Johan Santana

[BoSox21]

Note: If Ellsbury leaves we will immediately be ushering in the era of Ryan Kalish on this site. Kid is a really nice prospect, as is Lin. They're both very young, but the Sox are likely willing to deal Ellsbury because they feel that they actually have solid minor-league depth at CF. He has great speed like Ellsbury does, but apparently his name doesn't excite the Twins like Ellsbury. C'est la vie.

 

probably because Ellsbury was an impact player in the World Series whereas Kalish was blowing spit balls in algebra class a year ago

[cam780]

his ZR was 778 his 3rd best of his career , wich i find is the best way to determine someone's defense, most of lowell's error came early in the season , also errors isnt the best way to determin someones defense

 

Zone rating. The percentage of balls fielded by a player in his typical defensive "zone,"

 

brandon inge is the only one in the AL who had a better ZR than lowell in 2007 at 803

 

Edgar Renteria had a .811 Zone Rating in 2005. 'Nuff Said.

[ORS]

No, not 'nuff. Different positions. And, if you are going to determine when a player had a good year, you should compare his numbers to his career stats, not to others.

[redsoxrules]

Edgar Renteria had a .811 Zone Rating in 2005. 'Nuff Said.

 

YEAH for a SS, diferent position ...ZR are different for different position

[SchillingIsTheNatural]

Not sure if its been mentioned but maybe this is dragging out cause of the Mitchell report...make sure Santana isn't part of the report??

[cam780]

It gets annoying to have to argue little points, doesn't it? I've been there. :thumbsup:

 

As for your list of potential trades, I know your list was just off the top of your head, but I actually think Coco is a better play than just about all of the guys you listed, except Matt Kemp and maybe Burrell (if he has a decent season). They also largely aren't CFs. Again, I know your list wasn't meant to be definitive by any stretch, but it brings up an interesting point, namely, that Crisp is basically a "B+" CF Option on a team filled with A's and A-s. Nothing to scoff at, actually, and he would have been upgraded to an A- (in my opinion) with Ellsbury, but Santana is such a great pitcher that that upgrade doesn't hold enough weight if the Sox deal is accepted.

 

I can't think of CFs that I would want instead of Crisp if Ellsbury leaves.

 

Note: If Ellsbury leaves we will immediately be ushering in the era of Ryan Kalish on this site. Kid is a really nice prospect, as is Lin. They're both very young, but the Sox are likely willing to deal Ellsbury because they feel that they actually have solid minor-league depth at CF. He has great speed like Ellsbury does, but apparently his name doesn't excite the Twins like Ellsbury. C'est la vie.

 

You're right it wasn't a well thought out list but there are options other than Crisp. I personally think that Crisp and what he brings to the table is going to give you more for your four million than any of the other options. I personally like Coco and I tend to think that he may play with a bit of a chip on his shoulder next year for whatever team he plays.

 

As far as the depth goes, I'm personally already on the Kalish bandwagon. I don't think its a case of the Twins not being excited as much as Ellsbury is contributing on Opening Day. Kalish is still a few years off with more of an opportunity not to pan out. I think Kalish has that Matt Kemp like power/speed/average potential. I'm very interested to follow him and Will Middlebrooks who appears to be a similar mold.

[Mr Crunchy]

thats a great point as well as an obvious move by the front offices who are thinking proper

wow

natural schillill,great great point

a move i never thought of and i bet there are gms across the nation who didnt either

imagine that bomb after a 5 year 9 figure deal??

guillen just cashed a big check then got bagged

thats a back breaker

ask the dolphins what happens when you invest in a franchise player that aint clean

[BoSox21]

Not sure if its been mentioned but maybe this is dragging out cause of the Mitchell report...make sure Santana isn't part of the report??

 

it is a bit sketchy that one week teams are negotiating for a player until the wee hours of the morning and then all of a sudden, no developments at all for a few days

[example1]

probably because Ellsbury was an impact player in the World Series whereas Kalish was blowing spit balls in algebra class a year ago

 

Talk about overvaluing a small sample size. If MN is really only more excited about Ellsbury because of his short stint in the 'bigs then the Sox should sell high. However, MN likely was this high on Ellsbury regardless of his WS performance. Perhaps the fact that he was ready to take over CF for the World Champion Red Sox, or the fact that Theo and Co. were ready to give him the starting spot right away were better indicators.

