The 1B Predicament

[notin]

2 hours ago, Bellhorn04 said:

All I'm really saying is, errors may be overrated, as has been discussed at length here, but the Red Sox leading in baseball in errors this year, and a close second last year, is still a bad thing.

No one is saying errors are a good thing.  But errors are lousy way to judge defense.

4 hours ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Some day we'll have robot scorers too.

The fact is, a very high pct. of errors are not disputed by anyone.

I think a higher percentage than you realize are borderline calls, disputed or not…

[notin]

4 hours ago, Bellhorn04 said:

The 2024-2025 Red Sox aren't leading the planet in errors because of their superior range, that's for sure.

Interesting.

Multiple people have cited the Sox lead MLB in errors.  Not one has mentioned they lead MLB in putouts…

[Bellhorn04]

2 minutes ago, notin said:

No one is saying errors are a good thing.  But errors are lousy way to judge defense.

I think a higher percentage than you realize are borderline calls, disputed or not…

I'd like to see some data on that. 😀

[notin]

1 minute ago, Bellhorn04 said:

I'd like to see some data on that. 😀

First you need to tell me what percentage you think aren’t borderline… ;)

[Old Red]

7 hours ago, dgalehouse said:

The fans who are into advanced metrics ,WAR , Baseball savant,etc. are doing what they love.  The traditional baseball card stats are not enough for them. They need more and more stats, data and analysis. Nothing is ever enough.  And that's okay. No problem. I just don't want to see baseball as that complicated. And I cannot agree with the downplaying of a pitcher's wins, losses and saves since winning or losing  is actually the whole reason for playing the game. 

The way I look at the stats that actually show up on the scoreboard, and then actually lead to an W, or L count the most.

[TedYazPapiMookie]

1 hour ago, notin said:

The goal of a fielder is to make an out.  But in your world, the goal of a fielder is to not make an error, even if it means not trying…

I don't understand why you believe it means not to make an error, even if it means not trying...

The not trying part seems to be out of context.  Not sure what you are referencing.

The goal of a fielder is to win the battle with the hitter by creating an out, not a base runner.  Are there bonus points awarded that impact the final score?  No.  Whether you run 20 feet or the ball comes directly to you the net result is all that matters, out or safe.  Flashy plays can create the same results as lucky plays.  Long runs and short runs don't matter compared to out or safe.  That's why fielding percentage is the essence of defense.  It's a statistic that measures your success rate.  Most managers want the more successful player to field the position.  That's why when Campbell puts up a fielding percentage of .971 he is considered more successful than Mayer who had a fielding percentage of .953 at SS in 2024.  Likewise, Campbell's fielding percentage at 2B was .979 in the minors.  That defines him as an above league average player at both positions.  Mayer played 2B, 3B and mostly SS in the minors.  His fielding percentage at 3B was .933 which is awful, at 2B it was .962 which is league average and at SS it was .952 far below league average.

These are published stats representing how successful each player was on defense.  It doesn't represent how fast they are, how much range they have, how strong their arm is, their ability to read where the ball will be hit prior to the pitch and dozens of other factors that are skills each player possesses.  The fielding percentage simply measures the rate of success of applying their skills to playing defense. 

Since success leads to winning, this should be the goal of all managers, to play the most successful defenders possible if their offense is similar.  What the statcast data doesn't emphasize is the rate of success of a player.  The create things like Defensive Runs saved.  That's not a real stat, that's an estimate or what if analysis of what would happen if a standard set of assumptions happened during a simulation of the same event run 1 million or more times.  In other words, it's an educated guess based on the parameters defined by a group of guessers.  Call it trending, call it extrapolating or call it guessing, there is no reality related to the number, yet metrics buffs consider it gospel.  I don't.  The word I use is contrived reality.  Is there value to it?  There can be if you start with the facts like fielding percentage and try to factor in extenuating circumstances that might suggest an issue with the fielding percentage but that's a judgement call that needs to be made by a savvy baseball person not a machine.  

