Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, November 01, 2005

Major League Baseball : First-timers highlight AL Gold Gloves

It’s official: Derek Jeter is the Gold Glove winning shortstop.

Congrats to Orlando Hudson for finally getting his due.

Jim Furtado Posted: November 01, 2005 at 11:53 PM | 109 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

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 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. Sean McNally Posted: November 01, 2005 at 11:58 PM (#1715129)
It’s official: Derek Jeter is the Gold Glove winning shortstop.

And so it shall be til the end of time. Was there ever any doubt?
   2. shaftr Posted: November 01, 2005 at 11:59 PM (#1715132)
Well, as a White Sox fan I'm a little shocked to not see Uribe, Crede or Rowand on this list. it has already been discussed in another thread about Jeter, but I'm also very upset about Hunter over Rowand. Hunter missed 70 games, I don't see how anyone should be rewarded in a season they missed nearly half the games in.
   3. My guest will be Jermaine Allensworth Posted: November 02, 2005 at 12:09 AM (#1715146)
Man, looking back at the highlights, Rowand was on some kind of tear from
Aug. 7 to Aug. 10.
   4. base ball chick Posted: November 02, 2005 at 12:11 AM (#1715148)
do these guys ever have to defend stuff like jeter getting gold gloves instead of uribe or cabrera?
   5. Johnny Tuttle Posted: November 02, 2005 at 12:11 AM (#1715149)
2 Blue Jays! You'd think White and Alomar were still around!

shaftr, where can I read the jeter discussion? Thank you.
   6. Halofan Posted: November 02, 2005 at 12:14 AM (#1715156)
How many games did Hunter even play? I think Jeremy Reed deserved CF, and I HATE the Mariners.

Orlando Cabrera was robbed.

I can see Teixeria over Erstad kinda but not really, and Orlando Hudson over Adam Kennedy was the one I thought would elude the Angels, but the Jeter vote drains all credibility from the award.
   7. DCA Posted: November 02, 2005 at 12:14 AM (#1715157)
Yeah, Rowand and Kotsay should have been easy picks in the OF. Uribe or Lugo or Cabrera at short -- I actually thought it would be Cabrera with his rep and fewest errors, but I guess he didn't hit well enough. Chavez just has to play and he'll get it every year, no surprise there. Rogers had a lower ERA than Mussina, so he was an easy pick. I'm surprised about Hudson over Ellis and Roberts, clearly he's deserving but he's no stronger a candidate than previous years, while Ellis and Roberts are.
   8. mr. man Posted: November 02, 2005 at 12:17 AM (#1715161)
the gold gloves were credible awards? did i miss a memo?
   9. Johnny Tuttle Posted: November 02, 2005 at 12:17 AM (#1715162)
Jeter: legacy?
   10. Bull Pain Posted: November 02, 2005 at 12:28 AM (#1715179)
Buehrle is a better defender than Rogers or Mussina and it's not even close. Plus he's been the better actual pitcher for some time. Cabrera should have been the easy choice at SS.
   11. Dewey, Soupuss Not Doomed to Succeed Posted: November 02, 2005 at 12:31 AM (#1715190)
Cabrera should have been the easy choice at SS.

Uribe and Peralta have arguments, but I would have no problem with Cabrera.

Like I said in the Jeter thread, Aaron Rowand's problem is that he's too good - he makes it look easy out there.
   12. Repoz Posted: November 02, 2005 at 12:36 AM (#1715195)
Excellent...this will only push the Yankees harder to go and assgrab the Torre Hunter.

Imagine 2 GG'ers on the Yanks...who's gonna squawk now!