[cam780]

No' date=' not 'nuff. Different positions. And, if you are going to determine when a player had a good year, you should compare his numbers to his career stats, not to others.[/quote']

 

I actually believe I did. Mike Lowell had career worsts in range, fielding percentage, and errors. My comment wasn't meant to compare Lowell and Renteria. It was meant to counter the rationale that zone rating is the best measure of defense.

 

Here is some insight from the Hardball Times:

 

The Highlights:

 

Jason Bartlett did very well in Zone Rating but made very few plays outside his zone. In the end, he’s just an average shortstop.

 

Bill Hall at the first step look a little below average, but made a tremendous number of plays outside his zone. This year he is being moved from shortstop to center field, but this may be a mistake as he makes many more plays than the average shortstop.

 

Derek Jeter looks a little below average at first, but he’s even worse than that. Jeter has very limited range. Only Bartlett made fewer plays outside the zone, but Jeter played almost 50% more innings than Bartlett.

 

Hanley Ramirez looks below average at first, tied with Jeter, but made a great number of plays out of his zone. He’s actually average or slightly above.

 

Adam Everett already ranked far above any other shortstop in the game, but in addition to fielding everything hit near him he has excellent range as well. He may be the best defensive shortstop since Ozzie Smith.

 

Maybe real world perceptions are closer on 3b then shortstops but there is some variance, no?

 

This hardly seems to be stuff of the definitive defensive stat category. Assume that I agree that zone rating is the best measure of defense - he still had his worst zone rating since 2003 (he tied this years in 04)? That qualifies as a down year no? Look, I know people like to think that Sox are superhuman but they do have flaws. Lowell was great this year. I used the point simply to illustrate that players performances due to tend to fluctuate and Lowells defense was down.

[example1]

Not sure if its been mentioned but maybe this is dragging out cause of the Mitchell report...make sure Santana isn't part of the report??

 

People around here don't really talk steroids (slack verbage; better defined as HGH/PEDs) as if they are a real problem. You are absolutely right SITN, teams would be foolish not to wait a day or two before making these acquisitions.

 

...cough Miguel Tejada ...cough Andruw Jones

 

There are so many players of whom I'm suspicious. Santana is one of them. Pujols, A-Rod, Varitek (a few years back especially), Clemens, the list of players could go on and on. Maybe it is hard because we have had one of the best offensive ball clubs the past few years (03 especially).

 

That's one of the things that makes Ellsbury (and Pedroia, and Youkilis) so attractive to me. If we throw out the last 15 years of statistics, a "great" player looks different from a "great" player now. Ellsbury's ceiling is not what Andruw Jones's was 10 years ago, and that's seen as a detriment, even though it appears Ellsbury is not taking anything. Similarly, we could all be lamenting the fact that Pedroia isn't putting up Brett Boone numbers (37 HR one year), but we're not because we understand what a "good" 2B should look like (and it doesn't include 30+ HR). In the past, a "great" CF did not put up Vernon Wells or Andruw Jones numbers; or if they did they were called Willie Mays or Mickey Mantle.

 

Anyway, I digress... but good point.

 

They could also be pretty certain that Santana is clean, and just be working out an extension. I can't imagine that a deal will be 'announced' until the extension is agreed upon. :dunno:

[Mr Crunchy]

the sox didnt give elsbury the job\

the kid shined from the get go and forced his way into the starting gig

plus

with manny being out and drew underachieving and crisp hitting like a girl it worked out perfectly as at 1st we needed him to sub,then after his performance francona had to make the move for the benefit of the club...

it aint easy dropping a starterin september for a rookie

francona deserves huge credit for keeping the eye on the prize and working the kids into the lineup with hardly any feathers ruffled.....

id say the gagne deal was a terrible strain on him as well

oki was a huge hit at the setup role and with gagne coming in the bullpen roles were suddenly redefined and that didnt work so well...that too was fixed when it mattered most

elsbury was a spark plug ala damon and he will be an exciting player no matter where he ends up

he scored from 2nd on a passed ball...never saw a sox do it before

[cam780]

They could also be pretty certain that Santana is clean, and just be working out an extension. I can't imagine that a deal will be 'announced' until the extension is agreed upon. :dunno:

 

I don't think they would announce the deal but the issue is I think they have to file something with the league in order to get the 72 hour window. Once that happens, it becomes public. At least thats what I remember from the A-Rod deal back in 2004.