Devers is a perfect example.  Devers when he was at third base ranged to his left and cut off balls hit to Bogaerts who had a fielding percentage more than 20 points higher than Devers.  That was not what was best for the team and often hurt the pitching staff's numbers.  What did it do for Devers and Bogaerts reputation?  The misguided formula for range benefitted Devers with a higher range factor related to his defense.  Bogaerts got dinged by having a lower range factor.  That's why Bogaerts could have a top fielding percentage but when statcast rated him he was significantly lower than his success rate of fielding.  This is a know issue with the statcast data that has never been corrected.  There is no docking a player for bad judgement, instead, they are rewarded and the better fielder gets docked. 

In 2022, Devers recorded only 14 errors based on the official score keepers but he had 52 balls hit to him that did not result in an out.  Some percentage of those 38 plays should have been errors but the score keepers chose to give Devers the benefit of the doubt and allowed them to be called hits which resulted in higher ERAs and WHIPs for the pitching staff.  Devers' fielding percentage that year was his highest at .964 and league average that year was .967 so fans thought he was acceptable as a league average fielder.  Now lets look at the 38 misplays that didn't get counted.  Lets say 5 should have been errors.  That's an incredibly conservative number if you actually watch video of the plays.  19 errors in instead of 14 errors in 393 total chances produces a fielding % of .952 which roughly what Devers had done many previous seasons.  That's 15 points below league average.  Now lets say rather than 5 it's 10.  Now his fielding % is .939 or 28 points below league average which is about what his performance was in the minors and first few years in the majors.  How many years should a player be allowed to hurt your team on defense by being so ineffective at being successful at getting outs?  Boston allowed it 8 seasons.  Devers is a perfect example of why fundamental statistics like fielding percentage are so important.  Without considering any of the statcast parameters you can immediately say his success rate is too low and for the betterment of the team he needs to not play defense.  

I'm not sure why you concluded what you concluded but I hope this helps explain why dismissing fielding percentage makes absolutely no sense.

 

[TedYazPapiMookie]

11 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

To make as many plays as humanly possible, and the biggest plus is to make plays nobody else can make or that most don't make- same as a batter tries to hit better than the opps do, and pitchers try to pitch better than the opps do, so your team has a better chance at winnings.

Making less errors is important, and that is factored into fielding metrics, too.

There is no way you can ever convince me that Jeter, making 20 less errors than a guy who made 140 more plays in less innings, is the better defender. Jeter beat most other fielders by 2-3% in flg %, but made 10-20% less plays than almost every other SS with a large sample size.

To me, it's not even close.

I used to play 2B, next to a guy who was a magician on defense at SS. I saw first hand, how superb plays make a huge difference in games. He may have made an equal share of errors, but he was a tremendous difference make on our team. 

Let me start with I believe I agreed with you that Jeter was not a good SS.  I'll go farther and say Jeter as a first round HOFer was a joke.  He was the first Yankee SS that deserved the HOF recognition the rest were league average players who don't belong in the HOF.  Rizzuto, give me a break.

Jeter deseved the honor but not on the first ballet.  That has traditionally been saved for guys who for at least one year was the best player at their position.  Here is a guy who played over 20 yet not one year was he the definitive best SS that year.  Sorry for digressing, Jeter is a pet peeve of mine.

Level of effort that you reference is an intangible everyone wants players to have but that's not really a measure of success like fielding percentage.  It's binary and the fielder either wins or loses when a ball is hit to him.  If he wins he helps his team if he loses he hurts his team.  Everything you said about fielding is true but your one comment isn't specific enough to be considered wrong.  Making errors may be factored into metrics but it's not prioritized as it should be.  That's the issue.

Success at fielding MUST be the single most important factor in playing defense.  Greater range is nice as long as the rate of success doesn't fall off.  Then you have to figure out which factor should weigh more.  Remember, prior to the play each player preps for his success differently.  I was taught to step forward toward the pitcher as he goes through his pitching motion and then break to the most likely location the ball would go based on the type of pitch being thrown and the catcher's mitt location.  Others I played with simply creeped forward and did not guess which direction they simply reacted after the ball was hit.  The technique I was taught was made famous by Ripken.  It was designed to lessen the distance to the ball creating an appearance of greater range without needing exceptional speed to create the range. 

