Turn Off Ads?
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 82

Thread: Examining UZR

  1. #61
    Five Tool Fool jojo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    18,950

    Re: Examining UZR

    Quote Originally Posted by 757690 View Post
    Let me try one more way to explain it.

    Lets say Zack Cozart plays four seasons. 2 as SS, 2 as 3B.

    In his first year as a SS and a 3B, he plays with average range. Now assume he's league average in everything else, this is how his WAR would look in each year:

    Season 1: Average SS - +.7 WAR
    Season 2: Average 3B - +.2 WAR

    The +.7 and +.2 are his positional adjustments.

    Now he plays a season at each position, but this time, he has 25% more range than the average SS or 3B. His WAR would be:

    Season 3 SS Above Average - +2.7
    Season 4 3B Above Average - +1.2

    He gets the +.7 and +.2 for positional adjustment, but he gets also gets 1 more WAR at SS, because his zone is bigger and he can get to 10 more balls out of his zone.

    So the issue I have is, that the difference in value between Cozart as a SS and Cozart at 3B should be the same whether he's average, or above average. That .5 difference should stay the same, if he improves the same, whether he's playing SS or 3B.
    Why exactly? That's like saying a guy should get the same number of hits if his batting average increased 25 pts regardless of whether he bats lead off or 8th.

    Again:

    http://www.redszone.com/forums/showp...4&postcount=58
    "This isnít stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #62
    Stat Wanker Hodiernus RedsManRick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Guelph, ON
    Posts
    16,027

    Re: Examining UZR

    Quote Originally Posted by 757690 View Post
    So the issue I have is, that the difference in value between Cozart as a SS and Cozart at 3B should be the same whether he's average, or above average. That .5 difference should stay the same, if he improves the same, whether he's playing SS or 3B.
    No, it shouldn't. There are a different number of opportunities available and UZR is going to scale based on not just how frequently you convert opportunities (range, in this case) but by how many opportunities you get. The difference in the number of opportunities is real and it matters from a net production standpoint.

    That having good range at SS does more for your production than having good range at 3B is a simple function of the fundamental differences between those two positions. It's a real difference. It's more opportunities to field balls. Therefore, because you get runs added or subtracted from your UZR based on each and every opportunity, you'll have the opportunity to have a larger (or smaller) UZR score at SS than at 3B.

    You wouldn't expect equal increases in batting average from your #2 and #7 hitters to produce the same of additional hits would you? Their averages will go up the same amount, but because the #2 hitter gets more PA, his overall number of hits will increase by a greater amount. And accordingly, because WAR (like UZR) is a stat that adds up the cumulative run value of individual opportunities, the #2 would see a slightly bigger increase in his WAR than the #7 hitter, even though they improved the same amount on a per/PA basis.

    Playing this out with offensive numbers:

    #2 hitter: 600 AB, .250 average = 150 hits.
    #7 hitter: 500 AB, .250 average = 125 hits.

    In this example .250 is the rate stat, the equivalent in your example as range. How frequently is a given opportunity converted. The production difference though would be based on the value of that 25 hit difference (and 75 outs).

    Now let's say they both improve their success rate.

    #2 hitter: 600 AB, .300 average = 180 hits. (+30 hits)
    #7 hitter: 500 AB, .300 average = 150 hits. (+25 hits)

    Both guys increase their rate stat the same amount, from .250 to .300. But the #2 hitter got 30 more hits while the #7 hitter got just 25 more hits. Accordingly, the production difference between the two would based on the value of that (now) 30 hit difference. Because the #2 hitter started from a higher absolute base, he benefits more in the absolute sense from a proportionate increase.

    You could look at a similar example outside of baseball. Use salaries. One guy makes 100k, the other 50k. Both get 10% raises. The second guy gets a 10k raise, the 2nd guy gets a 5k raise. The first guy went from making 50k more than the 2nd to making 55k more than him.
    Last edited by RedsManRick; 09-14-2013 at 10:31 AM.
    Games are won on run differential -- scoring more than your opponent. Runs are runs, scored or prevented they all count the same. Worry about scoring more and allowing fewer, not which positions contribute to which side of the equation or how "consistent" you are at your current level of performance.

  4. #63
    Member 757690's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Dayton
    Posts
    10,576

    Re: Examining UZR

    Quote Originally Posted by RedsManRick View Post
    No, it shouldn't. There are a different number of opportunities available and UZR is going to scale based on not just how frequently you convert opportunities (range, in this case) but by how many opportunities you get. The difference in the number of opportunities is real and it matters from a net production standpoint.