 

On the issue of steroids, I can see Clemens on the list. I can also see A-Rod on the list (as in one of the reasons I see the Sox steering clear of him in the offseason) Pedro maybe. I don't think Santana would be on it. but I think its going to be interesting tomorrow. A-Rod is supposed to be the new face of baseball and the shiny bearer of everything right in the quest to make everyone forget about Barry Bonds. If he turns up dirty, it'll be interesting especially given the new deal.

[Jayhawk Bill]

I actually believe I did. Mike Lowell had career worsts in range' date=' fielding percentage, and errors. My comment wasn't meant to compare Lowell and Renteria. It was meant to counter the rationale that zone rating is the best measure of defense. [/quote']

 

Trivia question: who led the AL in RZR in 2007 among full-time third basemen?

 

Answer: Mike Lowell, RZR .732, a full 20 points higher than Brandon Inge.

 

http://www.hardballtimes.com/thtstats/main/index.php?view=fielding&linesToDisplay=50&orderBy=zone_rating&direction=DESC&qual_filter=1&season_filter%5B%5D=2007&league_filter%5B%5D=1&pos_filter%5B%5D=5&Submit=Submit

 

Brandon Inge's FRAR, 27, is exactly the same as Lowell's. That makes sense, because Inge made 36 more plays Out of Zone than Lowell. Still, Lowell had a very good season defensively at third base. His FRAR and his RZR were pretty close to his 2005 Gold Glove season marks--not up to his exemplary 2006 standards, but right in line with much of Lowell's career and certainly competitive for best in the AL.

 

So why were his errors, fielding percentage and range factor the worst of his career? :dunno:

 

First, errors practically don't matter. The numbers and percentages of plays made matter--whether the fielder didn't reach the ball in play or made an "error" is almost moot, except that throwing errors result in an extra base...and extra bases pale in value next to outs.

 

Second, the 2007 Boston Red Sox had several pitchers who struck out batters. They had a whopping 1149 strikeouts, third in the AL. That diminishes range factors, because fewer balls are in play. Three of Lowell's other full-time seasons he had an RF/9 within 0.14 of his 2007 mark, so it's not a huge aberration. Lowell had fewer balls hit his way this year, and it made a slight difference in RF/9. He still was superlative at fielding balls that were hit into his zone.

 

***

 

And, FWIW, median AL RZR at 3B is about 100 points lower than AL RZR at SS, perhaps because of the tougher throws...just sayin'.

[cam780]

Trivia question: who led the AL in RZR in 2007 among full-time third basemen?

 

Answer: Mike Lowell, RZR .732, a full 20 points higher than Brandon Inge.

 

http://www.hardballtimes.com/thtstats/main/index.php?view=fielding&linesToDisplay=50&orderBy=zone_rating&direction=DESC&qual_filter=1&season_filter%5B%5D=2007&league_filter%5B%5D=1&pos_filter%5B%5D=5&Submit=Submit

 

Brandon Inge's FRAR, 27, is exactly the same as Lowell's. That makes sense, because Inge made 36 more plays Out of Zone than Lowell. Still, Lowell had a very good season defensively at third base. His FRAR and his RZR were pretty close to his 2005 Gold Glove season marks--not up to his exemplary 2006 standards, but right in line with much of Lowell's career and certainly competitive for best in the AL.

 

So why were his errors, fielding percentage and range factor the worst of his career? :dunno:

 

First, errors practically don't matter. The numbers and percentages of plays made matter--whether the fielder didn't reach the ball in play or made an "error" is almost moot, except that throwing errors result in an extra base...and extra bases pale in value next to outs.

 

Second, the 2007 Boston Red Sox had several pitchers who struck out batters. They had a whopping 1149 strikeouts, third in the AL. That diminishes range factors, because fewer balls are in play. Three of Lowell's other full-time seasons he had an RF/9 within 0.14 of his 2007 mark, so it's not a huge aberration. Lowell had fewer balls hit his way this year, and it made a slight difference in RF/9. He still was superlative at fielding balls that were hit into his zone.

 

***

 

And, FWIW, median AL RZR at 3B is about 100 points lower than AL RZR at SS, perhaps because of the tougher throws...just sayin'.

