats, seems to have landed pretty clearly on Soriano being a poor OF. If teams had data backing up the UZR ratings then Soriano would be up around Torii Hunter (same basic age and salary) in terms of being an expensive, but still well-regarded player. Instead Soriano's relegated to Alfonso Soriano-level contract toxicity. Maybe this all speaks to influence of BIS in the game, pumping out internal numbers for organizations that track with the Dewan numbers. Yet Soriano's got a steady power bat. He's not overly injury-prone. He doesn't have a reputation as a bad guy that I'm aware of. If a guy like that was a truly good fielder, he'd have a market. He'd be the classic case of underappreciated talent waiting to be scooped up. Someone like Billy Beane would have surely offered to take him if the Cubs ate half his contract (and the Cubs would have done it gladly). However, there has been no market for Soriano.

There's simply no explanation for Soriano's undesirable status if teams don't have internal metrics that corroborate the Dewan ratings.

As for the UZR-Dewan discrepancy, the first thing I'd check is whether Soriano is getting a higher than usual number of lazy flyballs that the CF can take just as easily (and normally would, but Cubs CFs defer to Soriano a bit). Got no idea if that's at play, but it's the sort of thing that could create phantom range.

Hoosier Red
09-12-2012, 03:34 PM
When it becomes frustrating to me is when I am told that my eyes are not really seeing what I am seeing. I've heard that more than a few times here.

I think it's incorrect to say you didn't see what you thought you saw, just that what you thought you saw was limited and the limited exposure of what you see creates a stronger impression on your memory than what happened and you didn't see.

Do you remember each of Jay Bruce's last 100 atbats? Probably not each individual at bat. But If you could only watch the last four weeks of Reds Baseball and knew nothing else about the team, you'd probably think that he was the best player on the team. Even if you were given the stats for the rest of the season, it would be hard to shake the image of Bruce's great run out of your head.

So it's not that you didn't actually see Bruce have a great four week stretch. It's that in this example you didn't see the rest of the season.

It's not that you haven't seen Soriano butcher a ball or make an airheaded throw, it's that you happened to see him make one or two and formed an idea of what he's like while you've likely seen the two or three Jay Bruce brain farts get equalled out by the rest of the season.

You see Soriano throw a ball to the wrong base and allow a runner to take an extra base, and see Bruce or Ichiro gun a guy out at the plate, and you remember that Soriano's a lousy fielder and Bruce and Ichiro are good fielders.

UZR doesn't even try to distill how many outs a fielder creates with his arm, it simply measures 1)How likely is a fielder to get to a ball hit in his "vicinity" and 2)How likely he is to actually catch a fly ball that he gets to.

My guess is Soriano probably gets to a pretty good amount of fly balls, and while he makes more errors than Bruce or Ichiro, it's not such an overwhelming number more that it completely removes the advantage he creates through a larger range.

RedsManRick
09-12-2012, 03:36 PM
Perhaps but my take is you're making it more complicated than it needs to be. Just accept the fact that not everything can be boiled down to stats, move on and enjoy watching your next game. :)

It's hard to enjoy watching the game when the guy the Reds pay to announce it is blathering nonsense....

You keep asserting that I need to accept that not everything can be boiled down to stats. I HAVE. I'm not trying to boil everything down using stats nor advocating other people do so. What is your point?

But in case you didn't notice, the Reds aren't playing baseball this minute. There is no game to watch. We're all "sitting here" talking about things. When the games are on, I very much enjoy watching them. My love of stats doesn't get in the way of that.

But in between games, when we're all sitting around discussing topics that rely on observation and analysis, I'm going to want to bring the best tools to the table. I'd really appreciate it if you would stop asserting that the opinion that most things can be measured somehow impairs my ability or willingness to watch and enjoy the game. Interestingly, if you talk to scouts, they'll tell you that when they're working, they're paying very little attention to the score/outcome. They're in data collection mode -- not fan mode.

There's nothing unique about scouting as an approach to analysis that lends itself to greater enjoyment of the game. And if the existence of advanced stats and people who use them somehow impairs your ability to enjoy the game, that's a problem with you, not the stats nor the sabermetricians.

Hoosier Red
09-12-2012, 03:49 PM
Was Brantly wrong on anything he said?

Soriano with a good UZR? Just because he has a good UZR, it doesn't mean he's a good outfielder. So more than anything the problem is with pulling too much out of it instead of the stat itself. But one person being bad at a different aspect of baseball doesn't mean that the stat isn't accurately measuring what it's meant to measure.
You wouldn't say, "Wily Taveras can't be fast, he has a terrible batting average." It makes no more sense to think Soriano can't have a good UZR and be a terrible outfielder.

How do you measure the play Bruce, Votto, and Phillips made? You can't. And no stat will 100% measure every action. But my guess is that someone is measuring how many cutoff men an outfielder hits. And of course since basically every teams defense creates 4,374 outs in a season. As far as I can tell, there isn't an unimportant out created. So any player who is creating more outs than his contemporaries is more likely to be involved in a smart baseball play like that.

Would he have gotten a chance on a Saber heavy organization?--
Brantly had a successful career playing a position that many have said anyone pitcher can do. In general I think he has a bone to pick with saber guys and I don't really blame him for those feelings.
Well I think it's misleading to say that SABR guys say any pitcher could be a closer. It's more accurate to say that any good pitcher will be a good pitcher in whatever role he's placed in. Brantley was a good pitcher. The number of pitchers who were consistently good at one role and proved to be lousy at another seem to be few and far between.

RedsManRick
09-12-2012, 03:51 PM
I think it's incorrect to say you didn't see what you thought you saw, just that what you thought you saw was limited and the limited exposure of what you see creates a stronger impression on your memory than what happened and you didn't see.

Your basic critique is spot on regarding the limits and potential biases of observation, but we should be careful that we're not making unfounded accusations.

