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

Thursday, January 10, 2008

THT: Defense ratings for the retrosheet years

Last year, I figured out how to use Retrosheet’s files and build a play-by-play database. Soon after, I came up with a new defensive system that utilized only that play-by-play data: Knowing who ultimately fielded each hit, and whether the hit came on a fly ball, line drive, ground ball, or pop-up, I decided which fielder was truly responsible for the hit. I then combined that number with the fielder’s plays made and errors to produce a zone-rating-type estimate that I called TotalZone.

 

 

AROM Posted: January 10, 2008 at 03:45 PM | 75 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: history, sabermetrics

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.

   1. Der Komminsk-sar Posted: January 10, 2008 at 05:25 PM (#2665443)
This is fantastic.
   2. AROM Posted: January 10, 2008 at 05:30 PM (#2665450)
There's one question on the ballhype link - I can't remember my password and won't be able to respond there until I get to my home email, but I'll answer it here and later post back to ballhype.

I use Access 2003, with the data grouped by years into 7 databases. I take a "fielding extract" from each, with just the plays and fields I need to run this, and load those into a separate database. I takes lots of hours to set up and crunch the whole thing. I'm really glad its done for now - at least until I find 10-20 things I need to do to improve it, which I trust everyone here will help me identify.
   3. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: January 10, 2008 at 05:31 PM (#2665451)
#1 - I was going to post that. Now I'm reduced to merely agreeing.
   4. Dag is a salt water fish in fresh water world Posted: January 10, 2008 at 05:32 PM (#2665453)
Cool stuff.

Only had time to skim the article, so apologies if the article covered this but does this system factor in double plays for second basemen? I was surprised to see Maz in 3rd.

Man, the Orioles had a helluva infield defense for a while, didn't they?
   5. AROM Posted: January 10, 2008 at 05:36 PM (#2665454)
No, double plays not included, but I'm working on a calculation for that. Retrosheet has the data as long as someone is willing to crunch it.

Not only the infield defense, they had Paul Blair in center. Pitching in fron of that defense was a pitcher's wet dream.
   6. SG Posted: January 10, 2008 at 05:38 PM (#2665460)
Great stuff Rally. One other adjustment that might be useful is looking at out percentage vs. pitcher-handedness. Unless I missed it in the article you don't make an adjustment for that.

It would be interesting to see how TotalZone correlates with standard ZR back through 1987.
   7. DKDC Posted: January 10, 2008 at 05:42 PM (#2665465)
Very cool idea.

I just discovered the retrosheet play-by-play data myself, and I'm starting to process the data using mysql on this website.

I'm at a very prelimanary stage, but would you mind if I steal some of your ideas when I get around to doing defense?
   8. Super Creepy Derek Lowe (GGC) Posted: January 10, 2008 at 05:46 PM (#2665471)
Is there a particular reason that you stopped at '86? If memory serves, that's around when STATS started keeping track of Zone Rating, but I wasn't sure if that was your reason. Bill James mentioned Relative Range Factor as a possible historical system in The Fielding Bible. According to that measure, Dave Concepcion's 1976 was historic. Here, it's +8. One thing Bill adjusted for that I didn't notice here was handedness of the pitcher.
   9. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: January 10, 2008 at 05:46 PM (#2665473)
Weird, I never knew Yaz was such a good fielder.

Surprised that both Sweet Lou and Frank White are ahead of Maz, even though the time period cuts off parts of their careers, while Maz gets his entire career in there.
   10. AROM Posted: January 10, 2008 at 05:47 PM (#2665474)
Yes, steal, improve on, whatever.

I would ask to keep your stuff open source, but that's up to you.
   11. Super Creepy Derek Lowe (GGC) Posted: January 10, 2008 at 05:49 PM (#2665478)
SG is quicker on the draw than me. I swear, it took me at least 8 minutes to compose that response.
   12. AROM Posted: January 10, 2008 at 05:49 PM (#2665479)
Is there a particular reason that you stopped at '86? If memory serves, that's around when STATS started keeping track of Zone Rating, but I wasn't sure if that was your reason.


Zone rating is the reason. I've calculated beyond 1986, but I feel zone rating is a better measure for those years.

Pitcher handedness - yes, I will add that to the list of improvements.
   13. Best Dressed Chicken in Town Posted: January 10, 2008 at 05:51 PM (#2665481)
Surprised that both Sweet Lou and Frank White are ahead of Maz, even though the time period cuts off parts of their careers, while Maz gets his entire career in there.

