Hmmm, more importantly...Robinson Cano, best player in baseball or bestest player in baseball?

FWIW, most similar player thru Age 26: Carlos Baerga. Edgardo Alfonzo is third on the list.

Now you do always have to take Similarity Scores with a huge grain of salt. But it wouldn't surprise me if those prove prescient with regards to Cano. In other words, enjoy the career year and short pre-30ish peak while it lasts.

I thought I was enjoying the career year last year.

One reason that the recent Sunday night Mets game is salient to some people is because that great sabermetrician, Orel Hershiser, noted Jeter's diminished range on to balls two his left.

OTOH, His UZR/150 this season is 3.3.

So this is really an example of Marchand looking to slay a sabermetric straw man.

Can the Yankees win a World Series with Jeter at shortstop? The answer still seems to be a clear yes, so any move isn't happening that soon. The issue could arise over the course of Jeter's next contract, and it probably won't be the biggest problem the Yanks face during that time span. Do people think Jeter couldn't play left field or hit as much as the average DH? Not that big of a deal.

The problem isn't that Jeter may have regressed this year. It's that he never really improved. Over his career, Jeter has recorded an assist on about 21.3% of all the GBs allowed by Yankee pitchers. In 2009, the number was 21.5% -- roughly his career average. In 2008, it was just 19.4%. I don't know why the BIS data shows something different (UZR and +/-), but I prefer a SS who records real outs over one with a good score on "advanced" metrics.

The problem for the Yankees is that the average AL SS records an assist on about 23.3% of GBIP. So Jeter is getting to 2% fewer GBIP each year than an average SS. That's a lot, about 40 plays. Maybe he makes up a little bit somewhere else, like fielding a few tough flyballs. On the other hand, he's well below average on turning DPs. He's at least -30 plays, or -20 runs. The Yankees just have to decide if his other contributions make it worth losing two wins in SS defense.

So this is really an example of Marchand looking to slay a sabermetric straw man.

I think you give him too much credit. It's more like, "Jeter's hit about .450 for the past couple of weeks, so I guess we have to go back to pissing and moaning about his defense."

I do like Cashman's responses. For instance:

"That is not a productive conversation to have with you or the public," Cashman said. "There is nothing beneficial."

I'll never get why people expect this kind of stuff to play out in public, or why we assume that the team must be oblivious to an issue like this because they haven't made a point of dealing with it publicly.

We have this discussion twice a month, don't we???


Athletes who generate biggest % of news articles most greatly exceeding their importance in the universe. And NOT becaue of off-field issues; only related to their on-field contribtions.

MLB- Derek Jeter
NBA-
NFL-
NHL (not sure anyone cares)

Are there equivalents in the other sports?

Are there equivalents in the other sports?

NFL-Brett Favre

Athletes who generate biggest % of news articles most greatly exceeding their importance in the universe. And NOT becaue of off-field issues; only related to their on-field contribtions.

NFL - BrettFavreBrettFavreBrettFavreBrettFavre

Edit: dammit, coke.

Well, how many teams continue to use a star player in a prominent role for which he is clearly not qualified, year after year? Griffey stayed in CF too long, and that drew quite a bit of attention (and at least Griffey had been a good fielder). I'm not sure any other player comes close in modern times: Jeter is a much, much worse fielder than everyone else who has played the position as long as he has.

So the question is whether any NFL teams continue to start aging star QBs who clearly can't handle the job anymore? Or are there NBA guards who continue to take shots at the point where their teammates are clearly more efficient shooters? And if so, do fans in those sports debate the way those players are being used?

Or are there NBA guards who continue to take shots at the point where their teammates are clearly more efficient shooters?


Sure was hilarious hearing the entire Staples center scream "NO" at Artest when he lined up that 3 with 22+ seconds on the shot clock.

Athletes who generate biggest % of news articles most greatly exceeding their importance in the universe. And NOT becaue of off-field issues; only related to their on-field contribtions.

1 - Jeff Francouer
2 - Derek Jeter
3 - Everyone else

Then there's the "It's Not Really My Butt" Williams sister in tennis. (Where's Imus when you need him?)