 

Jayhawk, I give you credit but I think people are misunderstanding my point. I'm not saying that Mike Lowell had a bad defensive year. I'm saying that Mike Lowell had a down defensive year. And even by RZR the number is off from last years mark not to mention his OOZ is off tremendously from last year and out of the four seasons that Hardball times has there Lowell's 27 in 07 is the worst of the seasons listed. My point was simply that Mike Lowell didn't have the same '07 as he did '06. Keep in mind I brought it up to outline the possibility that Coco Crisp might not make every play next year that he did this year. Again, one more time - Mike Lowell had an MVP type season but his defense wasn't as good as it was in 2006 and I still haven't seen a stat that says differently be it zone rating, RZR, OOZ or the more standard categories.

[Mr Crunchy]

lowell has more Es in april and may than all of 06 i think

he plays gold glove 3b most of the time and thats a huge addition to the defense

[Jayhawk Bill]

I'm not saying that Mike Lowell had a bad defensive year. I'm saying that Mike Lowell had a down defensive year.

 

Down relative to 2006? I'm cool with that.

 

Down with respect to his career? Nah...the higher number of errors is striking, but his value at third base was around that which we've come to expect from Lowell over the past several years.

 

IMO...Your metrics may vary.

[example1]

IMO...Your metrics may vary.

 

They always seem to, don't they Bill? At least people are looking at numbers and not just talking about hunches.

 

That said, I am also worried that Coco had some sort of anomalous season last year defensively. Statistics do override observation in nearly all cases, but I watched damn near every game last year and what I saw was pretty great. He made catches early in games, late in games, with no outs, two outs, close games, blowouts, the guy caught just about everything that came his way, and a few things that went Manny and JDs way as well. It sure felt (again, large sample size of feelings here ) like a lot of balls were 'perfectly placed' for him to just barely get there. Balls that were out of his zone, but not so far out of his zone that his speed can't get to them.

 

In other words, a foot here or a foot there and we're talking about balls that are impossible to get to.

 

Is there not a point where you have to attribute defense to 'luck' more so than, say, OBP or SLG should be attributed to luck? People are making it out to be like that everything Coco lacks with his bat he makes up for with his glove, which may or may not be true. But a lot of the things he does with his glove I think other highly touted OFs can do as well.

 

Do stats like FRAR and FRAA take throwing into account?

 

If so, was Coco's year last year (43 FRAR/27 FRAA) with the glove and virtually no arm actually better than the best year of Torii Hunter's career (43FRAR/ 26 FRAA in 2001), or Ichiro (32/20 in 2005) or better than all but one season of Willie Mays (second best was 42/19)?

 

If not, shouldn't arm be taken into account? I know Fenway doesn't demand a strong CF arm, but to disregard it all together would seem weird, especially when we're talking about overall defensive prowess.

 

We're either talking about a guy who, compared to other tremendous fielders with strong arms, outshines them all so much with his glove that their arms don't count, or we're using a measurement that doesn't really take his arm strength (in terms of put-outs and holding runners) into account, aren't we? :dunno:

 

------------

 

The above aside, my larger point is that I really don't think it is absurd to think that Coco's fielding is bound to fluctuate and if it fluctuates it is more likely to fluctuate downward than upward. I think the difference between Crisp and Ellsbury (overall) is significantly more than many here do. I think it is enough to warrant some SERIOUS haggling from the Sox in terms of the 4th player in the deal, when names like Masterson are also already on the table. As a GM I'm not offering anything in my top 20 prospects for that 4th piece, and certainly not a high-upside young guy like Kalish or Bowden or Lars.

 

The Minnesota Twins Welcome: Third Baseman Scott White, along with Jacoby Ellsbury, Justin Masterson and Jed Lowrie.

[Jayhawk Bill]

Do stats like FRAR and FRAA take throwing into account?

 

If so, was Coco's year last year (43 FRAR/27 FRAA) with the glove and virtually no arm actually better than the best year of Torii Hunter's career (43FRAR/ 26 FRAA in 2001), or Ichiro (32/20 in 2005) or better than all but one season of Willie Mays (second best was 42/19)?

 

It's late and I'm crashing, but yes, FRAR and FRAA definitely include outfield assists, and yes, Crisp's season was that good.

 

And, FWIW, yes, I think that there were a lot of balls in play just barely to left field from the CF zone. What I don't think is that those balls in play were random: the Green Monster and the immobile outfielder patrolling the turf in front of it make LF at Fenway a target for opposing batters. Crisp took advantage of the situation.

