A Realistic View at 2020: Part I

[moonslav59]

The Gold Glove is like the Oscar. Sometimes it just goes to someone with a distinguished career and doesn’t take into account its own actual criteria...

 

Exactly.It's certainly a bigger scam than UZR/150+ DRS+ Fielding Bible + dWAR.

Edited November 10, 2019 by moonslav59

[Elktonnick]

I know plenty of Yankee fans and all admit Jeter was at best below average his last 10-11 years of his career.

 

I find it fascinating that we have Sox fans defending his horrendous defense.

 

They watched the same games I did, and whoop-dee-freakin-doo, he hardly made any errors. This whole "few errors" argument is so old and tired and short-sighted I'm tired of even debating the issue anymore.

 

This whole discussion started because you said that Jeter was the WORST defensive SS of his era. He clearly wasn't. Face it it was a ridiculous statement to have made.

 

The only clown show is some one who insists he was the worst in spite of the 5 GG. In order to accept your contention one would have believe all the experts were wrong and you are right.

The fact that I do not accept the scientific validity of UZR which I don't its crap scientifically speaking, doesn' t mean I do not know how it is calculated. I do. I just do not accept its utility. You just can not accept the fact that some one values the opinion of the professionals who voted him 5 gold gloves for his steady consistent defense over a scientically invalid measure.

Edited November 10, 2019 by Elktonnick

[notin]

This whole discussion started because you said that Jeter was the WORST defensive SS of his era. He clearly wasn't. Face it it was a ridiculous statement to have made.

 

The only clown show is some one who insists he was the worst in spite of the 5 GG. In order to accept your contention one would have believe all the experts were wrong and you are right.

The fact that I do not accept the scientific validity of UZR which I don't its crap scientifically speaking, doesn' t mean I do not know how it is calculated. I do. I just do not accept its utility. You just can not accept the fact that some one values the opinion of the professionals who voted him 5 gold gloves for his steady consistent defense over a scientically invalid measure.

 

Let’s be fair. There is no bigger joke when it comes to defensive evaluation than the Gold Glove Award used to be. You know, back when it refused to acknowledge outfield was three positions and Derek Jeter was winning multiple times.

 

Nowadays, SABR has actually been involved in adding a sabermetrics component to the balloting process. So the irony here is the process Elktonnick does take seriously actually uses the process he doesn’t...

[Bellhorn04]

The only clown show is some one who insists he was the worst in spite of the 5 GG. In order to accept your contention one would have believe all the experts were wrong and you are right.

 

The experts you're referring to are the managers and coaches of opposing teams, who would have seen the players in live action for 6 to 19 games out of 162.

 

So the process itself was something of a joke.

[Elktonnick]

The experts you're referring to are the managers and coaches of opposing teams, who would have seen the players in live action for 6 to 19 games out of 162.

 

So the process itself was something of a joke.

Obviously you do not think much of managers and coaches judging talent. Major leaguers are a small fraternity. Small fraternities usually are the best evaluators of who are their best performers since they constantly talk with each. Having known guys who have played, coached scouted and umpired in professional baseball, these guys generally live, talk, ea,t and sleep baseball. They know who is who

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

I'd just like to clear my name here... which in no way is a homage to Jeter's 5 GGs. And for the record, I didn't hate him as much for his overrated D, but more for Fox's postseason Jeter Cam, the one that followed him around on the field or in the dugout in every Sox-Yanks game, just in case he fist-pumped.

 

Speaking of Gold Glovers, I think Boston's thriller-Bs outfield unit from 2016-2018 is the best I've ever seen. However, the deepest outfield core of fine fielders has to go to the 1975 AL champs. Those were the days when I'd like to think voters gave more consideration to their eye-tests -- and didn't just pick the most publicized players, especially famous hitters.

 

Five outfielders on that Red Sox team would win Gold between '75 and '78... can anyone name them without looking it up? Clue 1: Hall of Famer Jim Rice was not one of them. Clue 2: two were named in years they hit in the .260s, another in the .240s.

[Bellhorn04]

Obviously you do not think much of managers and coaches judging talent.

 

The real point is the 6 to 19 games out of 162.

