User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 0.4340 seconds
59 querie(s) executed
Dialed In — Wednesday, June 02, 2010Daily Dose of DefenseWe were discussing defensive analysis recently. Me, AROM, CW, Tango, Peter and we talked about lots of things. One of which is the regular availability of any stat that people want to use in discussions, and to make it readily available. Sean Forman recently added AROM’s TotalZone to his site, and you can check out the leaders daily. That’s always nice. People have been enjoying Fangraphs defensive leader boards. Both of these resources will also show you offensive leaders. Offensive stats rarely have the same level of skepticism, and hopefully we’ll get there with defensive stats as well. I can’t offer you anything special with offensive stats, so I am not going to. I could offer you something different, and maybe I will, but that’s pretty complicated. The fact is daily defensive stats is complicated. Fortunately, SG of Replacement Level Yankee Weblog is a genius. His hard work has enabled us to be able to generate my defensive system, DRS (the one before Bill James’), on a daily basis. Naturally, I cannot thank SG enough, and I am very appreciative of all he’s done, both with this and his historical file at RLYW. Here are the DRS numbers through May 31, 2010. With the various critiques of the methodologies that you hear all the time, TZ and UZR, having another option may provide you more data to feel better about your players. Plus, DRS comes from a different stat source, and that will allow us to see where some difference exist. For those that are not familiar with my methodology, here is the method. Now, that is dated 2005, but I really developed it a lot earlier, and that’s where I tried to refine it. The Mets newsgroup got the actual developmental changes. So when you hear about people developing methods, offensive or defensive, recall that people were doing it before there was really an internet with all these websites. I wanted to link those so you could see that not only do I rely on SG, I didn’t develop this without lots of critique and feedback from smarter people like Ron Johnson and Dale Stephenson. Read through those threads and you can see some interesting Defensive Average work from Dale and others. I enjoy reading those old threads. At any rate, thanks to SG’s Excel skills, I hope to update this spreadsheet often. I think weekly right now. It can be more often, but I have a job, and a scatterbrain. Please let me know if you see something that doesn’t seem to make sense - somehow a player is missing, or is on the wrong team. It shouldn’t happen, but I know that spreadsheets aren’t perfect. |
BookmarksYou must be logged in to view your Bookmarks. Hot TopicsSteve Austin is not a Baseball Player
(159 - 12:27am, Jul 07) Last: Infinite Yost (Voxter) Defensive Replacement Level Defined (41 - 1:20pm, Mar 14) Last: Foghorn Leghorn Reconciliation - Getting Defensive Stats and Statheads Back Together (30 - 1:42pm, Apr 28) Last: GuyM Handicapping the NL East (77 - 2:02pm, Oct 15) Last: The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Landing Buerhle a Great Move (79 - 8:43am, Feb 04) Last: Foghorn Leghorn Weekly DRS Update (Defensive Stats Thru July 19, 2010) (3 - 2:47pm, Sep 27) Last: Home Run Teal & Black Black Black Gone! You Have Got To Be Kidding Me (8 - 3:52am, May 01) Last: Harris Weekly DRS Update (Defensive Stats Thru July 4, 2010) (2 - 4:05pm, Jul 11) Last: NewGrass Weekly DRS Update (Defensive Stats Thru Jun 29, 2010) (5 - 12:47pm, Jul 04) Last: Harveys Wallbangers Weekly DRS Update (Defensive Stats Thru Jun 13, 2010) (15 - 1:51am, Jun 16) Last: Chris Dial Weekly DRS Update (Defensive Stats through games of June 6, 2010) (17 - 7:08pm, Jun 14) Last: Foghorn Leghorn Daily Dose of Defense (41 - 8:31pm, Jun 04) Last: Tango 2009 NL OPD (Offense Plus Defense) (37 - 11:22pm, Feb 17) Last: Foghorn Leghorn NOT authorized by Major League Baseball or its Member Teams (40 - 7:32pm, Feb 16) Last: GregQ 2009 AL OPD (Offense Plus Defense) (35 - 9:05pm, Jan 05) Last: Foghorn Leghorn Syndicate |
|||||||
|
About Baseball Think Factory | Write for Us | Copyright © 1996-2021 Baseball Think Factory
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
| | ||||||
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. Chris Dial Posted: June 02, 2010 at 02:27 AM (#3547824)And Starlin Castro is on pace for the worst season since they put on gloves! (Roughly -40/150)
And what has happened to Pedro Feliz? Boy, does NL Central defense stink. Pittsburgh, Houston and Milwaukee are where singles go to become triples. Yowsa.
And can you link to results for recent years, if you've put that together?
OK, we're on the same page as for precision. How about presentation? I think presenting without decimal places makes it much more appealing to look through. What say you others? If I'm in the minority and others want to see +3.27 instead of +3 I'll shut up.
But hey, I'm happy to have the work done. Good stuff Chris.
Two decimals wasn't intentional, and I apologize for that.