    That having good range at SS does more for your production than having good range at 3B is a simple function of the fundamental differences between those two positions. It's a real difference. It's more opportunities to field balls. Therefore, because you get runs added or subtracted from your UZR based on each and every opportunity, you'll have the opportunity to have a larger (or smaller) UZR score at SS than at 3B.

    You wouldn't expect equal increases in batting average from your #2 and #7 hitters to produce the same of additional hits would you? Their averages will go up the same amount, but because the #2 hitter gets more PA, his overall number of hits will increase by a greater amount. And accordingly, because WAR (like UZR) is a stat that adds up the cumulative run value of individual opportunities, the #2 would see a slightly bigger increase in his WAR than the #7 hitter, even though they improved the same amount on a per/PA basis.

    Playing this out with offensive numbers:

    #2 hitter: 600 AB, .250 average = 150 hits.
    #7 hitter: 500 AB, .250 average = 125 hits.

    In this example .250 is the rate stat, the equivalent in your example as range. How frequently is a given opportunity converted. The production difference though would be based on the value of that 25 hit difference (and 75 outs).

    Now let's say they both improve their success rate.

    #2 hitter: 600 AB, .300 average = 180 hits. (+30 hits)
    #7 hitter: 500 AB, .300 average = 150 hits. (+25 hits)

    Both guys increase their rate stat the same amount, from .250 to .300. But the #2 hitter got 30 more hits while the #7 hitter got just 25 more hits. Accordingly, the production difference between the two would based on the value of that (now) 30 hit difference. Because the #2 hitter started from a higher absolute base, he benefits more in the absolute sense from a proportionate increase.

    You could look at a similar example outside of baseball. Use salaries. One guy makes 100k, the other 50k. Both get 10% raises. The second guy gets a 10k raise, the 2nd guy gets a 5k raise. The first guy went from making 50k more than the 2nd to making 55k more than him.
    I understand basic math. I graduated from 4rh grade, lol. Although I geniunely appreciate you're attempt to explain things to me.

    But when figuring WAR, we don't add a lineup adjustment based on where batter hit. I inderstand why we do with fielders, and am not suggesting that we shouldn't. I'm just saying that doing so, gives above average SS (and CF, for the same reason) extra value beyond what they produce.

    I think we've each over explained ourselves, and I doubt anyone else is reading this, so I'll stop discussing this point. I do have one other, different point to make, but I'm late for lunch with the GF, so It will have to wait. Thanks for a well informed distraction from the Reds loss last night
    "Man, the pitch looks fast, even in slow motion." Thom Brennaman on Chapman's fastball.

  5. #64
    Five Tool Fool jojo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    18,950

    Re: Examining UZR

    Quote Originally Posted by 757690 View Post

    But when figuring WAR, we don't add a lineup adjustment based on where batter hit. I inderstand why we do with fielders, and am not suggesting that we shouldn't. I'm just saying that doing so, gives above average SS (and CF, for the same reason) extra value beyond what they produce.
    I don't agree that this is a valid criticism. Getting more chances doesn't result in getting extra value.

    Number of chances and differences in talent distribution across positions on the defensive spectrum are two separate issues.
    "This isnít stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner

  6. #65
    Stat Wanker Hodiernus RedsManRick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Guelph, ON
    Posts
    16,027

    Re: Examining UZR

    Quote Originally Posted by 757690 View Post
    I understand basic math. I graduated from 4rh grade, lol. Although I geniunely appreciate you're attempt to explain things to me.

    But when figuring WAR, we don't add a lineup adjustment based on where batter hit. I inderstand why we do with fielders, and am not suggesting that we shouldn't. I'm just saying that doing so, gives above average SS (and CF, for the same reason) extra value beyond what they produce.

    I think we've each over explained ourselves, and I doubt anyone else is reading this, so I'll stop discussing this point. I do have one other, different point to make, but I'm late for lunch with the GF, so It will have to wait. Thanks for a well informed distraction from the Reds loss last night
    We'll have to agree to leave it here, because I just can't follow your logic. Glad I could be a distraction; it was certainly nice to have an outlet.
    Games are won on run differential -- scoring more than your opponent. Runs are runs, scored or prevented they all count the same. Worry about scoring more and allowing fewer, not which positions contribute to which side of the equation or how "consistent" you are at your current level of performance.