Since 2008, Jeter's UZR is +7 or so....why is this conversation even happening? Unless we're admitting UZR is flawed, in which case it's not fair to to include his earlier (miserable) UZRs as an indictment of his D.

why is this conversation even happening?

I think it's a fair conversation to have based on observation, but it's not if defensive metrics are the basis for the discussion.

16 -- fair enough. I certainly don't think that Jeter's defense has looked as good this year. But to be fair, if someone had said early in 2009 that Jeter's defense "looked" better, he would've been laughed off the site.

Pretty sure people did say that.

...and they were often ridiculed for it if I remember correctly.

I think it's a fair conversation to have based on observation, but it's not if defensive metrics are the basis for the discussion.

That's simply not correct. You can make a good data-based case that Jeter continues to be a terrible SS. And the truth is that single-year results for UZR (or +/-) are basically worthless, as MGL (UZR's creator) says all the time. UZR simply can't tell us whether Jeter became a better fielder in 2008. What we know is this: 1) over his career, he has been a terrible fielder*, 2) he continues to make far fewer plays than other SSs, and 3) there is no readily apparent reason to think his opportunities shrank in recent years. We can't say for sure, but by far the most likely scenario is that Jeter continues to be a bad fielder but got lucky with his UZR ratings for a couple of years (and/or there is some bias in that data).

*
http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/best_worst_wowy_since_1993_through_age_34/

Do people think Jeter couldn't play left field or hit as much as the average DH?

Are those positions going to be open for Jeter to just slot right in?

BTW, here are UZR150 for last 3 seasons for a few players:
Francouer: +20, -2, -2
Ellsbury +22, +15, -10
Soriano: +39, +26, -5
S. Drew: -14, -18, +3
H. Ramirez: -22, +1, 0

Trying to "explain" these changes is a fool's errand. UZR simply can't measure changes in fielding skill over a single season, or even two seasons. We shouldn't pretend that it can...

22 - but Jeter's numbers are now consistent for the past 2.5 years. Not great, but certainly at least average. Combine that with a qualitative reason that might explain the improvement, I feel like your confidence in his ongoing defensive inabilities is a little misplaced. If his defensive rates stay roughly the same through year end, would you be comfortable admitting then that he's improved? At what point would you have enough data to concede that you might be wrong about this? One thing is clear to me, no one here "knows" either way, but it's hard to dismiss 2.5 years of the most sophisticated defensive metric we have.

That's simply not correct. You can make a good data-based case that Jeter continues to be a terrible SS. And the truth is that single-year results for UZR (or +/-) are basically worthless, as MGL (UZR's creator) says all the time. UZR simply can't tell us whether Jeter became a better fielder in 2008

You actually made my point. If you read both of my posts on this thread, you will see that I was only referring to Jeter's UZR for this season.

I would say that Jeter has been a below average to average SS for most of his career.

Do people think Jeter couldn't play left field or hit as much as the average DH?

Are those positions going to be open for Jeter to just slot right in?

It's not easy to field a team with 9 players better than Derek Jeter - even allowing for some slippage. As long as he can hit, there will be an incentive to find a place in the line-up.

It's not easy to field a team with 9 players better than Derek Jeter - even allowing for some slippage.

It's a lot easier when you can pay $200M+ per year.

...and they were often ridiculed for it if I remember correctly.

I don't remember, but if so, then I retroactively ridicule the ridiculers.

Observation is still very important when it comes to evaluating defense. If a bunch of people in here think Jeter looked better (and I did as well), then it meant something.

Can we just bask in the awesomeness of Cano? He has a 140 OPS+ over his last 212 games. Utley is at 136 (though his is more OBP heavy) in that same period.

anyone catch baseball info solutions hardest plays of the month of may last night on baseball tonight?

Or are there NBA guards who continue to take shots at the point where their teammates are clearly more efficient shooters?

Subjectively, I would say this happens all the time (although in many cases they were never better than their teammates to begin with).

Or are there NBA guards who continue to take shots at the point where their teammates are clearly more efficient shooters?

Allen Iverson made a career our of it.

UZR simply can't measure changes in fielding skill over a single season, or even two seasons. We shouldn't pretend that it can...

The more I learn about UZR, the more I'm inclined to ignore it entirely. It's a deeply, deeply flawed stat.

