Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Hardball Talk)   Derek Jeter won't be winning any more Gold Gloves   (hardballtalk.nbcsports.com ) divider line
    More: Cool  
•       •       •

3972 clicks; posted to Sports » on 10 Mar 2013 at 2:35 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



50 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-03-10 02:05:56 PM  
img534.imageshack.us

SABERMETRIC!!!
 
2013-03-10 02:36:31 PM  
Can we get him to give the rest back?
 
2013-03-10 02:41:22 PM  
If the AL MVP has taught us anything it's that sabrmetric nerds will still b*tch about no one caring about their stat formulas even though every major league club uses them when evaluating players.
 
2013-03-10 02:42:25 PM  
Bringing the BCS to baseball?   This should be fun.
 
2013-03-10 02:52:29 PM  

LessO2: Bringing the BCS to baseball?   This should be fun.


No, no. Sabermetric stats have actual formulas.
 
2013-03-10 02:55:27 PM  

neuroflare: LessO2: Bringing the BCS to baseball?   This should be fun.

No, no. Sabermetric stats have actual formulas.


Eh, I'm wrong.
 
2013-03-10 02:58:41 PM  

LessO2: Bringing the BCS to baseball?   This should be fun.


BCS formulas have no basis in statistics or mathematics theory. Sabermetric formulas do.
 
2013-03-10 03:03:08 PM  

bubbaprog: BCS formulas have no basis in statistics or mathematics theory. Sabermetric formulas do.


To be fair, which schools travel better and spend more money in bowl-hosting cities are stats of a kind.
 
2013-03-10 03:10:48 PM  

bubbaprog: LessO2: Bringing the BCS to baseball?   This should be fun.

BCS formulas have no basis in statistics or mathematics theory. Sabermetric formulas do.


Statistics which may or may not be the same between each site.  Which is actually kinda similar to the BCS computers now that I think about it...
 
2013-03-10 03:19:32 PM  
Fielding stats are misleading because they don't take into account the intelligence of a player and/or coaches when it comes to positioning.  Derek Jeter isn't a great shortstop because he can pick every ball hit between 3rd and 2nd. He's a great shortstop because he put himself in the best position to field the ball.  A guy that would destroy UZR and others would have been Cal Ripken since he called balls and strike and knew where the ball was likely to go if hit.
 
2013-03-10 03:29:25 PM  

WTF Indeed: He's a great shortstop because he put himself in the best position to field the ball.


You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, do you?

Seriously, I want you to explain to me, as best you can, how advanced fielding metrics work. And then, from your explanation, tell me how positioning isn't taken into account.
 
2013-03-10 03:30:45 PM  

WTF Indeed: A guy that would destroy UZR and others would have been Cal Ripken since he called balls and strike and knew where the ball was likely to go if hit.


i forget the specifics of the story, but there is some story about Ripken getting into a fight with a teammate who wouldn't listen to him re where to play.  Cal was telling him "move here, move there" and the guy blew him off, and was just missing balls where, had he listened, he'd have been in position for.

*shrug*
 
2013-03-10 03:45:55 PM  

WTF Indeed: Fielding stats are misleading because they don't take into account the intelligence of a player and/or coaches when it comes to positioning.  Derek Jeter isn't a great shortstop because he can pick every ball hit between 3rd and 2nd. He's a great shortstop because he put himself in the best position to field the ball.  A guy that would destroy UZR and others would have been Cal Ripken since he called balls and strike and knew where the ball was likely to go if hit.


Bingo. It's a range stat that assumes that every player is exactly as skilled as any other player at reading the play. Which is wrong. It's useful for say, outfielders, but not as useful when judging a guy who's entire strength is that he puts himself in positions where he doesn't HAVE to move nearly as much as the next guy.

But stat dorks can't understand anything that doesn't fit in a nice, neat number. So they try to come up with increasingly complex ways of putting together numbers, and each time, they think they have a magic stat. But in order to make a comparison, you have to hold that some things are equal- and UZR assumes that every player's ability to read the play is equal. It's a perfectly useful and interesting stat if you understand what it's limits are. If I want to know a guy's range, that's where I would look. But range and total defensive effectiveness are not the same thing. The dumbasses who use UZR as a golden bullet defensive metric conflate the two, and overlook the fact that knowing how to read the play is a major component of playing defense.
 
