Is defense really that important in baseball?

[dickay]

Note also that the fielding statistics contain a ton of error. As an example, consider Jeter with TotalZone and UZR.

2003 - TZ = -14, UZR = -2
2004 - TZ = 4, UZR = 0
2005 - TZ = -3, UZR = -15

That is why you need to add up a bunch of years, and probably look across statistics that use different methods to decide that Jeter has been a below-average shortstop for most of his career.

That said, I think projecting defensive ability is far harder than offensive ability - lots can change over three years, and the statistics will not reliably pick up on improving, or more commonly, faltering defense.

Thanks......i honestly don't know based upon all this how much stock I really can put into any of these numbers. The eye test seems much more plausible than these IMO. And that said....a guy gets 4-5 chances at the plate per game. They very well may not see that many chances in the field per game, and the vast majority of what they do see will be somewhat "routine". I just can't see the recent trend towards good defense at the expense of offense is a workable strategy considering the flaws in all these numbers.

Obviously you can't have stone hands or lead feet at key positions in the field....but I don't see it as complicated as they seem to be making it of late.

[HoustonGM]

This is the stuff that I don't get?? Seems like the margin of era much be HUGE. I've played the game, mostly a catcher but when I wasn't catching I was in the OF. How does one determine this? Balls move in flight, some are hit harder than others. If they say for example any ball thats hit within 15 feet of an OF should be caught...i'm mean really? Is that how they determine this?

I don't know how UZR adjusts for velocity, etc.

I know that with +/-, they classify each batted ball by it's location, velocity, and other variables. The simplest explanation of +/- is that if you make the play on a ball that any other fielder in the league did NOT make, you get a +1, and if you fail to make a play that any other fielder DID make, you get a -1. Add up the pluses and minuses for all the balls hit in your zone and that's your final +/- score. But, again,, that's a VERY simplified version of +/-, which also now has an accompanying conversion to runs rather than just plays above/below average.

[kenny1234]

This is the stuff that I don't get?? Seems like the margin of era much be HUGE. I've played the game, mostly a catcher but when I wasn't catching I was in the OF. How does one determine this? Balls move in flight, some are hit harder than others. If they say for example any ball thats hit within 15 feet of an OF should be caught...i'm mean really? Is that how they determine this?

The idea is that over time the differences between balls hit will even out, after they control for the factors that they control for. Basically an outfielder has an 85% chance of catching a particular ball, given the factors that they can control for. If you catch it 80% of the time, you are below average, if you catch it 90% of the time, you are above average.

But this is why it takes years of data for things to settle out - though I would think that would be position dependent which is something I have never seen measured - shortstops get roughly double the number of chances to display their skill than left-fielders.

[dickay]

I don't know how UZR adjusts for velocity, etc.

I know that with +/-, they classify each batted ball by it's location, velocity, and other variables. The simplest explanation of +/- is that if you make the play on a ball that any other fielder in the league did NOT make, you get a +1, and if you fail to make a play that any other fielder DID make, you get a -1. Add up the pluses and minuses for all the balls hit in your zone and that's your final +/- score. But, again,, that's a VERY simplified version of +/-, which also now has an accompanying conversion to runs rather than just plays above/below average.

i'm almost sorry i asked, feel a bit dizzy and lightheaded right now.

i'm sure all these different stats taking as a whole have some merit...i'm just not sure how much as from the minutia of detail in each of these stats i'm sure there must be tons of people who have never played trying to compile and determine velocities and compare with every other ball hit to every other fielder. Margin of era has to be large.

[SirKodiak]

This is the stuff that I don't get?? Seems like the margin of era much be HUGE. I've played the game, mostly a catcher but when I wasn't catching I was in the OF. How does one determine this? Balls move in flight, some are hit harder than others. If they say for example any ball thats hit within 15 feet of an OF should be caught...i'm mean really? Is that how they determine this?

They partition the field up and then look at how often a player got to a ball there, (and I believe the value of a ball hit there) and then compare it to how often a particular player got to hit there.

Try to look at it with a neutrally critical eye.

[HoustonGM]

Thanks......i honestly don't know based upon all this how much stock I really can put into any of these numbers. The eye test seems much more plausible than these IMO.

I don't know why you would IGNORE the data completely. Don't put much stock in it, sure, I disagree but understand to an extent, but to ignore it completely reeks of willful ignorance.

