A Realistic View at 2018: Part II

[Kimmi]

Catcher defense involves more than throwing out base runners, blocking balls in the dirt and occaisonal plays around the plate. To me, getting the most out of your staff is very important but hard to quantify. I like what Vaz & Leon give us behind the plate, but the way Moreland & HRam are doing at 1B, and JBJ over .680, I can see how someone might see our catchers as our weakest position overall.

 

I think the pitcher/catcher dynamic plays a huge role in how well a pitcher pitches.

 

When a pitcher has his best stuff working, he can probably pitch to anyone and it won't matter. When a pitcher just doesn't have it, it probably doesn't matter who he pitches to. It's all of the games in between where I think a catcher can make a difference.

 

IMO, Varitek was the master in that regard.

[Kimmi]

Good hitting catchers who also can hit don't grow on trees and I am hoping that Vaz will get going at the plate. Don't believe Leon will but stranger things have happened. If I was in the Red Sox front office I would look at the FA catcher market with an eye to improving our strength there. Don't believe it is a critical need, but one where we definitly could improve.

 

Personally, I am not concerned with our catching.

 

At the moment, I don't really see any area of need.

 

It's still too early to know.

[Nick]

I've always thought Brock Holt was overrated. I still prefer Lin.

 

But I'm a Sox fan first.

 

I will gladly take all punishment I deserve on this board if he has a great year. It won't be my first and certainly not my last mistake about a player.

 

I NEVER wish someone to perform poorly.

 

I will need to find a different dog to kick around.

[oldtimer]

A little information about the Sox defensively. The Sox have committed 6 errors this season which is good for them. Five of those errors have been committed by Devers, which is not so good. He seems to field fairly well but his throws still are kind of wild.

[moonslav59]

A little information about the Sox defensively. The Sox have committed 6 errors this season which is good for them. Five of those errors have been committed by Devers, which is not so good. He seems to field fairly well but his throws still are kind of wild.

 

Errors is a poor way to judge our defense.

 

We are 1st in fewest errors (7).

 

We are 23rd in UZR/150 (-3.7).

 

We are 24th in DRS at -7.

 

I knew we'd be worse than last year, since Devers was going to be FT, HRam more 1B, Nunez more 2B and JMart was expected to play some OF, but I did not expect it to be this bad.

[mvp 78]

Errors is a poor way to judge our defense.

 

We are 1st in fewest errors (7).

 

We are 23rd in UZR/150 (-3.7).

 

We are 24th in DRS at -7.

 

I knew we'd be worse than last year, since Devers was going to be FT, HRam more 1B, Nunez more 2B and JMart was expected to play some OF, but I did not expect it to be this bad.

 

Devers has a positive UZR and DRS tho? Aside from the throwing, he's pretty good out there.

[Station 13]

Devers has a positive UZR and DRS tho? Aside from the throwing, he's pretty good out there.

 

He doesn't pass the eye test but passes the smell test?

[mvp 78]

He doesn't pass the eye test but passes the smell test?

 

Depends on what the eye test is?

 

He looks decent with his glove out there to me, but I just say that due to my extensive scouting and coaching history!

 

His throwing needs work for sure, but I think that's something that can be worked on. He's got the range and athletic ability.

[dgalehouse]

Isn't UZR essentially someone's eye test ? As for Brock Holt ; he is a utility player. As these types go , he is okay. Not the stiff that some make him out to be.

[S5Dewey]

Isn't UZR essentially someone's eye test ? As for Brock Holt ; he is a utility player. As these types go , he is okay. Not the stiff that some make him out to be.

 

UZR is someone else's eye test, but unlike those of us with regular eyes those "someone elses" have eyes that have been specially calibrated to detect range.

 

Holt isn't nearly as bad as some here have made him out to be. I haven't noticed much (if any) drop off defensively with Holt at SS. But of course I just have regular eyes.

Holt is also carrying around an .879 OPS and while it's not as outstanding as the 1.111 Bogaerts has, on the whole Holt has done a better than passable job as a fill-in SS.

[oldtimer]

Devers has a positive UZR and DRS tho? Aside from the throwing, he's pretty good out there.

 

Yes, but last night his throw cost us a run. He leads the league in 3rd base errors made, which can't be a good thing and at the current rate he would commit 37 errors for the year. This is something the coaches can work on with him and it should be a priority. He has a strong arm, just not accurate. The team defense has been better than expected although the range of our infielders is certainly not the best.

[Spudboy]

UZR is someone else's eye test, but unlike those of us with regular eyes those "someone elses" have eyes that have been specially calibrated to detect range.

 

Holt isn't nearly as bad as some here have made him out to be. I haven't noticed much (if any) drop off defensively with Holt at SS. But of course I just have regular eyes.