Offense up the middle should be the new Moneyball.

That's simply not correct. You can make a good data-based case that Jeter continues to be a terrible SS. And the truth is that single-year results for UZR (or +/-) are basically worthless, as MGL (UZR's creator) says all the time. UZR simply can't tell us whether Jeter became a better fielder in 2008. What we know is this: 1) over his career, he has been a terrible fielder*, 2) he continues to make far fewer plays than other SSs, and 3) there is no readily apparent reason to think his opportunities shrank in recent years. We can't say for sure, but by far the most likely scenario is that Jeter continues to be a bad fielder but got lucky with his UZR ratings for a couple of years (and/or there is some bias in that data).

So if you ignore the years UZR says Jeter is a good fielder, UZR says he's a terrible fielder? I think I'm just going to agree with #33 here.

Iverson was a low percentage shooter, but until he played with Carmelo Anthony his teams never had a better option.

Observation is still very important when it comes to evaluating defense. If a bunch of people in here think Jeter looked better (and I did as well), then it meant something.

Valuable if unpolluted. I wonder how much value there is when the defensive metric is available and updated every day or week. Someone not looking at the numbers and telling us Jeter looks better has value. Someone used to seein "UZR/150 -20" and seeing a +4 a month in a half into the season, and coming up with reasons to justify it is not valuable.

Not saying the observations of anyone here in particular were doing that. Just that I don't know who was making really observations and who (if anyone) was making justifications.

I wonder how much value there is when the defensive metric is available and updated every day or week.

I think you need availability and transparency in order for a defensive metric to be accepted as valuable. Even hits and errors probably wouldn't be accepted if they were just announced at the end of the season. Until the general public, or at least those interested, can review UZR scoring, the objectivity, reliability and value of the metric remains in doubt.

I think I am going to start posting DRS daily. Or weekly. Is there any interest in me doing that?

Yes Chris. That sounds like a good idea if you are up for the task.

I think I'm just going to agree with #33 here.

I agree with #33, as well, but I also think that anybody willing to watch Jeter's range instead of his form could not but conclude that he's not a very good fielder. He catches what he reaches, and he looks nice doing it, but what he reaches ain't much, and never really has been.

I agree Yankee Clapper, if you are interested in a metric being accepted making it available is key. That is beside my point though, I was talking about confirmation bias.

so are we back to assuming Jeter's a bad defensive shortstop? 2.5 years of UZR be damned?

I'm not sure any other player comes close in modern times (to play way past his defensive prime)

I think that depends on how you calculate C defense. But certainly there were/are many who argue that Piazza and Posada are terrible defensively yet, rightly, their offense more than makes up for it. You mentioned Griffey. There's Manny. Brad Hawpe (by TZ) was -64 the last two seasons (and, naturally, +3 this season :-). And of those guys, Griffey's the only one who (a) had obvious positions he could shift to; (b) nobody really blocking him from moving to one of those positions.

With Jeter, the concern is his offense (I know, just one bad month). But as long as he can keep posting a 115ish OPS+, he needs to get quite bad defensively to still not be good ... and then you move him to LF or 2B/3B/DH if those spots have opened up.

On Mr. Cano: Sure, you've got your Baergas and Alfonsos (though who knows what he'd have done without the back issues). You've also got:

Cano: 306/339/480, 113 OPS+
Carew: 309/357/404, 117 OPS+
Sandberg: 287/337/431, 108 OPS+
Kent: 270/325/451, 107 OPS+
Utley: 276/350/496, 115 OPS+ (26 was his first big year)
Morgan: 265/380/394, 122 OPS+
Biggio: 275/350/370, 108 OPS+
Alomar: 298/367/419, 116 OPS+


Every great 2B of the last 50 years has had roughly similar production to Cano through age 26 (Morgan being the clear leader). Each one of them took a big step forward around the ages 26-28 (except Kent who waited until he was 30).

There are clear differences. Cano has the worst walk rate and, except for Kent, all of those guys were excellent base-stealers (although Carew, oddly, didn't turn it on until age 27). That lack of athleticism and lack of patience are reasons to think he might fall more in the Baerga camp as he ages. But it's silly to predict doom and gloom for a guy who's been a very good hitter (for his position) through age 26 and is putting up a monster season at 27. Fine, regress him to the mean and no he can't sustain his current level (with that shape to his production) but he's still a 2B who's currently leading the AL in total bases.