To defend Randy, here, I don't think he's one who makes big leaps from small samples of observation. When he comments on things from the scouting perspective, he's usually talking about things that are of a type that lends themselves to observation -- e.g. you won't often find him saying things like "Jay Bruce is the Reds best hitter". Rather, he'll comment on the hole in his swing or something with his approach.

There are people (like Brantley) who too often make summative assessments from limited observation. I don't think Randy is among them.

Vottomatic
09-12-2012, 03:52 PM
Brantley is one of the best Reds announcers they've had in awhile. Really breaks it down well.

I think this is the best group they've ever had - Marty, Thom, Welsh, Brantley, Kelch with Grande occasionally subbing. I prefer Cowboy the most, then probably Welsh, then Kelch/Marty. Not a fan of Thom. He's annoying.

And if they ever need to replace someone again, Dan Hoard should be the first candidate.

Rojo
09-12-2012, 04:00 PM
I think it's incorrect to say you didn't see what you thought you saw, just that what you thought you saw was limited and the limited exposure of what you see creates a stronger impression on your memory than what happened and you didn't see.

It might help advance this little debate if we imagined for a moment that not all UZR critics are making snap judgements based on the odd flashy play.

Sea Ray
09-12-2012, 04:00 PM
It's hard to enjoy watching the game when the guy the Reds pay to announce it is blathering nonsense....

You keep asserting that I need to accept that not everything can be boiled down to stats. I HAVE. I'm not trying to boil everything down using stats nor advocating other people do so. What is your point?

But in case you didn't notice, the Reds aren't playing baseball this minute. There is no game to watch. We're all "sitting here" talking about things. When the games are on, I very much enjoy watching them. My love of stats doesn't get in the way of that.

But in between games, when we're all sitting around discussing topics that rely on observation and analysis, I'm going to want to bring the best tools to the table. I'd really appreciate it if you would stop asserting that the opinion that most things can be measured somehow impairs my ability or willingness to watch and enjoy the game. Interestingly, if you talk to scouts, they'll tell you that when they're working, they're paying very little attention to the score/outcome. They're in data collection mode -- not fan mode.

There's nothing unique about scouting as an approach to analysis that lends itself to greater enjoyment of the game. And if the existence of advanced stats and people who use them somehow impairs your ability to enjoy the game, that's a problem with you, not the stats nor the sabermetricians.

Hey, don't take my comments so personal. If you want to devise a new defensive metric in your free time, have at it. Personally I'm skeptical that it'd have much value at the end of the day but that's just me.

I wasn't implying that your enjoyment of the game is being impaired. Believe me, I am certain that you take a great deal of enjoyment out of this sort of thing.

Hoosier Red
09-12-2012, 04:03 PM
Your basic critique is spot on regarding the limits and potential biases of observation, but we should be careful that we're not making unfounded accusations.

To defend Randy, here, I don't think he's one who makes big leaps from small samples of observation. When he comments on things from the scouting perspective, he's usually talking about things that are of a type that lends themselves to observation -- e.g. you won't often find him saying things like "Jay Bruce is the Reds best hitter". Rather, he'll comment on the hole in his swing or something with his approach.

There are people (like Brantley) who too often make summative assessments from limited observation. I don't think Randy is among them.

No and I don't mean to make it a personal critique. My point is that outside of the Reds players, every player we see is in a small sample. And even the players we see every day, because we only remember certain things, we are always dealing with a small sample if we're not checking what our eyes see against what the stats say.

RollyInRaleigh
09-12-2012, 04:04 PM
Your basic critique is spot on regarding the limits and potential biases of observation, but we should be careful that we're not making unfounded accusations.

To defend Randy, here, I don't think he's one who makes big leaps from small samples of observation. When he comments on things from the scouting perspective, he's usually talking about things that are of a type that lends themselves to observation -- e.g. you won't often find him saying things like "Jay Bruce is the Reds best hitter". Rather, he'll comment on the hole in his swing or something with his approach.

There are people (like Brantley) who too often make summative assessments from limited observation. I don't think Randy is among them.

Rick, I appreciate that.

westofyou
09-12-2012, 04:05 PM
Brantley is one of the best Reds announcers they've had in awhile. Really breaks it down well.

I think this is the best group they've ever had - Marty, Thom, Welsh, Brantley, Kelch with Grande occasionally subbing. I prefer Cowboy the most, then probably Welsh, then Kelch/Marty. Not a fan of Thom. He's annoying.

And if they ever need to replace someone again, Dan Hoard should be the first candidate.

Brantley is a good analyst, as play by play announcer he's a car wreck and easily the worst Reds PBP man in the history of the franchise.

I'd rather listen to a someone plow a field of puppies than Brantley describe a baseball game

Hoosier Red
09-12-2012, 04:07 PM
It might help advance this little debate if we imagined for a moment that not all UZR critics are making snap judgements based on the odd flashy play.

Sorry if that's what my writing implies, certainly not what I was attempting.

I'm not really even defending UZR. Simply think we should critique it based on what it tries to say it measures versus what it does actually measure.

Wonderful Monds
09-12-2012, 04:10 PM
I agree it's worth further investigation. Yet the industry, and the industry definitely uses stats, seems to have landed pretty clearly on Soriano being a poor OF. If teams had data backing up the UZR ratings then Soriano would be up around Torii Hunter (same basic age and salary) in terms of being an expensive, but still well-regarded player. Instead Soriano's relegated to Alfonso Soriano-level contract toxicity. Maybe this all speaks to influence of BIS in the game, pumping out internal numbers for organizations that track with the Dewan numbers. Yet Soriano's got a steady power bat. He's not overly injury-prone. He doesn't have a reputation as a bad guy that I'm aware of. If a guy like that was a truly good fielder, he'd have a market. He'd be the classic case of underappreciated talent waiting to be scooped up. Someone like Billy Beane would have surely offered to take him if the Cubs ate half his contract (and the Cubs would have done it gladly). However, there has been no market for Soriano.