Weeeeeee!
   13. Matt Welch Posted: November 02, 2005 at 12:40 AM (#1715204)
Kennedy was superb at 2B this year.
   14. Ryan Lind Posted: November 02, 2005 at 01:26 AM (#1715252)
As was Hudson.
   15. DCW3 Posted: November 02, 2005 at 01:35 AM (#1715263)
They ought to start releasing the full Gold Glove voting results like they do with the MVP. We could see what percentage of voters are voting for the really inexplicable choices.
   16. Scoriano Flitcraft Posted: November 02, 2005 at 01:43 AM (#1715269)
Off the top of my head, Hudson seems to have the best range of any 2B I have ever seen, at least since Sandberg was was at his peak at that position.
   17. Johnny Tuttle Posted: November 02, 2005 at 01:47 AM (#1715272)
Hudson could easily be accepting his third straight well-deserved GG today. It's about time he got one.
   18. Johnny Tuttle Posted: November 02, 2005 at 01:48 AM (#1715273)
Hudson's range is very good, but Alomar was the best.
   19. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: November 02, 2005 at 01:52 AM (#1715277)
Rowand absolutely should have won a GG. He annoyed me so much in the ALDS.
   20. Dave Spiwak Posted: November 02, 2005 at 02:09 AM (#1715295)
I remember being at the peak of my pumped-up-ed-ness over Kennedy becoming one of the emergent best defensive second-basemen in the AL-- this was going into the series with the Blue Jays where the Angels got swept in Toronto (the same series with the Donnelly 10th inning wild-pitch loss and the 18-inning 2-1 loss)-- and I was blown away by Hudson. Rex Hudler was gushing like only he can about Hudson's D and I couldn't blame him. The only question was when this guy was going to get some credit for all of his underseen and seemingly hitherto unnoticed glove-work. Jeez was Bret Boone really better than this guy at second? Not that being better actually matters.
   21. Bernal Diaz has an angel on his shoulder Posted: November 02, 2005 at 02:15 AM (#1715300)
This is why postseason awards don;t mean #### to me.
   22. Los Angeles Waterloo of Black Hawk Posted: November 02, 2005 at 02:29 AM (#1715309)
I haven't seen enough of Hudson to have a view of him vis-a-vis Kennedy, but I think they're both terrific. Maybe they should have just given out two Gold Gloves at 2B this year and taken away the GG from SS.
   23. RP Posted: November 02, 2005 at 02:29 AM (#1715310)
What about Elvis?
   24. RP Posted: November 02, 2005 at 02:32 AM (#1715315)
That was a response to Bernal BTW.
   25. Anthony Giacalone Posted: November 02, 2005 at 02:39 AM (#1715327)
The only really bad choices on the list are Jeter and Hunter. I thought Cabrera was a shoe-in, although I believe that Uribe was just as good. Nothing wrong with the Vernon Wells choice and Suzuki was good. Hunter missed half the season though was isn't better than Rowand or Kotsay when he's healthy.

Rowand's biggest problem is that he doesn't look like a centerfielder. I mean, Hunter and Wells look like fly-chasers. They are tall and lanky with long strides. Rowand has been the best defensive centerfielder in the AL for three years but looks like a college linebacker. Uribe suffers from a similar problem. He's a fat little guy who fields the postion "wrongly" by coming around the ball instead of backhanding it. With the Sox championship, I would expect that Rowand, Uribe and Crede will get more consideration next year. Rowand got tons of props from McCarver during the Series but the Fox team genuinely seem surprised by Uribe and Crede's prowess. That said, Crede will be lucky to ever get an award while Chavez is still in the league. Gold gloves have always been a legacy award.
   26. stealfirstbase Posted: November 02, 2005 at 03:08 AM (#1715349)
Uribe could probably improve his defense further if he just misplaced his spare tire. As is, it doesn't seem to be holding him back too much.

Instead of trying to change his appearance to get a gold glove, I suggest aaron Rowand stop taking diving swings at sliders low and away.

The same applies to Crede: Except, you know, he needs to stop popping up pitches at his shoelaces. I still can't fathom how he does that. And it's not just once a week...he does that on a regular basis.
   27. Dirty Tom Rackham Posted: November 02, 2005 at 04:23 AM (#1715402)
Rowand's biggest problem is that he doesn't look like a centerfielder. I mean, Hunter and Wells look like fly-chasers.

Rowland is listed at 6-0, 200. Wells is listed at 6-1, 225. Perhaps the difference is that Wells is more smooth in the field, but he's certainly not lanky.
   28. My guest will be Jermaine Allensworth Posted: November 02, 2005 at 04:34 AM (#1715412)
I don't think Rowand's that tall. I saw him play in the minors, and he looked more like 5'10".
   29. Bull Pain Posted: November 02, 2005 at 04:44 AM (#1715420)
I was face to face with Rowand when he was in Charlotte a few years back. He was not taller than me and I'm 5'10".
   30. Hendry's Wad of Cash (UCCF) Posted: November 02, 2005 at 04:46 AM (#1715422)
Gold gloves have always been a legacy award.

That's the truth. Jeter will win until he's so old and broken down that he's barely playing any more.

I think the problem with having coaches/managers do the voting is that, really, they see only snippets of other teams every year. If you play against Cabrera or Uribe or Jeter 14-19 times, how can you really say one is that much better than the others unless you just catch that subset of games where they are really good or really bad? So it's just as easy to write in the names from the previous year until it's totally obvious that they can't do the job anymore.

Of these guys who won long strings of Gold Gloves in a row, were there any who didn't get the last 2-4 over a newer, younger player who had already emerged as a better defender?
   31. WillYoung Posted: November 02, 2005 at 04:54 AM (#1715428)
Excellent...this will only push the Yankees harder to go and assgrab the Torre Hunter.

That was my first thought, too.
   32. 5.00, .280/.320/.400, 4th outfielder Posted: November 02, 2005 at 04:58 AM (#1715431)
First of all the reason Hunter won was he is faster and also looks smoother. But I'm wondering if in a non ninth inning close situation
is the risk of injury worth risking the injury especially if you can hit.
   33. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: November 02, 2005 at 05:05 AM (#1715435)
Aaron Rowand should have gotten something...

