Turn Off Ads?
Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011
Results 151 to 158 of 158

Thread: More kind words from Dunn as he makes his return to Cincy

  1. #151
    High five! nate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Irvine, CA
    Posts
    6,976

    Re: More kind words from Dunn as he makes his return to Cincy

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNext44 View Post
    The point is that he's a bad defender, no matter what position he plays.
    I was asking if the defensive stats are considered to be as accurate as they can be after 218 innings, not whether Dunn was a good or bad defender.

    If you don't believe in these defensive stats, then Dunn makes sense. If you do, he doesn't.
    That's not what I'm talking about.
    "Bring on Rod Stupid!"

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #152
    Five Tool Fool jojo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    18,633

    Re: More kind words from Dunn as he makes his return to Cincy

    220 defensive innings isn't a large enough sample given the likely error associated with the values.

    It'll be surprising if Dunn doesn't continue to grade out as minus defender at first over time though IMHO.
    "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

  4. #153
    Socratic Gadfly TheNext44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    4,228

    Re: More kind words from Dunn as he makes his return to Cincy

    Quote Originally Posted by nate View Post
    I was asking if the defensive stats are considered to be as accurate as they can be after 218 innings, not whether Dunn was a good or bad defender.



    That's not what I'm talking about.
    Sorry, I wasn't specifically addressing you. My bad.

    I was using the "universal" you, due to the number of posters who have said that they don't believe in them.

    And you are correct. That first number I used is pretty meaningless.
    "Imagination is more important than knowledge." -- Albert Einstein

  5. #154
    Member Highlifeman21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Bristol, just around the corner from ESPN
    Posts
    8,694

    Re: More kind words from Dunn as he makes his return to Cincy

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNext44 View Post
    Sorry, I wasn't specifically addressing you. My bad.

    I was using the "universal" you, due to the number of posters who have said that they don't believe in them.

    And you are correct. That first number I used is pretty meaningless.
    It's not that "we" don't believe in "them"(being defensive metrics).

    It's that we're being responsible in questioning them, as intelligent and engaging discourse improves methodologies, approaches, and analysis.

    Eventually "we" might believe in "them", but part of the acceptance process is learning more about "them", while questioning and demanding the validity and accuracy of "them".

    So, it's just a matter of time until "they"(being defensive metrics) reach the point of passing the sniff, smell, scratch, (insert test here) test. Until then, we need maintain a certain level of skepticism.

    It's only the responsible thing to do.

  6. #155
    Stat Wanker Hodiernus RedsManRick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    15,918

    Re: More kind words from Dunn as he makes his return to Cincy

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlifeman21 View Post
    It's not that "we" don't believe in "them"(being defensive metrics).

    It's that we're being responsible in questioning them, as intelligent and engaging discourse improves methodologies, approaches, and analysis.

    Eventually "we" might believe in "them", but part of the acceptance process is learning more about "them", while questioning and demanding the validity and accuracy of "them".

    So, it's just a matter of time until "they"(being defensive metrics) reach the point of passing the sniff, smell, scratch, (insert test here) test. Until then, we need maintain a certain level of skepticism.

    It's only the responsible thing to do.
    I think a healthy dose of skepticism is completely reasonable. But I think it needs be applied to all approaches, not just new ones. The sniff test is absolutely useful, but not everybody's noses are well tuned. To this day, people still dismiss OBP in lieu of AVG because it doesn't pass their personal sniff test.

    I'm personally much more comfortable with a method where the underlying work is shown and can be critiqued than using numbers and figures I'm pulling out of thin air

    For me, the sniff test is best used as a way for teasing out the problems with and recommending improvements for the more formal approach.
    Last edited by RedsManRick; 08-20-2009 at 02:33 PM.
    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. #156
    KungFu Fighter AtomicDumpling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Hamilton, OH
    Posts
    2,705

    Re: More kind words from Dunn as he makes his return to Cincy

    Quote Originally Posted by RedsManRick View Post
    I think a healthy dose of skepticism is completely reasonable. But I think it needs be applied to all approaches, not just new ones. The sniff test is absolutely useful, but not everybody's noses are well tuned. To this day, people still dismiss OBP in lieu of AVG because it doesn't pass their personal sniff test.

    I'm personally much more comfortable with a method where the underlying work is shown and can be critiqued than using numbers and figures I'm pulling out of thin air

    For me, the sniff test is best used as a way for teasing out the problems with and recommending improvements for the more formal approach.
    True, but UZR has a long, long way to go before it deserves to be mentioned in the same sentence with OBP.

    I don't think people here have a problem with the thus far rudimentary attempts to quantify fielding skill. We all want a good system to become available.