2013-03-10 03:50:56 PM  

cptjeff: Bingo. It's a range stat that assumes that every player is exactly as skilled as any other player at reading the play. Which is wrong. It's useful for say, outfielders, but not as useful when judging a guy who's entire strength is that he puts himself in positions where he doesn't HAVE to move nearly as much as the next guy.


DeWayne Mann: You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, do you?

Seriously, I want you to explain to me, as best you can, how advanced fielding metrics work. And then, from your explanation, tell me how positioning isn't taken into account.

 
2013-03-10 03:53:19 PM  
Yeah, it would be shocking if a 38 year old isn't the best in his position anymore and doesn't get an award
 
2013-03-10 03:59:21 PM  

DeWayne Mann: You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, do you?

Seriously, I want you to explain to me, as best you can, how advanced fielding metrics work. And then, from your explanation, tell me how positioning isn't taken into account.


Because you don't have to have massive range when you put yourself in a position to field the ball in front of you.  It's one of those skills that can't be quantified since it doesn't show up in the box score, one actually has to watch the game.

For example, last year the top four UZR SS where as follows:

Brendan Ryan
Clint Barnes
J.J. Hardy
Jhnonny Peralta

Derek Jeter was dead last.

Now if you use the old standby of Fielding Percentage:

J.J. Hardy
Jhnonny Peralta
Brendan Ryan
Yunel Escobar

Derek Jeter comes in 6th. But how can that be if UZR says he's dead last?

Now let's look at Errors. A good measure of glove skills, brains, and throwing arm.

J.J. Hardy
Jhnonny Peralta
Brendan Ryan
Derek Jeter

Jeter had the fourth least errors as a SS last year.  Now the man in the UZR that disappears from the standard stats? Clint Barnes.

6th worst Fielding Percentage last year
7th most errors at SS.
 
2013-03-10 04:02:53 PM  

cptjeff: WTF Indeed: Fielding stats are misleading because they don't take into account the intelligence of a player and/or coaches when it comes to positioning.  Derek Jeter isn't a great shortstop because he can pick every ball hit between 3rd and 2nd. He's a great shortstop because he put himself in the best position to field the ball.  A guy that would destroy UZR and others would have been Cal Ripken since he called balls and strike and knew where the ball was likely to go if hit.

Bingo. It's a range stat that assumes that every player is exactly as skilled as any other player at reading the play. Which is wrong. It's useful for say, outfielders, but not as useful when judging a guy who's entire strength is that he puts himself in positions where he doesn't HAVE to move nearly as much as the next guy.

But stat dorks can't understand anything that doesn't fit in a nice, neat number. So they try to come up with increasingly complex ways of putting together numbers, and each time, they think they have a magic stat. But in order to make a comparison, you have to hold that some things are equal- and UZR assumes that every player's ability to read the play is equal. It's a perfectly useful and interesting stat if you understand what it's limits are. If I want to know a guy's range, that's where I would look. But range and total defensive effectiveness are not the same thing. The dumbasses who use UZR as a golden bullet defensive metric conflate the two, and overlook the fact that knowing how to read the play is a major component of playing defense.


Wrong. Entirely wrong.

If we're talking UZR, which divides the field into a bunch of zones and reads the percentage of balls you get to (also factoring in how hard the ball is hit), then IT WOULD factor in defensive position. If you're playing a lefty shift and get to a ball as a SS that's in the traditional alignment's 2B area, that will positively affect your UZR. In fact, a big argument FOR UZR was that Jeter didn't get to anything because he constantly cheated up and let damn near anything get through the hole, being in terrible position compared to "good" fielders like Adam Everett, who would constantly make those plays.

There are lots of valid objections to UZR, TZR, etc. You have not supplied one of them.
 
2013-03-10 04:03:02 PM  

WTF Indeed: DeWayne Mann: You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, do you?