 

IMO...YMMV...

[Paradisecity]

ask the dolphins what happens when you invest in a franchise player that aint clean

 

 

Don't be so hard on Dan Marino just because he did more blow than you did in the 80's.

[cam780]

Down relative to 2006? I'm cool with that.

 

Down with respect to his career? Nah...the higher number of errors is striking, but his value at third base was around that which we've come to expect from Lowell over the past several years.

 

IMO...Your metrics may vary.

 

If there is a truth inherent to MLB its that whatever your position you can more often than not find a stat to justify your position. Personally, I prefer fielding % over zone rating but I was initially talking about the difference between 2006 and 2007 for Lowell as 2006 was a career year for Lowell defensively and 2007 was a career year for Crisp. The debate ended up heading in a direction I did not anticipate.

 

Of course we both realize that Mike Lowell will not be included in a Johan Santana deal.

 

BTW, I do have a question and you are probably the person to find it if its out there. Is there some record of errors by position player that have lead to unearned runs? I realize it would be a somewhat misleading because while the player has some responsibility in giving a player a base, the pitcher would also bear some responsiblity for putting the next batter or the next one for that matter in play. But I actually disagree with the sentiment that an errors are meaningless because outs are valuable commodities in baseball and there is a difference in a how a pitcher pitches a batter with 1 on and no out and no one on with 1 out. On a team like Boston, with great pitching that matters less than it would a team that doesn't have our wealth of quality arms but second or third opportunities in a game like baseball are important.

[example1]

If there is a truth inherent to MLB its that whatever your position you can more often than not find a stat to justify your position. Personally, I prefer fielding % over zone rating but I was initially talking about the difference between 2006 and 2007 for Lowell as 2006 was a career year for Lowell defensively and 2007 was a career year for Crisp. The debate ended up heading in a direction I did not anticipate.

 

Of course we both realize that Mike Lowell will not be included in a Johan Santana deal.

 

BTW, I do have a question and you are probably the person to find it if its out there. Is there some record of errors by position player that have lead to unearned runs? I realize it would be a somewhat misleading because while the player has some responsibility in giving a player a base, the pitcher would also bear some responsiblity for putting the next batter or the next one for that matter in play. But I actually disagree with the sentiment that an errors are meaningless because outs are valuable commodities in baseball and there is a difference in a how a pitcher pitches a batter with 1 on and no out and no one on with 1 out. On a team like Boston, with great pitching that matters less than it would a team that doesn't have our wealth of quality arms but second or third opportunities in a game like baseball are important.

 

Just to jump in here... I don't think anyone is saying they are actually meaningless, they are just statistically pretty insignificant compared to other things that can be counted for fielders. The statistics that are most meaningful are the ones most closely associated with winning and/or with preventing runs.

 

Raw fielding percentage and raw errors are like raw average or RBIs. It tells you something about how the player performed but it doesn't tell you anything about the particular situations they were in, or whether or not there was luck involved.

 

For instance, a player can be charged with an error because he doesn't make the play that another fielder wouldn't have even gotten to because the first player lined up correctly. If Mike Lowell makes himself available to a lot more balls because he is smarter than other 3B or the Sox have a better scouting report or whatever, he isn't credited with it, and with % or raw error totals the number of opportunities isn't taken into account.

 

Perhaps a great fielder is one who can put himself in a position to make the most plays, rather than one who makes all the plays on balls hit directly at him. As you well-know its a big field.

[example1]

I'm curious to know how the birth of Theo's son Jack yesterday affected the negotiations. Is he the type of guy who will just hang out on his cell phone and blackberry and work out a deal while she's in labor? I doubt it, especially with all the other talented execs the Sox have.

[YAZMAN]

I'm curious to know how the birth of Theo's son Jack yesterday affected the negotiations. Is he the type of guy who will just hang out on his cell phone and blackberry and work out a deal while she's in labor? I doubt it' date=' especially with all the other talented execs the Sox have.[/quote']

 

Theo: "PUSH, PUSH!!!"

 

Wife in Labor: "I AM PUSHING, DAMMIT!!!"

 

Theo: "Uhhh...no honey, sorry, I was talking to Larry about the Santana negotiations."