[Elktonnick]

The real point is the 6 to 19 games out of 162.

 

No the real point is Jeter was not the worst. The other real point is baseball is more art than science. The other real point is Lichtman the creator of UZR recognized its limitations and so much as admitted it lacked scientific rigor. The other real point is that the GG may not be scientific but it is the judgment of one's peers and has more validity than any artificial measures which even sabrmetricians view as flawed. Here is the KC Star's take published May 19 2019:

 

" Then read these excerpts from what FanGraphs has to say about Ultimate Zone Rating:

“Just because UZR or any other defensive metric “says” that someone is X, even if that X is based on many years of data, does not make it so. When you are dealing with sample data, as we almost always are with every metric in baseball that we encounter, there is a certain chance that the metric is going to be ‘wrong.’

“The reason for that is that the data is imperfect.

“We don’t know exactly where each fielder was stationed, we certainly don’t know the exact location of the batted ball to the nearest square inch on the field, and we definitely don’t know how long the ball was in the air or on the ground. In reality, it might have been an easy ball to catch or it might have been a difficult one to catch, or somewhere in between.

“There is no guarantee that our UZR number reflects what the player actually did or his true defensive talent.”

If that strikes you as an awful lot of stuff not to know for a metric that supposedly measures a player’s defense, join the club.

Slog through the fine print of advanced baseball metrics and you often find a passage that says, Yeah, these numbers might not be accurate, but it’s the best information we’ve got, so let’s go with it.

Which is pretty much the same thought process that led to the belief that the Earth was flat, the sun orbited around it and a good way to identify a witch was to tie her up and throw her in the nearest lake to see if she sank.

“Sure, we might be ‘wrong’ and drown a few people, but it’s the best system we’ve got.”

Here’s the problem with that: When we accept and use these numbers without question we give them validity, and players are now being judged by metrics that even the metrics’ advocates admit may not be accurate.

I’d trust the opinion of a coach or scout who has watched thousands and thousands of baseball games and tens of thousands of players far more than the opinion of a “video scout” watching a game on TV, making $8 an hour, doing a summer job and feeding what may or may not be accurate data into a flawed system.

So why do we continue using these numbers?

Because we want to have opinions without going to the trouble of developing expertise.

Developing expertise not only requires watching thousands of baseball games, it also requires you to actually pay attention and know what to look for ... and most of us can’t be bothered. , even if the number we regurgitate is inaccurate.

So after looking into how defensive metrics are put together I wouldn’t trust them as far as I could throw the Royals’ team bus, but I’m guessing that won’t change a thing.

It’s much easier to look up a number on a website and sound knowledgeable

Advanced defensive metrics might not be accurate, but they sure are convenient and that’s usually enough to keep people using them.

 

Read more here: https://www.kansascity.com/sports/mlb/kansas-city-royals/article230967538.html#storylink=cpy

 

That article pretty much makes the case that I have been making. So you guys should write to the KC Star to object

 

I remember when we were up grading our legacy information management systems and using the data it was going to spit out we had to be very aware that our data input was accurate. Garbage in garbage out that is one of the huge inherent flaws in defensive baseball metrics as opposed to offensive metrics, a hit is hit a walk a walk and runs scored are runs scored.

Edited November 10, 2019 by Elktonnick

[Bellhorn04]

No the real point is Jeter was not the worst. The other real point is baseball is more art than science. The other real point is Lichtman the creator of UZR recognized its limitations and so much as admitted it lacked scientific rigor. The other real point is that the GG may not be scientific but it is the judgment of one's peers and has more validity than any artificial measures which even sabrmetricians view as flawed.

 

Since 2013 the Gold Glove award process has specifically incorporated the use of Sabrmetric data provided to managers and coaches.

 

MLB recognized that the previous system was flawed and took some action.

[Elktonnick]

Since 2013 the Gold Glove award process has specifically incorporated the use of Sabrmetric data provided to managers and coaches.

 

MLB recognized that the previous system was flawed and took some action.

25 per cent. However that still does not make the defensive measures scientifically valid it just means that MLB added them to the process. Eyeballs evaluating the talent determines the winners not some 8 dllr an hour data clerk entering unverified data into a computer and crunching some numbers based on an artificial formula.

