BBTF's Transaction Oracle Discussion :: Sneak Peek: ESPN Defensive Ratings

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 1 pages

1. AROM Posted: June 12, 2007 at 05:55 PM (#2401513)

Forget UZR. This is the standard by which all defensive stats must be judged. An incredible effort Dan, bringing all the tangible and intangible together.

2. AROM Posted: June 12, 2007 at 05:57 PM (#2401522)

3. Slinger Francisco Barrios (Dr. Memory) Posted: June 12, 2007 at 05:58 PM (#2401523)

Shouldn't "+/- 35" be shown as, in Derek Jeter's instance, -3? Or is it meant to be the absolute value of the difference? This would hurt Jeter a bit (if his Clutch weren't off the charts).

4. Slinger Francisco Barrios (Dr. Memory) Posted: June 12, 2007 at 06:03 PM (#2401525)

Also, Elc. V is totally bogus. When I think of defensive prowess, I think of Venezuela. Perhaps a column relating to oil production would be more appropriate. It would conveniently include your Texans, although it might overrate Rusty Staub (not to mention Curt Schilling) just a bit.

5. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: June 12, 2007 at 06:12 PM (#2401540)

I don't think there is enough emphasis on "grit", and I'm not sure "Skin tone" effectively captures it. Are you factoring in determination? Off-field obstacles overcome? Managerial fondness for said player? Ability to keep a MLB job despite the absence of talent? Instances of announcers calling him a "gamer"?

So it could use some tweaking, but this is obviously the gold standard that all fielding discussions should utilize. Well done Dan.

6. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: June 12, 2007 at 06:13 PM (#2401541)

Is Tejada only getting credit for the Orioles' world series appearances? that doesn't seem right.

7. The Artist Posted: June 12, 2007 at 06:13 PM (#2401542)

I think this is a good start Dan, but where do you measure a player's "desire to win"?

8. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: June 12, 2007 at 06:18 PM (#2401547)

Bristol's reactor core.

Is that anything like the one in "I, Robot"?

9. The Buddy Biancalana Hit Counter Posted: June 12, 2007 at 06:18 PM (#2401549)

Danny Ainge believes this is worthless because it fails to account for a player's brain type.

10. Dan Szymborski

Posted: June 12, 2007 at 06:21 PM (#2401556)

I appreciate the kudos, but the work was done by Andy Einsteinium and I'm in enough trouble with ESPN for infilitrating their secret lair. I hope to eventually mend fences enough to get an interview with Andy, so he can tell us about his tremendous journey from crack addict sleeping in ESPN's janitorial closet to the number 1 cognitive biologer for the big E.

11. Dan Szymborski

Posted: June 12, 2007 at 06:28 PM (#2401564)

A quibble though, You have Harris listed as a 9 for skin, higher than other 'white' shortstops like Crosby and Young. They have to play under the sun, while Harris plays in a dome. Shouldn't you consider a park factor here?

I can't speak from Andy, but Jeff Bennett discussed this at length. Essentially, as Bennett's theory goes, park factors are overrated - clearly, Carl Crawford can still be black in a dome and Khalil Greene can still be surprisingly white in sunny San Diego, so it's unfair to penalize Brendan Harris or to reward Miguel Tejada.

12. Garth found his way to daylight Posted: June 12, 2007 at 06:47 PM (#2401588)

I think you're missing the key piece of any good defender: Number of ESPN Web Gems accrued.

Also, you've touched upon it with +/- 35, but "clubhouse presence" is conspicuously missing.

13. The Artist Posted: June 12, 2007 at 06:50 PM (#2401592)

Also, what about the "mental toughness" aspect? Seriously Dan - I'm disappointed.

14. AJM Posted: June 12, 2007 at 07:04 PM (#2401615)

Any ratings that don't have Jeter #1 I can't take seriously.

15. Walt Davis Posted: June 12, 2007 at 07:11 PM (#2401628)

Hey, lay off Dan -- it's not his fault that Stats doesn't track Web Gems.

I agree with the Venezuelan factor though so perhaps a ranking of oil production and consumption -- that way you get to keep Venezuela, Texas, California, and NY.