[ORS]

But I actually disagree with the sentiment that an errors are meaningless because outs are valuable commodities in baseball and there is a difference in a how a pitcher pitches a batter with 1 on and no out and no one on with 1 out. On a team like Boston' date=' with great pitching that matters less than it would a team that doesn't have our wealth of quality arms but second or third opportunities in a game like baseball are important.[/quote']

He didn't say errors are meaningless. He said they are meaningless relative to the out rate.

 

I don't think you are appreciating what RZR measures. It's been stated already, but I'll repeat it, it measures the rate at which a fielder can turn balls hit into his zone into outs. These balls hit into his zone are either unfielded, fielded and turned into outs, or fielded and not turned into outs. Errors fall into the 3rd category. So, errors are a component of the result.

 

By your reasoning, you did state you think F% is more important, you'd take a lower out rate with fewer errors over the opposite. Think about that. What is the result of an error? A base, maybe two. What is the result of an unfielded ball at 3B? A base, maybe two. Same results. Only, you are willing to accept the player who allows more hits than the other player makes errors.

 

There's no application of logic that can defend that. I think the emotional impact of an error, you know, "Damn, that should have been an out!", is weighing in here.

[Mr Crunchy]

labor?

the nite my daughter was born was maddox vs. pedro in montreal...

game at 705

wife in labor......hmnnn......""johnny whats maddox tonight??""

hes -130

""only 130?...i dont believe in this martinez kid just yet gimme maddox""

sirrrrrrrrrr are you the coach??siiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiirrrrrrrr i need your attention here

 

wife grabs me by the nostril...... HANG THE PHONE UP IM HAVING A BABY

 

oh ya....what channel is espn in framingham??

 

you can easily do a deal on the phone,even if the baby is coming

[Jayhawk Bill]

If there is a truth inherent to MLB its that whatever your position you can more often than not find a stat to justify your position. Personally' date=' I prefer fielding % over zone rating...[/quote']

 

Enjoy!

 

Many long-time fans and some seasoned professionals still consider errors and fielding percentage important. The evolution of sabermetrics to third-generation fielding stats has left serious analysts pretty much disregarding errors and fielding percentage, but if it adds to your love of the game, use fielding percentage. It's still published because people enjoy following it.

 

BTW, I do have a question and you are probably the person to find it if its out there. Is there some record of errors by position player that have lead to unearned runs?

 

Dunno where to find that one. :dunno:

 

As an aside, the concept of "unearned runs" itself is flawed. If such a metric were at all important, it would be better if the whole game, not just the inning, were completely reconstructed before assessing such things.

 

Hypothetical example:

 

Craig Hansen comes in for a two-inning save opportunity in the bottom of the eighth inning. He strikes out two batters, then fields a soft grounder back to the mound and throws to first base for the final out of the inning. Chris Carter, allegedly defending first base, spends so much time conceptualizing how the throw from Hansen relates to the meaning of life as described by Nietzsche and Kirkegaarde that the ball sails past Carter over to the tarp. The runner reaches second base on the error.

 

Hansen then walks the next batter, allows a three-run home run from the following hitter, and finally gets the last hitter to pop up to the third baseman in foul ground.

 

Pawtucket fails to score in the top of the ninth. The game is over, and the PawSox lose by two. Hansen is charged with zero earned runs.

 

If Carter had fielded the throw but nothing else had changed, Hansen would have allowed two runs in the bottom of the ninth and still lost the game. Those runs would've been earned runs.

 

***

 

Because of these flaws, a potentially better metric might be just knowing the normal run value of each event. One classic version of that is found here:

 

http://www.tangotiger.net/runscreated.html

 

where it assesses the value of reaching by error to be 0.478 runs, which should be coupled with the lost value of the out, another 0.265 runs. An error that permits a runner to reach base--which almost all errors by third basemen do allow--is worth 0.743 runs according to Tango. FWIW, that's almost exactly the value of a single...for quick conceptualization, I'd think of each error as roughly a single or roughly 3/4 of a run...3/4 of an unearned run, if you prefer.

 

Tango used the period 1974-1990 for his research. The run environment is slightly higher today, so these figures would change very slightly were his work repeated.

 

But I actually disagree with the sentiment that an errors are meaningless because outs are valuable commodities in baseball.

