The 1B Predicament

[notin]

16 hours ago, TedYazPapiMookie said:

Thanks for the response it helped me with some of the oddities of the metric names.

Question - Considering what is most important about defense, why would the difficulty matter if the end result is an out or not an out considering the player has no control over what gets hit to him?  A player can only deal with what gets hit to him so why give BONUS points to a guy who was fortunate to get more difficult plays.  The impact on the game is EXACTLY the same whether the play is easy or difficult. The result is all that matters. 

My take on this is that metrics are about players not the game itself like fielding percentage is.  FPCT focuses on the success of the team and metrics try to pat the players on the back for exceptional play that happens due to ONE TIME circumstances not controlled by the player. 

If a player has the ball hit directly at him all game and he makes every play and the next player must run 15 feet for every ball and he makes errors on 10% of the plays, who did more for his team?  The first player because he did his job perfectly whereas the other player was more challenged due to the luck of the draw but failed more.  Did either player have control over which set of balls were hit to them?  Nope.  It's a ONE-TIME event outside of their control.  Did the guy that got hit the ball every time do ANYTHING wrong?  NO.  Should he be considered a lesser player because balls were hit to him?  NO.  Defensive measurements give bonus points for great plays but unless the other player is provided with the exact same set of plays, the apple to oranges comparison exists and the result is meaningless.  Should metrics attempt to define a formula to equate the apple to orange situation and what degree of inaccuracy is acceptable to apply a formula to define who is better, especially since the players are at the mercy of what ACTUALLY happens in the game. 

This is the point to me that suspends reality and delves into the world on simulation and extensive hypothetical theories with no basis in reality.  Is it fun to suggest who was better Mays or Mantle?  Sure.  Is there an answer that is completely reliable like a fielding percentage?  NOPE.  It's all hypothetical and two concepts reduce the accuracy of an estimation that gets created:

1 - Normalization - It's a great concept when dealing in hypotheticals but to suggest it touches reality is a stretch.  We normalize things to try to make incomparable items comparable.  These are ESTIMATES and fielding percentage is a stat with a minor set of limitations you have pointed out.  These Normalized numbers have a major flaw in them when it comes to baseball.

If you normalize a set of data across all 30 teams the average that is being compared to is significantly below the elite players' average.  Does throwing all SS's data into an "average distance" metric bias the solution because a great majority of the players don't have the same skillset as two elite players like Ozzie Smith and Derek Jeter?  The BONUS points extended to Ozzie will be greater when it comes to range by using all SSs versus a set more comparable to Ozzie and Jeter.  In the end, this exaggerates the metrics in favor of the faster player.  This is why I say metrics are biased toward both the fast and the powerful because if we shifted to offense and measured hitting performance the elite players with speed and power will be deemed as having bigger betas from the league wide average.  Now extend this farther to the normalizations on the parks and the famous "park adjusted" calculation.  It too has biases that incorrectly adjust numbers based on the park due to the same apples to oranges limitations.  That's why Coors field guys often get over adjusted in my opinion.  Remember, these are guesses not facts and that's why i dislike them when evaluating important performance data.

2 - Fabricated constants - It's great that metrics tries to reward players for performance but to do so they still have to base their data in reality.  WAR is not only a misnomer for what it represents but it's a complete fabrication because it tries to extend actual data into hypothetical data.  The idea that a win can be assigned to a play is ridiculous.  It's a pure guess and to standardize it means once again creating hypothetical events that define the size of the impact on the game itself without it ever happening.  Yes, this is pure sci-fi.  

With all the REAL stats that exist, why develop an ESTIMATE that doesn't have any basis in reality to judge the skills of a player.  Is there a need for an index to rank players?  NO.  Is it a fun concept to create answers to theoretical questions like who was the greatest hitter of all time or the greatest defender or the greatest player of all time.  But the apples to oranges definition once again raises its ugly head.  Metrics like WAR try to solve the apples to oranges comparison when there is no need to do so except fans prefer absolutes so their opinions can be validated by other opinions.  Fabricated constants come are often the net result of normalization and get plugged into to metric formulas.  There is no tie to reality because the constant is theoretical.  The problem is that statcast supporters don't get that the accuracy of the constants is zero.  Much like a clock strikes 1 twice a day, there is a probability that these constants are right an insignificant number of times when they are produced because the event that triggers it doesn't exist more than once but the number of numbers can be produced by the metric formula is finite so they do accidently align with reality about as often as we see Haley's comet.  

So why use contrived numbers that we know are wrong to try to construct data for make very significant decisions in baseball?  Why not learn to evaluate true stats and create value judgements that don't define a pecking order but rather create groupings for players.  The ranking is contrived but the skill level can be established based on stats that reflect performance.  The world doesn't need to rank everything in life or baseball.  Metrics spend lots of time measuring insignificant components of the game for the sake of entertainment, then they turn around and sell it as accurate and use it for making decisions that don't reflect reality or what they are trying to measure.  

