Old school stats vs. new school stats

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    Some of the new stats are kind of redundant. If a shortstop has a lot of assists, he probably has good range. Either that or he knows how to position himself for the situation. Some outfielders never seem to change position from batter to batter, while others move around according to the situation . A pitcher's won/loss record in conjunction with his ERA is more telling than a stat like WHIP , which ignores extra base hits, as well as a pitcher's ability to pitch out of a jam.  All in all the new stats are okay , but you really can evaluate a player from the old stats. That and watching the games. I think to some fans , fantasy baseball has replaced actual baseball.



    Not necessarily true.

     

    He could get a lot of assists because the pitching staff gives ua lot of ground balls.

    Much like with RBI, it can be about opportunity.

     

    Not to mention,  a SS playing on turf would probably have fewer assists than an equivalent counterpart playing on grass.   Does that make the grass SS a better defender?

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to Beantowne's comment:

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

     

    In response to pinstripezac's comment:

     

    I'm suggesting pitching today for a team

    with a good offense hurts a pitchers era

    I'm under the impression in the old days

    the starters stayed in the game much longer

    no matter what the score was

    today a tired pitcher with a lot of runs to work with

    will stay in the game and be allowed to give up a few more

    while the pitcher with no lead to work with

    will be pulled B4 he gives up the few more runs

     

    even today how  fair is it  to compare a starters era

    with a great  BP vs  one with a bad BP

     



    All good points zac.  A starter's ERA can be greatly impacted by how his innings are managed and the bullpen behind him.

     

     



    ERA is relevant when compared to the norm as means to reach a conclusion...Although there're are many factors that have to be weighed...the park being the chief among them...and the weighted difference in pitching to NL vs. AL lineups. As a historical measure the size of the parks today vs days gone by are a factor that can't be dismissed...

     

    My greatest issue with ERA is that it is based on 9 innings...Back in the old days when pitchers were expected to go nine. ERA was in fact a great measure for expected results...if A guy had a 4.5 ERA back in 1970 it 's a good bet that your team would score at least four...Today if a starter has 4.5 ERA it means your team s likely to score 3 heading into the 7th. 

    For bullpen guys I'd prefer they used the runs allow per appearance. ERA for relievers is perhaps the single least relevant stat...



    it does have 1 use.. a quick way to know how strong someones argument is. If someone starts throwing relievers ERA at you or some other type of small sample size (for example, The Beckett bashers last year would throw his 1st inning ERA out there in debates) then you know they have the weakest of weak arguments.

     

    for me, when valuing statistics i tend to like the ones that look at the effect an individual has on the game. Stats like W/L and RBIs take into account too much of the rest of the team, ballpark, opposing teams, etc to really make an accurate judgment of the impact a player makes. Now, i realise that practically all Pitching stats (except K and Walk rates and maybe FIP) are dependant on the defense behind him at the very least. Still, you gotta think the less variables involved the more "level" the playing field for analysis.

    The correct answer of course is to use any and all available data to judge a players performance. Its how much stock that you put into each stat that should vary from person to person.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to HelloItsMeAgain1's comment:

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

     

    For the average fan I think one of the issues with UZR stats is the evidence factor.  If a fielder is charged with an error, it's easy to track down and watch the specific play he made the error on.  But if there's a ball he didn't get to that he should have, it's much harder to find the evidence.

     



    One problem I have with UZR is there is no way to know if the two defenders would have been positioned the same for that particular play.

     

    It is like when a star player goes down, and people blame the loss on having the back up in.

    Even is the star player is a .325 hitter, there's no way to tell if he would have gotten a hit when the back up didn't.

    The player with the better UZR may have been leaning the other way on a certain play, might have been positioned differently due to the capabilities of players around him, etc.

    Too many variables.




    Don't quote me on this, but i am farily certain that UZR not only takes into account the positioning of a player but also the distance traveled to make the play

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from small-package. Show small-package's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    Don't know much about baseball stats. To me good baseball is like porno, I kow it when i see it.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from dgalehouse. Show dgalehouse's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to notin's comment:

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    Some of the new stats are kind of redundant. If a shortstop has a lot of assists, he probably has good range. Either that or he knows how to position himself for the situation. Some outfielders never seem to change position from batter to batter, while others move around according to the situation . A pitcher's won/loss record in conjunction with his ERA is more telling than a stat like WHIP , which ignores extra base hits, as well as a pitcher's ability to pitch out of a jam.  All in all the new stats are okay , but you really can evaluate a player from the old stats. That and watching the games. I think to some fans , fantasy baseball has replaced actual baseball.

     



    Not necessarily true.

     

     

    He could get a lot of assists because the pitching staff gives ua lot of ground balls.

    Much like with RBI, it can be about opportunity.

     

    Not to mention,  a SS playing on turf would probably have fewer assists than an equivalent counterpart playing on grass.   Does that make the grass SS a better defender?