    The problem we have is that people on here have used defensive run values as if they are on the same solid ground that offensive run values enjoy. That is incorrect at best, dishonest at worst.

    It is inappropriate to suggest that defensive run values (especially the ones adjusted for position spectrum) can be directly subtracted from offensive run values. That is pure shenanigans and it will be called out here in the ORG. People who think they can do that don't understand the metrics very well.

    Maybe 10 or 12 years in the future defensive run values will correlate to offensive run values, but right now they don't. Pure and simple.

    As it stands in 2009, defensive metrics do a decent job of ranking fielders compared to each other on certain types of balls-in-play, but they can't be compared to offensive metrics.

    Just because someone questions how another person has used a defensive metric doesn't mean he doesn't "believe in" defensive metrics. Just because someone "believes in" defensive metrics doesn't allow him to use them inappropriately -- and then bash those who challenge him as anti-sabermetric.

  8. #157
    Socratic Gadfly TheNext44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    4,228

    Re: More kind words from Dunn as he makes his return to Cincy

    Quote Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling View Post
    True, but UZR has a long, long way to go before it deserves to be mentioned in the same sentence with OBP.

    I don't think people here have a problem with the thus far rudimentary attempts to quantify fielding skill. We all want a good system to become available.

    The problem we have is that people on here have used defensive run values as if they are on the same solid ground that offensive run values enjoy. That is incorrect at best, dishonest at worst.

    It is inappropriate to suggest that defensive run values (especially the ones adjusted for position spectrum) can be directly subtracted from offensive run values. That is pure shenanigans and it will be called out here in the ORG. People who think they can do that don't understand the metrics very well.

    Maybe 10 or 12 years in the future defensive run values will correlate to offensive run values, but right now they don't. Pure and simple.

    As it stands in 2009, defensive metrics do a decent job of ranking fielders compared to each other on certain types of balls-in-play, but they can't be compared to offensive metrics.

    Just because someone questions how another person has used a defensive metric doesn't mean he doesn't "believe in" defensive metrics. Just because someone "believes in" defensive metrics doesn't allow him to use them inappropriately -- and then bash those who challenge him as anti-sabermetric.

    First, just to be clear, I never said anyone didn't believe in defensive metrics, just that many posters have said that they don't believe in these metrics that I and others have been quoting. I was just trying to be respectful of that opinion. I think it is fair to not believe in UZR/150 due to how new it is, that is why I stated that signing Dunn made sense if you believed in them, but didn't make sense if you didn't. I am sorry if I offended people, I was actually trying to be respectful of opposing positions.

    On your view of UZR/150, I actually hold the opposite view of the one you stated above.

    I have more faith in the view that each missed play correlates to .8 runs than I do in the actual number of missed plays assigned to each player. This latter part seems to me to be very subjective, and can vary greatly depending on who is doing the judging.

    I don't pretend to be smart enough to understand the math the Tango used to get to his .8 runs per missed plays, but as I have stated before, he has been right more often than not, and has been the first one to admit mistakes and try to correct them. And he has shown his work and no one has yet called him on it. He could be way off, but I am more comfortable trusting him, than I am trusting someone who judges whether or not a play could have been made by an average fielder.

    And completely sincerely, I would like to know why "It is inappropriate to suggest that defensive run values (especially the ones adjusted for position spectrum) can be directly subtracted from offensive run values... People who think they can do that don't understand the metrics very well?" It seems if one has faith in run difference as a method of determining how good a team should be, why is combining defensive and offensive run values "pure shenanigans?" Again, I don't claim to be an expert on these things, and would like to learn.
    "Imagination is more important than knowledge." -- Albert Einstein

  9. #158
    Five Tool Fool jojo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    18,633

    Re: More kind words from Dunn as he makes his return to Cincy

    A system that attempts to consider the value of both a player's glove and bat is the very thing that someone on a noble quest for the truth would embrace. Though clearly not perfect-a caveat that those who use them often remind others-defensive run values allow player worth to be to be determined more accurately than the alternative and more dramatically flawed approach of only considering the player through an offensive prism.

    Right now, they (defensive run values) are clearly more accurate than an approach that eschews throwing the baby out with the bath water. Defensive run values will only get more reliable in the very near future as things like hit f/x become established.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill James 4 April 2008;
    Three or four years ago, all of a sudden, a series of different sabermetric methods for evaluating fielders all began to converge on a common set of answers. If it was a basketball game between hitting stats and fielding stats, fielding stats used to be behind like 61-13, and now they’re behind like 64-47. It may be that not everybody has figured that out yet. But it’s no longer true that our ability to evaluate hitters is dramatically better than our ability to evaluate fielders, at least at the major league level.
    "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


Turn Off Ads?

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