Seriously, I want you to explain to me, as best you can, how advanced fielding metrics work. And then, from your explanation, tell me how positioning isn't taken into account.

Because you don't have to have massive range when you put yourself in a position to field the ball in front of you.  It's one of those skills that can't be quantified since it doesn't show up in the box score, one actually has to watch the game.

For example, last year the top four UZR SS where as follows:

Brendan Ryan
Clint Barnes
J.J. Hardy
Jhnonny Peralta

Derek Jeter was dead last.

Now if you use the old standby of Fielding Percentage:

J.J. Hardy
Jhnonny Peralta
Brendan Ryan
Yunel Escobar

Derek Jeter comes in 6th. But how can that be if UZR says he's dead last?

Now let's look at Errors. A good measure of glove skills, brains, and throwing arm.

J.J. Hardy
Jhnonny Peralta
Brendan Ryan
Derek Jeter

Jeter had the fourth least errors as a SS last year.  Now the man in the UZR that disappears from the standard stats? Clint Barnes.

6th worst Fielding Percentage last year
7th most errors at SS.


Wow, great explanation. I can tell you really know what you're talking about now.

No, wait. That had nothing at all to do with how UZR deals with positioning.

Try again.

Also, I'm gonna quote this line again because it's incredibly stupid:

WTF Indeed: Derek Jeter comes in 6th. But how can that be if UZR says he's dead last?

 
2013-03-10 04:04:18 PM  
Do you guys really think that UZR cares about how many steps a defender takes to get to a ball?
 
2013-03-10 04:05:57 PM  

lacydog: If you're playing a lefty shift and get to a ball as a SS that's in the traditional alignment's 2B area, that will positively affect your UZR.


Actually, UZR doesn't always count plays on the shift (which is really the only possible way someone can try to claim it doesn't take positioning into account). Otherwise, you end up with the problem DRS had with Brett Lawrie last year, where he was playing in short-RF on the shift. Since he was still listed as a 3B, any catch he made out there counted for a ton.
 
2013-03-10 04:06:08 PM  

DeWayne Mann: Wow, great explanation. I can tell you really know what you're talking about now.

No, wait. That had nothing at all to do with how UZR deals with positioning.


I know it didn't. That's because anyone that played even Little League baseball knows exactly what I'm talking about.  I know you emo hate Derek Jeter and think he's a blight on the game because people think he's good, but there are some things you can't shrink down to a number. It's that simple.
 
2013-03-10 04:06:49 PM  

Rex_Banner: Do you guys really think that UZR cares about how many steps a defender takes to get to a ball?


Everyone knows that an UZR of 5 means the player takes 5 less steps to get the ball than an average player.

DUH
 
2013-03-10 04:07:25 PM  

WTF Indeed: That's because anyone that played even Little League baseball knows exactly what I'm talking about.


Except for the part where you don't actually know what you're talking about, ok.
 
2013-03-10 04:07:50 PM  
Every year I have to listen to my brother go on a rant about how Ryne Sandberg was cheated out of a Gold Glove because batting average was used as a factor.
 
2013-03-10 04:10:31 PM  
WTF Indeed:
*Comparing errors, fielding percentage and UZR*

Here is a good example of why errors and fielding percentage (which is just a percentage of time you don't make errors) are terrible defensive metrics. Image two center fielders. One is a statue made of glue, with a manned turret that returns the ball. He never commits an error - every ball hit to him sticks and is returned precisely (really strong glue, apparently). The second is an absolute klutz who drops 1 in 10 balls hit to him, but has roadrunner speed. Which of these helps your defense more? The one that can get to balls, or the one that never makes errors?

Being able to cleanly field and throw balls is important to fielding. But being able to get there in the first place is ALSO important, and probably moreso. Positioning yourself better, having better reaction times and being faster are all things that "traditional" stats don't even touch. Which is why UZR and other defensive metrics were created. They're not perfect, but they are FAR better than errors and fielding percentage.
 
2013-03-10 04:12:30 PM  

leevis: Every year I have to listen to my brother go on a rant about how Ryne Sandberg was cheated out of a Gold Glove because batting average was used as a factor.