    I said he " probably " has good range. There are always going to be variables and mitigating factors. They should tend to even out over time. 

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to mef429's comment:

    In response to HelloItsMeAgain1's comment:

     

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

     

    For the average fan I think one of the issues with UZR stats is the evidence factor.  If a fielder is charged with an error, it's easy to track down and watch the specific play he made the error on.  But if there's a ball he didn't get to that he should have, it's much harder to find the evidence.

     



    One problem I have with UZR is there is no way to know if the two defenders would have been positioned the same for that particular play.

     

    It is like when a star player goes down, and people blame the loss on having the back up in.

    Even is the star player is a .325 hitter, there's no way to tell if he would have gotten a hit when the back up didn't.

    The player with the better UZR may have been leaning the other way on a certain play, might have been positioned differently due to the capabilities of players around him, etc.

    Too many variables.

     




    Don't quote me on this, but i am farily certain that UZR not only takes into account the positioning of a player but also the distance traveled to make the play

     



    I believe it does not. I think each position defnds an overlaid zone, and the player is credited for all plays in zone, penalized for every in zone play with no play made. And awarded bonuz for plays outside the zone.

     

    The lack of accomodation for playeposition is a criticism I have heard about using UZR for outfielders...si

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from soxnewmex. Show soxnewmex's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    Great thread.  Like OBP and WHIP and still like BA as telling measures, but don't care for UZR much as a measure or WAR, dubious concerning the value of those two.  Excuse my ignorance, but would appreciate an explanation of RF/9.  Anyone?

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to notin's comment:

    In response to mef429's comment:

     

    In response to HelloItsMeAgain1's comment:

     

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

     

    For the average fan I think one of the issues with UZR stats is the evidence factor.  If a fielder is charged with an error, it's easy to track down and watch the specific play he made the error on.  But if there's a ball he didn't get to that he should have, it's much harder to find the evidence.

     



    One problem I have with UZR is there is no way to know if the two defenders would have been positioned the same for that particular play.

     

    It is like when a star player goes down, and people blame the loss on having the back up in.

    Even is the star player is a .325 hitter, there's no way to tell if he would have gotten a hit when the back up didn't.

    The player with the better UZR may have been leaning the other way on a certain play, might have been positioned differently due to the capabilities of players around him, etc.

    Too many variables.

     




    Don't quote me on this, but i am farily certain that UZR not only takes into account the positioning of a player but also the distance traveled to make the play

     

     



    I believe it does not. I think each position defnds an overlaid zone, and the player is credited for all plays in zone, penalized for every in zone play with no play made. And awarded bonuz for plays outside the zone.

     

     

    The lack of accomodation for playeposition is a criticism I have heard about using UZR for outfielders...si




    thanks for setting me straight notin!

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to pinstripezac's comment:

    so moon

    did you just debunk the theory

    about how important defense  up the middle is



    No. Where did I come close to doing that?

    To me, range at SS is one of the most undervalued aspects of many fan's view on what wins baseball games. I have consistently held and defended that view with numbers and observations.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    For the average fan I think one of the issues with UZR stats is the evidence factor.  If a fielder is charged with an error, it's easy to track down and watch the specific play he made the error on.  But if there's a ball he didn't get to that he should have, it's much harder to find the evidence.

    One thing that suggested to me that UZR ratings had merit was watching the Red Sox in 2009 for a stretch when they had what might have been the least mobile left side of the infield in history.  Lowell was at third and Lugo at short, and both of them had injuries that affected their lateral movement.  I remember some balls getting by Lowell and him showing his frustration because it was usually a play he should have made.

    FanGraphs UZR/150 for Lugo for 2009 was -50.4 and for Lowell it was -14.4.  



    Exactly, but if you looked at how many errors they made it was not horrible.

    Total Errors:

    SS  24  (.963 Fldg%)

    3B  15  (.966 Fldg%)

    Looking closer...

    Rtot/yr (Total Zone Fielding Runs as compared to the average)

    SS: -14

    Green  644 inn  -5

    Gonzo  361 inn  -1

    J Lugo  243 inn -9

    Lowrie 164 inn  +3

    3B: -4

    Lowell  895   -9

    Youk   494    +1

     

    RF/9:

    Green  4.22, Gonzo  3.94, Lugo 3.33, Lowrie 4.07

    Lowell  2.57, Youk 2.75

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to soxnewmex's comment:

    Great thread.  Like OBP and WHIP and still like BA as telling measures, but don't care for UZR much as a measure or WAR, dubious concerning the value of those two.  Excuse my ignorance, but would appreciate an explanation of RF/9.  Anyone?



    It is simple: PO + A/inn x 9.

    It is how many plays a fielder makes per 9 innings.