He really does need to learn to take a walk though.

He catches what he reaches, and he looks nice doing it, but what he reaches ain't much, and never really has been.

I'd love to know how so many people (nearly none of them Yankee fans) figure this out watching him on TV. They don't see where he starts, because TV almost never shows the middle infielders' starting position. You don't really have a great sense of how hard a ground ball is hit on TV either nor a bar to compare it to since it's not like we get groundball speed the way we do on pitches. So with no sense of where Jeter starts and no real sense of how hard a ground ball is hit or how it compares to other ground balls you've seen, how do you figure how far Jeter ranges as compared to other shortstops? I don't think it's possible, but so many people on every baseball website I've visited are sure they are capable of determining how hard a play was for an infielder to make. Maybe I'm missing something.

I think it's far more likely that fans on the internet have been conditioned for a decade plus now to think Jeter is a lousy defensive SS and it's seriously affected the way they watch the guy. Even if he's as bad as the metrics say (not as bad as GuyM's fantasy land, but bad enough), it seems pretty unlikely that you'd be able to see the 10 or so plays that expose Jeter's defensive deficiencies unless you watch every game pretty intently.

At RLYW, there's about 100 past-a-diving/lunging Jeter comments every year, used to be the same in the chatters here. I think a lot of posters are way off on their estimations of what an average SS can get to.

Oh, and Cano is clearly going to be one of the best players in the league this year. He's already slumped and come out of it. I'm enjoying this especially after us Yankee fans were assured there was no way Cano could improve his game this offseason.

I guess I should have nominated Cano in the most overrated prospect thread the other day. That he still gets talked up as some kind of top prospect (not pointing at John here, by the way) amazes me.

I've seen Cano play a lot, and I'm not even sure he'd be a productive Triple-A player. Let's start with his defense; it's brutal. He has terrible footwork and simply lacks any kind of instincts around the bag. There's no way you want him playing up the middle. He might have the raw speed to not be awful in left field, but that's about as kind as I can be regarding his glovework. Offensively, he's a fastball hitter. He sits dead red on every pitch and waits for a mistake. Any good breaking ball or offspeed pitch will have him out in front. He's mostly a gap hitter, lacking the power to drive the ball consistently over the wall. To add insult to injury, he's also a terrible baserunner.

In his prime, I think he could hit .280/.320/.400 while playing awful defense. Yipee.

-David Cameron

I guess I should have nominated Cano in the most overrated prospect thread the other day.

It turns out if you evaluate hundreds of players you'll get one wrong.

Let's see you publish your opinion on every player in the minors, 'zop, and we'll see if you get any wrong.

Maybe I'm missing something.

People count groundballs hit to the general SS area. Jeter fields fewer of them than most SS. He doesn't get to as many balls. This is just counting. Perhaps you aren't aware of that.

You seem to want to claim that Yankee pitchers give up more hard hit groundballs than other teams, but that doesn't make much sense based on who their starters have been in Jeter's career. The most reasonable explanation is that Jeter doesn't have tons of range.

Let's see you publish your opinion on every player in the minors, 'zop, and we'll see if you get any wrong.

As has been detailed in the numerous Dave Cameron threads, it's not the wrong opinion that's funny. (I mean, I'm the guy who thought David Hernandez was a sleeper pick after spring training. Whoops.)

Rather:
(1) David Cameron holds himself out to be smarter than everyone
(2) Except he's not, he's sort of a mediocre commentator/analyst.
(3) And he's a bit of a sanctimonious prick in his writing and correspondence
(4) And a shameless homer
(5) And he's in denial about (2) through (4).

The Cano comment is funny because it highlights the arrogance and the mediocrity.

Personally, I think Cameron is the 6th best Baseball Writer in MLB.

As hilariously awful as Cameron's evaluation is, I can't hold it too much against him -- he's not a scout, he's a statistics guy and here he's making scouting-based observations. Sure, he's very wrong, but he's also outside of his area of expertise here. (Unless he knows something about scouting, which he may, for all I know)

[47] Cameron didn't write that as part of a comprehensive evaluation of prospects. He went out of his way to slag one particular player because he hates the Yankees and their fans. And he's never retracted those comments or admitted he was wrong, AFAIK. The guy does a lot of good stuff, but everybody has their biases. And we all sometimes let our biases get the best of us.