Which year would that be? Because he won a GG every year from '83 (his second full year) to '91. In '92 he hit .304, so I don't think batting average mattered. In '93 he hit .309. In '94 he hit .238 and 'retired' halfway through. In '96 & '97 he had lower BAs, but I'm not sure that would count more than the whole "guy is 36/37 years old and already retired once" thing.

So....his rookie year?
 
2013-03-10 04:13:44 PM  

DeWayne Mann: cptjeff: Bingo. It's a range stat that assumes that every player is exactly as skilled as any other player at reading the play. Which is wrong. It's useful for say, outfielders, but not as useful when judging a guy who's entire strength is that he puts himself in positions where he doesn't HAVE to move nearly as much as the next guy.

DeWayne Mann: You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, do you?

Seriously, I want you to explain to me, as best you can, how advanced fielding metrics work. And then, from your explanation, tell me how positioning isn't taken into account.


UZR applies a formula to determine which balls a batter should be able to get to, based on a division of the field into small zones. Ultimate Zone Rating- it's a measure of which zones you should be able to get to on any given batted ball. That is inherently a measure of range. They do adjust it for how hard the ball is hit and for other factors so easier and harder balls to field don't skew the results (where traditional baseball stats assume that stuff like that cancels out over a season- you'll face just as many good and bad pitchers as the next guy), but that is not the same thing as adjusting for a player being better or worse than another at positioning themselves before a ball is hit. It judges players by how many of the balls it thinks the fielder has a realistic chance at based on where the fielder is and where the ball is hit. That's great. But in choosing that as the measure, it assumes one guy is as good as another at picking out where to stand. Which is fine when you're measuring range. It's not fine when you're measuring total defensive ability.

I'm not disputing that Jeter has a lousy range, UZR is revealing enough on that front. But what UZR does not measure is the fact that he puts himself in positions where balls are hit to him more than the next guy, because he reads the game better than most. But it's damn near impossible to express that as a stat, since it's dependent on who the pitcher is, who the catcher is, game situation, batter tendencies, and you cannot possibly control for all those factors with creating a ridiculously large margin of error. Fortunately for baseball teams, they employ people who watch games and are smart enough to pick up on stuff like that as well as people who can look at numbers on a sheet to evaluate a player.
 
2013-03-10 04:14:09 PM  

lacydog: They're not perfect, but they are FAR better than errors and fielding percentage.


If that were true, don't you think they'd be used in Little League?
 
2013-03-10 04:16:01 PM  

DeWayne Mann: lacydog: If you're playing a lefty shift and get to a ball as a SS that's in the traditional alignment's 2B area, that will positively affect your UZR.

Actually, UZR doesn't always count plays on the shift (which is really the only possible way someone can try to claim it doesn't take positioning into account). Otherwise, you end up with the problem DRS had with Brett Lawrie last year, where he was playing in short-RF on the shift. Since he was still listed as a 3B, any catch he made out there counted for a ton.


Huh... I did not know that. But it doesn't throw out cases where the defender is shading one way or another - which is why arguing that UZR doesn't reward positioning is like arguing that slugging percentage doesn't factor in doubles - an argument that is absurd on its face.
 
2013-03-10 04:17:03 PM  

leevis: Every year I have to listen to my brother go on a rant about how Ryne Sandberg was cheated out of a Gold Glove because batting average was used as a factor.


If that was truly the case, Rey Ordonez should never have sniffed a gold glove in his life. He's the very definition of a slick-fielding, can't hit shortstop if there ever was one. Yet he won 3 of them.
 
2013-03-10 04:17:54 PM  

DeWayne Mann: lacydog: They're not perfect, but they are FAR better than errors and fielding percentage.

If that were true, don't you think they'd be used in Little League?


No, because UZR needs a large sample size (even a full major league season is argued to "not be enough"), and would require rather meticulous tracking of batted ball data (how hard something was hit, to which zone, etc.). Who would invest the money to do that sort of tracking on a little league game?
 
