Because I believe, as a general statement, UZR and other metrics which use UZR get used moreso when it fits an argument. The metric is very fickle and depending on the year it can account for huge swings in "production".Originally Posted by membengal
I believe as a general statement that this is incorrect.
"This isn’t 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
It would seem then that UZR is being misused in discussions to assert that A fielder is not a good defender because he has a negative UZR. That wasn't my point, but its something I take from that revelation.
As for the "eyes vs. spreadsheet" dichotomy, I also understand UZR data uses human observation to determine fielding events. Is this understanding correct? If so, it would seem to me that critics of fielding metrics as unreliable have this as a major flaw in the gathering of data. Maybe I don't understand the process. Enlighten, if able.
"Rounding 3rd and heading for home, good night everybody"
This is much more helpful and in line with my thinking on the whole discussion. At some level, it is good to know how a guy stacks up, but I'm still smelling a lot of subjectivity in defensive discussions that are represented as fact based, using defensive metrics as a key arguing point. I would contend that its still too early in that ballgame to present UZR or other d rating in "truth" fashion. That is probably where eddabs is coming from.
"Rounding 3rd and heading for home, good night everybody"
Agree.
Season and less than season long samples aren't very useful. If that's your qualm, I agree: like all stats, it's not useful in small samples except as a curiosity.
I believe the process is to watch the video of every play from as many angles as possible so as to determine starting position, "first step," et al. and enter the required data.As for the "eyes vs. spreadsheet" dichotomy, I also understand UZR data uses human observation to determine fielding events. Is this understanding correct? If so, it would seem to me that critics of fielding metrics as unreliable have this as a major flaw in the gathering of data. Maybe I don't understand the process. Enlighten, if able.
There is no separation of "eyes" and "spreadsheets." The difference with the UZR "eyes" is that they "see" all the plays. The difference with the "spreadsheets" is that they "remember" and compare all the plays.
Our brains can do neither.
If you are truly interested in learning more about UZR, I invite you to read the primer.
Note, quoting UZR and using it as a measure doesn't mean one thinks it's "perfect." No stat is. But let's not let perfect be the enemy of good or by proxy, the best that we have.
I think you should read the primer. UZR allows for a lot of flexibility when presenting the "end number." It's actually quite interesting to look at the components (you can see these on Fangraphs) to see how many of a certain kind of play a fielder has to deal with.
It's also interesting how UZR encourages regression based on factors like aging, "spikey" data and other things. You don't think Jay Bruce was a 19.7 fielder in 2010? Give him partial credit.
Me, with my regression thinks he's probably above average. My eyes tell me he's not as smooth in the field as he seemed when he first came up.
He specifically argued that people only use UZR when it fits their argument.
There's alot of subjectivity in everything. It's a favorite criticism of defensive metrics when they don't support a position.
"This isn’t 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
I think it gets abused by some. It is used both in the wrong way and in an inconsistent manner.
And it's used correctly and consistently by a great many. So again as pointed out earlier unless the above argument is applied to specific examples, it's largely a meaningless platitude.
"This isn’t 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
I would like to talk about the fact that this thread was partially created in response that people didn't want to talk about stats and it has now turned into a thread about stats.
at least we got 12 hours of fun out of the thread and another chance to see the Mariner bullpen boat. I liked the smoked sausage umpire post, totally forgot about that Riverfront scoreboard classic.
Point taken, apologies.
Dungeons and Dragons nerds snicker when they see people bickering about baseball defensive metrics.
Cincinnati Reds: Farm System Champions 2022
Baseball would be a good idea. Not much of that on here today.
All my posts are my opinion - just like yours are. If I forget to state it and you're too dense to see the obvious, look here!
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