This further supports your comments about Jeter because unlike Ripken he reacted and wasn't willing to risk making an error by extending himself.  Anyway, when the ball was hit to me all that mattered was that I get the hitter out.  The significance of that has to be the number one priority of defense.  Jumping and throwing looks great but if the out does not happen, it was a wasted motion.  The out is all that matters if winning is the goal.

Also, errors aren't monitored by replay yet so when a player runs 20 feet for a ball and can't make the play, they don't get an error.  All the arguments that used to work when discussing why metrics are better have been lessened due to the recent trend of giving people hits when the defender makes even a minimal level of effort and fails or makes an illogical choice to attempt to field a ball to another player and fails.  

The days of blaming Jeter for not wanting to make an error are over.  Most guys with big names like Jeter or Devers know they are defensive Teflon; errors don't stick to them so what do the metrics really provide?

Performance is measured by fielding percentage and metrics provide ancillary data that measures things not significant to the purpose of defense.  They are things that are one-time events that metrics guys want to create what-if analysis on.   If a player runs for a ball 8 feet away he's created a range piece of data that was dependent on the pitcher, hitter, conditions of the day and lots of other environmental and coaching decisions that will never again be exactly the same.  Part of the condition on an individual play may occur on a future player but the entire play like a snowflake, no two are exactly alike.  They are similar at best. 

All the hypothetical what-if components of metrics render them useless for evaluating players.  They are fun scenarios to consider but the numbers are so inaccurate compared to real stats, they are a waste of time as anything more than something to consider when you are comparing two players who are nearly identical in hitting, pitching or defense.  That's it.  The DRS assigned a player is nothing more than a guess generated from a faulty formula that takes an actual play and theorizes what WOULD have happened based on set of rules for what would generate a run. 

Most fans don't know the formulas with all their variables and selected constants.  Most folks don't want to know, they are willing to follow the lead of the metrics guys like lemmings marching to the sea.  I say take an afternoon to research just ONE metric you believe to be accurate and find the formula and look up who calculated the variables and how and then find out the constants in the formula and why they were selected and if they are absolutely correct or best guesses.   I did it one day and was shocked how incredibly inaccurate the premises are related to the formula, the assumptions that are made to create the variables, the randomness of the constants (which by the way vary based on what company is producing the formula).  It's truly a joke from an accuracy perspective but it has value as ancillary data that might provide a last tie breaker when comparing players.  

I guess in the end, I have experienced the things you mentioned, and I agree with you to the value of a superstar defender.  I don't think using fielding percentage ever detracts from the great players.  I think flashy players without high success rates are pretenders that need to be replaced but the great ones always maintain high success rates using fielding percentage.  It's really the non-great guys that need to have a measuring stick for success and I believe fielding % is the most effective measuring stick for defense.

[notin]

4 hours ago, TedYazPapiMookie said:

Let me start with I believe I agreed with you that Jeter was not a good SS.  I'll go farther and say Jeter as a first round HOFer was a joke.  He was the first Yankee SS that deserved the HOF recognition the rest were league average players who don't belong in the HOF.  Rizzuto, give me a break.

Jeter deseved the honor but not on the first ballet.  That has traditionally been saved for guys who for at least one year was the best player at their position.  Here is a guy who played over 20 yet not one year was he the definitive best SS that year.  Sorry for digressing, Jeter is a pet peeve of mine.

Level of effort that you reference is an intangible everyone wants players to have but that's not really a measure of success like fielding percentage.  It's binary and the fielder either wins or loses when a ball is hit to him.  If he wins he helps his team if he loses he hurts his team.  Everything you said about fielding is true but your one comment isn't specific enough to be considered wrong.  Making errors may be factored into metrics but it's not prioritized as it should be.  That's the issue.