[moonslav59]

This whole discussion started because you said that Jeter was the WORST defensive SS of his era. He clearly wasn't. Face it it was a ridiculous statement to have made.

 

The only clown show is some one who insists he was the worst in spite of the 5 GG. In order to accept your contention one would have believe all the experts were wrong and you are right.

The fact that I do not accept the scientific validity of UZR which I don't its crap scientifically speaking, doesn' t mean I do not know how it is calculated. I do. I just do not accept its utility. You just can not accept the fact that some one values the opinion of the professionals who voted him 5 gold gloves for his steady consistent defense over a scientically invalid measure.

 

What makes you think the GG voters are experts?

 

IMO, he's the worst. I'd agree on 3 to 5th worst for those 11 years. If you want to claim I'm moving the goalposts, fine. I still think he was the worst, and I have evidence to prove it, and not just sabermetrics.

 

The Fielding Bible is stacked with experts and they never placed him in the top 13, so that right there throws out the 55 GGs, which is all you got.

 

Give it up. He sucked- royally.

[moonslav59]

No the real point is Jeter was not the worst. The other real point is baseball is more art than science. The other real point is Lichtman the creator of UZR recognized its limitations and so much as admitted it lacked scientific rigor. The other real point is that the GG may not be scientific but it is the judgment of one's peers and has more validity than any artificial measures which even sabrmetricians view as flawed. Here is the KC Star's take published May 19 2019:

 

" Then read these excerpts from what FanGraphs has to say about Ultimate Zone Rating:

“Just because UZR or any other defensive metric “says” that someone is X, even if that X is based on many years of data, does not make it so. When you are dealing with sample data, as we almost always are with every metric in baseball that we encounter, there is a certain chance that the metric is going to be ‘wrong.’

“The reason for that is that the data is imperfect.

“We don’t know exactly where each fielder was stationed, we certainly don’t know the exact location of the batted ball to the nearest square inch on the field, and we definitely don’t know how long the ball was in the air or on the ground. In reality, it might have been an easy ball to catch or it might have been a difficult one to catch, or somewhere in between.

“There is no guarantee that our UZR number reflects what the player actually did or his true defensive talent.”

If that strikes you as an awful lot of stuff not to know for a metric that supposedly measures a player’s defense, join the club.

Slog through the fine print of advanced baseball metrics and you often find a passage that says, Yeah, these numbers might not be accurate, but it’s the best information we’ve got, so let’s go with it.

Which is pretty much the same thought process that led to the belief that the Earth was flat, the sun orbited around it and a good way to identify a witch was to tie her up and throw her in the nearest lake to see if she sank.

“Sure, we might be ‘wrong’ and drown a few people, but it’s the best system we’ve got.”

Here’s the problem with that: When we accept and use these numbers without question we give them validity, and players are now being judged by metrics that even the metrics’ advocates admit may not be accurate.

I’d trust the opinion of a coach or scout who has watched thousands and thousands of baseball games and tens of thousands of players far more than the opinion of a “video scout” watching a game on TV, making $8 an hour, doing a summer job and feeding what may or may not be accurate data into a flawed system.

So why do we continue using these numbers?

Because we want to have opinions without going to the trouble of developing expertise.

Developing expertise not only requires watching thousands of baseball games, it also requires you to actually pay attention and know what to look for ... and most of us can’t be bothered. , even if the number we regurgitate is inaccurate.

So after looking into how defensive metrics are put together I wouldn’t trust them as far as I could throw the Royals’ team bus, but I’m guessing that won’t change a thing.

It’s much easier to look up a number on a website and sound knowledgeable

Advanced defensive metrics might not be accurate, but they sure are convenient and that’s usually enough to keep people using them.

 

Read more here: https://www.kansascity.com/sports/mlb/kansas-city-royals/article230967538.html#storylink=cpy

 

That article pretty much makes the case that I have been making. So you guys should write to the KC Star to object

 

I remember when we were up grading our legacy information management systems and using the data it was going to spit out we had to be very aware that our data input was accurate. Garbage in garbage out that is one of the huge inherent flaws in defensive baseball metrics as opposed to offensive metrics, a hit is hit a walk a walk and runs scored are runs scored.