I think there may need to be some position-specific factors included. I don't know how you measure SS defense if you don't include salary/HR. Used to be only the Yankees were aware of this factor -- it's why they moved AROD to 3B.

The key point is that this stat is useless until it can show to everybody that Jeter is #1.

16. DaMick knows what love is. A Boy Loves His Dog. Posted: June 12, 2007 at 08:15 PM (#2401702)

Would the use of self-tanning lotion constitute use of illegal performance enhancing drugs?

DaMick

17. zonk Posted: June 12, 2007 at 10:37 PM (#2401811)

Hey, lay off Dan -- it's not his fault that Stats doesn't track Web Gems.

Perhaps my sources are just better than Dan's, but I believe that ESPN Defensive Ratings+© -- which does include the Web Gems quotient -- are only going to be made available to ESPN Insider© subscribers. My sources further tell me that if you don't mute certain parts of ESPN's Baseball Tonight© or ESPN's Sunday Night Baseball© Presented by Taco Bell©, you'll hear a secret code you can use online at ESPN.com© to see ESPN Defensive Ratings+Extreme©... though, my mole tells me that you're likely hear the code solely from the lips of Kruk, Morgan, or the like.

ESPN Defensive Ratings+Extreme© will include the Stuart Scott Catchphrase Quotient©, which ultimately shows Derek Jeter to be top of the heap.

18. North Side Chicago Expatriate Giants Fan Posted: June 12, 2007 at 10:46 PM (#2401822)

Brilliant. Just brilliant.

19. Dan Evensen Posted: June 13, 2007 at 12:06 AM (#2402040)

Dan, I am in awe.

20. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: June 13, 2007 at 12:24 AM (#2402111)

21. Balkroth Posted: June 13, 2007 at 01:14 AM (#2402191)

So where does Eckstein rank ?

22. The importance of being Ernest Riles Posted: June 13, 2007 at 01:28 AM (#2402207)

You forgot regression to the mean.

23. AROM Posted: June 13, 2007 at 01:29 AM (#2402211)

Clutch doesn't regress to the mean, it rises to the occasion.

24. Garth found his way to daylight Posted: June 13, 2007 at 01:37 AM (#2402228)

Clutch doesn't regress to the mean, it rises to the occasion.

That may be the funniest thing I've ever read at BBTF. It reminds me a lot of the great Chuck Norris jokes.

25. The importance of being Ernest Riles Posted: June 13, 2007 at 01:51 AM (#2402285)

Clutch doesn't regress to the mean, it rises to the occasion.

26. Phil Coorey, You Won't Posted: June 13, 2007 at 06:02 AM (#2402432)

Wow, just wow funny

27. Handle's Messiah Posted: June 13, 2007 at 10:30 AM (#2402447)

With all due respect for the effort, this might have been kinda sorta five years ago.

Now, not so much.

28. Dan Szymborski

Posted: June 13, 2007 at 01:13 PM (#2402508)

Updated.

29. joshtothemaxx Posted: June 13, 2007 at 01:16 PM (#2402510)

Nothing gets me more excited than the graceful leaping image of Derek Jeter. And his clutchitude.

30. The Kids Are Enright (1k5v3L)

Posted: June 13, 2007 at 01:33 PM (#2402526)

Nothing gets me more excited than the graceful leaping image of Derek Jeter. And his clutchitude.

The SOB didn't have to jump last night to grab that liner by Chris Young. He should've dove to his left.

31. The Polish Sausage Racer Posted: June 13, 2007 at 03:37 PM (#2402640)

Y'know, I'd sign up for this service if it still had Harold Reynolds coming to upgrade your wardrobe.

32. Schilling's Sprained Ankiel Posted: June 13, 2007 at 03:47 PM (#2402655)

This is a masterpiece. Well Done.

33. Famous Original Joe C Posted: June 13, 2007 at 03:48 PM (#2402660)

Always enjoy your work, Dan.

34. zonk Posted: June 13, 2007 at 04:00 PM (#2402674)

Updated.

Ummm... not quite.