Do we care that the guy successfully fielding balls closer to him receives a higher rating in the form of a higher fielding percentage than another player gets more challenging plays?  No, because the luck of the game dictates who gets the easy and difficult plays and it's yet another million considerations when we try to define easy and hard plays.  Why not just focus on the success of the team related to the fielding of balls hit during a game which is a one-time event.  We can recognize there are differences, and many have argued that they will balance out over time.  That's not true as we all know but there are too many components in evaluating plays and how hard they are that can't be defined universally.  Attempting to do so with generalizations simply makes some people happy because every play more scrutinized and others feel the difference is not significant.  Bill James is to blame for trying to fabricate data that doesn't exist because he was satisfied with praising those that are exceptionally athletic.  He is from Chicago where Jordan was king and was extraordinarily athletic but wasn't the most skilled at basketball like Bird and Magic.  He like providing accolades like GOAT to Jordan for his athletic skills and he biased metrics with that philosophy.  Baseball is a team sport.  His thinking would be more appropriate in Tennis or other non-team sports.  

All we care about is did the player do his job given the events that occur in a game.  An out is his goal regardless of the difficulty.  His success helps the team and failure does not.  Fielding percentage gives you that information.

Players making more difficult plays isn’t a matter of good luck; it’s a defensive skill to have more range and that skill is completely ignored by fielding percentage.  
 

Players who cover more ground will have more opportunities to make plays.  They may fail more often, but the player with less range will just watch those balls go past him for hits.  Back to my hypothetical I posted earlier that several others answered but i didn’t see your response (did I miss it?)

If you hit 100 identical ground balls to two shortstops, and Shortstop A only gets to 80 but makes all 80 plays (fielding percentage 1.000) and Shortstop B gets to all 100 but makes 10 errors ( fielding percentage .900), who is the better shortstop?  The player with the higher fielding percentage made fewer outs (80 to 90), and if we assume worst case that all hits were singles and all errors were two so bases, each shortstop allowed the same number of bases (20).  So how is the better fielding percentage better?

[TedYazPapiMookie]

2 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

You totally miss the point. Making .980 of 800 plays is better than making .990 of 700 plays, if the 100 extra plays were made due to better range skills. That is just a fact.

I give up. You can't see the broad side of a bright red barn.

1 - Nobody makes that many plays in a year, so the example is a gross exaggeration 

2 - I have yet to see a formula for calculating the numbers you are proposing and how they are handled.  I believe it's because EVERYTHING in the metric world is BLACK BOXED.  There is a system that is not allowed access to that does all the calculations and fans are supposed to believe it to be accurate.  I don't

3 - The differences in plays executed at a single position like SS does not very by the athleticism alone.  The plays vary because of the pitching staff and where the balls are hit.  No two years, no two weeks and no two days are alike because the distance to the ball is completely unpredictable.  Historical averages are best guess predictors but that doesn't make them a fact.  So deriving performance estimates from history is like predicting rain from yesterday's weather, it's completely bogus.

4 - The idea that a player has a range is fictional.  He has a history that might suggest a distance but that history is an average and it reflects the uncontrollable chances that have happened in the past.  You have no idea if his limit is his historical average.  The next year he could have balls hit on average 10 feet farther away and successfully handle them.  Did he suddenly get better or did he simply get balls hit farther from him while still within his new range?  Who is to say that his new average is any more correct.  He could increase it by another 5 feet the next year making ALL his evaluations in the past WRONG.  How is that better than fielding percentage which provides the percentage of the time that a player is successful regardless of the distance?

Metrics fans grew up on video games and love simulation.  I fully understand why some baseball fans take the easy road and just ACCEPT metrics rather than challenging them for being inaccurate.  I like fielding percentage because it's about the team's success regardless of the player.  Metrics were calculated to change the focus to the player and how to answer the apples versus oranges dilemma.  Unfortunately, it falls short so fans who grew up with simulation prefer it to real stats.  They prefer making everything about the individual not the team.  So a BLACK BOX solution that hands them irrefutable data without actually proving it is their choice and to support it they bad mouth team-oriented statistics that focus on the success of the team not the individual. 

I think we have beaten this topic to depth.  Metrics people simply stick with what they grew up on.  I hope someday some of them start challenging the actual data provided from places like statcast.  I can go to a baseball reference site and see the fielding percentage and know how it was calculated.  On that same page to indulge the newbie baseball fans it has metrics and there is no way to calculate those numbers to prove that they are correct.  Doesn't that bother you?  It bothers me.  That's why I am always seeking people who ACTUALLY know how to calculate all the metric numbers frequently used by fans.  Funny, I haven't met ONE yet!  I just meet people who have theories and can't explain the actual formulas and why they represent reality.  It's probably because they don't.

[illinoisredsox]

7 minutes ago, TedYazPapiMookie said:

1 - Nobody makes that many plays in a year, so the example is a gross exaggeration 

2 - I have yet to see a formula for calculating the numbers you are proposing and how they are handled.  I believe it's because EVERYTHING in the metric world is BLACK BOXED.  There is a system that is not allowed access to that does all the calculations and fans are supposed to believe it to be accurate.  I don't

3 - The differences in plays executed at a single position like SS does not very by the athleticism alone.  The plays vary because of the pitching staff and where the balls are hit.  No two years, no two weeks and no two days are alike because the distance to the ball is completely unpredictable.  Historical averages are best guess predictors but that doesn't make them a fact.  So deriving performance estimates from history is like predicting rain from yesterday's weather, it's completely bogus.