Holt is also carrying around an .879 OPS and while it's not as outstanding as the 1.111 Bogaerts has, on the whole Holt has done a better than passable job as a fill-in SS.

 

I am surprised that my good friend Dewey neglected to tell us that those UZR eyes are also objective. Unlike normal eyes.

[User Name]

Except that's not how it works anymore. The data is gathered using the Baseball Info Solutions systems (essentially Statcast) to account for most defense-related events. Please look up how a stat/system works before forming an opinion.

 

This stuff takes 30 seconds to look up and a couple minutes to read.

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-fangraphs-uzr-primer/

[Spudboy]

What is a UZR Engine? How is each play monitored and how is this data compiled and collected?

 

I still don't get it.

[moonslav59]

I know UZR/150 is only supposed to be used in large sample sizes, but I'm losing some respect for it this year.

 

Here are the Sox top UZR/150 players:

 

40.0 JMart LF

13.6 Betts

10.4 Devers

-0.1 Nunez

-0.9 HRam

 

The worst:

-68.9 JMart RF

-35.3 Holt 2B

-28.8 JBJ

-20.4 Lin SS

-16.0 Moreland

-11.7 Beni

 

I don't know about you guys, but if these two lists were reversed (except for Betts) it would look more like what my eyes are seeing.

[cp176]

I am surprised that my good friend Dewey neglected to tell us that those UZR eyes are also objective. Unlike normal eyes.

 

Would those be eyes of the biased type or whatever the others might be?

[User Name]

What is a UZR Engine? How is each play monitored and how is this data compiled and collected?

 

I still don't get it.

 

It's hard to get. In layman's terms, it uses cameras, not the naked eye.

[oldtimer]

I know UZR/150 is only supposed to be used in large sample sizes, but I'm losing some respect for it this year.

 

Here are the Sox top UZR/150 players:

 

40.0 JMart LF

13.6 Betts

10.4 Devers

-0.1 Nunez

-0.9 HRam

 

The worst:

-68.9 JMart RF

-35.3 Holt 2B

-28.8 JBJ

-20.4 Lin SS

-16.0 Moreland

-11.7 Beni

 

I don't know about you guys, but if these two lists were reversed (except for Betts) it would look more like what my eyes are seeing.

 

When the ZR/150 is that much in disagreement with what we see, it has to be called into question. JBJ worse than the average CF? That is not what i see.Moreland and Lin also seem to be capable fielders when compared to some sort of average player. Devers better than average while leading all 3rd basemen in errors made. Seems a little far fetched. HRam has had a good season so far so I can believe his numbers and JMart in left field is according to this way better than Beni.

 

Maybe this can be attributed to garbage in and garbage out. If the FO is using these sorts of numbers to establish player value then I wonder about their intelligence.

[User Name]

I know UZR/150 is only supposed to be used in large sample sizes, but I'm losing some respect for it this year.

 

Here are the Sox top UZR/150 players:

 

40.0 JMart LF

13.6 Betts

10.4 Devers

-0.1 Nunez

-0.9 HRam

 

The worst:

-68.9 JMart RF

-35.3 Holt 2B

-28.8 JBJ

-20.4 Lin SS

-16.0 Moreland

-11.7 Beni

 

I don't know about you guys, but if these two lists were reversed (except for Betts) it would look more like what my eyes are seeing.

 

You put the caveat in front that explains how meaningless the current UZR or /150 ratings are considering it's still April. Be consistent.

[User Name]

When the ZR/150 is that much in disagreement with what we see, it has to be called into question. JBJ worse than the average CF? That is not what i see.Moreland and Lin also seem to be capable fielders when compared to some sort of average player. Devers better than average while leading all 3rd basemen in errors made. Seems a little far fetched. HRam has had a good season so far so I can believe his numbers and JMart in left field is according to this way better than Beni.

 

Maybe this can be attributed to garbage in and garbage out. If the FO is using these sorts of numbers to establish player value then I wonder about their intelligence.

 

You don't even understand how the system works, what it measures, and over what amount of chances. Your post is melting my brain.

[S5Dewey]

I don't care anything about sample size in this case. Any statistic that says that JDM has more range in LF than JBJ has in CF has a right to be called into question.

[S5Dewey]

And speaking of questions, did anyone notice that JDM is 108 'units of measure' worse in RF than in LF?

 

People wonder why I question statistics.

[Kimmi]

Except that's not how it works anymore. The data is gathered using the Baseball Info Solutions systems (essentially Statcast) to account for most defense-related events. Please look up how a stat/system works before forming an opinion.

 

This stuff takes 30 seconds to look up and a couple minutes to read.

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-fangraphs-uzr-primer/

 

Thank you for this post.