Where are the waves of pop-ups? Where are the floating Flash widgets to get in my way of reading the content? Where are the noises, flashing lights, and other baubles? Where are the obstrusive , jump-to-the-front ads to interfere with drop-down menus?

...and above all -- why haven't we heard from Sean yet that BB-Ref will be updated to actually make this statistic accessible and at least entertaining?

I have to say, I'm a bit worried about the future of ESPN Defensive Ratings© if they cannot be properly buried behind behind webjunk and shitty design, then rescued by bb-ref as with everything else.

35. CrosbyBird Posted: June 13, 2007 at 05:17 PM (#2402740)

Best touch is Eckstein's "skin" rating.

36. Slinger Francisco Barrios (Dr. Memory) Posted: June 13, 2007 at 05:22 PM (#2402744)

Tell Einsteinium we appreciate the update. Two comments.

- Surely the +/- is backwards, per post #12.

- Eckstein is pretty pasty, but 41 points ahead of Wilson? No way.

37. Dan Szymborski

Posted: June 13, 2007 at 06:32 PM (#2402792)

- Surely the +/- is backwards, per post #12.

Lower is better, with higher values being negative. I was trying to poke fun at the tendency to not just do things arbitrarily, but actually to apply the arbitrary stat in a ridiculous manner.

38. danup Posted: June 13, 2007 at 06:37 PM (#2402798)

... wait, Khalil Greene is white? I've been looking at his defensive numbers all wrong!

39. Dan Szymborski

Posted: June 13, 2007 at 06:48 PM (#2402808)

Don't feel bad. Everybody goes through The Khalil Effect at some point in their lives. Whether it's a kindergarten teacher looking at the attendance list or a baseball fan seeing Greene for the first time, everyone goes through the shock that the man named "Khalil Thabit Greene" isn't just not a minority, but a very white man, sometimes with flowing blond locks like a Norse god.

40. cardsfanboy

Posted: June 14, 2007 at 03:59 PM (#2403869)

Isn't Khalil Greene the guy that looks like Spicoli (Sean Penn)?

41. Andere Richtingen

Posted: June 15, 2007 at 12:52 AM (#2404617)

42. Dan Szymborski

Posted: June 15, 2007 at 02:09 AM (#2404728)

You're just jealous.

I actually usually have quite a full head of hair, I've just been shaving it since September. I haven't been able to keep it up - my skin is too sensitive and my scalp still wants the temperature to be 20 degrees warmer than the rest of my body.

43. Anthony Giacalone Posted: June 15, 2007 at 04:23 AM (#2404768)

Brilliant!

44. MSI Posted: June 15, 2007 at 01:29 PM (#2404888)

hilarious as always.

45. FrankM Posted: June 15, 2007 at 01:51 PM (#2404908)

I too went through the Khalil Effect.

Also when I found out Chip Ambres was black.

46. Slinger Francisco Barrios (Dr. Memory) Posted: June 15, 2007 at 06:21 PM (#2405112)

I was trying to poke fun at the tendency to not just do things arbitrarily, but actually to apply the arbitrary stat in a ridiculous manner.

I'm just keeping the ridiculosity coming is all.

Whether it's a kindergarten teacher looking at the attendance list

$5 will get you $10 he was home-schooled at that age.

I too went through the Khalil Effect.

I'm still not getting over Willie Bloomquist.

47. meet the mets Posted: July 09, 2007 at 11:40 PM (#2435187)

there is absolutely no way in hell that this list/formula is accurate. please, anything that has young and jeter ahead of renteria, reyes and furcal is absurd. i mean really, jeter's range was bad enough for most of his career, but it is plain embarrassing now. does anyone bother to see how many hits up the middle there are against the yankees? and i don't mean screamers back up the box, i mean soft choppers up the middle on the ss side by 6-10 feet that jeter doesn't even get close too. gimme a break.

48. Dan Szymborski

Posted: July 10, 2007 at 10:53 PM (#2436168)

Fer, I'm guessing you didn't read the explanation?

Page 1 of 1 pages

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Reader Comments and Retorts

Support BBTF

Bookmarks

Hot Topics

Syndicate