    It is flawed due to several factors (some SSs play on teams where they get more of less chances due to the staff's K and Fb rates, or grass vs turf surfaces, a 3Bman who has great range, etc...). However, it is still one useful tool to use as part of an overall evaluation.

    UZR/150 takes out some of those factors, since it only judges on the plays made and not made in the zone, and does not penalize a SS for having less balls hit to him.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from phxvlsoxfan. Show phxvlsoxfan's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    Great post.

    Being a stats nut I love both the old and new numbers, but honestly there is now and has always been only one stat that matters - WINS.  All old and new stats are essentially independent of the game situation.  How many times have the Sox crushed a team one game then lost 2 close ones.  The individual stats look great, but the series is lost.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    the best stat is this one....wins. never fails if you don't have enough, you suck, if you have 95 or more, you got a good shot of making the playoffs.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from dgalehouse. Show dgalehouse's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to HelloItsMeAgain1's comment:

    In response to notin's comment:

     

    I believe it does not. I think each position defnds an overlaid zone, and the player is credited for all plays in zone, penalized for every in zone play with no play made. And awarded bonuz for plays outside the zone.

    The lack of accomodation for playeposition is a criticism I have heard about using UZR for outfielders...si

     



    That's what I thought.

     

     

    Let's say we have an outfield where the left fielder is considered average and the right fielder is horrible.

    The centerfielder is going to shade a touch towards RF (also depends on L/R hitter, pitchers, etc) so if he doesn't get to a ball hit on the LF side of his zone, he will then be penalized.

    Same could be said with a SS that has a 3B with limited range, he will shade towards the hole thus allowing more balls up the middle.

     

    Too many variables. I'm not saying it's horrible, but it needs to be viewed in conjunction with other tools we have at our disposal.

     



    A lot of fly balls can be caught by either of two outfielders. Some center fielders will take charge more than others. Some will tend to defer to the corner outfielder on lazy fly balls. Like you said , there are so many variables. 

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to HelloItsMeAgain1's comment:

    In response to notin's comment:

     

    I believe it does not. I think each position defnds an overlaid zone, and the player is credited for all plays in zone, penalized for every in zone play with no play made. And awarded bonuz for plays outside the zone.

    The lack of accomodation for playeposition is a criticism I have heard about using UZR for outfielders...si



    That's what I thought.

     

    Let's say we have an outfield where the left fielder is considered average and the right fielder is horrible.

    The centerfielder is going to shade a touch towards RF (also depends on L/R hitter, pitchers, etc) so if he doesn't get to a ball hit on the LF side of his zone, he will then be penalized.

    Same could be said with a SS that has a 3B with limited range, he will shade towards the hole thus allowing more balls up the middle.

     

    Too many variables. I'm not saying it's horrible, but it needs to be viewed in conjunction with other tools we have at our disposal.

     



    That's exactly right.  What I can't bear is people refusing to use "new" stats....either because the "old" stats are good enough (they are not), or because the "new" ones are imperfect (of course they are, all stats are).

    They are just additional tools to augment existing stats and observation.  It's shocking that someone would dismiss them out of hand, especially as those dismissing them probably don't understand them.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to dannycater's comment:

    the best stat is this one....wins. never fails if you don't have enough, you suck, if you have 95 or more, you got a good shot of making the playoffs.




    Yep, TEAM wins are the most important stat in baseball.  A pitcher's wins?  Not so much.

    TEAM runs are also very important....a batter's runs (or RBIs)?  Not so much.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from soxnewmex. Show soxnewmex's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to soxnewmex's comment:

     

    Great thread.  Like OBP and WHIP and still like BA as telling measures, but don't care for UZR much as a measure or WAR, dubious concerning the value of those two.  Excuse my ignorance, but would appreciate an explanation of RF/9.  Anyone?

     



    It is simple: PO + A/inn x 9.

     

    It is how many plays a fielder makes per 9 innings.

    It is flawed due to several factors (some SSs play on teams where they get more of less chances due to the staff's K and Fb rates, or grass vs turf surfaces, a 3Bman who has great range, etc...). However, it is still one useful tool to use as part of an overall evaluation.

    UZR/150 takes out some of those factors, since it only judges on the plays made and not made in the zone, and does not penalize a SS for having less balls hit to him.





    Thank you Moon.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from bald-predictions. Show bald-predictions's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    The thing about statistics on the internet is that 52% of them are made up.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedSoxKimmi. Show RedSoxKimmi's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    John Dewan, who initially developed UZR and subsequently the Plus/Minus system, did an interview on SOSH in 2009 detailing some of what goes into computing UZR and Plus/Minus ratings.  Here are a few quotes from that interview:

    "Both Plus/Minus and UZR factor in defensive positioning and give credit for it. Both systems account for both components of good defense – having good range and positioning well."

    "UZR has several minute adjustments, such as batter hand, pitcher hand, base/out state, and pitcher groundball/flyball tendencies. We remain focused on the value contributed to the team in the player’s specific context."