Bet counting the whole career could cost them.
   14. Kiko Sakata Posted: January 10, 2008 at 05:52 PM (#2665483)
I've calculated beyond 1986, but I feel zone rating is a better measure for those years.


How well do your results correlate to zone rating?
   15. AROM Posted: January 10, 2008 at 05:54 PM (#2665485)
I'm missing the first 5 years of Willie Mays - He'd probably be ahead of Blair.
   16. AROM Posted: January 10, 2008 at 05:55 PM (#2665486)
How well do your results correlate to zone rating?


Can answer that tonight.
   17. RobertMachemer Posted: January 10, 2008 at 05:57 PM (#2665488)
Are these numbers runs above/below average or replacement value?

Thanks a bunch for doing this, Sean Smith, wherever you are. I was just talking about Don Buddin yesterday in the Red Sox newsgroup but had little to say about his defense (he seemed to have below-average fielding percentages and above-average range factors, according to bb-ref, but what that means, I don't know). This at least gives me something else to point to.
   18. DKDC Posted: January 10, 2008 at 06:07 PM (#2665500)
I would ask to keep your stuff open source, but that's up to you.

Of course, although I doubt I will add anything, I'm more looking to pull together everything in one place for my own analysis.
   19. Super Creepy Derek Lowe (GGC) Posted: January 10, 2008 at 06:20 PM (#2665518)
Are these numbers runs above/below average or replacement value?
Average. No one uses replacement level as a baseline for defensive stats, to my knowledge.
   20. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: January 10, 2008 at 06:22 PM (#2665520)
The next time someone wanders in here touting Bill Madlock or Rusty Staub and dismissing the defense with a wave of the hand please point them to this article.
   21. SG Posted: January 10, 2008 at 06:26 PM (#2665526)
Since zone rating came up, I'll whore my Zone Rating database for 1987-2007. It uses Chris Dial's method of converting ZR to runs saved. 1987-2001 uses estimated chances, 2002-2007 uses actual chances as defined by Stats Inc.

http://www.replacementlevel.com/stuff/sg/1987-2007 Defense.zip.

This is in MS Access format, but I can make a CSV if there's a demand for it.
   22. Super Creepy Derek Lowe (GGC) Posted: January 10, 2008 at 06:31 PM (#2665535)
There's a spreadsheet linked to the article. Jackie Guiterrez sucked as much with the glove as he did with the bat. But he probably has a great personality.
   23. AROM Posted: January 10, 2008 at 06:32 PM (#2665536)
I was just talking about Don Buddin yesterday in the Red Sox newsgroup but had little to say about his defense


For most of the best/worst list I could tell exactly who it was from the retro id, but I had to look him up. What happened to him? He was a pretty good hitter for a middle infielder, had 160 bad AB at age 28, and never played again. I would think that even if they didn't like his D at short, he could have played second.

On second thought, its happening all over again! Low average, lots of walks, medium power, good overall offense for his position, not so great on D, loses his job at first sign of a slump - D'Angelo Jimenez!
   24. AROM Posted: January 10, 2008 at 06:35 PM (#2665538)
Thanks, SG, I need to update mine - I realized the copy you sent me a while ago was just through 2005.

Harveys - what do you think about the best/worst list? Is there anyone you think is rated egregiously wrong?
   25. DL from MN Posted: January 10, 2008 at 06:52 PM (#2665562)
There are a few names I'm interested in:

Norm Cash
Reggie Smith
Frank Howard
   26. AROM Posted: January 10, 2008 at 07:07 PM (#2665576)
The spreadsheet at the bottom of the article will give you career and season ratings for everyone.

Its a big file, a little over 2 MB.

I remember Smith doing very well and Howard pretty bad. Not sure on Cash.
   27. Mister High Standards Posted: January 10, 2008 at 07:21 PM (#2665587)
Brother Rally, you may be my favorite analyst. This should be a SABR pres, as you actually bringing NEW information to the table and not just reshaping old information.
   28. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: January 10, 2008 at 07:29 PM (#2665595)
First, I forgot to state my compliments to the author. Nice work.

AROM, I am flattered you ask but no, I think this does a fine job of validating what folks suspected but didn't "know". My only quibble is that I think it must be overstating left field in Fenway. Yaz was a good outfielder but not THAT good. Some quirk I imagine.

And yes, Al Kaline really was that good. Just one of those guys who always got where he needed to be.