There's simply no explanation for Soriano's undesirable status if teams don't have internal metrics that corroborate the Dewan ratings.

As for the UZR-Dewan discrepancy, the first thing I'd check is whether Soriano is getting a higher than usual number of lazy flyballs that the CF can take just as easily (and normally would, but Cubs CFs defer to Soriano a bit). Got no idea if that's at play, but it's the sort of thing that could create phantom range.

As far as that last part goes, maybe playing in Wrigley has something to do with it?

RollyInRaleigh
09-12-2012, 04:13 PM
I think it's incorrect to say you didn't see what you thought you saw, just that what you thought you saw was limited and the limited exposure of what you see creates a stronger impression on your memory than what happened and you didn't see.

Do you remember each of Jay Bruce's last 100 atbats? Probably not each individual at bat. But If you could only watch the last four weeks of Reds Baseball and knew nothing else about the team, you'd probably think that he was the best player on the team. Even if you were given the stats for the rest of the season, it would be hard to shake the image of Bruce's great run out of your head.

So it's not that you didn't actually see Bruce have a great four week stretch. It's that in this example you didn't see the rest of the season.

It's not that you haven't seen Soriano butcher a ball or make an airheaded throw, it's that you happened to see him make one or two and formed an idea of what he's like while you've likely seen the two or three Jay Bruce brain farts get equalled out by the rest of the season.

You see Soriano throw a ball to the wrong base and allow a runner to take an extra base, and see Bruce or Ichiro gun a guy out at the plate, and you remember that Soriano's a lousy fielder and Bruce and Ichiro are good fielders.

UZR doesn't even try to distill how many outs a fielder creates with his arm, it simply measures 1)How likely is a fielder to get to a ball hit in his "vicinity" and 2)How likely he is to actually catch a fly ball that he gets to.

My guess is Soriano probably gets to a pretty good amount of fly balls, and while he makes more errors than Bruce or Ichiro, it's not such an overwhelming number more that it completely removes the advantage he creates through a larger range.

Perfect illustration of my argument, based on a lot of assumption about me. Frustrating .

jojo
09-12-2012, 04:15 PM
I agree it's worth further investigation. Yet the industry, and the industry definitely uses stats, seems to have landed pretty clearly on Soriano being a poor OF. If teams had data backing up the UZR ratings then Soriano would be up around Torii Hunter (same basic age and salary) in terms of being an expensive, but still well-regarded player. Instead Soriano's relegated to Alfonso Soriano-level contract toxicity. Maybe this all speaks to influence of BIS in the game, pumping out internal numbers for organizations that track with the Dewan numbers. Yet Soriano's got a steady power bat. He's not overly injury-prone. He doesn't have a reputation as a bad guy that I'm aware of. If a guy like that was a truly good fielder, he'd have a market. He'd be the classic case of underappreciated talent waiting to be scooped up. Someone like Billy Beane would have surely offered to take him if the Cubs ate half his contract (and the Cubs would have done it gladly). However, there has been no market for Soriano.

There's simply no explanation for Soriano's undesirable status if teams don't have internal metrics that corroborate the Dewan ratings.

As for the UZR-Dewan discrepancy, the first thing I'd check is whether Soriano is getting a higher than usual number of lazy flyballs that the CF can take just as easily (and normally would, but Cubs CFs defer to Soriano a bit). Got no idea if that's at play, but it's the sort of thing that could create phantom range.

Sometimes players just get reputations. This often seems to be the case with once great defenders whose reputation lingers despite age-related drop offs in skill.

But in the specific case of Soriano, two metrics seem to be leading to different conclusions with one being more consistent with Soriano's reputation. I think this is a case were we just don't know the answer concerning the value of Soriono's defense but it seems there is more evidence for it being less valuable than more valuable.

I wouldn't dig my heels in on a position concerning this specific case, because, frankly, I don't know. Probably the safest thing to do absent being able to point to a bias that suggests one metric should be weighted more than the other is to weight scouts over stats on Soriono.

Hoosier Red
09-12-2012, 04:22 PM
Perfect illustration of my argument, based on a lot of assumption about me. Frustrating .

Randy. Again. I apologize if that came out as a personal critique of you.

Certainly not my intention.

But perhaps you could tell me what you see that makes you believe Soriano is a bad outfielder.
Or to not lose the substance of the argument for a distraction, change it to any strongly held belief you have about a player. Tell me what your eyes see that burns that into your brain.

RollyInRaleigh
09-12-2012, 04:53 PM
Soriano does not seem to pick up the ball off the bat well and gets poor jumps as a result. This, most likely, accounts for bad routes to the ball. Has a decent arm but I've seen him miss cutoffs on numerous occasions. Seems to be surprised a lot of times when the ball is hit his way. I think he is one of those players who takes his at bats to the field and loses focus, and that is strictly opinion, although I have seen him practice his batting stance between pitches in leftfield. To be a good defensive outfielder, you have to want to be, and staying focused is vitally important. If your next at bat is all you are thinking about, the ball will find you. Plays the outfield like an infielder.

Probably has, or had, the physical tools to be a good outfielder. Came up as an infielder and was moved to the OF. Don't think he embraced that early and may have been some resentment on his part. I've seen that at many levels. The mind hinders development. Always seemed very stiff to me in the outfield. My guess is that he still really thinks he's an infielder.

gilpdawg
09-12-2012, 05:46 PM
I posted the jist of it two posts above. There were also several derogatory comments about slide rules, and pocket protectors, aimed at Billy Beane and others of his SABR centric ilk.
Completely unnecessary to take a shot at Beane and make a pocket protector joke. It would be like me saying he slept with his cousin or something because he's from the south. Stupid thing to say.



Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

RedsManRick
09-12-2012, 05:52 PM
Soriano does not seem to pick up the ball off the bat well and gets poor jumps as a result. This, most likely, accounts for bad routes to the ball. Has a decent arm but I've seen him miss cutoffs on numerous occasions. Seems to be surprised a lot of times when the ball is hit his way. I think he is one of those players who takes his at bats to the field and loses focus, and that is strictly opinion, although I have seen him practice his batting stance between pitches in leftfield. To be a good defensive outfielder, you have to want to be, and staying focused is vitally important. If your next at bat is all you are thinking about, the ball will find you. Plays the outfield like an infielder.

Probably has, or had, the physical tools to be a good outfielder. Came up as an infielder and was moved to the OF. Don't think he embraced that early and may have been some resentment on his part. I've seen that at many levels. The mind hinders development. Always seemed very stiff to me in the outfield. My guess is that he still really thinks he's an infielder.

It's interesting. You describe his LF prowess based on his process/actions -- poor jumps, bad routes, missing the cutoff man. The stats are focused entirely on his results -- what balls he fields, how he fields them and whether runners advance. It would seem these two are in conflict -- that is, he plays poorly but gets decent results.

There are definitely questions about the results data itself given the unusually large differences between UZR and plus/minus, but it also demonstrates a case of two different conversations happening.

Is he a good fielder? Well, he's undisciplined, unfocused and has poor technique. If you were scouting the guy, you'd see a very poor defender. And yet, it appears that he may actually be getting good results. I'd be very curious to see an in-depth analysis of the guy that tries to bridge the gap.

He could just be a mediocre-at-best fielder having a really good year. It could be that the stat is flat out missing something, like treating balls that he takes bad routes on as out of his zone when they should be in it. But both approaches miss big chunks of information. Neither is "wrong" necessarily, in so far as they accurately measure what they purport to measure -- but that doesn't mean they're complete.

You could pretty easily find another example that goes in the opposite direction -- perhaps Eric Hosmer, who has a solid approach and a gorgeous swing and yet hasn't produced much this year.

Brutus
09-12-2012, 05:59 PM
This is the problem that I have. I said to take what the stats tell and use them with the eyes, and I get back, "the stats are better than the eyes." I guess it depends on what stats and whose eyes. Seeing the type of jumps that outfielders get on a regular basis has a lot to do with the balls they catch. Sometimes guys that make the spectacular diving play sometimes are the ones that get the worst jumps. Knowing the situation and playing accordingly is sometimes overlooked. Taking the correct angle to the ball is another thing that gets overlooked. Those are things that the defensive stats don't tell very well. I think it's a plus to use both in judging a defender.

Randy, here's the problem though...

You have put a good deal of weight on the fundamentals and how fielders take angles to the ball. Make no mistake, I get that because in the case of Stubbs, I think he's perhaps more fundamentally sound than Heisey.

But I wonder if noticing things like angles and jumps off the bat have conditioned to focus too much on the 'how' and not enough of the 'what.'

Someone could look like a better centerfielder fundamentally, but not actually get to more balls than another lesser fielder would. Heisey 'looks' like a clutz sometimes, but how much of that is the fact he's more aggressive in diving for balls? Perhaps because someone thinks he doesn't have the same instincts, they assume his range is misleading. But at the end of the day, the defensive metrics don't care about the fundamentals, they only care about the bottom line results... where were you and where was the ball that you did or didn't get to.

I think the issue is that people equate being better fundamentally with meaning they're a more productive outfielder. That might not necessarily be the case.

GAC
09-12-2012, 06:02 PM
Are there ANY ballplayers that understand what UZR, WAR, and myriads of other stats, really are and stand for? If you walked up to Jay Bruce and told him he was OPS'ing 900+ what do you think his response would be? LOL

I like Brantley, though he is a win-bag. He thinks some over-analyze, get too in-depth, of their critique of the game of baseball? Has he ever listened to himself speak in-between pitches? Geez!

jojo
09-12-2012, 06:05 PM
His rant was about UZR, and the idea that Soriano was the top rated left fielder, and defensive metrics. I agree with him. As I have said in another thread, Drew Stubbs is a superior defensive player to Chris Heisey. The defensive metrics don't show that.

Heisey has about 500 defensive innings in CF while Stubbs has roughly 4000. It's not really an apples to apples comparison.

westofyou
09-12-2012, 06:15 PM
Are there ANY ballplayers that understand what UZR, WAR, and myriads of other stats, really are and stand for? If you walked up to Jay Bruce and told him he was OPS'ing 900+ what do you think his response would be? LOL

I like Brantley, though he is a win-bag. He thinks some over-analyze, get too in-depth, of their critique of the game of baseball? Has he ever listened to himself speak in-between pitches? Geez!

Brandon McCarthy



"I DIDN'T WANT to suck at baseball anymore." Brandon McCarthy is recounting how he was saved. How he and sabermetrics collided.


http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/7602264/oakland-brandon-mccarthy-writing-moneyball-next-chapter-reinventing-analytics-espn-magazine

dougdirt
09-12-2012, 06:22 PM
Brantley is one of the best Reds announcers they've had in awhile. Really breaks it down well.

I think this is the best group they've ever had - Marty, Thom, Welsh, Brantley, Kelch with Grande occasionally subbing. I prefer Cowboy the most, then probably Welsh, then Kelch/Marty. Not a fan of Thom. He's annoying.

And if they ever need to replace someone again, Dan Hoard should be the first candidate.

Brantley is terrible. What Brantly does good: Breaking down pitching/pitchers. What Brantley does terribly: Everything else.

Rojo
09-12-2012, 06:25 PM
I think the issue is that people equate being better fundamentally with meaning they're a more productive outfielder. That might not necessarily be the case.