[48] CP understands where the metrics come from. He was talking about counting the "any other SS makes that play" comments. If you had calculated Jeter's ZR based on the game chatters here a few years back, he'd have come out around -20. Per game.

48 - I'll ask again, are we deciding that 2.5 years of UZR are now meaningless?

As hilariously awful as Cameron's evaluation is, I can't hold it too much against him -- he's not a scout, he's a statistics guy and here he's making scouting-based observations. Sure, he's very wrong, but he's also outside of his area of expertise here. (Unless he knows something about scouting, which he may, for all I know)

Actually, IIRC, this comment was made around the time Cameron was holding himself out as having some level of scouting chops in addition to his statistical acumen.

Iverson was a low percentage shooter, but until he played with Carmelo Anthony his teams never had a better option.

Just as an example, in 01-02 Iverson shot 39.8% from the field. That's terrible. Of the 13 guys who shot the ball at least 50 times that year for the Sixers, Iverson had the worst field goal percentage. Iverson made 29.1% of his threes that year. Of the four guys who shot more than 50 threes for the Sixers that year, Iverson's percentage was the worst. Iverson shooting the ball that year was just about the worst non-turnover thing that could have happened to the Sixers offense.

Oh, by the way, Iverson shot the ball 27.8 times per game that year.

Cano has the worst walk rate and, except for Kent, all of those guys were excellent base-stealers (although Carew, oddly, didn't turn it on until age 27). That lack of athleticism and lack of patience are reasons to think he might fall more in the Baerga camp as he ages.

From my subjective perspective, Cano appears to exhibit a greater than average amount of defensive athleticism.

I think it's far more likely that fans on the internet have been conditioned for a decade plus now to think Jeter is a lousy defensive SS and it's seriously affected the way they watch the guy.

That's what I mean by confirmation bias. Are people really looking at Jeter and noticing real deficiencies? Or have they seen the defensive numbers are are trying to make sense of it?

Just as an example, in 01-02 Iverson shot 39.8% from the field. That's terrible. Of the 13 guys who shot the ball at least 50 times that year for the Sixers, Iverson had the worst field goal percentage.

Because nobody else could get their own shot. Dikembe Mutombo shot 50% that year. Every now and then he gets an offensive rebound or finds himself open for a shot. But you can't have an offensive game plan of taking the ball down the court and getting it to Mutombo. He's just not a scorer. When Iverson had the ball he also did a pretty good job of drawing fouls, where he shot a very good percentage. He was far and away the best offensive option that team had, and allowed them to put an AI + 4 defensive specialist lineup out there.

kind of funny, years of statistical evolution, and the posters on arguably the most sophisticated sabermetric website and arguing about a player's defense based on what they've observed with their own eyes. it has a certain irony to it I think, though this observation is not at all intended as an indictment.

That's what I mean by confirmation bias. Are people really looking at Jeter and noticing real deficiencies? Or have they seen the defensive numbers are are trying to make sense of it?

Yeah, I should have pointed to what you said when I posted that, I think you're right. I just don't think there's enough information available to a baseball fan on television to visually evaluate an infielder's defense (I think OF might be different) and so people just let what they know from the numbers effect what they see.

[57] Marchand cherry-picks one defensive metric to indict sabermetrics even though one season's worth of data of any defensive metric, let alone two months, is an insufficient sample size to be meaningful. He then relies on the observations of one scout to buttress his point. Once it is established that Marchand's data points are insufficient to make his argument, why not discuss the topic on Marchand's preferred terms, i.e., observation?

48 - I'll ask again, are we deciding that 2.5 years of UZR are now meaningless?

Um, UZR? Yes. Well, it depends on *which* UZR. There is something, er, unusual, about how the UZR/150 is counting errors. SO, I wouldn't use that stat.

Rather:
(1) David Cameron holds himself out to be smarter than everyone
(2) Except he's not, he's sort of a mediocre commentator/analyst.
(3) And he's a bit of a sanctimonious prick in his writing and correspondence
(4) And a shameless homer
(5) And he's in denial about (2) through (4).