2013-03-10 04:23:48 PM  

lacydog: No, because UZR needs a large sample size (even a full major league season is argued to "not be enough")


Hey, there's a nice little problem. The margin of error is so large as to make the measure entirely unreliable with "only" a full season's worth of data, so sure, let's rely on something similar to this stat for a yearly award!
 
2013-03-10 04:25:49 PM  
cptjeff:
UZR applies a formula to determine which balls a batter should be able to get to, based on a division of the field into small zones. Ultimate Zone Rating- it's a measure of which zones you should be able to get to on any given batted ball. That is inherently a measure of range. They do adjust it for how hard the ball is hit and for other factors so easier and harder balls to field don't skew the results (where traditional baseball stats assume that stuff like that cancels out over a season- you'll face just as many good and bad pitchers as the next guy), but that is not the same thing as adjusting for a player being better or worse than another at positioning themselves before a ball is hit. It judges players by how many of the balls it thinks the fielder has a realistic chance at based on where the fielder is and where the ball is hit. That's great. But in choosing that as the measure, it assumes one guy is as good as another at picking out where to stand. Which is fine when you're measuring range. It's not fine when you're measuring total defensive ability.

It's not counting steps though. If Jeter shades himself into the hole against a guy who is pull-happy, it will absolutely be a big positive for his UZR when he gets to it. He will have gotten to a ball in a zone that a fielder shouldn't have normally gotten to. The whole idea is that if you can get to those balls - either by being super fast or by knowing enough to position yourself - you're saving runs.

Again, it's NOT a perfect metric. There's well documented arguments against it (chiefly that the inventors argue that you need about 3 seasons worth of data to have a "proper" sample size), but it's far better than fielding percentage.
 
2013-03-10 04:26:49 PM  

cptjeff: It judges players by how many of the balls it thinks the fielder has a realistic chance at based on where the fielder is and where the ball is hit.


Here's the part where you made your mistake.

UZR doesn't actually care where the player is. It just assumes that he's SOMEWHERE in the zone for his position.

From there, for each ball, all that matters if he makes an out. If he does, he gets a credit. If he doesn't, he gets a debit. But given two identical balls, UZR makes no difference if the first is fielded because the player was standing under it the whole time and if it was fielded because he ran really fast and barely caught it in time.

IF Jeter was so good at positioning, he would in fact have a really high UZR. If he caught every ball in the zone without moving, he would never receive a single debit and would get credit for some otherwise really difficult plays. Since he doesn't have a really high UZR, well....

lacydog: Huh... I did not know that. But it doesn't throw out cases where the defender is shading one way or another - which is why arguing that UZR doesn't reward positioning is like arguing that slugging percentage doesn't factor in doubles - an argument that is absurd on its face.


It's somewhat new, and it works both ways: if Lawrie is standing in RF and the batter bunts down the 3B line, he doesn't get hurt for failing to field it.

But it's only supposed to apply if the shift would cause a large effect on the UZR calculations.
 
2013-03-10 04:27:48 PM  

cptjeff: The margin of error is so large as to make the measure entirely unreliable with "only" a full season's worth of data, so sure, let's rely on something similar to this stat for a yearly award!


How many seasons of data do you need to make batting average reliable?
 
2013-03-10 04:29:21 PM  

cptjeff: lacydog: No, because UZR needs a large sample size (even a full major league season is argued to "not be enough")

Hey, there's a nice little problem. The margin of error is so large as to make the measure entirely unreliable with "only" a full season's worth of data, so sure, let's rely on something similar to this stat for a yearly award!


And this is the first valid criticism of UZR that you guys have come up with in this thread. Good job, I didn't think it was going to happen
 
2013-03-10 04:32:06 PM  

Rex_Banner: cptjeff: lacydog: No, because UZR needs a large sample size (even a full major league season is argued to "not be enough")

Hey, there's a nice little problem. The margin of error is so large as to make the measure entirely unreliable with "only" a full season's worth of data, so sure, let's rely on something similar to this stat for a yearly award!

And this is the first valid criticism of UZR that you guys have come up with in this thread. Good job, I didn't think it was going to happen


Wait, you weren't convinced by "Jeter doesn't make a ton of errors so UZR is wrong?" It was based on Little League experience!
 
