Great stuff, jojo. This is the kind of discussion I really used to enjoy on this board. It seems there is less and less of it lately, as some of our better and more knowledgable posters on these subjects, no longer frequent the site.
Is Dewan usually the main metric you use to compare to UZR?
Maybe weekly?Originally Posted by Homer Bailey
I just checked it and it's definitely changed since yesterday.
I should have clarified. The offensive numbers are updated on a daily basis (wOBA is used in the calculation of WAR), but I don't think UZR is updated on a daily basis. So yes, the day after a player hits a home run, you would expect his WAR to increase.
Edit: Also, Fangraphs just debuted their baserunning metrics today.
Last edited by Homer Bailey; 05-24-2011 at 01:51 PM.
http://blogredmachine.com/2011/05/24...casters-baker/
Since the start of 2010, Jay Bruce has taken giant strides against lefties. In fact, over the last 2 seasons, Bruce has hit left-handed pitchers better than right-handed pitchers. Here are his 2010 splits:
2010 vs LHP: 179 PA / .277 BA / .352 OBP / .547 SLG / 12 HR
2010 vs RHP: 394 PA / .283 BA / .353 OBP / .469 SLG / 13 HR
Right, but was the distribution of chances really his doing? It's like if WAR was using RBI as a component and not counting the fact that Player X saw the most PAs with RISP. Those RBI also would not be artificial as it would still be derived from his skill given his opportunities.Bruce's defensive value was estimated at 19.7 runs by UZR and 17 runs by Dewan's last year. My eye suggested it was closer to +72 ()so I'm confident that his value wasn't an artifact.
Again it isn't artificial unless one can point to an obvious bias. In other words his value of +20 is what he obtained given the distribution of chances that he had last season. That's not artificial as it is derived from his skill given his opportunities.
If anyone wants a good laugh, EdE's UZR/150 at 3B this season is -65.9 in 140 innings.
Classic.
reds44 (04-18-2014)
Why do people freak out when UZR or +/- vary from year to year but have no problem accepting that a true talent .270/.350/.450 guy could go .245/.320/.400 or .300/.380/.500 and it wouldn't invalidate the use of offensive measures of performance?
The inclusion of UZR in WAR simply means the error bars around it are a little bit bigger. If you feel the need to reduce the impact of UZR, just regress it back to a player's established level of performance (weighted for playing time)
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.
To me its because you slash line is based upon actual data. Its much easier to calculate and understand. When your talking about UZR there is a large grey area that can skew the stat. Then when you make it a large determine factor in everyone's stat of the moment (WAR) you leave yourself open for debate.
Sure, given two players who perform equally well on a given set of opportunities, the player with the greater number/quality of opportunities will accrue the higher total.
FWIW, Bruce has made 63/71 (88.7%) plays in zone and 25 plays out of zone in 383 innings. Choo has made 73/80 (91.3%) & 21 in 406 innings.
So, we're looking at 1.67 chances in zone for Bruce and 1.77 for Choo. Over 150 games, that's 15 extra chances in zone for Choo. If they were to continue to make the same rate of OOZ plays, Bruce would have 88 to Choo's 70. So in total, Bruce would actually make more plays than Choo.
The real question comes down to the value of the specific plays made (or not made) and I'm not sure who has a good feel for that. With RBI, we treat all RBI the same, even though it's a lot tougher to drive a guy in from 1st than from 3rd. If RBI were weighted by difficulty, the way plays are in UZR, I think you'd see something a bit vaguer and less intuitive. "Joe Schmoe has 100 RBI while Joe Blow has 90. How come Joe Blow's are worth more?".
Your critique is right, but I think you're going the wrong way with it. It's not that we're giving too much credit to UZR. It's that we treat other offensive measures of performance as absolute truths when there's a fair amount of variability hidden behind them too.
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.
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index...er-evaluation/
Only, that’s not exactly true. Yes, Bruce does have a .386 wOBA, and that does rank sixth among NL outfielders. But it took Bruce a while to get there. In fact, the streak described above is currently happening, while the slump, including that 0 for 3 performance, occurred a bit earlier in the season. It doesn’t change the end result, but it does change the narrative.
Is it me or are there some errors here, Fay style?
After an 0-for-3 performance last night he’s down to .282/.349/.535
Read the whole thing and the context. It's basically saying that if Bruce's season had played out in a different order, it would be viewed very differently. It's a pretty unique piece.
Yeah, I had to read it twice. :o
Worst in all of baseball. He's not hitting either.
I think he'll be out of the game for good in less than a year.
I have no problem with that. It just seems UZR is too big of a component of WAR.
Posting Permissions
|
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. |
Reply With Quote