Success at fielding MUST be the single most important factor in playing defense.  Greater range is nice as long as the rate of success doesn't fall off.  Then you have to figure out which factor should weigh more.  Remember, prior to the play each player preps for his success differently.  I was taught to step forward toward the pitcher as he goes through his pitching motion and then break to the most likely location the ball would go based on the type of pitch being thrown and the catcher's mitt location.  Others I played with simply creeped forward and did not guess which direction they simply reacted after the ball was hit.  The technique I was taught was made famous by Ripken.  It was designed to lessen the distance to the ball creating an appearance of greater range without needing exceptional speed to create the range. 

This further supports your comments about Jeter because unlike Ripken he reacted and wasn't willing to risk making an error by extending himself.  Anyway, when the ball was hit to me all that mattered was that I get the hitter out.  The significance of that has to be the number one priority of defense.  Jumping and throwing looks great but if the out does not happen, it was a wasted motion.  The out is all that matters if winning is the goal.

Also, errors aren't monitored by replay yet so when a player runs 20 feet for a ball and can't make the play, they don't get an error.  All the arguments that used to work when discussing why metrics are better have been lessened due to the recent trend of giving people hits when the defender makes even a minimal level of effort and fails or makes an illogical choice to attempt to field a ball to another player and fails.  

The days of blaming Jeter for not wanting to make an error are over.  Most guys with big names like Jeter or Devers know they are defensive Teflon; errors don't stick to them so what do the metrics really provide?

Performance is measured by fielding percentage and metrics provide ancillary data that measures things not significant to the purpose of defense.  They are things that are one-time events that metrics guys want to create what-if analysis on.   If a player runs for a ball 8 feet away he's created a range piece of data that was dependent on the pitcher, hitter, conditions of the day and lots of other environmental and coaching decisions that will never again be exactly the same.  Part of the condition on an individual play may occur on a future player but the entire play like a snowflake, no two are exactly alike.  They are similar at best. 

All the hypothetical what-if components of metrics render them useless for evaluating players.  They are fun scenarios to consider but the numbers are so inaccurate compared to real stats, they are a waste of time as anything more than something to consider when you are comparing two players who are nearly identical in hitting, pitching or defense.  That's it.  The DRS assigned a player is nothing more than a guess generated from a faulty formula that takes an actual play and theorizes what WOULD have happened based on set of rules for what would generate a run. 

Most fans don't know the formulas with all their variables and selected constants.  Most folks don't want to know, they are willing to follow the lead of the metrics guys like lemmings marching to the sea.  I say take an afternoon to research just ONE metric you believe to be accurate and find the formula and look up who calculated the variables and how and then find out the constants in the formula and why they were selected and if they are absolutely correct or best guesses.   I did it one day and was shocked how incredibly inaccurate the premises are related to the formula, the assumptions that are made to create the variables, the randomness of the constants (which by the way vary based on what company is producing the formula).  It's truly a joke from an accuracy perspective but it has value as ancillary data that might provide a last tie breaker when comparing players.  

I guess in the end, I have experienced the things you mentioned, and I agree with you to the value of a superstar defender.  I don't think using fielding percentage ever detracts from the great players.  I think flashy players without high success rates are pretenders that need to be replaced but the great ones always maintain high success rates using fielding percentage.  It's really the non-great guys that need to have a measuring stick for success and I believe fielding % is the most effective measuring stick for defense.

The statement about range not mattering if the rate of success falls off doesn’t make sense.  More range still means more chances, which means more outs, even if it does mean more errors.  In fact, every single point you try to make about metrics being wrong applies much better to fielding percentage.

The statement about players like Jeter, Dever being Teflon as a reason to not use metrics is actually a really good argument against fielding percentage, which only concerns itself with errors.  Metrics take many other factors into account.