 

ORS summed up the issue well. Errors are as important as singles are, just as missed opportunities are roughly that important. Excepting, perhaps, catchers, differences in players' ranges dwarf differences in their error counts, even at first base where the difference is least. It's not that errors are unimportant--it's that fielding range is significantly more important.

[cam780]

He didn't say errors are meaningless. He said they are meaningless relative to the out rate.

 

I don't think you are appreciating what RZR measures. It's been stated already, but I'll repeat it, it measures the rate at which a fielder can turn balls hit into his zone into outs. These balls hit into his zone are either unfielded, fielded and turned into outs, or fielded and not turned into outs. Errors fall into the 3rd category. So, errors are a component of the result.

 

By your reasoning, you did state you think F% is more important, you'd take a lower out rate with fewer errors over the opposite. Think about that. What is the result of an error? A base, maybe two. What is the result of an unfielded ball at 3B? A base, maybe two. Same results. Only, you are willing to accept the player who allows more hits than the other player makes errors.

 

There's no application of logic that can defend that. I think the emotional impact of an error, you know, "Damn, that should have been an out!", is weighing in here.

 

Feel free to repeat yourself 10 times and I don't think we'll share the same opinion and it has much less with understanding and much more to do with how I value defense. Example again put it best - reread his last paragraph.

 

Zone rating goes alot further in identifying bad defensive players than it does identifying good ones and it dissects the field into zones and thus doesn't take into account players making plays out of position. For example, how many times during the course of the year, will Mike Lowell make a play in Lugo's "zone". Doesn't that factor into a players defense in your mind? It does mine.

 

RZR is good drill down stat - it is a useful stat to differentiate between players with similar stats- that is to say that Inge and Beltre both had 18 errors - however Inge's RZR is .712 vs .662 for Beltre therefore Inge is a better fielder than Beltre even though they have the same baseline stats. Add to it a certain vagueness of the concepts of ball's handled for outs - I know there is a factor applied but I would tell you that there are some balls that can't be converted into outs regardless of that factor. And then consider this (this is an extreme example so please don't remind me how infrequent it would happen) but Lugo and Lowell are both going for the same ball that is technically in Lowell's zone. Lugo calls off Lowell and drops it. Lowell doesn't make the play in his zone. Lugo gets an error because its a makeable play but his RZR doesn't decrease because it is "out of his zone" And if you asked Mike Lowell to compare his 2006 and 2007 seasons - which was my point to begin with - would he say that he didn't play as well? would he say well it wasn't as good as 06 but it was right in line with my career expectations based on my RZR? You simply can't rely on third generation stats and metrics alone in evaluating performance. You have to take it all in as a whole.

 

I would also argue that the only thing illogical (besides your point that results of a missed play and error are the same and therefore my preference to rely on percentage is illogical) is your failure to understand that different people rely on different things to evaluate a skill set.

[cam780]

Enjoy!

 

Many long-time fans and some seasoned professionals still consider errors and fielding percentage important. The evolution of sabermetrics to third-generation fielding stats has left serious analysts pretty much disregarding errors and fielding percentage, but if it adds to your love of the game, use fielding percentage. It's still published because people enjoy following it.

 

 

 

Dunno where to find that one. :dunno:

 

As an aside, the concept of "unearned runs" itself is flawed. If such a metric were at all important, it would be better if the whole game, not just the inning, were completely reconstructed before assessing such things.

 

Hypothetical example:

 

Craig Hansen comes in for a two-inning save opportunity in the bottom of the eighth inning. He strikes out two batters, then fields a soft grounder back to the mound and throws to first base for the final out of the inning. Chris Carter, allegedly defending first base, spends so much time conceptualizing how the throw from Hansen relates to the meaning of life as described by Nietzsche and Kirkegaarde that the ball sails past Carter over to the tarp. The runner reaches second base on the error.

 

Hansen then walks the next batter, allows a three-run home run from the following hitter, and finally gets the last hitter to pop up to the third baseman in foul ground.

 

Pawtucket fails to score in the top of the ninth. The game is over, and the PawSox lose by two. Hansen is charged with zero earned runs.

 

If Carter had fielded the throw but nothing else had changed, Hansen would have allowed two runs in the bottom of the ninth and still lost the game. Those runs would've been earned runs.