4 - The idea that a player has a range is fictional.  He has a history that might suggest a distance but that history is an average and it reflects the uncontrollable chances that have happened in the past.  You have no idea if his limit is his historical average.  The next year he could have balls hit on average 10 feet farther away and successfully handle them.  Did he suddenly get better or did he simply get balls hit farther from him while still within his new range?  Who is to say that his new average is any more correct.  He could increase it by another 5 feet the next year making ALL his evaluations in the past WRONG.  How is that better than fielding percentage which provides the percentage of the time that a player is successful regardless of the distance?

Metrics fans grew up on video games and love simulation.  I fully understand why some baseball fans take the easy road and just ACCEPT metrics rather than challenging them for being inaccurate.  I like fielding percentage because it's about the team's success regardless of the player.  Metrics were calculated to change the focus to the player and how to answer the apples versus oranges dilemma.  Unfortunately, it falls short so fans who grew up with simulation prefer it to real stats.  They prefer making everything about the individual not the team.  So a BLACK BOX solution that hands them irrefutable data without actually proving it is their choice and to support it they bad mouth team-oriented statistics that focus on the success of the team not the individual. 

I think we have beaten this topic to depth.  Metrics people simply stick with what they grew up on.  I hope someday some of them start challenging the actual data provided from places like statcast.  I can go to a baseball reference site and see the fielding percentage and know how it was calculated.  On that same page to indulge the newbie baseball fans it has metrics and there is no way to calculate those numbers to prove that they are correct.  Doesn't that bother you?  It bothers me.  That's why I am always seeking people who ACTUALLY know how to calculate all the metric numbers frequently used by fans.  Funny, I haven't met ONE yet!  I just meet people who have theories and can't explain the actual formulas and why they represent reality.  It's probably because they don't.

You are correct this topic has been beaten to death.  However, I can’t let your first point go by without stating the obvious:  nowhere did moon say a year.  He said number of plays; there was no time reference.  That was something you added.  For someone who has chided others on reading comprehension, you blew that one professor.

[TheSplinteredSplendor]

2 hours ago, notin said:

If you hit 100 identical ground balls to two shortstops, and Shortstop A only gets to 80 but makes all 80 plays (fielding percentage 1.000) and Shortstop B gets to all 100 but makes 10 errors ( fielding percentage .900), who is the better shortstop?  The player with the higher fielding percentage made fewer outs (80 to 90), and if we assume worst case that all hits were singles and all errors were two so bases, each shortstop allowed the same number of bases (20).  So how is the better fielding percentage better?

Because one has double the amount of baserunners which then, in turn, increases the scoring chances.

Smh......

[TedYazPapiMookie]

2 hours ago, notin said:

Players making more difficult plays isn’t a matter of good luck; it’s a defensive skill to have more range and that skill is completely ignored by fielding percentage.  
 

Players who cover more ground will have more opportunities to make plays.  They may fail more often, but the player with less range will just watch those balls go past him for hits.  Back to my hypothetical I posted earlier that several others answered but i didn’t see your response (did I miss it?)

If you hit 100 identical ground balls to two shortstops, and Shortstop A only gets to 80 but makes all 80 plays (fielding percentage 1.000) and Shortstop B gets to all 100 but makes 10 errors ( fielding percentage .900), who is the better shortstop?  The player with the higher fielding percentage made fewer outs (80 to 90), and if we assume worst case that all hits were singles and all errors were two so bases, each shortstop allowed the same number of bases (20).  So how is the better fielding percentage better?

For a player to demonstrate his skill that exceeds others he must have luck as I mentioned because the pitcher and hitter must create a ball hit to a location that allows him to show greater talent.

The player with less range may simply have had a set of plays a shorter distance from him.  If there is actually a speed difference then the ball is considered a hit with the slower player and if the faster player gets to it the score keepers still gives the batter a hit just like with the other fielder and if he catches it and throws the player out it gets logged in the fielding percentage.  If a player goes a slightly longer distance because the ball is hit farther away from him than the other player he can define the possibility of his skill being superior by catching it and getting an out but if the other player gets a similar distance play we have an apple vs orange situation.  The second player has the potential of making farther plays but without balls hit the exact same distance you can't define his skills at that distance.  That means if the player that did get to the ball that was farther away he needs to make the play if he wants to maintain his skill rating.

Here is the answer to your third paragraph example:

PLayer A - who gets to 100 balls has a fielding percentage of 90% because it represents his success rate in fielding the balls he feels are in his range.  How many of the balls in the group of 20 that the other player couldn't get to were so far away he was lucky to get to them?  Those will be hits not errors.  If he simply can't field that well to be successful on these other 20 plays is he really the superior player?  It sure doesn't sound like it to me, he's simply a better athlete with lesser fielding skills.  Giving people bonus points because they get to a ball someone else can't get to makes no sense.  Let's use a football comparison.  The Bears went out and found a sprinter (Willie Gault) who was faster than all their receivers and most of the defenders.  He was a deep threat and a world class sprinter but he had issues catching the ball compared to their very reliable receivers who weren't as fast as gault.  In a results driven sports world, did Gault get credit for beating guys down the field and dropping the ball?  How is that different?  Well the team got to choose him and often didn't because his fielding percentage was 10% lower.  The infielder with greater speed gets his opportunities out of sheer luck because the pitcher and hitter determine it.  Should the team be rooting for him to have get a ball within the range he can field effectively?  YES.  The others are longshots and he will get credit for them if he is successful.  Otherwise, the team is no better off by him getting to them.  He on the other hand has proved his limits as to him successfully handling plays of certain range.  Maybe the athletic player can aspire to be more like the sure handed other player.