  7. #66
    Member Norm Chortleton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,434

    Re: Examining UZR

    Just saw Baltimore employ a shift against Jarrod Saltahoweveryouspellitacchia where they move Machado from 3B to shallow RF. He came inches away from catching a line drive on the play. What kind of out-of-zone score would he get for that one? He had to be 120-140 away from his normal position.

  8. #67
    The Boss dougdirt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    35,445

    Re: Examining UZR

    Quote Originally Posted by Norm Chortleton View Post
    Just saw Baltimore employ a shift against Jarrod Saltahoweveryouspellitacchia where they move Machado from 3B to shallow RF. He came inches away from catching a line drive on the play. What kind of out-of-zone score would he get for that one? He had to be 120-140 away from his normal position.
    That is adjusted for. I don't know the exact way that they do it, but it is adjusted for and not given an "out of zone" credit.

  9. #68
    Member 757690's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Dayton
    Posts
    10,576

    Re: Examining UZR

    Quote Originally Posted by dougdirt View Post
    That is adjusted for. I don't know the exact way that they do it, but it is adjusted for and not given an "out of zone" credit.
    Well then, my original point is not moot.

    If UZR is measuring production and not skill, then they need to count that as out of the zone. The point is that the fielder made an out of a ball hit out of his zone, and which would have been a hit, had he not caught it.

    It doesn't matter if he caught it because of his physical skill, or because if his positioning, even if his positioning was due to coaching. He made an out of a ball that should have been a hit, and was out of his zone.

    This penalizes players who play in the best possible position, and rewards players who don't.
    "Man, the pitch looks fast, even in slow motion." Thom Brennaman on Chapman's fastball.

  10. #69
    The Boss dougdirt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    35,445

    Re: Examining UZR

    Quote Originally Posted by 757690 View Post
    Well then, my original point is not moot.

    If UZR is measuring production and not skill, then they need to count that as out of the zone. The point is that the fielder made an out of a ball hit out of his zone, and which would have been a hit, had he not caught it.

    It doesn't matter if he caught it because of his physical skill, or because if his positioning, even if his positioning was due to coaching. He made an out of a ball that should have been a hit, and was out of his zone.

    This penalizes players who play in the best possible position, and rewards players who don't.
    Players in the best position are going to make more plays than ones who don't. Those playing out of position aren't being rewarded because they aren't going to be making as many plays.

  11. #70
    Five Tool Fool jojo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    18,950

    Re: Examining UZR

    Quote Originally Posted by 757690 View Post
    Well then, my original point is not moot.

    If UZR is measuring production and not skill, then they need to count that as out of the zone. The point is that the fielder made an out of a ball hit out of his zone, and which would have been a hit, had he not caught it.

    It doesn't matter if he caught it because of his physical skill, or because if his positioning, even if his positioning was due to coaching. He made an out of a ball that should have been a hit, and was out of his zone.

    This penalizes players who play in the best possible position, and rewards players who don't.
    Why would it be out of zone if extreme positioning actually shifts zones? Counting it as out of zone if it was a routine play given the positioning would actually be inappropriate. One step to your left is not out of zone and shouldn't be treated like it required range.

    It only rewards players who weren't part of a shift if they actually make a play on a ball which by definition would be out of zone.
    "This isnít stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner

  12. #71
    Member 757690's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Dayton
    Posts
    10,576

    Re: Examining UZR

    Quote Originally Posted by jojo View Post
    Why would it be out of zone if extreme positioning actually shifts zones? Counting it as out of zone if it was a routine play given the positioning would actually be inappropriate. One step to your left is not out of zone and shouldn't be treated like it required range.

    It only rewards players who weren't part of a shift if they actually make a play on a ball which by definition would be out of zone.
    Because it takes away what should have been a hit from the batter. Remember, UZR is all about production, not skill. It shouldn't matter how the fielder turned the hit into an out, whether by great range, or by great positioning. All that should matter is that he turned what normally is a hit, into an out.

    Quote Originally Posted by dougdirt View Post
    Players in the best position are going to make more plays than ones who don't. Those playing out of position aren't being rewarded because they aren't going to be making as many plays.
    (Using random numbers here, simply for the sake of the example.) A line drive is hit into zone 8. Zone 8 is out of zone for CFers. A line drive into zone 8 is almost always a hit.

    Fielder A plays standard CF. His great range allows him to catch that line drive hit into zone 8, which normally is a hit, on the fly for an out. He gets credit for an out of zone play, and turning a hit into an out.