 

***

 

Because of these flaws, a potentially better metric might be just knowing the normal run value of each event. One classic version of that is found here:

 

http://www.tangotiger.net/runscreated.html

 

where it assesses the value of reaching by error to be 0.478 runs, which should be coupled with the lost value of the out, another 0.265 runs. An error that permits a runner to reach base--which almost all errors by third basemen do allow--is worth 0.743 runs according to Tango. FWIW, that's almost exactly the value of a single...for quick conceptualization, I'd think of each error as roughly a single or roughly 3/4 of a run...3/4 of an unearned run, if you prefer.

 

Tango used the period 1974-1990 for his research. The run environment is slightly higher today, so these figures would change very slightly were his work repeated.

 

 

 

ORS summed up the issue well. Errors are as important as singles are, just as missed opportunities are roughly that important. Excepting, perhaps, catchers, differences in players' ranges dwarf differences in their error counts, even at first base where the difference is least. It's not that errors are unimportant--it's that fielding range is significantly more important.

 

I knew I could on you.:thumbsup:

[ORS]

Feel free to repeat yourself 10 times and I don't think we'll share the same opinion and it has much less with understanding and much more to do with how I value defense. Example again put it best - reread his last paragraph.

 

Good I suggest you read it again. Oh wait, that didn't go so well for you last time since you completely missed the point. Here, allow me, example's last paragraph:

 

Perhaps a great fielder is one who can put himself in a position to make the most plays, rather than one who makes all the plays on balls hit directly at him. As you well-know its a big field.

 

Looks to me like he's saying getting to more balls is more important than being marginally more adept at handling them. Your interpretation of English may vary.

 

Zone rating goes alot further in identifying bad defensive players than it does identifying good ones and it dissects the field into zones and thus doesn't take into account players making plays out of position. For example, how many times during the course of the year, will Mike Lowell make a play in Lugo's "zone". Doesn't that factor into a players defense in your mind? It does mine.

RZR absolutely considers players making plays out of zone. RZR eliminates out of zone plays (OOZ) and creates a new category for them. I'm sure you are thinking, "But Lowell's OOZ plays dropped from 43 to 27. Surely that supports my position." Maybe, but let's look at who was playing next to him. In 2005 and 2006, Alex Gonzalez made 41 and 42 OOZ plays (conveniently they played together in 2005 so we have two years of data to look at), and Mike Lowell made 39 and 43. Looks pretty consistent. Lugo makes 55 last year. Lowell wasn't required to make as many OOZ plays because he was playing next to a SS with superior range.

 

RZR is good drill down stat - it is a useful stat to differentiate between players with similar stats- that is to say that Inge and Beltre both had 18 errors - however Inge's RZR is .712 vs .662 for Beltre therefore Inge is a better fielder than Beltre even though they have the same baseline stats. Add to it a certain vagueness of the concepts of ball's handled for outs - I know there is a factor applied but I would tell you that there are some balls that can't be converted into outs regardless of that factor. And then consider this (this is an extreme example so please don't remind me how infrequent it would happen) but Lugo and Lowell are both going for the same ball that is technically in Lowell's zone. Lugo calls off Lowell and drops it. Lowell doesn't make the play in his zone. Lugo gets an error because its a makeable play but his RZR doesn't decrease because it is "out of his zone" And if you asked Mike Lowell to compare his 2006 and 2007 seasons - which was my point to begin with - would he say that he didn't play as well? would he say well it wasn't as good as 06 but it was right in line with my career expectations based on my RZR? You simply can't rely on third generation stats and metrics alone in evaluating performance. You have to take it all in as a whole.

The difference between Lowell's '07 and '06 was the errors. He turned .765 of BIZ into outs in '06. Apply that to his BIZ chances in '07, and you get 237, 10 more than he recorded. He had 9 more errors. You are right, he won't need to look at his career RZR to know it wasn't as good as his best year to date. But that's irrelevant to what you are trying to suggest. Lowell was brought up as an example to suggest Crisp's defensive value might not hold up. The only difference in Lowell was 2.5x more errors. That means Crisp makes 3 less outs over a season. That's a marginal difference.

 

I would also argue that the only thing illogical (besides your point that results of a missed play and error are the same and therefore my preference to rely on percentage is illogical) is your failure to understand that different people rely on different things to evaluate a skill set.

JHB showed you the linear weight value of the events, and where I come from .75 = .75 is a logical concept.

 

I understand why you rely on your preference for evaluation. It just doesn't hold up to any kind of analysis.