[Kimmi]

I know UZR/150 is only supposed to be used in large sample sizes, but I'm losing some respect for it this year.

 

Here are the Sox top UZR/150 players:

 

40.0 JMart LF

13.6 Betts

10.4 Devers

-0.1 Nunez

-0.9 HRam

 

The worst:

-68.9 JMart RF

-35.3 Holt 2B

-28.8 JBJ

-20.4 Lin SS

-16.0 Moreland

-11.7 Beni

 

I don't know about you guys, but if these two lists were reversed (except for Betts) it would look more like what my eyes are seeing.

 

A one year sample size is not large enough. A less than one month sample size is almost meaningless.

 

You would have to first regress those values to 0 by about 80%, and even then, the numbers won't tell you much.

[Kimmi]

The good news for all of you stat loving geeks out there is that these guys are always tweaking their metrics and making improvements to them. Teams have access to defensive metrics that are better than what is available to the public. BIS introduced its enhanced version of DRS called 'PART'. I know that you all wait with bated breath, as I do, for its release to the public.

[jad]

What is a UZR Engine? How is each play monitored and how is this data compiled and collected?

 

I still don't get it.

 

That's likely because those who define and promote it work very hard to conceal the fact that there are many many "ask-the-human" type decisions and factors involved. No two balls hit are "the same" in nature; they are only "the same" when so perceived by a human eye and significant features (e.g., 'speed') defined as relevant by a human brain. The same goes for the definitions of atmospheric conditions, etc., and any number of refinements that could be build into these models. There are some types of 'neural network' types of analysis (insofar as I understand these!) that I believe can eliminate this 'ask-the-human' step, but UZR (at least from what I can tell) is not one of them. Mind you, I'm not opposed to this type of analysis, and it certainly beats the kind of approach critiqued and ridiculed so well in Moneyball (the scout's 'feel' for the game in particular!). But then, I'm not opposed to judging hitters by batting average either (or OBP or OPS). Statistics help. But few methods I've seen are completely objective (maybe the one my adolescent brother once used for a whole season: all he recorded over the year was a ratio for each AB: number of bases achieved vs. number possible. So 1-4 for a walk with no one on; 3-6 when a weak ground ball goes through the SS legs allowing the runner on second to score. No one, of course, either a traditionalist or a sabermetrician, would accept such a system as a standard on which to judge others).

[Kimmi]

That's likely because those who define and promote it work very hard to conceal the fact that there are many many "ask-the-human" type decisions and factors involved. No two balls hit are "the same" in nature; they are only "the same" when so perceived by a human eye and significant features (e.g., 'speed') defined as relevant by a human brain. The same goes for the definitions of atmospheric conditions, etc., and any number of refinements that could be build into these models. There are some types of 'neural network' types of analysis (insofar as I understand these!) that I believe can eliminate this 'ask-the-human' step, but UZR (at least from what I can tell) is not one of them. Mind you, I'm not opposed to this type of analysis, and it certainly beats the kind of approach critiqued and ridiculed so well in Moneyball (the scout's 'feel' for the game in particular!). But then, I'm not opposed to judging hitters by batting average either (or OBP or OPS). Statistics help. But few methods I've seen are completely objective (maybe the one my adolescent brother once used for a whole season: all he recorded over the year was a ratio for each AB: number of bases achieved vs. number possible. So 1-4 for a walk with no one on; 3-6 when a weak ground ball goes through the SS legs allowing the runner on second to score. No one, of course, either a traditionalist or a sabermetrician, would accept such a system as a standard on which to judge others).

 

No one is trying to argue that UZR and the like are completely objective. Just that they are far more objective than the eyes of a single fan or an official scorer.

[Spudboy]

No one is trying to argue that UZR and the like are completely objective. Just that they are far more objective than the eyes of a single fan or an official scorer.

 

As far as I am concerned this has not been demonstrated. Or fully explained.

 

Now you can assume that I am a trumpophile and therefor have little or no understanding of math or science.

 

Not exactly the case.

[jad]

No one is trying to argue that UZR and the like are completely objective. Just that they are far more objective than the eyes of a single fan or an official scorer.

 

Not sure of that (a lot of the rhetoric above gets close). And if the standard is "better than the eyes of a single fan or official scorer," that's a pretty low bar. I don't think either the proponents of advanced stats or the worst sort of tobacco-chewing scout would dispute that.

[Kimmi]

Not sure of that (a lot of the rhetoric above gets close). And if the standard is "better than the eyes of a single fan or official scorer," that's a pretty low bar. I don't think either the proponents of advanced stats or the worst sort of tobacco-chewing scout would dispute that.

 

It's not a low bar. The objectivity of defensive metrics is far better.