The Cano comment is funny because it highlights the arrogance and the mediocrity.

I actually know him, so perhaps I am biased, but I don't see any of that. Of course, you wouldn't have to look far to get that same list about me (or almost all of the posters on this site).

So, dragging it up over and over is pretty much the height of clownshoes. Move on.

I just don't think there's enough information available to a baseball fan on television to visually evaluate an infielder's defense

The avg fan perhaps, but not the experienced scorer.

And we all sometimes let our biases get the best of us.

Right, but because most of us have no "status", no one dredges up every wrong thing that you (or zop or anyone else) says.

IN addition, he's written far more than everyone else in this thread (I think), so of course he's going to have some more prominent stinkers.

I'd love to know how so many people (nearly none of them Yankee fans) figure this out watching him on TV.

I've taken what I've learned from the stats and this site (particularly Mike Emeigh's &inf;-part study) and used my eyes at actual games - mostly at Fenway - to check it out. I've seen that he didn't position himself near the cluster of footprints left by the opposing SS after the grounds crew had dragged the infield. I've noted how slow his first step is, not just relative to the opposing SS, but to his and his opponent's 3B as well. (At a game it's pretty easy to see both at the same time, from my seating angle.) The rest is hard to compare with the eye at a game... The odds are slim that you see each team's SS have a ball of the same velocity, subject to the same game conditions.

But I'm not the one you have a problem with.

That's what I mean by confirmation bias. Are people really looking at Jeter and noticing real deficiencies? Or have they seen the defensive numbers are are trying to make sense of it?

In my case, I'm saying it's the latter. I wouldn't be surprised if some folks are doing the former.

Well, it depends on *which* UZR. There is something, er, unusual, about how the UZR/150 is counting errors. SO, I wouldn't use that stat.

What about fielding bible? I realize there are some problems with the Fangraphs numbers for this season, but Jeter rates at -3 total since 2008. I don't know how RZR translates to runs, but Jeter's numbers there have been higher than his previous performance since 08. According to TZ he's been -4 since 08. None of those numbers are way out of line with Jeter's UZR since 08.

The avg fan perhaps, but not the experienced scorer.

Well sure, but I said fan for a reason. And I assume the posters I see posting about how obvious it is that Jeter has no range are not experienced scorers (although I suppose a couple of them may be).

The avg fan perhaps, but not the experienced scorer.

I hope you don't mean the experienced "official" scorer ...

I've taken what I've learned from the stats and this site (particularly Mike Emeigh's &inf;-part study) and used my eyes at actual games - mostly at Fenway - to check it out.

I would have far more faith in someone's evaluation if they saw him in person, but even so, I imagine it's pretty difficult to compare defenders unless you're trained to do it.

I've seen that he didn't position himself near the cluster of footprints left by the opposing SS after the grounds crew had dragged the infield.

That's part of what makes evaluating infielder's defense difficult in my mind. Teams position their infielders differently. The Yanks especially are known (thanks to Mike Emeigh) for employing unusual defensive alignments. On TV it's nearly impossible to know how far an infielder went for a ball because you don't know where he started. In person, I think its pretty difficult to make up the difference in positioning unless you're trained to do it.

I've noted how slow his first step is, not just relative to the opposing SS, but to his and his opponent's 3B as well.

Sure, but Jeter is also pretty darn tall and fast. It's got to be pretty difficult to determine whether his speed or his wing span allows him to compensate for that slow first step.

But I'm not the one you have a problem with.

I don't have a problem with anyone, I'm just skeptical that anyone can really tell how an infielder's defense looks on television.

Yankees fans still dragging up that Cameron quote is hilarious to me. Let it go already.

Someone used to seein "UZR/150 -20" and seeing a +4 a month in a half into the season, and coming up with reasons to justify it is not valuable.

Agreed, and I will agree this can happen.

But I've not generally followed advanced defensive stats in-season. To my knowledge, that wasn't even possible until recently. I observed Jeter wearing concrete shoes in '07, looking better in '08 and even better last season. Now I am aware that I can look up defensive #s in season, and I will have to be aware of that and try not to contaminate my perceptions.