What metric did you dissect and what were the findings?  Can’t just drop stuff like that and think people should accept it.   I expect every metric to have flaws. I also think in most cases, those flaws are less significant than the glaring ones in fielding percentage, including the ones you inadvertently reminded me of in this treatise…

[Bellhorn04]

4 hours ago, TedYazPapiMookie said:

Also, errors aren't monitored by replay yet so when a player runs 20 feet for a ball and can't make the play, they don't get an error.

Errors are very reviewable after the fact.  The scoring can be changed up to 24 hours after the game is over.  

[Bellhorn04]

10 hours ago, Old Red said:

The way I look at the stats that actually show up on the scoreboard, and then actually lead to an W, or L count the most.

That's easy to say but not so easy to put into practice, mainly because it's such a team game.

Last night Giolito pitched horribly but the team got him off the hook for the loss.  So his horrible pitching didn't actually lead to an L.  Whereas Crochet's excellent performance in the previous game did lead to an L.  So there you have 2 games in a row where the performance and the result didn't match up.  And those are just the last 2 games played by our team.

[TheSplinteredSplendor]

5 hours ago, TedYazPapiMookie said:

Jeter deseved the honor but not on the first ballet.  Right, the guy with the 6th most hits in the history of the game didn't deserve 1st ballot. SMH........

 I believe fielding % is the most effective measuring stick for defense. This is laughable

 

[moonslav59]

4 hours ago, TedYazPapiMookie said:

Let me start with I believe I agreed with you that Jeter was not a good SS.  I'll go farther and say Jeter as a first round HOFer was a joke.  He was the first Yankee SS that deserved the HOF recognition the rest were league average players who don't belong in the HOF.  Rizzuto, give me a break.

Jeter deseved the honor but not on the first ballet.  That has traditionally been saved for guys who for at least one year was the best player at their position.  Here is a guy who played over 20 yet not one year was he the definitive best SS that year.  Sorry for digressing, Jeter is a pet peeve of mine.

Level of effort that you reference is an intangible everyone wants players to have but that's not really a measure of success like fielding percentage.  It's binary and the fielder either wins or loses when a ball is hit to him.  If he wins he helps his team if he loses he hurts his team.  Everything you said about fielding is true but your one comment isn't specific enough to be considered wrong.  Making errors may be factored into metrics but it's not prioritized as it should be.  That's the issue.

Success at fielding MUST be the single most important factor in playing defense.  Greater range is nice as long as the rate of success doesn't fall off.  Then you have to figure out which factor should weigh more.  Remember, prior to the play each player preps for his success differently.  I was taught to step forward toward the pitcher as he goes through his pitching motion and then break to the most likely location the ball would go based on the type of pitch being thrown and the catcher's mitt location.  Others I played with simply creeped forward and did not guess which direction they simply reacted after the ball was hit.  The technique I was taught was made famous by Ripken.  It was designed to lessen the distance to the ball creating an appearance of greater range without needing exceptional speed to create the range. 

This further supports your comments about Jeter because unlike Ripken he reacted and wasn't willing to risk making an error by extending himself.  Anyway, when the ball was hit to me all that mattered was that I get the hitter out.  The significance of that has to be the number one priority of defense.  Jumping and throwing looks great but if the out does not happen, it was a wasted motion.  The out is all that matters if winning is the goal.

Also, errors aren't monitored by replay yet so when a player runs 20 feet for a ball and can't make the play, they don't get an error.  All the arguments that used to work when discussing why metrics are better have been lessened due to the recent trend of giving people hits when the defender makes even a minimal level of effort and fails or makes an illogical choice to attempt to field a ball to another player and fails.  

The days of blaming Jeter for not wanting to make an error are over.  Most guys with big names like Jeter or Devers know they are defensive Teflon; errors don't stick to them so what do the metrics really provide?

Performance is measured by fielding percentage and metrics provide ancillary data that measures things not significant to the purpose of defense.  They are things that are one-time events that metrics guys want to create what-if analysis on.   If a player runs for a ball 8 feet away he's created a range piece of data that was dependent on the pitcher, hitter, conditions of the day and lots of other environmental and coaching decisions that will never again be exactly the same.  Part of the condition on an individual play may occur on a future player but the entire play like a snowflake, no two are exactly alike.  They are similar at best. 