Juan Uribe or O-Cab I would have lived with. Jeter? C'mon
   34. nycfan Posted: November 02, 2005 at 06:04 AM (#1715470)
Varitek was a pretty bad choice. I assume he won for the same reasons as Jeter (well liked, team leader)
   35. Shredder Posted: November 02, 2005 at 06:11 AM (#1715473)
Teixeira over Erstad? Funny, I thought it was an award for defense.
   36. WillYoung Posted: November 02, 2005 at 06:15 AM (#1715476)
Varitek was a pretty bad choice. I assume he won for the same reasons as Jeter (well liked, team leader)

Now that you mention it, Joe Mauer was robbed. Pretty humorous that Torii ends up with another GG and Joe doesn't get one since Torii gets all the positive press while Mauer gets backhanded compliments from the Twin CIties media. Now they just have one more thing to use against the Chairman as Franchise Player argument.
   37. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: November 02, 2005 at 06:20 AM (#1715478)

The same applies to Crede: Except, you know, he needs to stop popping up pitches at his shoelaces. I still can't fathom how he does that. And it's not just once a week...he does that on a regular basis.



Wow, you would have figured that the grace period would last at least a couple of weeks. That's some world-class crankiness.
   38. Eraser-X is emphatically dominating teh site!!! Posted: November 02, 2005 at 06:22 AM (#1715479)
Rowand doesn't get props because he teleports to fly balls. Sometimes I've seen Podsednik start running in the wrong direction, get back to about where he started from and there's Rowand camped out in left field making the catch.

Everyone says that Guillen is going to get mad endorsements this offseason, but I think Rowand should get a fat contract peddling camping goods for Sportsmart.

Of course I have my hometown prejudice, but I would have been happy to see the O.C. or Peralta at SS too.
   39. mgl Posted: November 02, 2005 at 08:00 AM (#1715536)
Although defensive metrics are not the end-all in terms of a player's true defensive skill/performance, the GG awards are without a doubt the biggest jokes of all the awards. Unless you see all of the players almost every day and you are skilled at "defensive observation" there is simply no way of having any clue who is the best at any defensive position. Plus there really are no "stats" to look at to help you in your decision.

Here are the UZR's for the AL GG's and here are the UZR GG's for 2005. All UZR's are per 150 defensive games.

Jeter -14
Hudson +12
Texeira +16
Hunter +2
Varitek -4
Wells +4
Suzuki +2
Chavez +5

As most knowledgeable fans and analysts suspect, Jeter's award is by far the biggest joke. So is Varitek's I think. Since when is he considered a good defensive catcher? BTW, my numbers above do not consider arms for OF'ers and "turning the DP" for infielders.

Here are the AL UZR Gold Gloves:

Pudge +14
Texeira +16 (Morneau +15)
Ellis +15
Tejada +12 (Cabrera +14)
Mora +14 (Inge +13)
Crisp +38
Logan +30 (Rowand +24)
J Guillen +27 (Swisher +37)

Remember these are per 150 defensive games.

Here are the anti-UZR GG awards:

Varitek -4
Sexson -18
Soriano -20
Teahan -28
M Young -21
Manny -47 (park adjusted, as they all are)
Kotsay -22 (Finley -19)
Nixon -13 (Sheff -12)
   40. Don Guillote (The Cheat) Posted: November 02, 2005 at 08:06 AM (#1715538)
Rowand doesn't get props because he teleports to fly balls. Sometimes I've seen Podsednik start running in the wrong direction, get back to about where he started from and there's Rowand camped out in left field making the catch.
Like this?
   41. Jorge Luis Bourjos (Walewander) Posted: November 02, 2005 at 08:14 AM (#1715540)
Well, I've been blown away by Hudson's D all year. Not having seen too much of Kennedy. Halo's fans (or Halofan), how's his style compare to the O-Dog? Is he as flashy, or more positionally solid?
   42. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: November 02, 2005 at 08:19 AM (#1715543)
Manny -47 (park adjusted, as they all are)

Manny rules!
   43. Phil Coorey is a T-Shirt Salesman Posted: November 02, 2005 at 09:24 AM (#1715563)
Thanks MGL.

I an angrier that Varitek won one, than I am about Jeter winning another.
   44. Los Angeles Waterloo of Black Hawk Posted: November 02, 2005 at 09:47 AM (#1715567)
Finley at -19? I think you forgot a zero on the end; -19 strikes me as way too high.

Manny at -47 seems ... wow, I don't know what it seems. I can fathom -20, maybe even -30 ... but nearly five wins below average? Combined with his hitting, baserunning, and position, that means Manny was a below-average player. It boggles the mind. However, his ZR was just awful, so I'm not surprised to see UZR rip him ...
   45. DCW3 Posted: November 02, 2005 at 09:52 AM (#1715571)
Manny at -47 seems ... wow, I don't know what it seems. I can fathom -20, maybe even -30 ... but nearly five wins below average? Combined with his hitting, baserunning, and position, that means Manny was a below-average player.