Player B - who has a shorter range made 100% of his plays and truly is the better fielder.  He did his job perfectly and there is no room for improvement that can be identified.  If he can expand his range while not losing any defensive effectiveness, then improvement could be noted.  It's hard to improve on perfection.

Answer to your final point.  The 80 successful plays by one player represents perfection.  Every player has god given talents and he maximized his.  Should he be berated by someone like you for not being as athletic as the next guy?  I don't think so.  It seems like he has phenomenal hands and his range might not be in the 100 percentile but he's a keeper for me.  The fact that the player with more god given skills that allow him to make the decision to attempt plays on 20 balls out of the range of the other player puts a responsibility on the player to do it equally well as he does on the closer plays.  Clearly, he's chosen 20 balls that were farther away and decided he had a chance to get outs on them.  He was wrong 50% of the time.  Did he get credit in his fielding percentage for the successful 10 plays?  Yes.  Should he be dinged for the 10 unsuccessful plays? Yes.  That's how fielding percentage works.  

Player A - 90 outs and 10 errors

Player B - 80 outs 20 hits and 0 errors

Is the team better off with Player A.  Yes.  Is player A a better fielder  NO.

Do managers take into account the difference in range among their players? Yes.

Do the 10 errors add risk to the team?  Yes.  The error result can far exceed the simple hit.

If you are watching the game and the ball gets hit to the better fielder, do you feel more confident that he will get an out?  Yes.  If one of the errors happens late in the game and it's one that has a bigger impact than a simple hit, are you better off with Payer A or Player B?  Player B!!

It's a trade-off.  Player A remains the more athletic and Player B remains the better fielder.

[moonslav59]

45 minutes ago, TedYazPapiMookie said:

1 - Nobody makes that many plays in a year, so the example is a gross exaggeration 

Do you even bother to look? (Neifi Perez 812 plays in 2000.

While 800 plays is rare, it does happen, but that is beyond the point. How about 600 to 500? You neglect to respond to the actual point.

[moonslav59]

48 minutes ago, TedYazPapiMookie said:

2 - I have yet to see a formula for calculating the numbers you are proposing and how they are handled.  I believe it's because EVERYTHING in the metric world is BLACK BOXED.  There is a system that is not allowed access to that does all the calculations and fans are supposed to believe it to be accurate.  I don't

Nobody claims it's 100% accurate, and neither is Fldg %. Both have value but are not perfect.

So,m you have not seen the formula, but dismiss it out of hand. Their system has been explained. Just watch some games that show the data on some fielding plays (usually greta ones) and you can see the data is there.

They expect fans to think it's fairly accurate and usually the eye test can back up the data that shows player A has way more range than player B.

[TedYazPapiMookie]

32 minutes ago, illinoisredsox said:

You are correct this topic has been beaten to death.  However, I can’t let your first point go by without stating the obvious:  nowhere did moon say a year.  He said number of plays; there was no time reference.  That was something you added.  For someone who has chided others on reading comprehension, you blew that one professor.

See digs are always provided and yet guys like Harmony suggest most folks are above that.  Haha.  You are no different than the guy I chided about reading comprehension who insults me EVERY TIME.

FYI....  Moon also didn't suggest which teams the players were on, the ballparks the games were played at or the field conditions during all the plays.  But what he has done multiple times is suggest a huge number of plays that don't represent a year.  Why use a random interval?  The reason is to exaggerate the situation in hopes of biasing the impression created by the example.  I interjected reality into his scenario by trying to tie it to a season so the volume is representative of what might happen in reality.  My bad.  

Thanks for being such a stand-up guy and intervening in something that wasn't any of your business.  

[moonslav59]

51 minutes ago, TedYazPapiMookie said:

3 - The differences in plays executed at a single position like SS does not very by the athleticism alone.  The plays vary because of the pitching staff and where the balls are hit.  No two years, no two weeks and no two days are alike because the distance to the ball is completely unpredictable.  Historical averages are best guess predictors but that doesn't make them a fact.  So deriving performance estimates from history is like predicting rain from yesterday's weather, it's completely bogus.

Nobody disputes there are difference, and I even mentioned the flaws with the traditional range factor data.

The data is NOT BASED ON ESTIMATES or PREDICTIONS! The data is based on scientifically evaluating each play that was actually hit towards a player and determining which players make the same plays and which ones do not. There is no guessing or subjectivity, like Fldg% has. Are the inaccuracies? Sure, same as Fldg%, but the data is useful when used with other data and yes, even Fldg%, combined.

[moonslav59]

56 minutes ago, TedYazPapiMookie said:

 

4 - The idea that a player has a range is fictional.  

 

This has to be one of the most absurd statements and beliefs I've ever seen posted by someone who does not appear to be a troll.

[moonslav59]

 

Player A - 90 outs and 10 errors

Player B - 80 outs 20 hits and 0 errors

Is the team better off with Player A.  Yes.  Is player A a better fielder  NO.

You outdid yourself with an even more absurd belief.

Why is your definition of fielding only about just errors and no errors?

Surely, there is more to it.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

2 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

This has to be one of the most absurd statements and beliefs I've ever seen posted by someone who does not appear to be a troll.