And Greg Luzinski was just horrible. It's been stated before but it's almost impossible to decribe to folks today how bad Luzinski was in the outfield. It was like watching one of Howard Stern's drunken, angry dwarves (dwarfs?) play the field........
   29. OCF Posted: January 10, 2008 at 07:34 PM (#2665599)
I had to look it up: the 1982 Cardinal infield. For that year: +13, +12, +19, +9. (In the order Hernandez, Herr, Smith, Oberkfell.) The infield subs that get listed seem to add up to about zero.

What would be a good Baltimore infield? Let's say 1973: -2, +25, +26, +21. Yikes!

In the Hall of Merit, we did elect Keith Hernandez, and I'm feeling good about that. We also elected Jim Palmer, and we should have - but if you don't look at this, you're overrating Palmer.
   30. Sandlapper Spike Posted: January 10, 2008 at 07:40 PM (#2665607)
If I'm reading this right, Norm Cash was +35 as a first baseman over his career, with a rather steep decline in the last few years.

Frank Howard: -19 in RF, -45 in LF, -10 at 1B

Reggie Smith: +42 in CF, +27 in RF
   31. AROM Posted: January 10, 2008 at 07:51 PM (#2665618)
Could be I'm adjusting too much for the wall. I'll have to check the home/road breakdowns for Red Sox LF, if I'm doing it right the home and road ratings should match up over a 31 year period.

This should be a SABR pres, as you actually bringing NEW information to the table and not just reshaping old information.


Thank you. Thanks to everyone for the compliments.
   32. OCF Posted: January 10, 2008 at 07:51 PM (#2665619)
Adventures in turning OF and C into third basemen:

Joe Torre, 1971: -22 (dims some of the luster of hitting .363)
Joel Youngblood, 1984: -20
Frank Thomas, 1958: -16 (this would be the white Frank Thomas)
Johnny Bench, 1982: -15
Mike Shannon, 1970: -14 (in a short season)
Hal Smith, 1959: -13
Pete Rose, 1975: -12
Pedro Guerrero, 1984: -9 (hey, a lot of "real" 3B are worse than that)
   33. OCF Posted: January 10, 2008 at 07:56 PM (#2665622)
In the Hall of Merit, we did elect Keith Hernandez, and I'm feeling good about that.

On the other hand, we gave Jimmy Wynn a lot of peak credit for 1969. This has him at -26 in CF. (But is the Dome another really weird park to watch out for?)
   34. BDC Posted: January 10, 2008 at 07:57 PM (#2665623)
Left field:
...
Sarge Matthews -83
Greg Luzinski -94


A Philadelphia tradition for a while :)

Edit: Greg Gross, caddy for both those gentlemen, was -16 for his mostly part-time career.

Bob Dernier was +19 for his brief career, I am happy to say :)
   35. AROM Posted: January 10, 2008 at 07:59 PM (#2665624)
We also elected Jim Palmer, and we should have - but if you don't look at this, you're overrating Palmer.


I was thinking that too. But then, maybe its Palmer's greatness that is overrating Brooks, Blair, and Belanger? I'm not sure how to best approach that but it's worth studying. I don't consider this a finished project, and I'm perfectly happy if somebody else takes this and brings it to the next level.
   36. Kyle S Posted: January 10, 2008 at 08:00 PM (#2665625)
if Harvey is right on Fenway, that would explain both the extreme positive values for Yaz and the close-to-average numbers for Manny. I don't think Manny is as bad as UZR has said in the past, but I don't think he was average last year.
   37. Mike Green Posted: January 10, 2008 at 08:00 PM (#2665626)
Did Michael Humphreys publish historical DRAs? I thought that he did, and I wonder what the correlations with TZ+ would be.
   38. AROM Posted: January 10, 2008 at 08:03 PM (#2665630)
On the other hand, we gave Jimmy Wynn a lot of peak credit for 1969. This has him at -26 in CF. (But is the Dome another really weird park to watch out for?)


I'm going to assume this is wrong. Retrosheet has a lot of missing plays in 1969, mostly concentrated on the Astros, Braves, Pirates, and Padres. The first run I had an amazing number of plays credited to the rightfielder, but there are probably bugs messing up ratings for all those teams. Probably best to throw out the ratings for 1969 and 1970 for those teams.
   39. AROM Posted: January 10, 2008 at 08:06 PM (#2665634)
SG posted this in the Dial gold gloves thread:

I just did my Manny home/road ZR splits for 2007.