By my calculations, in 2005 Manny had an RCAP of--you guessed it: 47. I know there are better offensive measures than RCAP, but I love the symmetry.
   46. fra paolo Posted: November 02, 2005 at 10:10 AM (#1715575)
J Guillen +27

Is he not an NLer in 2005?
   47. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: November 02, 2005 at 10:27 AM (#1715578)
Thanks MGL

Can I post your data elsewhere, attributing it to you of course?
   48. mgl Posted: November 02, 2005 at 11:33 AM (#1715594)
Can I post your data elsewhere, attributing it to you of course?

Sure. I am not a huge fan of one year "anythings" let alone one-year defensive measures, even PBP ones like UZR. There are two sources of "error" for UZR. One is the methodology itself. A player may get a UZR which is not necessarily indicative of his true defensive performance for a variety of reasons. Among those reasons are that the positioning of the fielders may be a little different than the league average positioning, the fielder may have fielded lots of balls which were not too difficult to field but which were in a "zone" (remember that even UZR uses "zones," albeit smaller than zone rating's) in which only a small percentage of balls are usually fielded by that defensive position, the fielder may have had a number of balls just outside his reach (anyone's reach) but were in a zone in which most balls are fielded by that defensive position, adjacent fielders (in the OF) may have fielded more or less than their share of balls, balls that are recorded as hard hit were not really hit all that hard, etc., etc. Two, a fielder's one-year performance, even if the methodology to record that performance is "perfect," is merely a sample of his "true" defensive talent, just like a hitter's one-year BA is merely a sample of his "true" bA. Those two sources of "error" overlap, BTW. For example, one reason why a fielder's one-year performance (say, as measured by UZR or ZR) may be quite different than his "true" defensive talent may be that he just happened to make a lot of difficult or spectacular plays in that one year or it may be that the methodology was biased or innacurate (which it always is to some degree) such that a player's one-year performance was not really spectacular even though the numbers (the defensive metric in question) say that it was.

Since carefully watching a fielder can add lots more information and can clarify incomplete information that the data and crunching the data cannot provide, a much more accurate assesment of defensive performance and talent can be made by combining the "numbers" and the "scouting reports" (quality observation). This is especially true with defense, BTW. So something like Tango's "fan scouting report" plus UZR can give us a nice picture of a player's defensive performance and true defensive talent. Of course, in the long run, metrics like UZR can give us a darn accurate picture to the point that we don't really need any scouting. I'm not sure, but I think that Tango likes to use something like "one year of UZR gets 40% credit and scouting gets 60% credit. Two years of UZR and it is like 60% UZR and 40% observation, etc. I may be off on these percentages....
   49. mgl Posted: November 02, 2005 at 11:35 AM (#1715595)
Sorry, Guillen is NL. Swisher rules and Jacque Jones is next at +13 per 150...
   50. mgl Posted: November 02, 2005 at 11:39 AM (#1715596)
If you think Manny was bad, wait til you see Griffey's UZR! Both players are pretty worthless overall (why do you think that BOS would love to get rid of Manny), although I think that Manny's 05 was somewhat of an aberration. I would put his "true" UZR at -20 or -25. Griffey on the other hand, probably has an other-wordly "true" UZR. Other than as a DH, he is worse than replacement overall, but that is CIN's problem right now. He and Dunn are god-awful. That is the primary reason why the CIN pitchers were so poor, especially Milton, in 05...
   51. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: November 02, 2005 at 11:40 AM (#1715597)
BTW. So something like Tango's "fan scouting report" plus UZR can give us a nice picture of a player's defensive performance and true defensive talent.

Thanks MGL.

Even though I'm an amateur, this is basically what I do. I also take a gander at defensiev WS when I try to evaluate defense (when I'm debating with people, etc.)

I don't know about you... but what I try to do is
a) Take a look at the available long-term data (well, up until 2003 and whatever bone you're allowed to throw us the past 2 years) of UZR
b) Compare that with defensive WS (I like the way it's done, don't ask why, completely irrational)
c) Compare that with Tango's project to see if what we see is what we get.

I dont' really have a "proportional" way of weighing the methods... but basically
1) If all of the above says a player is good defensively, the player is probably good
2) A player is probably teh suck if the above 3 say he is teh suck
3) If there's discrepancy, I actually like to go with the fan evaluation. I'd like to think the fans (especially people that visit Tango's site and scout) are smarter than the average bear.
   52. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: November 02, 2005 at 11:43 AM (#1715598)
especially Milton

You can't catch that shiite that gets rocked into the stands.
   53. Johnny Tuttle Posted: November 02, 2005 at 01:03 PM (#1715608)
I can't believe it never occurred to me before that Manny's defence could possibly be so poor that he rates out as an average player overall. I guess he could be a baseball Vince Carter.

However much I trust and value comments from MGL, of course, I still do have a hard time thinking that positionally, the Sox are losing the AL LF battle with Manny.