Well, what if a guy doesn't move quickly laterally but is born with extra-long arms and can reach more grounders and liners from a standstill? 

We're talking knuckles scraping dirt when he's at ease, Simian in nature, with extensions easily over 100 centimeters -- or even 1 entire meter stick... how do you like those metrics? Huh?!?

[moonslav59]

5 minutes ago, TedYazPapiMookie said:

FYI....  Moon also didn't suggest which teams the players were on, the ballparks the games were played at or the field conditions during all the plays.  But what he has done multiple times is suggest a huge number of plays that don't represent a year.  Why use a random interval?  The reason is to exaggerate the situation in hopes of biasing the impression created by the example.  I interjected reality into his scenario by trying to tie it to a season so the volume is representative of what might happen in reality.  My bad.  

I have mentioned parks, teams with staffs that K more than others or allow GB outs vs FO with significant differences. I mentioned how RF/9 had serious flaws. I only brought it up to show that some players do make 100-150 more plays than others, and yes, some SSs make 800 plays a year.

Modern technology has allowed us to factor in onl the plays hit within the range of a position player, how hard it was hit, and how far away the defender was. If Player A gets 200 less chances, it factors that in.

There have been some notecase flaws in the system, like fenway's short LF wall, and how some parks have very big areas that allow players to make more plays. Nobody says the system is perfect, but the SS position is a bit difference. The area of plays that can be made is near identical everywhere. The numbers of playable balls hit varies, for sure, but that is part of the equation, as is how hard the play is to make.

You can choose to not trust the data or the results, but you dismiss it all out of hand, without even knowing what it is.

[harmony]

9 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

Nobody disputes there are difference, and I even mentioned the flaws with the traditional range factor data.

The data is NOT BASED ON ESTIMATES or PREDICTIONS! The data is based on scientifically evaluating each play that was actually hit towards a player and determining which players make the same plays and which ones do not. There is no guessing or subjectivity, like Fldg% has. Are the inaccuracies? Sure, same as Fldg%, but the data is useful when used with other data and yes, even Fldg%, combined.

Last night this poster attended a game in which a pitcher lost his no-hit bid in the sixth inning when the official scorer belatedly ruled a hit on a play that the scorer originally ruled an error:

https://www.mlb.com/gameday/royals-vs-giants/2025/05/19/777855/final/summary/all

It was a rare game in which both starting pitchers -- Kansas City's Kris Bubic and San Francisco's Robbie Ray -- each tossed seven shutout innings. The 27-22 Royals won 3-1 over the 28-20 Giants.

 

[moonslav59]

3 minutes ago, 5GoldGlovesOF,75 said:

Well, what if a guy doesn't move quickly laterally but is born with extra-long arms and can reach more grounders and liners from a standstill? 

We're talking knuckles scraping dirt when he's at ease, Simian in nature, with extensions easily over 100 centimeters -- or even 1 entire meter stick... how do you like those metrics? Huh?!?

I'd call him a great fielder, if he made more plays due to his freakishly long arms.

Yes, the metrics would capture the fact that he made plays nobody else could or does make.

This is an example of it not only being about athleticism.

Some tall 1Bmen make plays shorter ones do not.

 

[TheSplinteredSplendor]

20 minutes ago, TedYazPapiMookie said:

 intervening in something that wasn't any of your business.  

First day on the internet?

[TedYazPapiMookie]

8 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

This has to be one of the most absurd statements and beliefs I've ever seen posted by someone who does not appear to be a troll.

Let me enlighten you since your comments are so extreme and you lack the counter argument that makes it discussion rather than a rant.

Fielding percentage is a binary decision.  The player is either out or safe.  There is either an error or no error.

I am a bit confused why that wasn't understood but if it helps I will repeat things I've written.

Also, you wrote surely there is more to it than that.  I refer you to the lengthy discussions I have provided related to the very topic you are suggesting I haven't addressed.

Lastly, your first unfounded harsh criticism about Player A NOT being a better fielder than player B suggests you can't distinguish between better athleticm and worse judement than actual fielding skills.  If you are a player that catches every ball hit to you (that might have been a comparison in another message from you) they have done everything you can hope for on the opportunities provided them.  Perfection can't be improved on.  The athletic player who makes the errors on the wider range balls lacks baseball acumen like Devers.  He's over-extending himself and attempting plays that aren't in his range because if they were he should have gotten an out.  In your example where he gets to 20 extra balls and makes errors on 10 of them it's clear he gets credit with fielding percentage when he makes the plays but since his range is defined by what he can get to his 10 errors get counted against him for not being effective in his range.  Frankly, if these are such extraordinary attempts I still argue the score keepers would not ding him with an error and they would declare them hits just like they were for the other player.  Thus, fielding percentage is accurate.

[illinoisredsox]

18 minutes ago, TedYazPapiMookie said:

See digs are always provided and yet guys like Harmony suggest most folks are above that.  Haha.  You are no different than the guy I chided about reading comprehension who insults me EVERY TIME.

FYI....  Moon also didn't suggest which teams the players were on, the ballparks the games were played at or the field conditions during all the plays.  But what he has done multiple times is suggest a huge number of plays that don't represent a year.  Why use a random interval?  The reason is to exaggerate the situation in hopes of biasing the impression created by the example.  I interjected reality into his scenario by trying to tie it to a season so the volume is representative of what might happen in reality.  My bad.  