They don't see where he starts, because TV almost never shows the middle infielders' starting position.

Well, they're far too busy showing random fans or Toyota text polls.

But when I see repeated balls that I expect a play to be made on whiz through the IF, then either Jeter has poor range, or he is positioning himself poorly, or he is being positioned poorly. From a value standpoint, it makes no difference what the cause is. From an ability/projection standpoint, sure, but after 15 mostly successful years I'm guessing the Yankee coaches aren't idiots.


You don't really have a great sense of how hard a ground ball is hit on TV either nor a bar to compare it to since it's not like we get groundball speed the way we do on pitches.

Untrue. I have no idea of the actual speed but a good idea of the relative speed, having seen thousands of groundballs on TV over the years.


so many people on every baseball website I've visited are sure they are capable of determining how hard a play was for an infielder to make. Maybe I'm missing something.

On any individual play, it's possible there were circumstances that I just can't account for, watching half-drunk from my chair. After watching a lot of plays over many games, I get an idea of whether Fielder X is catching catchable balls.

But when I see repeated balls that I expect a play to be made on whiz through the IF, then either Jeter has poor range, or he is positioning himself poorly, or he is being positioned poorly.

But what is a catchable ball changes from play to play as the infielders are changing their alignments. I've seen plenty of SS miss balls that I'm used to seeing fielded, not just Jeter.

Well, they're far too busy showing random fans or Toyota text polls.

Isn't that the worst?

Untrue. I have no idea of the actual speed but a good idea of the relative speed, having seen thousands of groundballs on TV over the years.

I don't doubt that, but I think you need a bit more precision when trying to determine how good a fielder is. I bet a ground ball traveling 80 MPH and a ball traveling 90 mph look pretty similar on TV and the 90 MPH ball is obviously going to be more difficult to field.

After watching a lot of plays over many games, I get an idea of whether Fielder X is catching catchable balls.

I can tell whether Jeter is playing better or worse than he has in the past. There were a few of us here that knew Jeter was playing better d in 04 and when the numbers came out, it confirmed what we had observed. I don't think I have a grasp of what balls other shortstops will always get. And based on the number of times I see poster's complain in various game chatters that Jeter should have gotten a ball, I feel that most fans seem to think a lot more plays should be made than the numbers suggest.

when I see repeated balls that I expect a play to be made on whiz through the IF

Define repeated. If Jeter really has been as consistently terrible as Guy claims, then we're talking about one play every four games, or at most every three. If he's not quite that horrible, then it's even less. So even if you watch every single Yankee game, you're still exaggerating if you rouse from your drunken stupor to notice him missing another fieldable ball more than a couple of times a week.

are we deciding that 2.5 years of UZR are now meaningless?

Of course not. We've decided they're meaningless when they disagree with us. Totally different.

what's funny about the Cameron comment, and why people are entitled to bust his balls about it until the crack of doom, is how he gets all scouty and condescending: "I've WATCHED him and I can tell blah blah blah." [Also, I'm a Yankee fan, so, you know, schadenfreude!]

The thing about Jeter's badness is, isn't it very possible that the two statements, "worst shortstop ever to play at least n games at the position" [where n can be filled in by those who've spent more time on this subject] and "one of the worst ten shortstops in baseball every season, but never clearly the worst" can both be true?

"are we deciding that 2.5 years of UZR are now meaningless?"

Of course not. They have ALWAYS been meaningless.

OK, "meaningless" is a bit strong. But the answer to your question is really "compared to what?" If a guy has only played in MLB for 2 seasons, UZR might provide our best estimate of his defensive ability (depending on what kind of minor league data you have), with some substantial regression to the mean. But for a veteran like Jeter, we have a ton of data on how many outs he actually makes for his team. At that point, the advanced metrics become much less valuable. We only need them to the extent we think a player has faced a very unusual distribution of fielding opportunities. And after almost 50,000 balls in play, it is extremely unlikely that Jeter's opportunities differ much from average.

I don't know exactly how and when UZR has come to be seen as the "true" measure of what a fielder did in a given season. But it simply isn't true, and MGL would be the first person to tell you that.