Home: .618, -25 DRS, -72/162 games
Road: .830, -4 DRS, -13/162 games

Average LF in Fenway was: .686, so Manny was far worse than any other LF at Fenway in 2007. It could be a sample size issue or a BIP distribution issue.


That's a huge park split.
   40. Super Creepy Derek Lowe (GGC) Posted: January 10, 2008 at 08:15 PM (#2665638)
Gary Geiger:

geigg101 Geiger Gary CLE 1958 cf 167 10
geigg101 Geiger Gary CLE 1958 rf 13 
-1
geigg101 Geiger Gary BOS 1959 cf 202 
-2
geigg101 Geiger Gary BOS 1959 lf 75 3
geigg101 Geiger Gary BOS 1960 cf 21 
-1
geigg101 Geiger Gary BOS 1960 rf 169 
-7
geigg101 Geiger Gary BOS 1961 cf 485 
-4
geigg101 Geiger Gary BOS 1962 cf 445 1
geigg101 Geiger Gary BOS 1963 cf 349 0
geigg101 Geiger Gary BOS 1965 cf 40 1
geigg101 Geiger Gary ATL 1966 cf 56 
-6
geigg101 Geiger Gary ATL 1966 rf 16 0
geigg101 Geiger Gary ATL 1967 cf 51 
-3
geigg101 Geiger Gary ATL 1967 lf 17 0
geigg101 Geiger Gary ATL 1967 rf 13 
-3
geigg101 Geiger Gary HOU 1969 lf 56 
-1
geigg101 Geiger Gary HOU 1969 rf 25 
-
   41. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: January 10, 2008 at 08:20 PM (#2665649)
Brooksie's numbers are incredible.

In the Hall of Merit, we did elect Keith Hernandez, and I'm feeling good about that. We also elected Jim Palmer, and we should have - but if you don't look at this, you're overrating Palmer.

A few months ago, someone made a pretty convincing case in a BBTF thread that Palmer pitched to contact, and could dial it up and get strikeouts when he needed them. So, while his defense obviously helped him, it's not clear that the great defense should be held against him.
   42. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 10, 2008 at 08:23 PM (#2665651)
How well do your results correlate to zone rating?

Can answer that tonight.
Yes, I think it would be instructive to compare all these various sophisticated methods and see how they correlate. (The ways in which they differ may be more interesting than the ways in which they're similar.)
   43. GuyM Posted: January 10, 2008 at 08:49 PM (#2665680)
AROM: Very nice work. Do you have thoughts on the very low correlation for RF? I recall DSG commenting in the past that defensive metrics vary most widely in rating RFers. Is there a general lack of agreement across all metrics, or is this perhaps revealing a UZR problem?

The correlation is also a bit low at 1B, which is also true for Fox's SFR. One thought there is that 1Bmen may vary a lot in how much they defer to 2Bmen on grounders that either player can handle. It doesn't really matter at the team level who makes the play, but could create the appearance of large differences. (I suppose that 1Bman could also vary a lot in terms of how much they defer to RFs on shallow FBs.)
   44. studes Posted: January 10, 2008 at 09:01 PM (#2665686)
Yaz may not have been that good, but in my book he'd be close. No one played the Fenway wall better than Yaz. He was amazing. Of course, the fact that he managed the wall so superbly may be what's making his overall number explode.
   45. studes Posted: January 10, 2008 at 09:08 PM (#2665693)
That's absolutely true about Palmer. I noticed the same thing when I wrote about him last year.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/the-all-time-best-pitchers/

(he's No. 19)
   46. Kyle S Posted: January 10, 2008 at 09:10 PM (#2665697)
I just did my Manny home/road ZR splits for 2007.

Home: .618, -25 DRS, -72/162 games
Road: .830, -4 DRS, -13/162 games

Average LF in Fenway was: .686, so Manny was far worse than any other LF at Fenway in 2007. It could be a sample size issue or a BIP distribution issue.


That's a huge park split.

Well sure, I agree there's SOME difference. Of course, as that says, he was much worse than average when compared with other LFs who played at Fenway, and he was still -13 per 162 on the road (your system puts him as above average in 2007. It stretches credibility, if you take the road -4 runs as a given, to believe he was +6 at home after park adjustment in 75/80 games (which is what he would need to be to bring his overall average in line with the total zone rating), considering all other LF were so much better than he was at Fenway.