A while ago during the 2005 season (say during August), I did a quick and dirty look at the raw OPS numbers of AL LFers (i.e., I clicked once or twice on the ESPN stats pages to try to win an argument at Battersbox.ca). Very surprisingly, I found that F-Cat was the picture of a league average LFer despite his lack 'o power. Just think about how much better than average Manny is offensively over his AL LF competitors, not as offensively gifted as the position's reputation may suggest.

More advanced metrics than raw, unpark adjusted OPS may not show F-Cat to have ended the year as the league average, of course, but insofar as he is close to average, the bar is certainly low.
   54. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: November 02, 2005 at 01:26 PM (#1715612)
Umm... here's my question:

does Ortiz do more damage at 1B than Manny in LF?
   55. Chris Dial Posted: November 02, 2005 at 02:14 PM (#1715627)
Manny -47 (park adjusted, as they all are)

Hmmm. that means something like:

On average (based on my ZR research), something like 350 FBs are hit to LF over 162 def games. That means *on average*, Manny would see ~325 FBs in 150 DG.

Due to my years of experience, an OF ZR chances is: (Putouts - 5) I don't know why or how - that's just what it is.

So Manny had 243 POs. That means 238 ZR chances. His ZR was 0.729

238/0.729 = 326.5 (almost like I know what I am doing).

The average AL LF ZR is something like 0.87 (I'm at work, not home).

326.5*0.87 is 284 outs.

284-238 = 46 plays not made.

46 plays not made in LF is about 40 runs (maybe 38). So Manny looks to be -38 on the back of the envelope.

Now about his arm: he threw out 17 baserunners. The average is about 8-9. That's approximately 9 runners at 0.75 each, or 6. (MGL's numbers do not include arm)

So I think I would rate Manny as about -32 runs.

I did all that off the cuff, but I'll have to see what my formulas come up with when I get home.

Manny's defensive numbers have been in sharp decline for a few seasons.
   56. Chris Dial Posted: November 02, 2005 at 02:14 PM (#1715628)
Thaks for posting those, MGL, it'll make my Gold Glove article much better.
   57. Johnny Tuttle Posted: November 02, 2005 at 02:25 PM (#1715633)
Am I right, Chris, in assuming that the difference between Manny and a league average LF offensively (let's assume that F-Cat really is offensively and defensively league average if that helps) is greater than 32 runs?
   58. Chris Dial Posted: November 02, 2005 at 02:25 PM (#1715634)
Among those reasons are that the positioning of the fielders may be a little different than the league average positioning, the fielder may have fielded lots of balls which were not too difficult to field but which were in a "zone" (remember that even UZR uses "zones," albeit smaller than zone rating's) in which only a small percentage of balls are usually fielded by that defensive position, the fielder may have had a number of balls just outside his reach (anyone's reach) but were in a zone in which most balls are fielded by that defensive position, adjacent fielders (in the OF) may have fielded more or less than their share of balls, balls that are recorded as hard hit were not really hit all that hard, etc., etc.

These are all good observations.

Except: (remember that even UZR uses "zones," albeit smaller than zone rating's)

That's a typo - the UZR zones are larger. Much larger.
   59. Chris Dial Posted: November 02, 2005 at 02:40 PM (#1715647)
Johnny,
I believe so.

According to DCW above, he came in around 47 RCAP (for a Lwts, that'll probably be about 44).

I'll have an article shortly that encompasses both offense and defense so we can see who hte *real* MVP is.
   60. Johnny Tuttle Posted: November 02, 2005 at 02:47 PM (#1715657)
thanks
   61. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: November 02, 2005 at 03:04 PM (#1715671)
Man, Glasskow's numbers are a little off from the UZR numbers.
   62. Chris Dial Posted: November 02, 2005 at 03:10 PM (#1715681)
My pleasure.

Shortly I will provide everyone with the spreadsheets they need to do all these themselves. Then when I write these articles, everyone can check my math, or can tromp around the internet as just as big of an expert as anyone else. (I'll include instructions for the easiest way to fill out the spreadsheet). Who knows - maybe someone has a better idea than I do. That's why this is an open source/research effort, rather than "IT's MINE, BUGGER OFF" type thing.

These are just numbers, kids. Each of us is just as full of #### as the next.

I WILL do it every year, and once I get more data for my defensive method, I'll generate mid-season, and say, monthly reports on performance, including immediate MVP reports in September, so you can get your IBA ballots right.
   63. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: November 02, 2005 at 03:12 PM (#1715687)
My biggest beef with UZR is still the fact taht it doesn't include foul pop outs and line drives. I've heard the explanations before, I don't know how to fix the problem, but i still don't like it.

Also, how does Catcher UZR work? i've never heard the inner workings.

I actually really like Catcher WS.
   64. Danny Posted: November 02, 2005 at 03:19 PM (#1715694)
Wow. Kotsay's ZR was way down this year, but I didn't expect that much of a dropoff in UZR. That contract extension is looking pretty poor if that's more than a fluke...
   65. AROM Posted: November 02, 2005 at 03:20 PM (#1715696)
Chris, what's the timetable for posting my article? You may not have gotten the emails I sent before work this morning, but go ahead and use my real name.