All the hypothetical what-if components of metrics render them useless for evaluating players.  They are fun scenarios to consider but the numbers are so inaccurate compared to real stats, they are a waste of time as anything more than something to consider when you are comparing two players who are nearly identical in hitting, pitching or defense.  That's it.  The DRS assigned a player is nothing more than a guess generated from a faulty formula that takes an actual play and theorizes what WOULD have happened based on set of rules for what would generate a run. 

Most fans don't know the formulas with all their variables and selected constants.  Most folks don't want to know, they are willing to follow the lead of the metrics guys like lemmings marching to the sea.  I say take an afternoon to research just ONE metric you believe to be accurate and find the formula and look up who calculated the variables and how and then find out the constants in the formula and why they were selected and if they are absolutely correct or best guesses.   I did it one day and was shocked how incredibly inaccurate the premises are related to the formula, the assumptions that are made to create the variables, the randomness of the constants (which by the way vary based on what company is producing the formula).  It's truly a joke from an accuracy perspective but it has value as ancillary data that might provide a last tie breaker when comparing players.  

I guess in the end, I have experienced the things you mentioned, and I agree with you to the value of a superstar defender.  I don't think using fielding percentage ever detracts from the great players.  I think flashy players without high success rates are pretenders that need to be replaced but the great ones always maintain high success rates using fielding percentage.  It's really the non-great guys that need to have a measuring stick for success and I believe fielding % is the most effective measuring stick for defense.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I get your point, and do think making less errors is very important, and I was to stress that errors and error rate is factored into metrics.

I'm not sure if you were saying "effort" has something to do with range differentials, and I guess it might in some cases, but range is part physical attribute, instincts (getting good jumps, positioning correctly and knowing by watching the pitch location, where the batter is likely to hit the ball to you: as in to his left or right and maybe leaning that way) and skill.

You really don't think getting to 140 more balls but making 5, 10 or even 20 more errors is not worth it?

I don't understand the "days of Jeter not wanting to make an error? or that those "days are over." Jeter didn't get to many balls hit his way, because he couldn't, not because he chose not to, just as some SSs, today cannot get to many balls others do get to and finish the play. You mention changing conditions, but aren't some errors given based on easier plays vs tougher ones? In both cases, we expect the conditions even out, just as we do for BA, OBP, SLG, ERA and other traditional data. Also, when we see certain players have the same data, year after year, even when changing teams, parks and other factors, I think it's safe to say the numbers are just as accurate as flg % and BA (which also depends on the assignment of an error or not, to a small degree, and the luck or unluck of conditions, such as parks, opposing pitchers and defenses,,,,)

On this, "All the hypothetical what-if components of metrics render them useless for evaluating players. " 1. You do know the assignment of errors or no errors is subjective, right? Also, it's not hypothetical to see and prove that some SSs make way more plays than others. They know how hard a ball is hit and how far away from the defender it is. They can then see who gets to it and who doesn't. That part is not guessing or hypothetical. The formulation of things like WAR do factor in the likelihood that a play made or not made affects the chances of a run being scored, but what makes you think that is any more faulty than the scorekeeper calling some obvious errors a hit and vice versa?

You say most fans don't know the formula, and you are right, but do you? If not, how can you be so hypercritical of something you don't understand. If you heard a simple explanation on how they compile the data, you may see it's not so hokus-pocus as you think. Maybe not.

Simply put, not all great range defenders are "flashy," and even if some are, if they make 140 more plays that the steady Jeter types, while also making 10-20 more errors, some because they are throwing off balance after making a spectacular stop, it's a joke to say the steady Jeter type is better. It's not even close.

Stopping 140 base hits in exchange for making 10-20 errors, that would have been hits, anyway with the Jeter types is no comparisons, at all. Even if all 20 "extra errors" led to the runner getting to 2B on a bad throw, it is still a clear advantage having a great-ranged SS over a statue who never makes errors.

