Wright, Throwers and Pitchers

[notin]

on my MLB app it shows some StatCast plays on outfield catches. it shows distance covered, time, sprint speed, ball trajectory, (i cant recall if they show ball velocity but imagine it is tracked) and assigns a star value to the catch - 5 star being the best and percentage of time the play would be made. to me that is way better than some guy watching it and deciding what he thinks. by way better i literally mean a billion percent better.

 

And maybe I am behind in my knowledge of how this data is tracked and recorded.

 

It did all start out the way I said, and maybe some agency someplace is still watching it manually.

 

But the bottom line is, every play made by every player is taken into account somehow, which is something we as fans simply cannot do for the reasons that spurred your doubts in the first place, among other reasons. That in itself is an advantage.

 

That doesn't mean we as fans don't know a good play or a great play when we see one. It just means we have no idea who else is also making that play...

[moonslav59]

this post is alot different from the ones where you were basically saying a guy watches every play of every game so as to take into account the different ways each OFer tracks/gets to a ball.

also....i would 1 billion percent trust StatCast creating the UZR score independently compared to a "guy" watching every play.

 

How about comparing a bunch of guys, who together, watch every play of every game vs you and I, who watch almost only Sox games?

 

To me, the disparity between them and us is much wider than the disparity between those guys and StatCast.

[moonslav59]

And maybe I am behind in my knowledge of how this data is tracked and recorded.

 

It did all start out the way I said, and maybe some agency someplace is still watching it manually.

 

But the bottom line is, every play made by every player is taken into account somehow, which is something we as fans simply cannot do for the reasons that spurred your doubts in the first place, among other reasons. That in itself is an advantage.

 

That doesn't mean we as fans don't know a good play or a great play when we see one. It just means we have no idea who else is also making that play...

 

Well said.

[Slasher9]

How about comparing a bunch of guys, who together, watch every play of every game vs you and I, who watch almost only Sox games?

 

To me, the disparity between them and us is much wider than the disparity between those guys and StatCast.

 

i trust me and you more than i trust these "other guys".

i trust StatCast more than i trust me and you. by a grip.

the "other guys" can go fly a kite.

[moonslav59]

i trust me and you more than i trust these "other guys".

i trust StatCast more than i trust me and you. by a grip.

the "other guys" can go fly a kite.

 

I don't even know the names of every team's CF'er, let alone how well they field.

 

I know the Sox players well and that's about it.

 

I see 162 games of opposing CF'ers- some 3 games, some 18, some 6 and some none. Don't trust me with comparative value solely by my observations.

 

[S5Dewey]

The thing I've noticed is that when some folks start defending WAR (and dWAR in particular) there's a lot of "if'", "could be", "may be" "might be", "I suspect", "I presume" and "not sure" involved in the defense.

 

I've gotta stay that if I'm on a jury statements like that don't prove much to me. I'd think it would be more candid to just step up and say, "I don't know what's going on in the calculations, but I believe it", rather than try to defend something they don't know enough about to defend.

 

The thing I will say about WAR is what Notin said earlier...

"No one has said the system is perfect. In fact, everyone admits it is not. But that doesn't mean it is useless, either."

 

Slash does raise a really good point though about WAR vs. WAA. I never understood why they would try to compare a player against a fictitious "replacement level player" rather than an average player whose value can be determined.

[notin]

The thing I've noticed is that when some folks start defending WAR (and dWAR in particular) there's a lot of "if'", "could be", "may be" "might be", "I suspect", "I presume" and "not sure" involved in the defense.

 

I've gotta stay that if I'm on a jury statements like that don't prove much to me. I'd think it would be more candid to just step up and say, "I don't know what's going on in the calculations, but I believe it", rather than try to defend something they don't know enough about to defend.

 

The thing I will say about WAR is what Notin said earlier...

"No one has said the system is perfect. In fact, everyone admits it is not. But that doesn't mean it is useless, either."

 

Slash does raise a really good point though about WAR vs. WAA. I never understood why they would try to compare a player against a fictitious "replacement level player" rather than an average player whose value can be determined.

 

I admit I don't grasp the calculations. I've see the formulae, but that doesn't mean I know why they count everything the way they do or arrive at baserunning and defensive components. But I think most people attribute some element of faith to those who put in a lot of work that their observations and calculations are better than most fans can arrive at. Even if you don't believe in the exact numbers, as skr points out, it can be more of a directional component than an exact value. Especially since it can never be truly verified as it is. We will never know if the Red Sox had 8 fewer wins this year if Betts was not playing and, say, Aneury Tavarez or Rusney Castillo was manning RF.