Actually, since there is another primate (and Angel fan, no less) who has the same name as me, post my article as "Chone Smith"

I knew Manny was bad. MGL has him rated even worse than I do. I really dread the horrors he'll cause for Angel pitchers once that stupid deal is done.

They could be wise and get him as a DH, but it wouldn't surprise me if they put him in left, Anderson in center, and take -75 from the outfield next year.
   66. Chris Dial Posted: November 02, 2005 at 03:21 PM (#1715697)
I've heard the explanations before, I don't know how to fix the problem, but i still don't like it.

Well, you have to understand that those plays are luck-driven AFAICT.

It take sa long time to sort that out - there *could* be an advantage to going and getting the pop-ups, but hte likelihood that that amounts to mroe than a few runs (2-3) is unlikely. And it would take *ALOT* more work, so the tradeoff isn't there.

THere is no Catcher ZR - it's an assemblage of CS/SB/PB/ etc.
   67. Chris Dial Posted: November 02, 2005 at 03:23 PM (#1715702)
Rally,
Dan and I discussed it last ight. He was reviewing and posting (last night he said, but that's Szym). It will be posted today (if I do it when I get home from work).

Dan wanted to get you a Pen Name rather than Rally.

Thanks.
   68. AROM Posted: November 02, 2005 at 03:24 PM (#1715705)
Kotsay gets a lead glove in my ratings, too, but its more like -11. My numbers are not as extreme in either direction as UZR (especially for the OF), but with either system you probably get a 2006 projection for Kotsay around average.

Maybe he'll move to left since they resigned Payton.
   69. Chris Dial Posted: November 02, 2005 at 03:25 PM (#1715707)
Rally,
I just heard from Dan. Your article will be posted in about 5 minutes (I am betting).
   70. Mike Emeigh Posted: November 02, 2005 at 03:25 PM (#1715709)
Fenway LF has to be park-adjusted in zone ratings, because of the wall; defenders can't play normal depth there, so the areas they can typically cover are different than the norm. Same with Houston LF (the Crawford boxes), OP@CY RF (the scoreboard), and a couple of others.

An appropriate adjustment for the park dimension would probably help Manny look better (although certainly not enough to make him look good). His high assist total is to some extent also a park effect, because the short LF gives him shorter throws to the infield.

-- MWE
   71. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: November 02, 2005 at 03:26 PM (#1715711)
there *could* be an advantage to going and getting the pop-ups, but hte likelihood that that amounts to mroe than a few runs (2-3) is unlikely

Foul balls taht drop - not outs
Foul balls that get caught - outs

Can't they just make extra "zones" on foul ground or something? It'll probably most likely apply for 1B, 3B, and C, and you gotta adjust for parks too, which is probably the tricky part
   72. Chris Dial Posted: November 02, 2005 at 03:27 PM (#1715712)
Yes, MWE, but it only "sort of" impacts his data.

He still plays *roughly* the same distance from teh wall as otehr LFs in their parks. That should increase shallower ball consumption, and balls in the gap really aren't in his ZR anyway.

The only real question is how many FBs hit off the wall (as I mentioned earlier).

It impacts the other parks MUCH MUCH less.
   73. Chris Dial Posted: November 02, 2005 at 03:30 PM (#1715715)
Can't they just make extra "zones" on foul ground or something? It'll probably most likely apply for 1B, 3B, and C, and you gotta adjust for parks too, which is probably the tricky part

ZR *has* extra zones for foul balls like that.

The point is that there is no skill in catching those *by and large*. Every MLB player can catch roughly the same pop-ups.

THere are a few that are in that deep section that could be discerned, but it isn't a very large impact on runs saved. Look at hte totla number of Putouts infielders have, and you can work out the math, with FCs and routine popups in hte infield.
   74. Vida Blew Over the Legal Limit Posted: November 02, 2005 at 03:32 PM (#1715718)
As always, Rodgers gets the award for the gaudy offensive numbers that he puts up.
   75. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: November 02, 2005 at 03:33 PM (#1715719)
Fair enough.
   76. AROM Posted: November 02, 2005 at 03:38 PM (#1715722)
Its very hard to determine skill on infield line drives, there are just so few plays.

Tango said that it would take 40 years of data to have any confidence in a player's ability on line drives.

My response was that for line drives, we can only rate Julio Franco.
   77. AROM Posted: November 02, 2005 at 03:40 PM (#1715728)
An appropriate adjustment for the park dimension would probably help Manny look better (although certainly not enough to make him look good).