Forget the metrics and hypothetical aspects of some of these metrics, range is a tangible and observable aspect of the game. We can all see with our naked eyes that some short stops have amazing range, while others have way less than average range. The differentials between the best and the worst are easily 80 a year, or one play every two games, while the differential between a 5 error SS and a 25 error SS is one error every 8 games. Keep it simple, and it still shows that errors are not the only major aspect of defense. IMO, it's not even #1, let alone something that blows range away in value.

I played next to a great range SS and saw that value, firsthand. He took so many hits away from the other team, that if you counted those hits and added them to his offensive numbers, he's have hit over .450 and maybe even .500.

[Old Red]

17 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

That's easy to say but not so easy to put into practice, mainly because it's such a team game.

Last night Giolito pitched horribly but the team got him off the hook for the loss.  So his horrible pitching didn't actually lead to an L.  Whereas Crochet's excellent performance in the previous game did lead to an L.  So there you have 2 games in a row where the performance and the result didn't match up.  And those are just the last 2 games played by our team.

That’s where the good old eye test comes in.

[moonslav59]

43 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Errors are very reviewable after the fact.  The scoring can be changed up to 24 hours after the game is over.  

Yes. It rarely happens. You often see a home team bias in the assignment of errors, and one of the biggest flaws in error assignment is when a defender misjudges a ball and never touches it, so it's a hit.

I understand that the sun or lights in a defenders eyes may not be fully his fault, but other defenders make those plays easily, but fldg% will never capture that difference between player A and B.

Also, a throwing error that not only changes an out to a hit but allows the runner to get to 2B counts the same as a bobbled ball where the runner stays on 1B. There are flaws in every stat and metric. I think we all agree on that.

With modern technology, such as launch angles, speeds of balls hit and precise measurements on how far away a defender was from the ball, when hit, and how long the ball was up in the air makes for an improved determination on whether the ball was fieldable or not. In the old days, it was 90-100% speculation that was often decided by a biased observer.

Range Factor became a meaningful stat, a while back, and that had serious flaws, too. Some SSs on certain teams with pitchers who K'd more batter or allowed more Fly Balls than Grounders were penalized for not making as many plays that were actually not ever there for them to make. That's not the case, anymore, and I probably shouldn't have made the Total Chances Case, when I brought up Jeter bs Escobar, but it is very clear some players make way more plays on playable balls than others.

We can see that, ourselves, without stats or data, too.

[moonslav59]

8 minutes ago, Old Red said:

That’s where the good old eye test comes in.

I hope you good ole eye test was able to determine Jeter was a statue, while other made dozens upon dozen more plays on reachable hit balls towards the SS position.

I'm also sure you watched every game Jeter played, as well as every game other SSs made, so you could, in your brilliant mind, determine just how much the difference  was between Jeter and other SSs.

[Old Red]

10 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

I hope you good ole eye test was able to determine Jeter was a statue, while other made dozens upon dozen more plays on reachable hit balls towards the SS position.

I'm also sure you watched every game Jeter played, as well as every game other SSs made, so you could, in your brilliant mind, determine just how much the difference  was between Jeter and other SSs.

I didn’t have to watch every game Jeter played, because others did that. Someone is always watching every move by every player in every game.

[Bellhorn04]

21 minutes ago, Old Red said:

That’s where the good old eye test comes in.

I'll go with the common sense test, myself.

Crochet pitched great, Giolito pitched like crap, pitching wins and losses mean jack, because it's a team game.

And you can figure that out just by looking at box scores.  

[Old Red]

1 minute ago, Bellhorn04 said:

I'll go with the common sense test, myself.

Crochet pitched great, Giolito pitched like crap, pitching wins and losses mean jack, because it's a team game.

And you can figure that out just by looking at box scores.  

I agree, but pitchers wins, and losses lead to teams wins, and losses, and every game is different, because the situations are different. I’ve always said that I start with a pitchers wins, and losses, and then it depends on how much digging I want to go into from there. The eye test can be big at determining things like in the last two games you mentioned. Cro Man definitely pitched better than Gio, but got the loss, because it was a different situation.