The eyes are deceitful... and, also, practically impossible to use truly evaluate a player in relation to the rest of the league, since it's impossible for any one person to see everything that goes on. The eyes are fooled by flashy plays. Those jumping spin throws that Derek Jeter makes look impressive. That's why people think he's an awesome fielder... but a better fielder like, say, Adam Everett, would likely get to those balls quicker and make a play that looks routine. Since it looked easy, the eyes will tell us that it was an easy play, while the Derek Jeter one was impressive, when in reality it was simply because Everett has more range and got to the ball with ease while Jeter lacks such range and needed to expend great effort to make the play.

I just can't see the recent trend towards good defense at the expense of offense is a workable strategy considering the flaws in all these numbers.

Nobody's advocating defense at the expense of offense. However, I think that the recent trend of teams placing a premium on defense and experiencing a large turnaround in the standings is pretty solid evidence that it's not a foolhardy endeavor. Look at the Mariners and Rangers this past year, or the Rays in 2008, or the Rockies in 2007.

[OregonDuck1989]

The best thing to do with defensive statistics is to use them with the eye test. More often then not a scout will say this guy is a pretty good defender but his UZR numbers are horrific. The true answer is probably somewhere in the middle.

[HoustonGM]

i'm sure all these different stats taking as a whole have some merit...i'm just not sure how much as from the minutia of detail in each of these stats i'm sure there must be tons of people who have never played trying to compile and determine velocities and compare with every other ball hit to every other fielder. Margin of era has to be large.

Huh?

First, I have no idea what the thing about having never played the game has to do with compiling data.

Secondly, there's no margin of error on determining velocities and locations and such of balls in play. There's technology that tracks all that.

They partition the field up and then look at how often a player got to a ball there, (and I believe the value of a ball hit there) and then compare it to how often a particular player got to hit there.

That's about the most succinct and simplest explanation I've seen.

[dickay]

They partition the field up and then look at how often a player got to a ball there, (and I believe the value of a ball hit there) and then compare it to how often a particular player got to hit there.

Try to look at it with a neutrally critical eye.

I truly am. but as has been mentioned, i don't see how that can be anywhere near accurate. ball flight changes, and velocity are two of many items that might impact its effectiveness.

[SirKodiak]

i'm almost sorry i asked, feel a bit dizzy and lightheaded right now.

i'm sure all these different stats taking as a whole have some merit...i'm just not sure how much as from the minutia of detail in each of these stats i'm sure there must be tons of people who have never played trying to compile and determine velocities and compare with every other ball hit to every other fielder. Margin of era has to be large.

bio for the creator of UZR when The Book came out:
Mitchel Lichtman has been doing sabermetric research for over 17 years. He is currently the senior analyst for a major league team. He has a B.S. degree from Cornell University and a J.D. from the University of Nevada. He lives in the Finger Lakes Region of N.Y. with his family, three dogs, and three cats.

He has mentioned many times that he played baseball, though I am not sure at what level, nor does that have any bearing on whether he can make a good defensive metric.

In fact, Tom Tango does a fan scouting report every year that uses the eyes of the fans to rate players abilities.

[SirKodiak]

I truly am. but as has been mentioned, i don't see how that can be anywhere near accurate. ball flight changes, and velocity are two of many items that might impact its effectiveness.

That is why they are so excited about what Hit f/x does for them. I measures the flight including velocity.

[yomamaimontv]

Does anyone speak english on the forum? What is with all this crazy talk? I feel like I landed on a different planet! What happened to field %?? Seemed like a good way to measure defense to me...

[dickay]

That is why they are so excited about what Hit f/x does for them. I measures the flight including velocity.

now this is interesting. is it being used?

[dickay]

Nobody's advocating defense at the expense of offense. However, I think that the recent trend of teams placing a premium on defense and experiencing a large turnaround in the standings is pretty solid evidence that it's not a foolhardy endeavor. Look at the Mariners and Rangers this past year, or the Rays in 2008, or the Rockies in 2007.

I find it very shortsighted to award any of those performances merely to improved defense. I'm going to also assume that better pitching yields better defensive ratings which shouldn't technically be the case?

[SirKodiak]

now this is interesting. is it being used?

I believe this year it was used mostly for testing purposes as they try to dial the system in and get analysts figuring out how to use the data, much like they did with pitch f/x