Do you have the access to load an HTML file to BTF? Because if you can do that, I could write an excel vba program that will take the results in your spreadsheet and automatically create an html page. I could probably integrate it into SG's macro for getting this data. All you'd have to do is hit one more button, and then when you get a new page load it to the website when it's done, maybe something like: baseballthinkfactory.com/dialed_in/drs.htm. Just a thought.
One question though: frequency?
The runs numbers are really +/- 5 runs, so I would even be in favor of rounding to those points.
Chalk me up to a precision level of no more precise than 0 decimals.
Hourly should do.
As for the presentation, what happens if you use the round function in the formula rather than relying cell formatting.
And is there (or will there be) any way to see results for 2008-2009?
My idea would be that I give you an excel program that you can run, I wouldn't have to do anything after the initial setup. Once I get my projections into my excel macro, the time to write the web pages takes about 3 seconds. So frequency will be totally up to you.
If you want to give it a try just email me the latest spreadsheet you're using to grab the data, and this weekend I should be able to put together a program. Do you use excel 2007? I am, but if you are on 2003 I think I'll still be able to save it in a format you can use, but no guarantees. Excel is usually backwards compatible but sometimes the vba language isn't.
It is total runs saved. Not /150. I can adjust the sheet to include more data as we think it is best done, without increase the work to get it there. I think Innings Played is useful.
On the right side of this blog is this blog's Hot Topics, and the OPD data for 2009 and 2008 should be there, although not broken out. I will have to create those. I can, but I haven't. I will.
So yes, you will see results for 2008-09, if you are patient...
That's not realistic Tango. Almost every player would be -5, 0, or +5 for most of the season. And is it really more accurate to say zero for +2.2, but +5 for +2.8? Your FIP metric gets reported to the hundredth of a run. Our stats are full of false specificity -- you just have to educate people and hope they use them in a reasonable way.
If you have 60 runs allowed in 150 IP and 61 runs allowed in 150 IP, then the ERA is shown as 3.60 and 3.66. I would be in favor of showing ERA to one decimal place. But, that ship has sailed.
If you were to shows UZR runs saved per game, and you have one guy at +20 runs in 130 G and another guy at +21 runs in 130 G, then their numbers are +0.154 and +0.162. I'd show that as at most two decimal places. You can even make the case for 1.
Yes, in the same way that rounding 5.49 to 5 and 5.51 to 6 is accepted. I don't understand the point. We always round to the level where the precision level allows us.
Right. Which was your choice, even though it's probably not accurate to more than a quarter run (depending on how one would choose to define FIP accuracy). But if you had rounded every pitcher to the nearest .25, there would be a lot less interest in the stat. So you compromised. And if Chris rounded to the nearest 5 runs, there would be exactly ZERO interest in his stat. Why should he do that?
As for rounding, the problem is that people use these to compare players. They will say the +5 player is "five runs better" than the zero player, when it may really be just 1 run. In that case, your rounding has created a less accurate perception by the casual reader than showing them as +2 and +3: rounding makes two roughly equal players appear qualitatively different.
I agree zero decimals is better than one. But not rounding to nearest 5.
Some might say that's a good thing, that two months of defensive data should be ignored. But people want baseball stats. And if your goal is to make this metric accessible, you aren't going to be able to compete with the metrics that do post daily/weekly updates from the start of the season.
Not that I can tell.
-- MWE
I heard MGL personally was tracking hangtime (almost exactly like the original project scoresheet), so I look forward to that data, although it'll be tough to control for the pitchers...
Exactly my point. The level of precision only goes so far. Even for hitting stats by the way, which should probably be rounded to the closest 3 runs.
So, you can construct a reasonable argument for rounding to the closest 5, or 3, or even 1. But to the closest one-tenth of a run? There's no reasonable argument there. There may be an argument to be made, but it won't be based on reason.
No, there is no "reasonable argument" for rounding to the nearest 5 runs. Because that ensures no one will have any interest in this metric. You report WOWY over an entire career to the nearest run. You report FIP to two decimals, and Marcel ERAs as well. Marcel BA is calculated to three places. You don't hold yourself to this standard, so why here?
If you report someone with +4.5 runs accumulated, that's different than saying someone's rate after 500 games is +4.5 runs per 150 G.
Also it would be nice to see some indication of playing time by position (I understand that this may be more work that it's worth right now)
I'm not following. Are you saying it's OK to report rates with more specificity than totals? Why?
neither is too difficult. I can add innings, but It won't be as clean. Maybe. It also isn't any work to organize the order as you like. It's 30 seconds of work. The order they are in is alphabetical, which is just the easiest.
Let's say the precision is in the ones. So, we are happy to say that someone is +32 UZR has performed better than someone with +31 UZR.
If both played 500 games, you would report your rate such that the two would be different. So, say you report UZR per G. The +32 in 500 G would be +.06400, and the +31 in 500 G would be +.06200.
I'd be ok with showing the players as +.064 and +.062. You COULD show them as +.06. Making them both +.1 does't make sense, nor does showing them as +0.0 UZR / G make any sense.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main