    "Plus/Minus accommodates plays where the first baseman holds the runner and middle infielders are covering second on hit-and-run plays. UZR adjusts for all base/out states."

    UZR does make adjustments for player positioning, along with several other factors.  As I mentioned in another thread, UZR and Plus/Minus are more comprehensive than most people realize.  This interview was almost 4 years ago.  I imagine even more advancements have been made.

    UZR and Plus/Minus are not perfect, but IMO, they are far better than any other defensive rating available, like fielding percentage.  There is no way that all variables will ever be accounted for, but UZR and other advanced stats do a pretty good job of adjusting for as many of them as possible.

    Anyone who wants some information on how the data is collected, read up on the BIS data tracking system.  Good stuff.

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from georom4. Show georom4's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    UZR <flush>

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedSoxKimmi. Show RedSoxKimmi's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    "They are just additional tools to augment existing stats and observation. It's shocking that someone would dismiss them out of hand, especially as those dismissing them probably don't understand them."

    +1

    I don't think anyone has ever said that these stats take the place of scouting and actually watching the games.  Not even Bill James has said that.   Nor has anyone ever said to do away with stats like RBIs, ERA, etc. (although I would be perfectly happy without W/L for pitchers).

    These tools are available to help better assess a player's value.  They give a much better evaluation of a player's talent than the old stats alone did.  Why not use them if they are available?

     

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    In response to phxvlsoxfan's comment:

    Great post.

    Being a stats nut I love both the old and new numbers, but honestly there is now and has always been only one stat that matters - WINS.  All old and new stats are essentially independent of the game situation.  How many times have the Sox crushed a team one game then lost 2 close ones.  The individual stats look great, but the series is lost.



    Of course WINS are the bottom line. I think the purpose of this thread was to dissect how wins were achieved, to analyze what factors are most important in achieving wins and how player value leads to wins. For me, ERA+ is probably the most important single stat for a pitcher (a bit better than ERA); WHIP, K/9, and K/BB are also useful. WAR is down the road a ways because pitchers with good ERA+ and WHIP generally are going to have a high WAR, so thats a secondary stat. Wins by a pitcher is way down the list. For a batter its  modified OPS (I cannot remember what they call it, but it weighs OBP higher than SLG). Less important but also useful are BA, K's/9, HRs, and pitches seen per AB. I do not have much faith in UZR as a defensive measure; I think its too subjective. Its hard to really measure objectively a player's defensive prowess.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from tom-uk. Show tom-uk's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

     

    It is simple: PO + A/inn x 9.

     

    It is how many plays a fielder makes per 9 innings.

    It is flawed due to several factors (some SSs play on teams where they get more of less chances due to the staff's K and Fb rates, or grass vs turf surfaces, a 3Bman who has great range, etc...). However, it is still one useful tool to use as part of an overall evaluation.

    UZR/150 takes out some of those factors, since it only judges on the plays made and not made in the zone, and does not penalize a SS for having less balls hit to him.

    [/QUOTE]

    I think the reason Jeter is considered an awful fielder is because the 2B and 3B playing along side him got to "normal" numbers of balls, and he was way lower almost every year.

    IMO the new stat which is the most interesting has not been mentioned on this thread, BABIP.  Cashman hired stat geeks because of cases like Swisher's down year with Chicago.  His BABIP with Chi was .249 (career .292) but his peripheral stats were good meaning he was unlucky.  The Yanks got the right kind of buy low player.

    The new stats were right in saying DiceK '08 and Clay '10 were getting lucky and let's hope the new stats that say Lester was unucky are right.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Old school stats vs. new school stats

    On Jeter: while it is very important to "make the play" when you need it, not making plays is just as essential to the outcome of close games. I realize RF/9 is flawed, since some SSs play on teams with high K-rate or FB pitchers, byt teh range portion of UZR/150 confirms that Jeter has been the worst-ranged SS over the past decade. Perhaps before 2003, he was decent, but to me Jeter is clearly one of the worst 3 FT SSs over the last decade. I'd put him worst, but wouldn't argue with 3rd from worst (out of 23 qualifying SS the last decade). I think his Flg% has also been inflated a bit by an abnormally friendly home field scorer, but that is not the basis for my placement of him as "the worst".

     

    While Jeter''s defensive proficiency is certainly a topic for debate, so are these new fangled defensive metrics. Not that they aren't revealing; Jeter's range was always his biggest limitation; but holes have been shot through UZR & RF since they've become part of the vernacular. There's still a long way to go on measuring "this" side of the ball. If I recall correctly, Roberto Alomar had some lousy RF years (early in his career too, when players of his ilk are gazelles); at best, that's a suspect issue right there; at worst, QED. I'll opt for somewhere in between; they're defective.

     

Share