My guess is that it is the case 9 of 10 times.

dougdirt
09-12-2012, 06:28 PM
My guess is that it is the case 9 of 10 times.

Certainly. But then there are guys out there like Todd Frazier and Hunter Pence who don't have "normal swings" but can get the job done with what they do even though it isn't something you would ever really teach someone at this level of baseball. There is almost always an outlier in something. Simply because some exists doesn't mean that all other data should be tossed. With that said, I do think that UZR is flawed and there are better things out there right now that we are using (and when I say we, I mean people, not exactly you and I).

Brutus
09-12-2012, 06:29 PM
My guess is that it is the case 9 of 10 times.

I agree to disagree. It ignores too many things like how aggressive a fielder is, how quickly they get to the ball after a bad first step, whether they actually catch the ball, etc.

Fundamentals are a great starting point, and they give players a leg up, but they don't guarantee results in the vast open spaces of the outfield.

redsfandan
09-12-2012, 06:31 PM
Good ole RedsZone. Making waaaaaaay too much of something.

Especially since there's no transcription to go off of so people either react to other people that try to remember what was said and how it was meant (which is usually never 100% accurate) or people assume the worst.

I get a kick out of the people that get worked up about things like what Brantley (or Marty) may, or may not, have said. Makes me wonder what the blood pressure of some people is like over a typical day.

Brutus
09-12-2012, 06:33 PM
For the record, in terms of penning down an exact quantifier for runs, I don't trust UZR too much. I think it's still too subjective in terms of how the zones are assigned and assessed to be terribly accurate within an exact number.

However, I do think it gives a decent ballpark assessment of a defender quantitatively, and I doubt it's going to be way off the mark with whatever the reality is. I'd think there's a decent margin for error on the exact numbers, but I would be surprised if it was so bad that a terrible defensive player would show up as a great defensive player unless there was at least some substance.

dougdirt
09-12-2012, 06:34 PM
I get a kick out of the people that get worked up about things like what Brantley (or Marty) may, or may not, have said. I gotta wonder what the blood pressure of some people is like over a typical day.

The thing that bothers me with things they say that are generally hate fueled, or just flat out wrong, is that for a whole lot of baseball fans, those guys are literally the only people they use to tell them about the game of baseball. Those guys are viewed as experts. Guys who are supposed to be right. Guys who are supposed to know exactly what they are talking about. When they go off on things that are just flat out wrong, all it does is further prevent fans from becoming better versed on the game, and that is not a good thing.

redsfandan
09-12-2012, 06:41 PM
The thing that bothers me with things they say that are generally hate fueled, or just flat out wrong, is that for a whole lot of baseball fans, those guys are literally the only people they use to tell them about the game of baseball. Those guys are viewed as experts. Guys who are supposed to be right. Guys who are supposed to know exactly what they are talking about. When they go off on things that are just flat out wrong, all it does is further prevent fans from becoming better versed on the game, and that is not a good thing.

My God, the tragedy of it all!

Doug, what I heard wasn't nearly as big a deal as what you heard.

RollyInRaleigh
09-12-2012, 06:43 PM
My guess is that it is the case 9 of 10 times.

I think you would be right. Those things that go into being a good outfielder, actually do make a big difference, particularly between good outfielders and mediocre/bad outfielders. To ignore that and say it doesn't make a difference is a little shortsighted. In most cases, "how" usually makes "what" better. Bad fundamentals and instincts are usually not associated with a lot of success.

westofyou
09-12-2012, 06:44 PM
Well I suppose we can be glad they were talking about baseball, and not food, golf, a producer, Rob Butcher, someone they hate (Showalter, LaRussa) tomatoes, how long the games are, Marty's hair, Jeff's wife, and on and on and on

RollyInRaleigh
09-12-2012, 06:45 PM
My God, the tragedy of it all!

Doug, what I heard wasn't nearly as big a deal as what you heard.

When people attack the things that matter most to an individual, they often times here much more. It's human nature and most of us are guilty of it in some manner.

dougdirt
09-12-2012, 06:47 PM
My God, the tragedy of it all!

Doug, what I heard wasn't nearly as big a deal as what you heard.

I was speaking in general terms. Not about this situation.

I wasn't bothered as much about what Brantley said about UZR as I was the insults thrown at GM's of teams for being "nerd types" (I made up that nerd types term to encompass the 5-10 actual things they said to try and portray them as nerds/geeks in an insulting manner).

RollyInRaleigh
09-12-2012, 06:54 PM
No doubt that Marty and Jeff have some strong opinions that everyone doesn't agree with. They've probably had a few "nerd types," as Doug put it, tell them they don't know the first thing about baseball because of their lack of stat smarts. That probably didn't sit well with a long time radio announcer who has seen more games than any of us, and a former big league pitcher with a lot of success. They think that counts for more than a guy with a stat sheet. Then, they, in turn, take it out on the whole stat nation. Just more human nature rearing it's ugly head with a couple of guys that have a real big soap box to vent from. Doesn't make it right, but it's a vicious cycle between two sides that seem to have about as much respect for each other as the Democrats and Republicans.

jojo
09-12-2012, 06:56 PM
I'm pretty sure Beane could kick Brantley's butt.

RollyInRaleigh
09-12-2012, 06:58 PM
I'm pretty sure Beane could kick Brantley's butt.

I don't know, I have heard some stories about Brantley from some guys that he played with.

Rojo
09-12-2012, 07:04 PM
For the record, in terms of penning down an exact quantifier for runs, I don't trust UZR too much. I think it's still too subjective in terms of how the zones are assigned and assessed to be terribly accurate within an exact number.

Replacing one set eyes for another.

westofyou
09-12-2012, 07:14 PM
I don't know, I have heard some stories about Brantley from some guys that he played with.

If you'd hear them now it would likely involve eating

Brutus
09-12-2012, 07:22 PM
Replacing one set eyes for another.