2013-03-10 04:34:06 PM  

cptjeff: lacydog: No, because UZR needs a large sample size (even a full major league season is argued to "not be enough")

Hey, there's a nice little problem. The margin of error is so large as to make the measure entirely unreliable with "only" a full season's worth of data, so sure, let's rely on something similar to this stat for a yearly award!


TFA mentions that they're coming up with some other metric, not just using UZR. But yes, that's why I don't trust to just let the UZR leader be the award winner. Ideally, you'd have something like the fielding bible awards - where the people who are voting are people who pour over not just the numbers, but the film and objectively study defensive prowess over a season. Those guys actually pour over the entire season of film when determining who should get their awards, using a combination of scouting, stats and subjective evaluations of odd plays. They aren't lazy journalists/coaches who have only watched their own team's games and some highlights on sportcenter.

Another issue with UZR is that "range" isn't really the thing you need to be measuring for 1B and C. So for 1B, it helps with one small component of what makes a good 1B, but it doesn't capture how good you are at catching bad throws, holding runners, etc. It certainly doesn't help reveal what catchers do defensively.
 
2013-03-10 04:44:15 PM  
ibankcoin.com
NERDS!
 
2013-03-10 05:25:40 PM  
A stats package is to accompany the ballots, but there is no requirement that the stats be used?

Jeter is a lock for that next GG.
 
2013-03-10 09:04:53 PM  
Sounds like Brendan Ryan is getting ready to dominate the AL gold glove. Guy is a head case and so-so hitter but he is an incredible SS.


/why does Fark's new comment window hate my phone

//gotten tedious as hell to try and type in this thing
 
2013-03-10 11:05:31 PM  

TheOther: A stats package is to accompany the ballots, but there is no requirement that the stats be used?

Jeter is a lock for that next GG.


That's what I locked on to.  They'll be supplied the stats, but will they be used?
 
2013-03-10 11:15:07 PM  

buckeyebrain: [ibankcoin.com image 300x265]
NERDS!


That was the best use of that gif I have ever seen.  I was just starting to think I was in the geek tab, and you posted that.  I owe you a beer!
 
2013-03-11 02:33:23 AM  
SABR will immediately establish a new Fielding Research Committee tasked to develop a proprietary new defensive analytic called the SABR Defensive Index™, or SDI™

Oh boy, another fielding metric!

A reliable calculation of a player's effectiveness in the field, and of the relative importance of defensive and offensive skills toward helping teams win baseball games, has long been the holy grail of sabrmetrics. Even the authors of Baseball Prospectus admit that there is no consensus about which of the several formulas measuring range factor, fielding runs allowed, etc., is most accurate. In many cases, different analytics disagree quite seriously about which players are above average or below average with the glove, or to what extent superior fielding can make up for weak hitting.

Compounding this problem is the proprietary nature of most of these stats, which make them difficult to evaluate and compare. This is also one reason why the reality of sabrmetrics has not completely lived up to its ideal, and why so many fans are are hostile to its theories. Real researchers do not hide their methodology behind copyright. If I'm really going to be comfortable with FRAA, I'd like to see the math and be able to duplicate the calculations myself, and not just be handed a bunch of numbers to be taken on faith. (This is where somebody will post a link to a publicly available formula for FRAA which I've overlooked.)

I have found the advanced statistics at Baseball Prospectus and Baseball Reference to be useful, if taken with a grain of salt, and any statistical element introduced into the Gold Glove voting process is a step forward, but I'd rather see a package of statistics with an explanation of each one, than a single proprietary stat of unproven accuracy.

As far as I can see, this is more important as a business deal between Rawlings and SABR (henceforth "the official statisticians of the Rawlings Gold Glove Awards!") than as an advance in the applied science of statistical analysis.
 
2013-03-11 10:58:35 AM  
My brain still hurts from someone comparing fielding percentage to zone rating, so here's a picture of my cat.

danielwheeler.org
 
2013-03-11 11:38:23 AM  

zarberg: My brain still hurts from someone comparing fielding percentage to zone rating, so here's a picture of my cat.