Thanks for being such a stand-up guy and intervening in something that wasn't any of your business.  

Oh, so now we can’t comment on a public post?  Take it to PM if you don’t want others weighing in.

The FACT is moon did not mention a timeframe.  The FACT that you introduced one says a couple things:

1) You know he has a point

2) You can’t admit someone else has a valid point, so you had to introduce something in a pathetic effort try and negate said point.

You have some of the thinnest skin I’ve seen on these boards.  But by all means, keep that nose in the sky since you think you are so vastly superior to everyone here.

Go ahead, flame away.

 

[TedYazPapiMookie]

9 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

I have mentioned parks, teams with staffs that K more than others or allow GB outs vs FO with significant differences. I mentioned how RF/9 had serious flaws. I only brought it up to show that some players do make 100-150 more plays than others, and yes, some SSs make 800 plays a year.

Modern technology has allowed us to factor in onl the plays hit within the range of a position player, how hard it was hit, and how far away the defender was. If Player A gets 200 less chances, it factors that in.

There have been some notecase flaws in the system, like fenway's short LF wall, and how some parks have very big areas that allow players to make more plays. Nobody says the system is perfect, but the SS position is a bit difference. The area of plays that can be made is near identical everywhere. The numbers of playable balls hit varies, for sure, but that is part of the equation, as is how hard the play is to make.

You can choose to not trust the data or the results, but you dismiss it all out of hand, without even knowing what it is.

I have no idea what write-ups you are referencing in your first statement, they weren't with me.  Do you at least realize that Range is an ever-changing piece of data that NEVER represents reality?  It's an estimate.  Most people want to see factual results not hypothetical data.  That's been the underlying theme of this whole discussion.  Metrics forces estimates on the public as if they are facts and they aren't.  It's just that simple.

If you want to use faulty estimates to draw conclusions about baseball players, that's your choice but don't expect everyone to be so gullible.  Estimates will always vary by the source and that's why two companies calculating WAR can't come up with the same number.  There are two sets of defensive metrics because people can't agree on which ESTIMATE is more accurate.

I am good with using facts from games to draw my own conclusions about players.  I don't need a BLACK BOX to generate estimates to determine the skills of a player.  There is absolutely no evidence that the BLACK BOX is right or even close to right with the estimates.

I think we can agree to disagree.  Maybe next time if we ever exchange ideas again you can insult less and focus on baseball more.  People are allowed to disagree with you without hurling insults for doing it.

 

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

4 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

I'd call him a great fielder, if he made more plays due to his freakishly long arms.

Yes, the metrics would capture the fact that he made plays nobody else could or does make.

This is an example of it not only being about athleticism.

Some tall 1Bmen make plays shorter ones do not.

 

The guy with the long wingspan that helps him reach more grounders, pop-ups or wild throws than most definitely has pretty good range.

But since the poster brought up the f-word, we might as well end it with a debate: who would record more outs in the ballpark -- Mr. Fantastic or the Flash?

I'd pick pliable Reed Richards, because he can instantly stretch his glove hand to any spot on the diamond. The Flash may cover the same ground just by running, but we don't know if he even has soft hands... he's so fast, he may overrun plays because everything looks so blurry.

That's it. Mr. Fantastic has the range to win Gold Gloves at every position in the same season.

[harmony]

21 minutes ago, TedYazPapiMookie said:

Let me enlighten you since your comments are so extreme and you lack the counter argument that makes it discussion rather than a rant.

Fielding percentage is a binary decision.  The player is either out or safe.  There is either an error or no error.

The error ruling is often a subjective decision. Review the video under Bottom 6th in the Summary column on the right side of this Gameday page:

https://www.mlb.com/gameday/royals-vs-giants/2025/05/19/777855/final/summary/highlights

This poster was in attendance and with the naked eye would have ruled an error, just as the official scorer did initially. Upon review of the sixth-inning play, the official scorer changed the ruling to a hit, snapping the no-hit bid by Kansas City starter Kris Bubic.

The modern systems are more objective with their precise tracking of many variables.

[illinoisredsox]

22 minutes ago, TheSplinteredSplendor said:

First day on the internet?

I know you and I have had our differences here, but I gotta give you props for this one.

[harmony]

12 minutes ago, TedYazPapiMookie said:

I think we can agree to disagree.  Maybe next time if we ever exchange ideas again you can insult less and focus on baseball more.  People are allowed to disagree with you without hurling insults for doing it.

Heed this good advice (and note the irony).

Always consider whether a post is insulting.

[mvp 78]

27 minutes ago, TedYazPapiMookie said:

Let me enlighten you since your comments are so extreme and you lack the counter argument that makes it discussion rather than a rant.

Everyone just needs to chill out. Thanks! 

[TedYazPapiMookie]

1 minute ago, illinoisredsox said:

Oh, so now we can’t comment on a public post?  Take it to PM if you don’t want others weighing in.

The FACT is moon did not mention a timeframe.  The FACT that you introduced one says a couple things:

1) You know he has a point

2) You can’t admit someone else has a valid point, so you had to introduce something in a pathetic effort try and negate said point.

You have some of the thinnest skin I’ve seen on these boards.  But by all means, keep that nose in the sky since you think you are so vastly superior to everyone here.