True, but in fairness, they're assessing it from several angles with benefit of replaying each play several times. Not exactly the same. But I concur, there's still some subjectivity to it.

757690
09-12-2012, 07:33 PM
My question is: If Soriano is truly a poor defender as some insist, what is UZR doing wrong? What is it missing or misunderstanding? How do the scouts arrive at their conclusion and where are the specific points of disagreement with how UZR is handling what it "sees"?

If one is willing to concede that his eyes and/or brain may deceive him, I would think there'd be an interest in trying to figure out where and why that happens. There has to be some sort of a feedback mechanism or else improvement is impossible.

I don't know about now, but when UZR first came out, it didn't take into account the positioning of the fielder, or the fact that fielders move during the pitch, before it's hit (good and bad jumps on the ball). I believe Dewan didn't at first, then adjusted to include those things.

Considering Sorinano's bigger issue is his mental errors, that would explain much of the difference between the two.

Just curiously, does UZR or other defensive stats include things like throwing to the right base, cut-off man, etc?

RedsManRick
09-12-2012, 08:09 PM
I don't know about now, but when UZR first came out, it didn't take into account the positioning of the fielder, or the fact that fielders move during the pitch, before it's hit (good and bad jumps on the ball). I believe Dewan didn't at first, then adjusted to include those things.

Considering Sorinano's bigger issue is his mental errors, that would explain much of the difference between the two.

Just curiously, does UZR or other defensive stats include things like throwing to the right base, cut-off man, etc?

Explicitly, no. But it does look at base runner advancement -- essentially, how many bases should runners have advanced vs. how many did they actually? This captures both put outs and guys simply choosing to stay put.

M2
09-12-2012, 08:43 PM
Brandon McCarthy

And I'd bet dollars to donuts Bronson Arroyo sits down with his stats looking for an edge. His tiny walk rate, the increased use of his slider, becoming more of sinker pitcher (which helps him keep the ball in the park) - it all screams of a guy who is actively digging into his numbers.

dougdirt
09-12-2012, 09:25 PM
I don't know about now, but when UZR first came out, it didn't take into account the positioning of the fielder, or the fact that fielders move during the pitch, before it's hit (good and bad jumps on the ball). I believe Dewan didn't at first, then adjusted to include those things.

Considering Sorinano's bigger issue is his mental errors, that would explain much of the difference between the two.

Just curiously, does UZR or other defensive stats include things like throwing to the right base, cut-off man, etc?

I am not sure that the positioning of the fielder, except when it comes to defensive shifts on the infield, should be taken into account. We aren't talking about a players raw skills, we are talking about how he performed. At the plate if one team simply has poor scouting reports on a daily basis, their hitters aren't going perform as well as they probably would with a better scouting staff to help them out, but we don't adjust for things like that for offensive stats.

Sea Ray
09-12-2012, 09:29 PM
Brantley is terrible. What Brantly does good: Breaking down pitching/pitchers. What Brantley does terribly: Everything else.

He is genuinely a tried and true Reds fan and that's worth something.

Seriously was Joe good at anything other than breaking down pitchers and calling balks?

dougdirt
09-12-2012, 09:35 PM
He is genuinely a tried and true Reds fan and that's worth something.

Seriously was Joe good at anything other than breaking down pitchers and calling balks?

I will be honest and say that I don't recall enough to say one way or the other. I am only 28 and lived in an era where I was able to watch a lot of Reds games, so listening to them in bunches never really happened. Add that in that my knowledge of the game is much great now than it was when I was 15 and things change a lot. I just know that Brantley leaves a lot to be desired when I am forced to listen to him.

757690
09-12-2012, 10:06 PM
I am not sure that the positioning of the fielder, except when it comes to defensive shifts on the infield, should be taken into account. We aren't talking about a players raw skills, we are talking about how he performed. At the plate if one team simply has poor scouting reports on a daily basis, their hitters aren't going perform as well as they probably would with a better scouting staff to help them out, but we don't adjust for things like that for offensive stats.

The point is that players who are positioned well and who get good jumps aren't going to make as many plays outside their zone, since less balls will be hit outside their zone, and thus have a rating closer to average. And the opposite is true, players poorly positioned and who cget bad jumps will have more opportunities to make plays out of their zone.

redssince75
09-12-2012, 10:11 PM
I tried to read this whole thread and now my forehead is really bruised from all the times it hit the desk. Thanks guys.

Yay for Jeff! Love that guy.

GAC
09-13-2012, 05:22 AM
Brandon McCarthy

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/7602264/oakland-brandon-mccarthy-writing-moneyball-next-chapter-reinventing-analytics-espn-magazine


That was an excellent article. Thanks for sharing. But besides McCarthy, and a few others mentioned, and as the article states, a vast majority of the players are pretty ignorant of sabermetric principles....


Despite Beane's success and the proliferation of baseball executives who swear by James' metrics, the list of players who do so is shorter than the rightfield fence at Fenway Park. Former pitcher Brian Bannister was a known disciple, as are current hurlers Zack Greinke, Brandon Morrow, Max Scherzer and, of course, Breslow, the Moneyball wingman. As for the other 745 big leaguers and 6,000-odd minor leaguers? Not so much. They are where McCarthy was in 2005: barely conscious of advanced statistics.

I've been a member of RZ since around 2000. Before that it was the Cincy.com site (that was fun). And while I've always been a baseball fanatic, when I first came to these sites to talk baseball, and especially stats, I came to realize that my knowledge of statistical analysis was really pretty limited.