[danielwheeler.org image 640x480]


Well, if your cat had played Little League, maybe you wouldn't be so confused.
 
2013-03-12 10:10:28 AM  
Hey...looks like some people never learn, huh? I would hate to have to start knocking people down a few pegs again. Play nice children! Don't make me come back in here.You are entitled to your opinions. But be careful when you start with your juvenille BS. Don't make me come back and prove to everyone how much of an idiot you really are......again!
 
2013-03-12 01:03:07 PM  

JohnnyCanuck: Hey...looks like some people never learn, huh? I would hate to have to start knocking people down a few pegs again. Play nice children! Don't make me come back in here.You are entitled to your opinions. But be careful when you start with your juvenille BS. Don't make me come back and prove to everyone how much of an idiot you really are......again!


See, here's the thing: If you don't like UZR, or WAR, or whatever, that's ok. There are flaws with everything and if the flaw is too glaring for some people, then I get that. That is a matter of OPINION. The problem is, when people say that positioning doesn't show up in UZR, they are just plain wrong on a FACTUAL basis.

The factors that go into calculating UZR are NOT opinions. If they were, I'd be able to make up my own UZR that said Jeter was great at defense. Which would be awesome, because I love Jeter. But I can't do that. The fact is, great positioning DOES show up in UZR.

I don't think that it's asking too much for people to take just 5-10 minutes to read about the damn thing before screaming about how much it sucks. Just 5-10 minutes. Not 5-10 hours, not 5-10 weeks, not 5-10 years. 5-10 minutes. With an open mind. And if you still don't like it, because of actual, real flaws in the calculation (like, for instance, having a problem with UZR needing multiple seasons to normalize), that's fine. All I'm asking is that if you're going to criticize it, do so for the REAL problems (as minor or major as they may be, depending on the statistic), not the made up bullshiat.

To look at this another way, let's use RBI. Let's say two people think RBI sucks, but for two different reasons:

Person A: "I don't like RBI as a measure of the individual player's because RBI are dependent on the number of chances you get to drive runners in. That's something that individual players have no control over. We have plenty of statistics to measure the individual based almost exclusively on factors within his control, so why use one that heavily involves outside factors?"

Person B: "RBI sucks because it doesn't give players credit for home runs."

Person A made an opinion based argument. You can counter with things like "It doesn't matter that a player was lucky to have runners on ahead of him. All that matters is that he drove them in." (I disagree with that, but whatever).

Now look at Person B's argument. It's bullshiat. Complete, total, pulled-out-of-his-ass bullshiat. Home runs DO count towards RBI totals - you get at least 1 RBI on every HR. It is not an opinion-based criticism - it is an inaccurate statement about how RBI are calculated. If someone said that in a Fark baseball thread, I'm pretty sure they'd take all kinds of heat for it.
To me, the "juvenile BS" is making stuff up for no reason. Adults should be better than that.
 
2013-03-12 02:03:27 PM  
I was referring to things like the following.....

"You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, do you?"

"Except for the part where you don't actually know what you're talking about, ok."

"Everyone knows that an UZR of 5 means the player takes 5 less steps to get the ball than an average player."

"Wow, great explanation. I can tell you really know what you're talking about now.
No, wait. That had nothing at all to do with how UZR deals with positioning.
Try again.
Also, I'm gonna quote this line again because it's incredibly stupid"



If someone wants to act all pretencious and be an ass to anyone who dare have an opinion not in line with his...then I will stop by and treat em like the know-nothing-know-it-all he is.
Act like a biatch and I will treat you like one.

Also...UZR and the defensive metrics are, indeed...subjective. Not a bad way to measure defense...in fact, better than anything used before. However, it is far from perfect. But that is not, and will never be, the point of me being here. I just like slapping around the arrogant and pretentious few who deserve it.
 
2013-03-12 02:15:25 PM  
Oh...and I would also like to apologize for going too far and being an over-the-top ass myself last time around.
I was having a rough few weeks.
 
Displayed 50 of 50 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report