 

And honestly, I think the single biggest advantage Fangraphs' WAR (fWAR) values has over any of the other encompassing stats is their accessibility. B-R.com doesn't have any functions on their website to sort by bWAR or compare bWAR over spans of years. This may seem like a trivial reason, but if you are one of those who think WAR is a good debate starter, this can be very important as opposed to doing all the tedious research and browsing needed on other sites...

[Slasher9]

but if you are one of those who think WAR is a good debate starter.

 

the problem is that too many of us use it as a debate ender......

[Slasher9]

I see 162 games of opposing CF'ers- some 3 games, some 18, some 6 and some none. Don't trust me with comparative value solely by my observations.

 

 

thats my point in how much i trust or have faith in these "other guys". let me see their CV's and then maybe i'll give some value to their "opinions" on how JBj compares to other CFers...let me see their criteria for how they rank a play.....until then i will continue to use my own lyin' eyes, StatCast scores, and Moonservations....

[notin]

thats my point in how much i trust or have faith in these "other guys". let me see their CV's and then maybe i'll give some value to their "opinions" on how JBj compares to other CFers...let me see their criteria for how they rank a play.....until then i will continue to use my own lyin' eyes, StatCast scores, and Moonservations....

 

We all do that.

 

But there is a big difference in saying "JBJ is the best defensive CF I've ever seen" and "JBJ is the best defensive CF in the game today."...

[notin]

the problem is that too many of us use it as a debate ender......

 

From what I've seen, a lot of people also just give up at it's mention. There are plenty of counterarguments out there...

[moonslav59]

the problem is that too many of us use it as a debate ender......

 

I'm not sure anybody means to come off that way, except maybe harmony, who uses WAR and projected WAR more than anybody I know, but I can see how it sounds like that.

 

I'll ask this, sometimes someone will say so-and-so is slumping, and I'll reply, but so-and-so has a .875 OPS over the last 7 days, .900 over 14 days and .850 over 28 days. That may sound like a debate ender, and to me, it does end the debate, because it proves the guy is not in a slump, unless you count a 2-6 day sample size as worthy of calling a slump.

 

Would someone argue why does OPS ends the debate?

[moonslav59]

thats my point in how much i trust or have faith in these "other guys". let me see their CV's and then maybe i'll give some value to their "opinions" on how JBj compares to other CFers...let me see their criteria for how they rank a play.....until then i will continue to use my own lyin' eyes, StatCast scores, and Moonservations....

 

Your own eyes haven't even seen maybe 27/30ths of all the CF plays made this year.

 

Those guys, trained and calibrated, have seen 100% of all the plays.

[Slasher9]

I'm not sure anybody means to come off that way, except maybe harmony, who uses WAR and projected WAR more than anybody I know, but I can see how it sounds like that.

 

I'll ask this, sometimes someone will say so-and-so is slumping, and I'll reply, but so-and-so has a .875 OPS over the last 7 days, .900 over 14 days and .850 over 28 days. That may sound like a debate ender, and to me, it does end the debate, because it proves the guy is not in a slump, unless you count a 2-6 day sample size as worthy of calling a slump.

 

Would someone argue why does OPS ends the debate?

 

no. OPS can be a debate ender. OPS is not a number created by a "they" watching every play of every game and giving their "opinion". i mean you will occasionally get a gift hit from an official scorer that should have been an E but for the most part OPS is a solid stat. i would never ever refer to WAR, WAA, or UZR as a solid stat.

[moonslav59]

From what I've seen, a lot of people also just give up at it's mention. There are plenty of counterarguments out there...

 

If someone argued, "I've seen every play made by JBJ and every play made by Lorenzo Cain, and Cain is better, I'd listen. That would be a great counter argument.

 

How many of us can say that about any other CF'er not named JBJ? How many can say they even see 10% of every other CF'er plays on defense?

 

(BTW, JBJ now leads MLB in UZR/150 in 2018)

 

https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=cf&stats=fld&lg=all&qual=y&type=1&season=2018&month=0&season1=2018&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&sort=24,d

[Slasher9]

Your own eyes haven't even seen maybe 27/30ths of all the CF plays made this year.

 

Those guys, trained and calibrated, have seen 100% of all the plays.

 

who are these guys? let me see their training guides, SOP's, calibrations, CV's. is that too much to ask>?

[moonslav59]

no. OPS can be a debate ender. OPS is not a number created by a "they" watching every play of every game and giving their "opinion". i mean you will occasionally get a gift hit from an official scorer that should have been an E but for the most part OPS is a solid stat. i would never ever refer to WAR, WAA, or UZR as a solid stat.

