Kristian Campbell Could Use Some Time In Worcester

3 hours ago, Old Red said:

Not all errors are the same. You could look at the box score from last nights game, and see that Duran was charged with an error, but if you watched the game the good old eye test told you what happened. The eye test can tell you so much such as Bregman could very easily have two more throwing errors charged to him that the eye test showed you, but the official scorer awarded the batter a hit that even had the Yuckers in the NESN booth befuddled, so  I agree fielding percentage isn’t all it’s cracked up to be, and there different kind of errors that the eye test if available can differentiate.

Just about everything in baseball can be second guessed.  It should still all come back to the simple concept of what percentage of the time did the fielder get the out.  By hitting the runner, there was no out.  When Bregman or Devers in the old days didn't get an out on a ball hit to them and the score keeper gave the batter a hit, they created a floor fielding percentage. 

There are three possible results on a play:

1 - An out

2 - An Error

3 - A misplay that is considered a hit

Fielding percentage is the accepted stat calculated by dividing OUTS over Total Chances.

That number represents the BEST success rate of the player at his position.

If you subtract misplays from OUTS and divide it by Total Chances you have the player's worst fielding percentage because you assume EVERY ball hit to him should have been an out. 

Until someone starts reviewing every play where no out is made all we can do is assume a range that represents the fielding percentage of a player.  This can easily be corrected with today's technology and the error review process would render more accurate fielding percentages.  As of today, the best case is you can conclude that the fielding percentage in the books is over estimated.  To what degree, we won't know until the MLB defines standards for errors and assesses all historical and future plays determining errors against a standard set of rules.  That's why when you see a guy like Devers make 38 misplays and 14 errors in 2022 you laugh at the fact that he got 38 favorable calls by the score keepers and still didn't finish as a league average defender.  If 50% of the misplays were measured against a standard and found to be errors his fielding percentage in 2022 would drop from .964 to .920.  Most players don't have as many misplays as Devers did so the ceiling fielding percentage and the floor fielding percentage does not have as great of a span as it did with Devers.  

You are 100% correct that fielding percentage is not recorded as accurately as possible and I hope someday that the inefficiency in recording it is corrected by the MLB. 

On the other side of the coin, you have metrics which fabricate components of the estimates, and they are sold to the public as if they are stats not just guesses.  Normalization techniques are used throughout society to estimate lots of things.  As long as people understand that the estimates have no certainty, they are simply one person's (company's) guess at trying to create data that might represent what a player did but not necessarily.  If the public understand that these are guesses then metrics are kept in perspective.  The second someone thinks the estimates stand for a certainty, metrics become a myth.  They are estimates. 

Fans can believe them or not.  With Fielding Percentage there is a range of accuracy based on the out/no out criteria.  In metrics, there is complete uncertainty since a major portion of the calculation is based on averages that may or may not fairly represent actual game situations.  Therefore, there is far LESS certainty in metrics than the range of the stat Fielding Percentage.  Nothing is perfect and fans can support either, but they should at least know that all metrics are guesses, predictions not certainties.

1 hour ago, TedYazPapiMookie said:

Firecracker?  Here is some free advice.  Stop with all the insults and start writing about baseball.  It will be sign of maturity.  If you disagree, just say so without an insult.  That's how adults discuss baseball.

FYI... I do what I need to do to slow the cyber bullying that goes on here.

This site is only as good as the participants who write about baseball here.  Clearly, the anonymity makes many very brave and aids in the ignorance with which they respond.  Thanks for being a prime example.

I just want to say thank you for providing some comedic relief via your recent posts; it’s been a tough go for many of us while the team is struggling.

2 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

Equating someone's spelling ability to baseball knowledge is worse than childish.

The weird thing is, he seemed to be set off by the fact I put ROTY in there instead of ROY (God forbid), more than my spelling per se. My spelling is pretty damn good. 😎 My dyslexia, however, is about as bad as it gets. Not so good.