The scary thing is that MGL's -47 for Manny is park adjusted.
   78. Mike Emeigh Posted: November 02, 2005 at 04:05 PM (#1715764)
Back when STATS was still providing zone data via STATS Online (in the good old days of BBS's), I looked at Fenway's data in some detail. Not only Boston ZRs were depressed, but so were those of the opposition LFs playing there. The difference was substantial, as I recall; LF ZRs in other parks were in the high-.700s, in Boston they were in the mid-to-upper .600s - and the difference was of roughly the same order for Boston fielders and for the opposition. The difference was smaller for RFs at OP@CY (something like upper-.700s to low .700s). I don't have the data any more, unfortunately (it disappeared in one of my many computer swaps since then), but I expect that the same issue still exists.

-- MWE
   79. Mike Emeigh Posted: November 02, 2005 at 04:06 PM (#1715765)
The scary thing is that MGL's -47 for Manny is park adjusted.

It's park-adjusted for run value at Fenway - not for distribution of balls in play and expected zone coverage based on the park dimensions.

-- MWE
   80. Danny Posted: November 02, 2005 at 04:21 PM (#1715795)
Kotsay gets a lead glove in my ratings, too, but its more like -11. My numbers are not as extreme in either direction as UZR (especially for the OF), but with either system you probably get a 2006 projection for Kotsay around average.

Maybe he'll move to left since they resigned Payton.


Kotsay still has a very good arm, so maybe they'll move him to right. If Swisher's UZR is to be believed, though, maybe they'll stick him in CF.
   81. Chris Dial Posted: November 02, 2005 at 04:32 PM (#1715826)
Swisher's UZR isn't to be believed. There has to be a calc error there.
   82. Taverna Posted: November 02, 2005 at 04:35 PM (#1715833)
Jeter for MVP!!!!!!!
   83. AROM Posted: November 02, 2005 at 05:35 PM (#1715948)
Swisher ranks 13th of 19 in standard zone rating. UZR counts all flyballs, not just the ones recorded by STATS in his zone, so maybe he's getting to a ton of flyballs outside the RF zone. I doubt it though, as his range factor is the lowest of the 19 RF's listed on ESPN.

Not saying UZR is wrong, its just very hard to believe this one.
   84. Rodder Posted: November 02, 2005 at 05:37 PM (#1715952)
Abreau A Gold Glove Winner

Always mixed emotions when one of my favorite players on my favorite team wins an undeserved award. Although he has improved his fielding around the wall, covers decent ground and has a plus arm, a Gold Glove for him is a little Palmeiro-ish.
   85. Rodder Posted: November 02, 2005 at 05:39 PM (#1715960)
Always mixed emotions when I incorrectly spell the name of one of my favorite players on my favorite team.
   86. SuperGrover Posted: November 02, 2005 at 05:40 PM (#1715964)
Everyone says that Guillen is going to get mad endorsements this offseason, but I think Rowand should get a fat contract peddling camping goods for Sportsmart.

I don't know why, but that made me LOL. Rowand reminds me of my brother-in-law except he's in shape and plays crazy mad CF.

As far as White Sox defenders go, Uribe has a beef (as does Cabrera) and Rowand got robbed. Crede is good, but Chavez is pretty good himself. Plus, no one saw this team play until the postseason when it was pretty clear that all three guys were incredible defensive players. As such I expect many more accolades next season-you know, World Series afterglow and all that.
   87. AROM Posted: November 02, 2005 at 05:40 PM (#1715965)
Scouting report for the fans rated Swisher about average.
   88. Chris Dial Posted: November 02, 2005 at 06:47 PM (#1716108)
As noted before:
Comp R R^2
Chone/MGL 0.8 0.64
Chone/DSG 0.64 0.4
DSG/MGL 0.72 0.51


These ratings are pretty close. We'll see how well Dial mixes in, when I get it finished.

The difference between MGL and DSG on Swisher is 54 runs.
   89. Chris Dial Posted: November 02, 2005 at 06:50 PM (#1716117)
Because Chone and I have similar starting points, he and I will almost definitely match with a high correlation.

Consarnit. I didn't adjust all that data to the same baseline.

DSG,
are your runs for the IP the player played, or adjusted to a full season (or 150 DG)?

Chone,
same question? I have to adjust MGL's numbers (or you guys) to the proper playing time.

My spreadsheet does both out of the gate, so I wasn't sure.

That could increase Chone's agreement with MGL considerably.
   90. AROM Posted: November 02, 2005 at 06:57 PM (#1716138)
My numbers are not per season, its actual runs.
   91. Danny Posted: November 02, 2005 at 07:13 PM (#1716191)
All the links from Old Primer are broken. Does anyone know where I can find MGL's articles explaining UZR?
   92. AROM Posted: November 02, 2005 at 07:16 PM (#1716203)
The true talent, 2002-2005 column is per season though. Its based on a standard number of opportunities instead of games or innings, which is what MGL does.
   93. Chris Dial Posted: November 02, 2005 at 07:42 PM (#1716277)
Danny,
I think they should be at www.tangotiger.net
   94. Danny Posted: November 02, 2005 at 07:46 PM (#1716288)
Thanks, Chris, but I only see the ratings there--not the articles.
   95. TOLAXOR Posted: November 02, 2005 at 07:54 PM (#1716303)
So something like Tango's "fan scouting report" plus UZR can give us a nice picture of a player's defensive performance and true defensive talent. Of course, in the long run, metrics like UZR can give us a darn accurate picture to the point that we don't really need any scouting. I'm not sure, but I think that Tango likes to use something like "one year of UZR gets 40% credit and scouting gets 60% credit. Two years of UZR and it is like 60% UZR and 40% observation, etc. I may be off on these percentages....