 

Keep bashing UZR/150 all you want, but it was DRS that showed Jeter was as bad as the next worst two combined. No Fielding Bible ranking ever placed him in the top 12. That's not sabermetrics. Jacko all but called him a butcher at the end of his career. Being a Yankee fan like you, I'd think you'd respect jacko.

[moonslav59]

25 per cent. However that still does not make the defensive measures scientifically valid it just means that MLB added them to the process. Eyeballs evaluating the talent determines the winners not some 8 dllr an hour data clerk entering unverified data into a computer and crunching some numbers based on an artificial formula.

 

Those "eyeballs" voted a DH the GG at 1B. How can you possibly place value on that process?

[Elktonnick]

Keep bashing UZR/150 all you want, but it was DRS that showed Jeter was as bad as the next worst two combined. No Fielding Bible ranking ever placed him in the top 12. That's not sabermetrics. Jacko all but called him a butcher at the end of his career. Being a Yankee fan like you, I'd think you'd respect jacko.

 

First of all I am hardly a Yankees fan just a fan who sees the inherent flaws in Defensive metrics I think the May 2019 KC Star addressed the flaws in DRS as well as UZR.

Fangraphs includes the following admonishment: DRS uses Baseball Info Solutions (BIS) data in calculating its results. It’s important to note that this data is compiled by human scorers, which means that it likely includes some human error. We are never going to have wholly accurate defensive data; human error is impossible to avoid when recording fielding locations by hand, no matter how meticulous the scorers. As the Star article points out it is the subjective input of opinion as to whether a ball should or should not have been caught by an 8dllr an hour data entry clerk. Garbage in Garbage out as we used to say when evaluating data from our information management systems.

 

Another article made the following point re DRS.

"Defensive Runs Saved has its share of drawbacks, too. For one thing, it doesn’t take into account defensive shifts or positioning. Imagine that a batter hits a routine grounder to where the third baseman would normally be positioned — except that the team is using a Chris Davis-type shift with the third baseman stationed near second. There’s no possible way he could make that play, through no fault of his own, but DRS would still give him demerits......

There are many factors in play that could lead to discrepancies. DRS, like any stat, shouldn’t be considered a foolproof measurement." Let me repeat that in case you missed it DRS like any stat shouldn’t be considered a foolproof measurement." Did you catch that.

 

BTW the article that Bellhorn cited specifically mentioned that Jeter;s positioning tended to adversely impact his defensive metrics.

 

GG voting may be flawed but at least it is the product of managers and coaches who have played the game.

 

What it comes down to is that defensive metrics are the product of 8dllr an hour data clerks which hardly qualify as a scientific objective measure just because the end product is the result of some mathematical formula. Garbage in Garbage out.

Edited November 10, 2019 by Elktonnick

[moonslav59]

First of all I am hardly a Yankees fan just a fan who sees the inherent flaws in Defensive metrics I think the May 2019 KC Star addressed the flaws in DRS as well as UZR.

Fangraphs includes the following admonishment: DRS uses Baseball Info Solutions (BIS) data in calculating its results. It’s important to note that this data is compiled by human scorers, which means that it likely includes some human error. We are never going to have wholly accurate defensive data; human error is impossible to avoid when recording fielding locations by hand, no matter how meticulous the scorers. As the Star article points out it is the subjective input of opinion as to whether a ball should or should not have been caught by an 8dllr an hour data entry clerk. Garbage in Garbage out as we used to say when evaluating data from our information management systems.

 

Another article made the following point re DRS.

"Defensive Runs Saved has its share of drawbacks, too. For one thing, it doesn’t take into account defensive shifts or positioning. Imagine that a batter hits a routine grounder to where the third baseman would normally be positioned — except that the team is using a Chris Davis-type shift with the third baseman stationed near second. There’s no possible way he could make that play, through no fault of his own, but DRS would still give him demerits......

There are many factors in play that could lead to discrepancies. DRS, like any stat, shouldn’t be considered a foolproof measurement." Let me repeat that in case you missed it DRS like any

 

The article that Bellhorn specifically mentioned the issue of Jeter's positioning which tended to skew his defensive metrics.

tat shouldn't be considered foolproof.