Don't get me wrong, Sean, I think this work is fantastic. Of course you are going to have some guys where the data looks questionable, for a variety of reasons. That doesn't invalidate the system. But I think it does raise questions, and one of those is whether the Fenway park factor is correct. I think both Manny's and Yaz's ratings suggest it's too forgiving.
   47. Mister High Standards Posted: January 10, 2008 at 09:13 PM (#2665699)
I think both Manny's and Yaz's ratings suggest it's too forgiving.


Or that general perception is too harsh.
   48. AROM Posted: January 10, 2008 at 09:26 PM (#2665706)
I wouldn't read too much into one year values - this stat may have had Manny at +1 last year, but the 4 years before that he's averaged -5. This may yet be too forgiving, but its consistent with SG's stuff.

For Yaz, its important to read this the right way. He may have the highest positive value of any LF during that time period, but he's no Willie Mays. I have him at +11 runs per full season of chances (500 for LF). That suggests an excellent corner outfielder (but not the best on a per season rate - check out Willie Wilson) who would be slightly above average if he were playing center. Over his career Yaz did play a season's worth in center, 159 games, and is +5 there.

The way I read the data he was a centerfield - quality defender (though not an elite one) who played a long career in left. Sound about right?
   49. John M. Perkins Posted: January 10, 2008 at 09:28 PM (#2665708)
Jim Rice +40
   50. AROM Posted: January 10, 2008 at 09:29 PM (#2665709)
Waiting on Deck:

- per 500 chance rating of the composite Fenway left fielder, not including those named Carl, Jim, Mike, or ManRam (oh yeah, and Ted - got his last 5 years).

- career home/road splits for those who do have those first names.
   51. John M. Perkins Posted: January 10, 2008 at 10:13 PM (#2665750)
Checking a few that my eyes said were very good:
Mike Squires 1B -1
Rocky Colavito +38, but -3 in the year I saw a lot of him and thought he was very good (1964)
Aurelio Rodriguez 3B +73

Checking one my eyes said was average:
Zoilio Versailles -3, but +14! in 1965.

Checking one my eyes said was overrated:
Claudell Washington -49
   52. Alex meets the threshold for granular review Posted: January 10, 2008 at 10:34 PM (#2665765)
This plus Dial's numbers puts Ozzie at +263.
   53. greenback calls it soccer Posted: January 10, 2008 at 10:38 PM (#2665768)
Jim Rice +40

Dwight Evans is +62.
Darrell Evans is +55.
   54. Kyle S Posted: January 10, 2008 at 10:57 PM (#2665785)
Or that general perception is too harsh.

Could be, Matt.

I look forward to stuff on deck, AROM. I do understand what you're saying - generally, LF is where you dump bad outfielders, so a LF who is historically elite at defense would not then become a historically elite defender in terms of all OFs. That makes sense.
   55. J. Michael Neal Posted: January 10, 2008 at 11:16 PM (#2665794)
And Greg Luzinski was just horrible. It's been stated before but it's almost impossible to decribe to folks today how bad Luzinski was in the outfield. It was like watching one of Howard Stern's drunken, angry dwarves (dwarfs?) play the field........

When I was a kid, we lived in Philadelphia for three years during the late 1970s. I had a Greg Luzinski doll. When you pulled the string in its back, the doll said, "It's yours, Garry. It's yours, Garry. It's yours Garry."
   56. Super Creepy Derek Lowe (GGC) Posted: January 10, 2008 at 11:33 PM (#2665805)
On Old Primer, Tim McCarver would show up about now and say "75% of the earth is covered by water. The rest is covered by Gary Maddox."
   57. AROM Posted: January 10, 2008 at 11:40 PM (#2665806)
And Greg Luzinski was just horrible. It's been stated before but it's almost impossible to decribe to folks today how bad Luzinski was in the outfield.


Take the outfielders who can run and put them in center, take the ones who can throw and not so immobile to negate their arms and put them in right. Compare Luzinski to what's left - and he still has the worst negative run value of any player in that time period.
   58. AROM Posted: January 11, 2008 at 12:25 AM (#2665822)
For 56-86 there is no Manny and very little Greenwell, plus only a few years of Ted, so I did splits just for Carl and Jim.

Yaz: Home +60 (+11/500)
Road: +54 (+10)

Rice Home: +13 (+3)
Road: +29 (+6)

Other RS: home +22 (+5)
Road: +0

Visiting players were +117 (+8 per 500) which is a red flag and means I have to look further.