    Fielder B plays CF way out of position, so that he can easily catch on the fly, a line drive hit to zone 8, that normally is a hit. He gets credit only for making a regular catch. No credit for an out of zone play, or for turning a hit into an out,

    Both balls would have been a hit if not caught. Player A catches it because of his range, and gets extra points added to his UZR. Player two catches it because of his positioning, and doesn't get any extra points added to his UZR.

    I think that's a problem, and considering how often players over shift certain hitters, I imagine it happens quite frequently.
    "Man, the pitch looks fast, even in slow motion." Thom Brennaman on Chapman's fastball.

  13. #72
    Five Tool Fool jojo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    18,950

    Re: Examining UZR

    Quote Originally Posted by 757690 View Post
    Because it takes away what should have been a hit from the batter. Remember, UZR is all about production, not skill. It shouldn't matter how the fielder turned the hit into an out, whether by great range, or by great positioning. All that should matter is that he turned what normally is a hit, into an out.
    First it's weird that you're trying to split a hair between skill and production. Second, normalizing for shifts prevents a player from wrongly getting credited for production that isn't appropriate-i.e. an out of zone play that was not out of zone due to a shift.

    Quote Originally Posted by 757690 View Post
    Fielder A plays standard CF. His great range allows him to catch that line drive hit into zone 8, which normally is a hit, on the fly for an out. He gets credit for an out of zone play, and turning a hit into an out.
    As he should.

    Quote Originally Posted by 757690 View Post
    Fielder B plays CF way out of position, so that he can easily catch on the fly, a line drive hit to zone 8, that normally is a hit. He gets credit only for making a regular catch. No credit for an out of zone play, or for turning a hit into an out,
    Again, as it should be.

    Quote Originally Posted by 757690 View Post
    Both balls would have been a hit if not caught. Player A catches it because of his range, and gets extra points added to his UZR. Player two catches it because of his positioning, and doesn't get any extra points added to his UZR.

    I think that's a problem, and considering how often players over shift certain hitters, I imagine it happens quite frequently.
    Why again is it a problem? It actually sounds like an argument for trusting UZR.
    "This isnít stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner

  14. #73
    Member 757690's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Dayton
    Posts
    10,576

    Re: Examining UZR

    Quote Originally Posted by jojo View Post
    First it's weird that you're trying to split a hair between skill and production. Second, normalizing for shifts prevents a player from wrongly getting credited for production that isn't appropriate-i.e. an out of zone play that was not out of zone due to a shift.



    As he should.



    Again, as it should be.



    Why again is it a problem? It actually sounds like an argument for trusting UZR.
    Because the whole point of UZR isn't to tell us who the best skilled fielders are. It's to tell us who saved the most runs defensively for his team. It shouldn't matter how or why he saved the runs. If he caught a ball that a normal fielder doesn't catch, he should get credit for that, whether it's because of range, or positioning.
    "Man, the pitch looks fast, even in slow motion." Thom Brennaman on Chapman's fastball.

  15. #74
    Five Tool Fool jojo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    18,950

    Re: Examining UZR

    Quote Originally Posted by 757690 View Post
    Because the whole point of UZR isn't to tell us who the best skilled fielders are. It's to tell us who saved the most runs defensively for his team. It shouldn't matter how or why he saved the runs. If he caught a ball that a normal fielder doesn't catch, he should get credit for that, whether it's because of range, or positioning.
    A hitter doesnt get credit for reaching base on an error or a fielder's choice. Why should a fielder get credit for a defensive alignment that changes the spatial relationship to fielder and zone?
    "This isnít stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner

  16. #75
    Member 757690's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Dayton
    Posts
    10,576

    Re: Examining UZR

    Quote Originally Posted by jojo View Post
    A hitter doesnt get credit for reaching base on an error or a fielder's choice. Why should a fielder get credit for a defensive alignment that changes the spatial relationship to fielder and zone?
    BA is a horribly defined stat. Why does a batter get credit for getting hit by a pitch, but not a FC or reaching via an error?

    Anyway, BA is designed to reflect skill, not production. UZR is designed to reflect production, not skill. To put another way, if BA was designed the way UZR is designed, it would include reaching via an error. Not positive about FC, since the batter is just replacing a runner on base.
    "Man, the pitch looks fast, even in slow motion." Thom Brennaman on Chapman's fastball.


Turn Off Ads?

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25