[moonslav59]

19 minutes ago, Old Red said:

I didn’t have to watch every game Jeter played, because others did that. Someone is always watching every move by every player in every game.

So, the "good ole eye test" is actually someone else's eyes?

[Bellhorn04]

Just now, Old Red said:

The eye test can be big at determining things like in the last two games you mentioned. Cro Man definitely pitched better than Gio, but got the loss, because it was a different situation.

Does the eye test include looking at the box scores?  That's all you needed with Crochet and Giolito the last two games.  

[Bellhorn04]

3 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

So, the "good ole eye test" is actually someone else's eyes?

I need a better definition of the eye test too.

[SPLENDIDSPLINTER]

I've watched every Sox game so far this season and I can say using my own eyes that Bregman is the best defensive 3rd baseman I've ever seen play for the Sox.

[Old Red]

14 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

So, the "good ole eye test" is actually someone else's eyes?

Isn’t someone somewhere watching every play of every game? Where would any stats come from if they didn’t?

[Old Red]

12 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

I need a better definition of the eye test too.

That would be kind of hard to define would it not? Everyone sees things differently. and doesn’t even look for the same things in the first place. Just like stats.

[Old Red]

6 minutes ago, SPLENDIDSPLINTER said:

I've watched every Sox game so far this season and I can say using my own eyes that Bregman is the best defensive 3rd baseman I've ever seen play for the Sox.

Beltre was pretty good in his one year here, and Lowell was pretty good too.

[moonslav59]

33 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Does the eye test include looking at the box scores?  That's all you needed with Crochet and Giolito the last two games.  

He did say that a couple years back.

I guess trusting the "eyes" of someone watching all of Jeter's games are more reliable than those trained people entering their eyes test information into the database used to determine UZR/150.

[Old Red]

42 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Does the eye test include looking at the box scores?  That's all you needed with Crochet and Giolito the last two games.  

I look at box scores everyday even if I watch a game, or not.

[Old Red]

9 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

He did say that a couple years back.

I guess trusting the "eyes" of someone watching all of Jeter's games are more reliable than those trained people entering their eyes test information into the database used to determine UZR/150.

I don’t know why you are so consumed with Jeter, but to each its own. I could really care less what kind of range Jeter had. So you are agreeing that someone is watching every play of every game somewhere.

[moonslav59]

7 minutes ago, Old Red said:

I don’t know why you are so consumed with Jeter, but to each its own. I could really care less what kind of range Jeter had. So you are agreeing that someone is watching every play of every game somewhere.

Jeter is the poster boy for a s***** SS with a great FLG%. I thought the choice was obvious, and SS is the position where range and error rates probably matter more than any other measurable position. (The catcher position is harder to measure and involves other aspects that no other position has.)

I could have used Bogey, who did not have real bad range, especially earlier in his career, but had pretty good FLG%s over the years. He was poorly rated by DRS and OAA due to less than average range.

My point was that either by just using the eye test or metrics (or both,) it is clear some SSs make at least 81 more plays a year than others, based on similarly hit balls in their direction. Does your eye test results agree with this?

Other positions, especially OF have much lore differentials on range influence.

[Old Red]

5 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

Jeter is the poster boy for a s***** SS with a great FLG%. I thought the choice was obvious, and SS is the position where range and error rates probably matter more than any other measurable position. (The catcher position is harder to measure and involves other aspects that no other position has.)

I could have used Bogey, who did not have real bad range, especially earlier in his career, but had pretty good FLG%s over the years. He was poorly rated by DRS and OAA due to less than average range.

My point was that either by just using the eye test or metrics (or both,) it is clear some SSs make at least 81 more plays a year than others, based on similarly hit balls in their direction. Does your eye test results agree with this?

Other positions, especially OF have much lore differentials on range influence.

Ok I’ll agree with you on the points you are making, but those things just don’t matter that much to me. Rico was a good enough SS to me as was the Rooster.