Right now I don't have it set up to look at how opponents did against the Red Sox on the road.
   59. AROM Posted: January 11, 2008 at 12:28 AM (#2665825)
One more thing - I have Rice at -4 in 1987 and 0 in 1988. Zone rating has him as awful, as of course it doesn't adjust for the wall.
   60. AROM Posted: January 11, 2008 at 01:35 AM (#2665843)
Mazeroski on doubles plays is another +32 for 1957-1969. I haven't done any more years, and at this point I have the value of an extra double play at .44 runs - same run value as a CS, and he's splitting the credit with the shortstop 50/50.

I haven't gotten to 3B double plays yet, but he should get half credit for those too. Also, perhaps a 2B should get more credit than the SS for the pivot, but I'm not sure how much.
   61. Vogon Poet Posted: January 11, 2008 at 01:40 AM (#2665845)
Don Mattingly is decidedly average. That's...disappointing.
   62. booond Posted: January 11, 2008 at 02:01 AM (#2665853)
I understand this is a ton of information and you may be early in the process, but what is unclear to me is how there can be wild swings in performance.

I looked at Kaline and Clemente and they had massive swings from year to year. Both go from excellence to mediocrity and, in some cases worse, one year to the next.

Since both played in the same park with the same team and were reasonably consistent in health (Clemente's ailments notwithstanding) and batting performance it seems strange that one year they're great and the next not so much.
   63. walt williams bobblehead Posted: January 11, 2008 at 02:57 AM (#2665875)
Visiting players were +117 (+8 per 500) which is a red flag and means I have to look further.



There's no problem. Left field at Fenway is such a magical place that it makes all players above average.

Great article.
   64. Kyle S Posted: January 11, 2008 at 03:18 AM (#2665881)
Other RS: home +22 (+5)
Road: +0

This includes Ted Williams' time; did he play evenly at home and on the road? He was a really, really bad outfielder by the end of his career, it looks like.
   65. AROM Posted: January 11, 2008 at 07:07 AM (#2666008)
I looked at Kaline and Clemente and they had massive swings from year to year. Both go from excellence to mediocrity and, in some cases worse, one year to the next.


Kaline:
1956 +7
1957 +14
1958 +22
59-60 moved to center, was about average
1961 +17
1962 +4
1963 +1
1964 +13

After that he's in his decline phase, never above +10 but never below -3 either. I'd call that remarkably consistent. You should check the 2003-2007 UZR file, linked at the end of my article, to see what kind of year to year swings to expect. If you're expecting a great fielder to be +12 +13 +9 +14 +12 +15 before you say its consistent, I don't think you'll hardly ever find it.

Clemente:

You've got a point here, in an otherwise great career he's -7/-9 in 1960-1961, then -14 in 1969. The 1969 is likely a data error, as I said before there was a problem with missing plays in the retrosheet files that year. 60-61, I'm not sure. It does look a little weird but its not unprecedented for defensive measure to have fluctuations like that.
   66. AROM Posted: January 11, 2008 at 07:11 AM (#2666011)
Carlos Beltran, 2003 to 2006, UZR:
+31
+10
+2
+14

Craig Biggio
2005 -7
2006 +13

Its why you always want to look at multiyear data if you have it.
   67. AROM Posted: January 11, 2008 at 07:15 AM (#2666012)
Johnny Damon:
+12
0
-11
+10

Its all just sample data. The bigger your sample the better your estimate.
   68. booond Posted: January 11, 2008 at 07:51 AM (#2666023)
I understand if we can document definite change in environment or health then a good fielder may have ups and downs. But fielding is a skill that shouldn't change radically. Clemente didn't go from a fine fielder in the late fifties to a mediocre one in the early to mid sixties and then back and forth. I'd expect flucuations as he aged, but his numbers before the end were pretty good.