WOULD THERE BE ANY BENEFIT TO TAKING MULTIPLE DATA SOURCES CONCERNING FIELDING FOR A SPECIFIC PLAYER, AND ATTEMPTING TO CREATE A LOGICAL FRAMEWORK (SOME SORT OF FLOWCHART BASED HIERARCHY COMES TO MIND) FOR FIELDING??? USE THE FRAMEWORK TO RUN MONTE CARLO SIMULATIONS ON AN INDIVIDUAL PLAYER TO CREATE A DISTRIBUTION THAT CAN BE MEASURED AGAINST OTHER PLAYER DISTRIBUTIONS TO EVALUATE PERFORMANCE???

JUST WONDERING...
   96. Chris Dial Posted: November 02, 2005 at 07:59 PM (#1716310)
TOLAXOR,
I will have that in a few days.
   97. TOLAXOR Posted: November 02, 2005 at 08:07 PM (#1716326)
PLEASE GET IT POSTED WHEN YOU DO...

I'D BE INTERESTED IN YOUR FRAMEWORK!!!
   98. Chris Dial Posted: November 02, 2005 at 08:22 PM (#1716345)
Well, it won't be a complete workup like you are saying, but it will have teh smorgasbord of methodologies compared.
   99. TOLAXOR Posted: November 02, 2005 at 09:11 PM (#1716469)
WELL, MONTE CARLO PLUGINS FOR EXCEL ARE CHEAP - THE HARD PART IS A FRAMEWORK THAT MAKES SENSE....

YOU COULD CREATE A "RANGE" BRANCH THAT INCLUDES ZR TYPE RATINGS, A "HANDS" BRANCH THAT INCLUDES ERRORS AND CHANCES, AN "ARM" BRANCH, A "DEPENDENCIES" BRANCH THAT INCLUDES RATINGS FOR PLAYERS AROUND THEM (I.E. SS BENEFITS FROM A GOOD 3B), PARK RATING, ETC...

DROP IN RANGES OF RATINGS (O-CAB RATES A .93 TO .98 IN ZR) AND THEN RUN THE FRAMEWORK THROUGH MONTE CARLO AND GET A DISTRIBUTION...

SOUNDS SO SIMPLE, I'M SURE SOMEONE'S ALREADY DONE IT...
   100. Chris Dial Posted: November 02, 2005 at 09:15 PM (#1716476)
That sounds quite Forman-licious.
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
The Id of SugarBear Blanks
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP - July 2014: Republicans Lose To Democrats For Sixth Straight Year In Congressional Baseball Game
(3010 - 5:20pm, Jul 24)
Last: The Good Face

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread- July 2014
(909 - 5:17pm, Jul 24)
Last: HMS Moses Taylor

NewsblogAs shifts suppress offense, time has come to consider a rule change
(88 - 5:16pm, Jul 24)
Last: Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class

NewsblogOMNICHATTER: 7-24-14
(30 - 5:11pm, Jul 24)
Last: Davo Dozier

NewsblogYadier Molina serves his brother crackers on a plate — home plate
(29 - 5:11pm, Jul 24)
Last: Greg K

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 7-24-2014
(9 - 5:01pm, Jul 24)
Last: Eric J can SABER all he wants to

NewsblogBuck Showalter, Tommy Hunter bemoan shrinking strike zone in Orioles loss
(8 - 4:58pm, Jul 24)
Last: Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim

NewsblogIntentional Walk Issued to Bonds Yields Unintentional Disbelief (Happy Birthday, Barry)
(6 - 4:57pm, Jul 24)
Last: Batman

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread July, 2014
(381 - 4:56pm, Jul 24)
Last: Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class

NewsblogFivethirtyeight: Billion-Dollar Billy Beane
(10 - 4:54pm, Jul 24)
Last: AROM

NewsblogCSN: Enough is enough — time to move on from Ryan Howard
(68 - 4:18pm, Jul 24)
Last: Tom Nawrocki

NewsblogPaper of Record Archives (Vintage Sporting News) Gone
(31 - 4:14pm, Jul 24)
Last: Batman

NewsblogA's designate Johnson for assignment
(11 - 4:05pm, Jul 24)
Last: Batman

NewsblogTwitter / Ken_Rosenthal: Mariners announce acquisition of Kendrys Morales for RHP Stephen Pryor.
(7 - 3:56pm, Jul 24)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

Newsblog2015 Competitive Balance Lottery Results
(26 - 3:03pm, Jul 24)
Last: villageidiom

Page rendered in 0.6276 seconds
52 querie(s) executed