 

Well, and argument could be made that the player went 6 for 6 seven days ago with 3 HRs and has gone 1 for 18 his last 6 games, and is indeed in a slump.

[Slasher9]

Well, and argument could be made that the player went 6 for 6 seven days ago with 3 HRs and has gone 1 for 18 his last 6 games, and is indeed in a slump.

 

i think we would have to agree on what length constitutes a slump and go from there.

me? i dont think 1-18 is a slump. i may call it a bad stretch.

[notin]

i think we would have to agree on what length constitutes a slump and go from there.

me? i dont think 1-18 is a slump. i may call it a bad stretch.

 

I'm ok with calling 1 for 18 a slump...

[notin]

who are these guys? let me see their training guides, SOP's, calibrations, CV's. is that too much to ask>?

 

When you go car shopping, do you demand to see the engineering degrees from everyone at the auto plant?

 

Email someone at Fangraphs for some details, if you like. Even they know the system is not perfect and is in a constant state of improvement. Presumably adding StatCast data is one way they have bolstered their metrics, but there will be others. Again, this doesn't negate the whole system, and doesn't make it worse than casual fan observations from television...

[Bellhorn04]

I'm ok with calling 1 for 18 a slump...

 

I'll have to go with Slasher on this one. 18 AB's is only 4 games.

[Slasher9]

When you go car shopping, do you demand to see the engineering degrees from everyone at the auto plant?

 

Email someone at Fangraphs for some details, if you like. Even they know the system is not perfect and is in a constant state of improvement. Presumably adding StatCast data is one way they have bolstered their metrics, but there will be others. Again, this doesn't negate the whole system, and doesn't make it worse than casual fan observations from television...

no but maybe we should have with those VW aholes and the guy that designed the pinto and thought it was a good idea to strap a gas tank to the rear bumper.

it's a bad analogy anyways. building a car is a concrete thing. watching a play and deciding subjectively the rating for it is an opinion at best.

[notin]

no but maybe we should have with those VW aholes and the guy that designed the pinto and thought it was a good idea to strap a gas tank to the rear bumper.

it's a bad analogy anyways. building a car is a concrete thing. watching a play and deciding subjectively the rating for it is an opinion at best.

 

First this board trashes Chicago and then Volkswagen.

 

I'm a Volkswagen owner living in Chicago here...

[Slasher9]

First this board trashes Chicago and then Volkswagen.

 

I'm a Volkswagen owner living in Chicago here...

 

you sir, are a polluter and a murderer!!!!!

[moonslav59]

i think we would have to agree on what length constitutes a slump and go from there.

me? i dont think 1-18 is a slump. i may call it a bad stretch.

 

I agree, but my point was that even hard stats can be argued and often are. No stat or metric should ever end the debate, unless both sides accept it as proof

[a700hitter]

you sir, are a polluter and a murderer!!!!!

 

LOL!! Excellent.

[notin]

you sir, are a polluter and a murderer!!!!!

 

You murder one little person with some pollution and you're labeled for life. But thank you for the knighthood..

[notin]

I'll have to go with Slasher on this one. 18 AB's is only 4 games.

 

I still think it's a slump, albeit not a huge one. I've seen players get rested for stretches like that.

 

Of course, this is a genrealization. If the player has some hard hit balls that just don't fall in, it's bad luck...

[Kimmi]

I'm thinking if a player makes a difficult play look easy, it may cause the observer to think the ball was medium not hard hit or within everyone's range, when it wasn't.

 

I remember seeing JBJ make one of the best catches I ever saw, and they said it was a 40% catchable ball. Now, maybe I was wrong, but certainly the observer could be, too.

 

1. Every play is watched by at least two different video scouts. Also, they watch the plays several times, if needed.

2. The scouts aren't recording the plays by watching whether the player made the play look easy or hard, but by the quadrant in which the ball was caught.

3. The velocity of the batted ball can now be measured accurately.

[Kimmi]

so one person isnt watching every play of every game taking into account how JBj gets an amazing jump and almost never has to dive for an "impossible" catch making it look easy. that is what your and moons earlier posts on this implies. now it has turned into a bunch of guys watching some of the plays. that is a completely different thing. sounds broken/illegitimate to me. dwar can suck it as far as im concerned.

 

With the new Statcast data, defensive metrics will only get better. They can track exactly how far the player had to run to get to a ball, along with exit velocity and launch angle of the ball. All of this gives the scouts very accurate reads on defensive plays.