Originally Posted by kaldaniels
I agree with all of the above. One question/comment about the errors though. I'd love to see each of those errors when coming to my all around evaluaton of Jay. Was is a "bad" error? Was it an error made trying to make a great play? Should they have even been an error? Yeah, an error is an error, but we are just talking about 6 total.
Kinda like Phillips, I've seen some questionable errors given to him this year. They all count the same on the stat sheet, but no 2 errors are alike.
Not saying I'd rush to any conclusions...I just would want to see them.
Sure, I don't put much stock in errors either. However, the problem with errors as a performance indicator is not that they are given too liberally, but that they are not given enough nor consistent with the difficulty of the play.
That said, I like the idea of a 3-tiered system in which errors are screwing up the gimmies, say not making the play despite a 95% conversion likelihood, a counterpart to the OOZ plays. Right now, my understanding is that in zone and out of zone are simply on either side of the 50% likelihood of making the play line. You could give a much better picture by looking at conversion rates in a 5 zone system that mirrors standard deviations -- gimmie plays (95%-100%), easy plays (80% to 95%), routine plays (20% to 80%), tough plays (5% to 20%), and stellar plays (0% to 5%).
But that's also part of why defensive performance can fluctuate so much for a given player. 1 bad error can cost you a run or two and there's not really much time to make up for it. I think it's helpful to think of UZR kind of like you would treat reliever ERA.