I know there has always been this "war" between the traditionalists and stat guys. Each seems to take pleasure in taking digs at each other and defend their turf. I never really got involved in many of the really critical and very, very, in-depth conversations that have gone on on here over these many years when it came to statistical analysis... and I admit I either found it boring (no disrespect intended)... or it's just too far over my head and level of comprehension (LOL). But I've always had the deepest respect for guys like you, and so many others on here, in which it is a passion. And while I may not possess that level of passion, I have learned a lot. And that is the "problem" I have with many traditionalists, whether on here, or personalities like a Joe Morgan or Jeff Brantley, who seem to take such a close-minded approach towards it. There is a very vital and important role for it in the game, and that is a proven. Just because it doesn't interest you, or maybe you have a hard time understanding it, or for whatever reasoning, don't dismiss it.

Right now, that emphasis is mainly within the FO within organizations, among GMs and baseball executives. Are there those that might contend it hasn't proven valuable and a positive? Not me.

So should the next step be an emphasis to promote it among the players, like what McCarthy did? It's obvious, by reading that article, that his learning of those principles, which he utilized to analyze his own performance/numbers, helped to show him his weaknesses and areas he needed to improve upon (why he was such a poor pitcher). As he himself stated - "Watching his numbers for about a year, McCarthy began to appreciate that they couldn't be explained away". He learned about GB/FB, strikeout-to-walk ratios, etc., and how the aces around the league were having such success inducing GBs. He picked up the two seamers, and watched his numbers improve.

So IMO, I think that shows it does have relevancy.

But would learning sabermetric principles help a player like a Drew Stubbs for instance? I think you can show a lot of player their numbers, break it down for them, what areas they need to improve on, but it still ain't gonna help none.

But that doesn't mean you shouldn't try.

And this paragraph stood out to me too...


The fact that McCarthy was essentially home-schooling himself in sabermetrics reflects how little it has yet to saturate locker rooms, dugouts and coaches' minds. Says Keith Woolner, a prominent sabermetrician who has served as the Indians' manager of baseball analytics since 2007: "We can observe outcomes and place value on them, but it's up to the coaches to translate that into an actionable plan that can be used on the field. Not all coaches are comfortable with that."

That needs to change, but it's going to take time.

AtomicDumpling
09-13-2012, 06:39 AM
For the record, in terms of penning down an exact quantifier for runs, I don't trust UZR too much. I think it's still too subjective in terms of how the zones are assigned and assessed to be terribly accurate within an exact number.

However, I do think it gives a decent ballpark assessment of a defender quantitatively, and I doubt it's going to be way off the mark with whatever the reality is. I'd think there's a decent margin for error on the exact numbers, but I would be surprised if it was so bad that a terrible defensive player would show up as a great defensive player unless there was at least some substance.

This is similar to how I view it as well.

UZR is a fairly good indicator of which players are better defensively than others and that is valuable information. But UZR is way off when it comes to quantifying exactly how many runs a fielder saves or costs his team. I think the real run values are far less than what UZR and Dewan claim. In other words, UZR and Dewan are overstating the difference between the best and worst fielders. The positional adjustments are also exaggerated.

What I can't decide is how much of this error is intentional. Are they accidentally overestimating the value of defense or are they purposefully making their work seem much more important than it really is? The folks who produce these statistics are profiting from them after all. If you publish a stat that shows defense (and hence your lovely statistic) is super-critical and only certain players can give a team such great defensive value then it makes people pay attention to your website or your book. If your defense statistic showed defense was not as important then not too many people would pay attention and you would make less money from your efforts.

What I am sure about is that 10 years from now the best defensive metrics of the time will look a lot different than the ones we are using now. UZR and DRS are helping to move the study of defense in the right direction, but we are still in the early days of this field of study (pun intended). Great improvements are on the horizon.

jojo
09-13-2012, 07:08 AM
What I can't decide is how much of this error is intentional. Are they accidentally overestimating the value of defense or are they purposefully making their work seem much more important than it really is? The folks who produce these statistics are profiting from them after all.

I have yet to pay one red cent for access to UZR data. Also, the methodology for deriving the position adjustments is "open source". In other words, it was transparent and made available, free to the Internet for the critique of others. Also, the actual value attached to defense is demonstratably consistent with sabermetric views of the impact defense has on a team's run differential.

And just as an anecdotal aside, Reds fans, of all people, should appreciate the value of defense given the role an emphasis on defense has played in the organisation's resurgence.

AtomicDumpling
09-13-2012, 07:19 AM
Here is what my eyes tell me about Alfonso Soriano's defensive contributions. He is very herky-jerky. Not smooth at all. He is not pretty to watch. He gets a decent jump but accelerates slowly. In other words, he moves as soon as the ball is hit but he takes a while to reach full speed. He has a decent gliding speed for a left fielder (most LFers are slow). He gets to an above average number of fly balls. His hands are pretty good too. His arm is pretty good. The biggest problem I see with Soriano is a strange one: it takes him forever to stop running. After he fields the ball he keeps running before he finally stops, turns and fires the ball back to the infield. This delay often allows runners to advance an extra base after Soriano has fielded the ball. I think his knees hurt or are wobbly, which makes him reticent to stop. For someone who has bad knees (like me) it is often the stopping that hurts more than the actual running. Since he takes a long time to stop it makes it seem like he is loafing or doesn't care. He has an unusual vertical run style with his body directly above his knees, which indicates he doesn't want to plant the foot out in front of him as he sprints because that puts extra pressure on his knees. It is painful to watch and makes him look worse than he really is. I think this has more of a negative effect on ground balls to the outfield down the line or in the gap than it does on fly balls. On ground balls the runners are free to burn around the bases more so than they could with other left fielders, but on fly balls it really only hurts him when there is a runner on third who can tag up while he cruises to a stop before throwing.

As far as how that affects his UZR, it could be that he actually does get to an above average number of fly balls and gets those Out of Zone plays on his record. The negative aspect of his game is holding runners from advancing on ground balls or fly balls in the gaps. The impact of this may not get fully reflected on his UZR score, especially on the bouncing balls. UZR does not adequately measure what happens on outfield ground balls and Soriano benefits greatly from this. He is essentially not being punished for his inability to hold runners from taking an extra base on outfield grounders.