Obviously, he as one example is a tiny sample... maybe an issue with his data or something not yet defined.
   69. DL from MN Posted: January 11, 2008 at 04:40 PM (#2666170)
Interesting or notable players:

Sal Bando +48 (better than reputation and other measures)
Bert Campaneris +79
Orlando Cepeda -21 (confirms)
Ron Cey +43 (strong until 80s decline)
Dave Concepcion +35 (only mid-70s were remarkable)
Nellie Fox +60 (partial data)
Jim Fregosi +15
Bobby Grich +79
Reggie Jackson +9
Harmon Killebrew -60
Chet Lemon +99
Eddie Mathews +38 (not a butcher over there)
Tony Perez -10
Willie Randolph +40
Ron Santo +26
Willie Stargell -110 (!)
Dave Winfield -55
Robin Yount (as a SS) +23
   70. Mike Emeigh Posted: January 11, 2008 at 04:50 PM (#2666187)
Retrosheet doesn't have all of the games before 1972, and a large number of the games that it is missing are Pittsburgh games, so not all of Maz's data is in there.

-- MWE
   71. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: January 11, 2008 at 05:06 PM (#2666203)
I didn't expect Bucky Dent (+57) to be better than Rick Burleson (+18). I'm not surprised by Willie Davis (+110), but it's still impressive.

Right now I don't have it set up to look at how opponents did against the Red Sox on the road.

Why is this more relevant than how these people did against everyone on the road?
   72. OCF Posted: January 11, 2008 at 05:15 PM (#2666211)
Re: Maz. Besides the missing Pittsburgh, Houston, etc. data, I think we also await AROM's version 2.0 in which he figures out a way to deal with double plays.
   73. AROM Posted: January 11, 2008 at 05:28 PM (#2666224)
Why is this more relevant than how these people did against everyone on the road?


Because of the impact of facing Red Sox hitters.

The park factor is definitely too strong, if figured out why last night but still working on how to best fix it. Working on infield park factors as well, they make much smaller impacts than the outfield PF, but some of the beneficiaries are Concepcion and Maz, moving up about 15-20 runs.

On missing plays, I noticed a large number of plays coded as fielded by = 9, 1st assist = 9 and 1st putout = 9. Those are the plays I tried to remove. Are there entire games with no records at all as well?
   74. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: January 11, 2008 at 05:32 PM (#2666233)
Wow. I didn't realize that hitters had that much of an impact on fielding stats -- that is to overwhelm the significance of the larger sample size.
   75. AROM Posted: January 11, 2008 at 05:57 PM (#2666254)
Maybe not all fielding stats, but this particular one is built on the hitter's data.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
James Kannengieser
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - November 2014
(1139 - 2:45am, Nov 27)
Last: stevegamer

NewsblogSandy Alderson says Mets can move quickly if a shortstop becomes available - NY Daily News
(17 - 2:30am, Nov 27)
Last: Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad)

NewsblogDarvish cleared to throw « Postcards From Elysian Fields
(9 - 2:30am, Nov 27)
Last: Jim (jimmuscomp)

NewsblogSource: Tomas agrees to six-year deal with D-backs | MLB.com
(13 - 2:19am, Nov 27)
Last: Walt Davis

Newsblog2015 Potential Hall of Fame Ballot | Baseball-Reference.com
(31 - 1:23am, Nov 27)
Last: bobm

NewsblogOTP Politics November 2014: Mets Deny Bias in Ticket Official’s Firing
(5002 - 1:10am, Nov 27)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 11-25-2014
(9 - 1:05am, Nov 27)
Last: esseff

NewsblogBaseball’s Teen-Age Twitter Reporters - The New Yorker
(9 - 1:01am, Nov 27)
Last: Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66)

NewsblogNotable Players Available In The Rule 5 Draft - BaseballAmerica.com
(6 - 12:46am, Nov 27)
Last: starving to death with a full STEAGLES

NewsblogBoston Red Sox owner John Henry hopeful on re-signing Jon Lester, says team willing to exceed luxury tax - ESPN Boston
(1 - 12:40am, Nov 27)
Last: sinicalypse

NewsblogShould the Red Sox Be Afraid of Hanley Ramirez Being Hanley Ramirez? - Red Sox - Boston.com
(31 - 12:31am, Nov 27)
Last: sinicalypse

NewsblogDave Cameron: A proposed three-way swap for Red Sox, Mariners, Nationals
(28 - 12:15am, Nov 27)
Last: sinicalypse

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(8707 - 11:04pm, Nov 26)
Last: Dog on the sidewalk

NewsblogBoston Red Sox prove (once again) that competitive balance in baseball will never exist | cleveland.com
(21 - 10:50pm, Nov 26)
Last: Lance Reddick! Lance him!

NewsblogWendy Thurm on Twitter: "What the hell kinda panda is that?"
(14 - 10:47pm, Nov 26)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

Page rendered in 0.3867 seconds
53 querie(s) executed