Finally GG awards aren't intended to be a scientific measure but reflect the opinion of those who have played coached and managed the game. It is a far better representation of a players defensive worth than subjective values entered into a computer by data clerks who never played the game. Because when it really comes down to it that defensive metrics are the product of 8dllr an hour data clerks which hardly qualify as a scientific objective measure just because the end product is the result of some mathematical formula. Garbage in Garbage out.

 

So, the GG vote has no "drawbacks?" 3 separate metrics all show he sucks, and it must be a quirk, because he was actually the best for 5 years. You really want to believe that? WOW! If you aren't Yankee fan, you should be.

 

Now, find an article bashing The Fielding Bible. Those are "experts."

 

I could find plenty on the GG vote, but it won't matter to you.

Edited November 10, 2019 by moonslav59

[cp176]

Many do both. Those are the ones I like.

 

If it comes down to a guy who makes 100 more plays than the other (on exactly the same amount and difficulty plays) but makes 20 more errors, I'll take the guy with 20 more errors.

 

Hmm - who would argue this? A guy that makes all of the routine plays but his range allows him to get to !00 more balls 80 of which he makes plays on. Yup - I'd take that every day. Who is he?

Maybe you misunderstood me. I wasn't saying that I valued a fat flat footed shortstop very highly even if he made every play hit right at him.. Most have some range, some have more range than others. I value consistent play in the field very much. Acrobatics really don't turn me on particularly. You are saying that many shortstops today have outstanding range and make all of the plays they should make as well? I'm glad you see it that way. Oh and by the way this has 0 to do with Jeter who by the way I'm pretty sure was one helluva ball player.

[illinoisredsox]

Five outfielders on that Red Sox team would win Gold between '75 and '78... can anyone name them without looking it up? Clue 1: Hall of Famer Jim Rice was not one of them. Clue 2: two were named in years they hit in the .260s, another in the .240s.

 

Evans, Lynn and Rick Miller are obvious picks. Yaz for 4th choice? The only other OFs who played much back then were Juan Beniquez and Bernie Carbo. Of those two I’d have to go with Beniquez. I’m also guessing that Miller and Beniquez won theirs with other teams.

[moonslav59]

Hmm - who would argue this? A guy that makes all of the routine plays but his range allows him to get to !00 more balls 80 of which he makes plays on. Yup - I'd take that every day. Who is he?

Maybe you misunderstood me. I wasn't saying that I valued a fat flat footed shortstop very highly even if he made every play hit right at him.. Most have some range, some have more range than others. I value consistent play in the field very much. Acrobatics really don't turn me on particularly. You are saying that many shortstops today have outstanding range and make all of the plays they should make as well? I'm glad you see it that way. Oh and by the way this has 0 to do with Jeter who by the way I'm pretty sure was one helluva ball player.

 

I just made up an example with easy numbers to relate to, but every year some SSs do make 100 or more plays than others- same SS- year after year.

 

Would a 40 more plays example be better? But, he makes 10 more errors? Sure, those high range players exist.

[S5Dewey]

What an interesting debate. It now has some down to some posters defending the eye test - which can undoubtedly be wrong at times - and other posters defending sabermetrics even when the org doing the calculations admits is wrong at times.

 

I'm glad I didn't get involved in this one!!

[Elktonnick]

So, the GG vote has no "drawbacks?" 3 separate metrics all show he sucks, and it must be a quirk, because he was actually the best for 5 years. You really want to believe that? WOW! If you aren't Yankee fan, you should be.

 

Now, find an article bashing The Fielding Bible. Those are "experts."

 

I could find plenty on the GG vote, but it won't matter to you.

 

Stop misquoting me. I said GG voting has its flaws. You never address the issue of the flaws in Defensive metrics. As for the Fielding Bible and the Fielding Bible Awards I believe none of the Award voters actually played the game so they are so called "experts" who never played the game. They are sabrmetricians, So just like carpenters to them every problem is a nail.

 

All their fielding awards are is recognition of players with the best defensive metrics they are only valid in terms of their own definition. It doesn't mean they have any scientific validity since they are beset with the same issues as all defensive metrics which I cited above.