AtomicDumpling
09-13-2012, 07:28 AM
I have yet to pay one red cent for access to UZR data. Also, the methodology for deriving the position adjustments is "open source". In other words, it was transparent and made available, free to the Internet for the critique of others. Also, the actual value attached to defense is demonstratably consistent with sabermetric views of the impact defense has on a team's run differential.

And just as an anecdotal aside, Reds fans, of all people, should appreciate the value of defense given the role an emphasis on defense has played in the organisation's resurgence.

The Fangraphs website has advertisements on their pages. They make money from people visiting their website. UZR is one of the major reasons people come to visit their website. Therefore they are profiting directly from UZR. They have made millions of red cents from UZR. Those cents are used to fund the activities and pay the expenses of the website. I am sure FanGraphs would be a much smaller and less awesome hangout without the revenue generated by UZR.

The balance of runs due to defense can jive with a "sabermetric view of the impact of defense" (whatever that means) while the runs assigned to each player are incorrect. In other words, analysts may know that a team actually saved 100 runs over the course of the season, but they can be incorrect regarding how they assign each position's share of the credit. UZR gives certain good fielders too much credit and certain bad fielders too much blame and these mistakes cancel out to a zero sum. Just the fact that UZR claims to account for all the runs saved/lost despite only using a sub-set of batted ball types and locations in their formula is proof positive that UZR is an incomplete and therefore inadequate, unfinished and potentially misleading measure. UZR is a good thing, but vast improvements need to be made before it can be used to conclusively settle any arguments. The flaws in UZR will be more obvious a few years from now when better metrics are devised.

redsfandan
09-13-2012, 08:20 AM
The Fangraphs website has advertisements on their pages. They make money from people visiting their website. UZR is one of the major reasons people come to visit their website. Therefore they are profiting directly from UZR. They have made millions of red cents from UZR. Those cents are used to fund the activities and pay the expenses of the website. I am sure FanGraphs would be a much smaller and less awesome hangout without the revenue generated by UZR.

I don't know, maybe it's just me but there's alot on that site (or linked from that site) that I value ALOT more than UZR.

Vottomatic
09-13-2012, 08:29 AM
Another thread gone haywire. Yikes.

Cooper
09-13-2012, 08:34 AM
What do my eyes see:

I always thought Sorioiano got rid of the ball quickly -that is when he caught it.
Left field in wrigley appears big.
He takes bad angles to the ball, at least it looks this way.
There are occasions when a ball will go to the corner and he prayes to god that it comes out on its own.

What could be happening is this....he is a high risk- high reward fielder. If a ball is hit to LF the runner assumes he's gonna get 2, but maybe there are enough times when he fields it cleanly and gets rid of it quickly to nab a guy. When it goes bad- it goes real bad. When it goes good -he throws a guy out. Whereas other fielders don't play at those extremes. The only other comparision i can think of is a basketball defender who goes for a steal on defense- 95% of the time he's totally out of position, but maybe occasionally he gets enough steals to justify the numbers. When you think about it, his approach at the plate is much the same.

AtomicDumpling
09-13-2012, 08:38 AM
I don't know, maybe it's just me but there's alot on that site (or linked from that site) that I value ALOT more than UZR.

Sure, FanGraphs is awesome and UZR is only one part of it. But if you want to do any research with UZR you have to go to FanGraphs, which causes their traffic and hence advertising dollars to go up. They make money from UZR without question.

Don't get me wrong. I like UZR. I just don't pretend that it is perfect or infallible. UZR is just one piece of the puzzle when it comes to evaluating defense. UZR is nowhere close to being an argument ender where someone can claim "I was right about Alfonso Soriano and you were wrong because UZR proved it!" UZR in its current form will be a thing of the past within a few years. It has obvious flaws. UZR is an interim statistic for us to play with until some much better metrics come along. WAR is in the same boat.

_Sir_Charles_
09-13-2012, 08:39 AM
When I'm watching baseball, I don't think about sabermetrics at all. Ever.

But during the downtime between games, my mind needs something baseball-related to occupy itself. That's when sabermetrics come in handy.

This is quickly becoming me. I've always looked at stats between games, but lately I've found myself looking at OPS and WHIP just as often as the ole' trustys.

AtomicDumpling
09-13-2012, 08:50 AM
I think the reason folks like Jeff Brantley and Marty Brennaman don't like sabermetrics is because they view it as a threat. They feel they have a deeper level of knowledge because they spent their lives playing the game or watching every game the Reds have played for decades from the booth. They don't think a 25 year old with a calculator can have anything to add to the game that they don't already know. They resent the shortcut to baseball expertise that mathematics has given some people. They're thinking "You mean to tell me that some pencil-necked geek with a spreadsheet can disprove something that my lifetime of experience has taught me? Batting Average worked just fine for plenty of Hall of Famers for a century so you can take your wOBA and shove it where the Good Lord split ya you whippersnapper!"

Many offensive sabermetric stats are rock solid, mathematically-proven foundations of baseball knowledge, but the defensive metrics like UZR are still highly evolving and need to make a lot of progress. UZR is a useful tool but is not a final arbiter of defensive skill. It is not Truth. UZR is far from a universally accepted metric even among the most diehard sabermetricians, so it is certainly no surprise that non-saber types have not fully accepted it yet either. I don't mind at all that Brantley and Marty don't approve of UZR yet. But using a relatively new and controversial stat like UZR as an excuse to disparage all of sabermetrics is foolish in my opinion.

Wonderful Monds
09-13-2012, 10:19 PM
Another thread gone haywire. Yikes.

The last couple pages have been pretty good. Hell, AtomicDumpling even wrote up a pretty decently length scouting report on Alfonso Soriano's defense.