Go ahead, flame away.

 

The intervening that you did was not to add baseball content.  Seems like you are abusing the rules Harmony laid out about how to behave on this website.

I'm ok with you throwing in your 2 cents.  It's a shame that you don't read the comments since you would realize we decided to engage in the discussion because I was curious about his understanding of metrics.  To me that suggests I knew he had a point.  I believe that is issue #1 above.

The #2 point is really fun to refute.  Since this was a discussion with two separate opinions, I provided my opinion to him and other interveners, and he chose to insult my viewpoint and provide his argument without much detail.  I asked for ONE formula explanation and never got it.  How does one negate an argument that never gets presented?  Should my explanation of fielding percentage disagree with the metric alternatives?  Yes, that is why we are having the discussion.  Should it negate his points?  Since they are different arguments, I'd have to say yes.  Is that bad? No because that's how a discussion with different opinions should proceed.

The last two comments seem very childish.  I have been told there are rules against insults by Harmony and then I'm told that as I conform to the rules that I'm thin skinned by others who don't appear to abide by Harmony's rules.  I'm new to the site and the folks here really have given me a warm welcome.  hahaha

If you want me to apologize for having a more extensive background in baseball, it's not going to happen.  Am i superior to you or have I said I am?  No not per se but I have pointed out an extensive background which is the basis of my comments.  Some took it as bragging but that suggest to me a level of immaturity in those individuals because knowing the background of the person with respect to the topic is usually and an aid in creating discussions.  I have acted with far more dignity than all the insulters on the site.  It really has been disappointing that the art of discussion is foreign to so many that have addressed me on the site.  Fortunately, I've found the facility to turn off the insulting people and I think that will take care of the issues I've encountered since joining.  

Lastly, I have no idea what Go ahead, flame away means.  There are several possible interpretations but I'm pretty sure it's not I wish you well.

[TheSplinteredSplendor]

2 minutes ago, illinoisredsox said:

Oh, so now we can’t comment on a public post?  Take it to PM if you don’t want others weighing in.

The FACT is moon did not mention a timeframe.  The FACT that you introduced one says a couple things:

1) You know he has a point

2) You can’t admit someone else has a valid point, so you had to introduce something in a pathetic effort try and negate said point.

You have some of the thinnest skin I’ve seen on these boards.  But by all means, keep that nose in the sky since you think you are so vastly superior to everyone here.

Go ahead, flame away.

 

[TedYazPapiMookie]

27 minutes ago, harmony said:

The error ruling is often a subjective decision. Review the video under Bottom 6th in the Summary column on the right side of this Gameday page:

https://www.mlb.com/gameday/royals-vs-giants/2025/05/19/777855/final/summary/highlights

This poster was in attendance and with the naked eye would have ruled an error, just as the official scorer did initially. Upon review of the sixth-inning play, the official scorer changed the ruling to a hit, snapping the no-hit bid by Kansas City starter Kris Bubic.

The modern systems are more objective with their precise tracking of many variables.

The new technology needs to be extended into the process of defining plays that are errors.  Much like pitches in the future, the future needs to provide a detailed review of each play to determine if a hit should have been given to the batter.  Fielding percentages would improve their accuracy, and many players will be severely impacted by the additional errors that have been deemed hits by the score keepers.

Having viewed the play, you reference on a big screen an error appeared to be the correct call.  The change later in the game was an extraordinary action without much precedence and with huge impact.  Nobody can know if the change created the hit that followed or not.  How was the pitcher going to pitch under different circumstances?  A what-if that can't be answered.  Too bad for the pitcher to lose the chance and the first baseman has to hate the call since he probably feels it was an error because he expects to make that play.  The position of the runner versus the pitcher is an unfair argument because the pitcher had beaten the same player to first base earlier in the game when he knew there was going to be a play.  Once the ball bounced off the first baseman the pitcher eased up negating the argument that it should be a hit because the runner would have beat the pitcher to 1B.

Errors may be the single biggest issue in baseball, so technology needs to be used to advance the accuracy.

Better?

[TedYazPapiMookie]

2 hours ago, harmony said:

Heed this good advice (and note the irony).

Always consider whether a post is insulting.

Practice what you preach AND start telling the several people who have exchanged with me on this thread.  Read for yourself and decide.  Most start with an insult rather than simply disagreeing.  I find it really odd that chose me as the new guy rather than guys who insult EVERY SINGLE TIME THE WRITE ME.  We all know who that person is.  Does he go after you if you send him notes like you did me?

You seem like a reasonable person, so please go back and review the sequence of insults and I think you'll find I am not the one who can't disagree without insulting.  I think you will also find that me mentioning my background is a standard practice on websites like this to provide insights into why my viewpoint might be different than others.  I joined the site to talk baseball not trash but that's the reception I have gotten.

[notin]

5 hours ago, TedYazPapiMookie said:

For a player to demonstrate his skill that exceeds others he must have luck as I mentioned because the pitcher and hitter must create a ball hit to a location that allows him to show greater talent.