[Bellhorn04]

Defensive metrics actually played a big role in one of the most important trades in Red Sox history.

 

In 2004, after Nomar Garciaparra returned from his injury, the Red Sox were troubled by his apparent loss of range. They hired a firm to chart his defensive range compared to average shortstops. The results confirmed that he was a seriously diminished defender. (Per Shaughnessy's book Reversing the C****)

 

This factored into Theo's decision to trade him and to get back a good defensive shortstop in Cabrera.

[Elktonnick]

Defensive metrics actually played a big role in one of the most important trades in Red Sox history.

 

In 2004, after Nomar Garciaparra returned from his injury, the Red Sox were troubled by his apparent loss of range. They hired a firm to chart his defensive range compared to average shortstops. The results confirmed that he was a seriously diminished defender. (Per Shaughnessy's book Reversing the C****)

 

This factored into Theo's decision to trade him and to get back a good defensive shortstop in Cabrera.

 

Shaughnessy may be correct but I suspect Nomar's s***** attitude, pouting on the bench and public statements complaining also had more than a little to do with his departure as well. Of course Cabrera himself would later be suddenly dealt in what remains today "curious" circumstances.

[Bellhorn04]

When it comes to defense, arguing that the eye test is as good as metrics is equivalent to arguing that real umps can do as good a job as robot umps.

 

In fact, I think they're working toward the defensive stats being compiled virtually automatically with video and measurement technology.

[Elktonnick]

When it comes to defense, arguing that the eye test is as good as metrics is equivalent to arguing that real umps can do as good a job as robot umps.

 

In fact, I think they're working toward the defensive stats being compiled virtually automatically with video and measurement technology.

 

They are but they haven't yet. That may reduce one source of error but questions remain as to the measures reliability and validity. We know for example UZR and DRS frequently come up with different results as to the relative rankings of specific players. What I would like to see are truly blind studies. Namely two or three different teams take the measurements and enter the data independently of each other and see if there is a variance in the results. A hit is a hit a walk is a walk etc so offensive metrics do not have the inherent issues that defensive metrics have. Such a study however would not eliminate some of the other variables that tend to skew defensive metrics which are too numerous to list here.

Edited November 11, 2019 by Elktonnick

[notin]

They are but they haven't yet. That may reduce one source of error but questions remain as to the measures reliability and validity. We know for example UZR and DRS frequently come up with different results as to the relative rankings of specific players. What I would like to see are truly blind studies. Namely two or three different teams take the measurements and enter the data independently of each other and see if there is a variance in the results. A hit is a hit a walk is a walk etc so offensive metrics do not have the inherent issues that defensive metrics have. Such a study however would not eliminate some of the other variables that tend to skew defensive metrics which are too numerous to list here.

 

Actually a lot of defensive metrics are automated.

 

The biggest issue is still the questions of interpretation. While fans expect clear cut rankings and “better” and “worse” players clearly defined and ranked, sometimes the differences in defensive metrics are too slight because the differences in the talents of the players are too slight.

 

Arguing that there is no equivalent in offensive metrics just shows how you have let complacency set in. A “hit” is only a “hit” when the official scorer says so, and plenty of them are questionable and inconsistent with other scorers. Same goes for walks, since not all umpires have the same strike zone...

[Elktonnick]

Actually a lot of defensive metrics are automated.

 

The biggest issue is still the questions of interpretation. While fans expect clear cut rankings and “better” and “worse” players clearly defined and ranked, sometimes the differences in defensive metrics are too slight because the differences in the talents of the players are too slight.

 

Arguing that there is no equivalent in offensive metrics just shows how you have let complacency set in. A “hit” is only a “hit” when the official scorer says so, and plenty of them are questionable and inconsistent with other scorers. Same goes for walks, since not all umpires have the same strike zone...

 

Yes I realized there was that variable in offensive data but in both cases the official scorer and umpires judgments are determinative of the fact and it is entered into the record books as such. But in defensive metrics such as UZR and DRS there is no official determiner of fact. That is the difference. So a hit is a hit a strike a strike etc because the official determiner of fact says so.