Imagine someone did this analysis of Jeter's 2009 offensive performance: "I know Jeter posted a very impressive 132 OPS+. But I've analyzed the pitch f/x data, and discovered that he faced an unusually easy distribution of pitches that year. When I correct for that, I find Jeter was really only a 108 OPS+ hitter." I think the reaction of the Jeter fans here would be to dismiss this 'advanced' offensive metric, or at a minimum to treat it with great skepticism. Which would be entirely appropriate. But UZR -- which is basically doing the same thing -- gets treated as gospel. Deeply weird.....

I'll believe Jeter is an average SS if and when he starts making an average number of outs. So far, he's not even close.

But UZR -- which is basically doing the same thing -- gets treated as gospel.

That's not true. Most metrics show Jeter as being around average over the last couple of years, not just UZR. Additionally, nearly every metric has shown Jeter to be average during some other point in his career as well. The only person I've seen treat any defensive metric as gospel is you when it comes to WOWY, or whatever it's called.

I've noted how slow his first step is, not just relative to the opposing SS, but to his and his opponent's 3B as well.

Sure, but Jeter is also pretty darn tall and fast. It's got to be pretty difficult to determine whether his speed or his wing span allows him to compensate for that slow first step.

With precision, I agree it's difficult. But it's pretty easy to reason that it would make a difference on a subset of hard-hit balls. Speed can only make up the difference on slower-hit balls, but slower-hit balls are also an advantage to the runners. IOW, the balls a fast SS with a slow first step can get to that other shortstops can't are more likely to be hits anyway. That said, while Jeter may be fast relative to the average MLBer, he's not fast relative to the average MLB SS. I doubt his speed makes up for his slow first step.

His extra 3" advantage over the average (or median) SS buys back some of it. You could argue his arm makes up for some more. My impression, though, is that a slow first step gives up feet, not inches. I don't think my untrained visual capabilities allow for me to pick up a first step that translates into a loss of just a few inches of lateral movement for a typical ground ball.

CP: let's leave Jeter aside. Maybe that way we can find some things to agree on. Because my concern with the 'advanced' fielding metrics is not limited to (and certainly not motivated by) my view of Jeter. There are two main issues: sample size, and construction of the metrics.

1) On sample size, one year of fielding data (advanced or simple) is close to useless. With 2-3 years of data, you're starting to measure something real. At that point, are the advanced metrics better than just comparing outs made to the positional average (adjusted for BIP)? I really don't think we know. Assuming that every player faced BIP of average difficulty is clearly wrong -- but may not be any more wrong than what the metrics estimate. Measuring opportunities -- which is what all these metrics try to do -- is just very difficult (and I think some features of the metrics create systematic errors). Once you have, say, six or more years of data, I would have more confidence in a rating based on outs made vs. average (which is basically what WOWY does) than any of the PBP metrics.

2) There are a number of factors that likely cause the PBP metrics to rate extreme players (good or bad) as much closer to average than they really are. So for the same reasons I suspect a weak fielder is overrated, I think good fielders are likey underrated. A few possible reasons:
* Fielders are assigned more responsibility (i.e. higher penalty) when they touch a ball. If a SS knocks down a GB in the hole and prevents runners from advancing, he gets penalized more than if he fails to reach the ball at all. So high range fielders are penalized.
* Errors are assumed to be 100% the responsibility of the fielder. So a fielder who makes a lot of errors but also converts tough outs will get lower rating than the reverse (even if they make same number of outs)
* It's very likely that the difficulty rating given to each ball by the stringers is impacted by how close the fielder comes to the ball (and whether it's fielded) -- so fielders who are well-positioned and/or get to the ball quickly get rated as having "easier" chances (and slow fielders are thought to have tougher chances).
* Total Zone (which is a quasi-PBP metric) has an additional issue, which is that almost half of the blame for each missed ball (and credit for extra plays made) is given to other players on the team. This necessarily pushes ratings toward the mean, and also distorts ratings of other players.

Every one of these decisions represents a good-faith effort to measure fielders' opportunities, given the data that metric has to work with. But each one also introduces some error of its own. It's frankly not clear whether the result is any better than just looking at outs above average. For players with 2-3 years data, maybe it is. Over a career, I think looking at plays made per BIP (or GBIP) is probably better than every one of these metrics.