The player with less range may simply have had a set of plays a shorter distance from him.  If there is actually a speed difference then the ball is considered a hit with the slower player and if the faster player gets to it the score keepers still gives the batter a hit just like with the other fielder and if he catches it and throws the player out it gets logged in the fielding percentage.  If a player goes a slightly longer distance because the ball is hit farther away from him than the other player he can define the possibility of his skill being superior by catching it and getting an out but if the other player gets a similar distance play we have an apple vs orange situation.  The second player has the potential of making farther plays but without balls hit the exact same distance you can't define his skills at that distance.  That means if the player that did get to the ball that was farther away he needs to make the play if he wants to maintain his skill rating.

Here is the answer to your third paragraph example:

PLayer A - who gets to 100 balls has a fielding percentage of 90% because it represents his success rate in fielding the balls he feels are in his range.  How many of the balls in the group of 20 that the other player couldn't get to were so far away he was lucky to get to them?  Those will be hits not errors.  If he simply can't field that well to be successful on these other 20 plays is he really the superior player?  It sure doesn't sound like it to me, he's simply a better athlete with lesser fielding skills.  Giving people bonus points because they get to a ball someone else can't get to makes no sense.  Let's use a football comparison.  The Bears went out and found a sprinter (Willie Gault) who was faster than all their receivers and most of the defenders.  He was a deep threat and a world class sprinter but he had issues catching the ball compared to their very reliable receivers who weren't as fast as gault.  In a results driven sports world, did Gault get credit for beating guys down the field and dropping the ball?  How is that different?  Well the team got to choose him and often didn't because his fielding percentage was 10% lower.  The infielder with greater speed gets his opportunities out of sheer luck because the pitcher and hitter determine it.  Should the team be rooting for him to have get a ball within the range he can field effectively?  YES.  The others are longshots and he will get credit for them if he is successful.  Otherwise, the team is no better off by him getting to them.  He on the other hand has proved his limits as to him successfully handling plays of certain range.  Maybe the athletic player can aspire to be more like the sure handed other player.

Player B - who has a shorter range made 100% of his plays and truly is the better fielder.  He did his job perfectly and there is no room for improvement that can be identified.  If he can expand his range while not losing any defensive effectiveness, then improvement could be noted.  It's hard to improve on perfection.

Answer to your final point.  The 80 successful plays by one player represents perfection.  Every player has god given talents and he maximized his.  Should he be berated by someone like you for not being as athletic as the next guy?  I don't think so.  It seems like he has phenomenal hands and his range might not be in the 100 percentile but he's a keeper for me.  The fact that the player with more god given skills that allow him to make the decision to attempt plays on 20 balls out of the range of the other player puts a responsibility on the player to do it equally well as he does on the closer plays.  Clearly, he's chosen 20 balls that were farther away and decided he had a chance to get outs on them.  He was wrong 50% of the time.  Did he get credit in his fielding percentage for the successful 10 plays?  Yes.  Should he be dinged for the 10 unsuccessful plays? Yes.  That's how fielding percentage works.  

Player A - 90 outs and 10 errors

Player B - 80 outs 20 hits and 0 errors

Is the team better off with Player A.  Yes.  Is player A a better fielder  NO.

Do managers take into account the difference in range among their players? Yes.

Do the 10 errors add risk to the team?  Yes.  The error result can far exceed the simple hit.

If you are watching the game and the ball gets hit to the better fielder, do you feel more confident that he will get an out?  Yes.  If one of the errors happens late in the game and it's one that has a bigger impact than a simple hit, are you better off with Payer A or Player B?  Player B!!

It's a trade-off.  Player A remains the more athletic and Player B remains the better fielder.

But you have repeatedly said it’s all about outs.  Why is the fielder responsible for fewer outs better in your eyes?  Remember, in this hypothetical example, each shortstop received 100 groundballs IDENTICAL to the other shortstop - same speed, same location, etc.   No one is berating him for not getting to them. (Why you went there is beyond me.) In fact, the shortstop with 10 errors is far more likely to get the negative commentary, especially since it wasn’t established that he made the errors on all the 20 additional grounders he could reach, just that he made 10 errors.

If it’s all about outs, as you have repeatedly said, than the player who gets more outs is the better fielder.  Not the player who is perfect in his more limited sample.  At the end of the day, letting more balls go for hits doesn’t make you the better fielder, which is exactly the flaw in fielding percentage I don’t like…

[notin]

4 hours ago, TedYazPapiMookie said:

The new technology needs to be extended into the process of defining plays that are errors.  Much like pitches in the future, the future needs to provide a detailed review of each play to determine if a hit should have been given to the batter.  Fielding percentages would improve their accuracy, and many players will be severely impacted by the additional errors that have been deemed hits by the score keepers.

Having viewed the play, you reference on a big screen an error appeared to be the correct call.  The change later in the game was an extraordinary action without much precedence and with huge impact.  Nobody can know if the change created the hit that followed or not.  How was the pitcher going to pitch under different circumstances?  A what-if that can't be answered.  Too bad for the pitcher to lose the chance and the first baseman has to hate the call since he probably feels it was an error because he expects to make that play.  The position of the runner versus the pitcher is an unfair argument because the pitcher had beaten the same player to first base earlier in the game when he knew there was going to be a play.  Once the ball bounced off the first baseman the pitcher eased up negating the argument that it should be a hit because the runner would have beat the pitcher to 1B.

Errors may be the single biggest issue in baseball, so technology needs to be used to advance the accuracy.

Better?

If errors need technology to improve their accuracy, that also is a flaw in fielding percentage.  It doesn’t measure anything else…