[notin]

Yes I realized there was that variable in offensive data but in both cases the official scorer and umpires judgments are determinative of the fact and it is entered into the record books as such. But in defensive metrics such as UZR and DRS there is no official determiner of fact. That is the difference. So a hit is a hit a strike a strike etc because the official determiner of fact says so.

 

 

That’s the weakest possible ending.

 

So all of your ranting about the “inherent problems” with UZR, when you’re confronted with these same flaws in all other stats, do you want to go out on “because someone else said so”?

 

Especially since Stats, Inc. and SABR and Inside Edge all do work with MLB on determining this stuff. I think MLB might differ in opinion on the lack of an “official determiner”.

[moonslav59]

Stop misquoting me. I said GG voting has its flaws. You never address the issue of the flaws in Defensive metrics. As for the Fielding Bible and the Fielding Bible Awards I believe none of the Award voters actually played the game so they are so called "experts" who never played the game. They are sabrmetricians, So just like carpenters to them every problem is a nail.

 

All their fielding awards are is recognition of players with the best defensive metrics they are only valid in terms of their own definition. It doesn't mean they have any scientific validity since they are beset with the same issues as all defensive metrics which I cited above.

 

I've addressed the flaws the metrics have dozens of time.

 

Look you believe what you want, but if you even think he was a top 15 SS (out of 30), I'm sorry, I've lost all respect for you.

 

I think he was the worst or possibly up to 3rd worst. I wouldn't argue with anyone who said he was 5th worst.

 

I'm not basing all this on metrics. The metrics backed up my observations and the observations of many other people, including our resident Yankee fan.

 

I'd say I have more evidence backing my position than you, but cling to your GG argument all you want. Can you at least admit he was never in the top tier (50%) on defense? (Not that I need you to do so.)

 

This whole "played the game" crap is worse than any crap you read on metrics. BTW, I didn't know Peter Gammons, among others on the F.B. was a sabermetric guy.

[Elktonnick]

That’s the weakest possible ending.

 

So all of your ranting about the “inherent problems” with UZR, when you’re confronted with these same flaws in all other stats, do you want to go out on “because someone else said so”?

 

Especially since Stats, Inc. and SABR and Inside Edge all do work with MLB on determining this stuff. I think MLB might differ in opinion on the lack of an “official determiner”.

 

There is no one who officially determines where on the grid the ball lands which is the key data point for determining UZR or DRS The only official determining anything is an umpire who says it is fair of foul. Once again quoting from fangraphs as reported in the KC Star in May 2019 “We don’t know exactly where each fielder was stationed, we certainly don’t know the exact location of the batted ball to the nearest square inch on the field, and we definitely don’t know how long the ball was in the air or on the ground. In reality, it might have been an easy ball to catch or it might have been a difficult one to catch, or somewhere in between.

So unless something has changed since in the past six months what I said is accurate. Even if it it has changed since then, it certainly was true from 2002 until 2014 when Jeter was playing. But hey like I said you should address your quibble to the Kansas City Star. After all I am just repeating what they wrote so your beef isn't with me. it is with them

[moonslav59]

That’s the weakest possible ending.

 

So all of your ranting about the “inherent problems” with UZR, when you’re confronted with these same flaws in all other stats, do you want to go out on “because someone else said so”?

 

Especially since Stats, Inc. and SABR and Inside Edge all do work with MLB on determining this stuff. I think MLB might differ in opinion on the lack of an “official determiner”.

 

We all have our biases. I know I may be in the minority saying Jeter was the worst- maybe hyperbolic- maybe my Yankee hatred skewed my observations, but when so many different metrics and the Fielding Bible vote, which is a hell of a lot more accurate than the GG vote, confirms he's at least bottom 3-5, I don't feel like I'm that far off, if I'm wrong.

 

I could be wrong. He could be the 25th worst out of the top 30 innings players those last 10-11 years, but in my mind, I'm a lot closer than the guys who voted for him to win the GG and the Sox fans who believe them, instead of their own eyes, the eyes of staunch Yankee fans, the eyes of the 10 guys on the F.B. and at least 3 separate metrics.

 

Just about everyone I've ever met has agreed the voting for these awards are a joke. It's one reason it means little to me when a deserving player wins it.