TedYazPapiMookie

I'm sure you realize that's an illogical comparison but for the sake of putting this to bed lets end on a fabricated comparison that's irrelevant so it truly represents metrics. Thank you.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Lets start with the it's not simulation. The data from each play is captured. Is the distance defined and are you aware of it? Does the distance begin when the pitch starts his mechanics or is that movement not counted? Does the distance begin based on where he is when the batter swings? Or does the players movement during the swing not count? I'm going to guess that the distance starts when the ball is contacted and all movement prior to that is not part of the player's range on the play. After each ball hit to the player's area is his distance captured or is it only captured on balls he touches? When a player runs to make a play and a numbskull like Devers cuts in front of him what range is given to the player that should have made the play but a team-mate cut him off and attempted to field it? Now let's pretend 50 plays are record in the black box that holds the data. How is the player's range calculated. Is it simple math? The total distance divided by the number of plays? If so, what does that number tell you? In the past, under 50 unique circumstances that won't ever be repeated the player range to ball hit and successfully made the play or didn't? Does it suggest he ran his fastest? Does it suggest he threw the ball as hard as he possibly could? Or do we simply have a bunch of data that can be interpreted however you want without any accuracy? Fielding percentage tells you the players success rate and how well he did his job. How does this additional information get rolled into an evaluation of a player? What's the formula? Do you know or are you asked to simply believe it's right? Does any check the accuracy of the recordings of the data? What if a player ran 15 feet and it was recorded incorrectly as 5? Is there a validation process for each piece of data that is to be projected? Just this last paragraph describes why it's all BS. The data is a past fact and doesn't suggest it will be accurate in the future. You might be able to say the average distance to field his 50 plays was 12 feet but how does that help you in boosting or criticizing the players fielding percentage or success rate? Bottom line, trying to tweak fielding percentage is a fabrication not a fact. Observing things with your eyes that can't be accurately quantified is the essence of metrics. The problem is the data generated is not factual, but it's sold to the public as factual. I don't disagree with you that a player that has greater range attempts more plays. They are plays that would be a hit if another player was playing BUT if the player doesn't get the out, he doesn't help his team and it's no different than a normal hit. If the player makes the play, it's included in his success rate or fielding percentage. It's only plays that exceed normal ranges that are misplays that have the potential of being given an error dropping the players fielding percentage. Over the last 50 years of watching baseball, I can't remember too many exceptional plays by a fielder that don't generate an out that are given an error. Nearly every exceptional play that fails is a hit. Therefore, to tinker with the fundamental data created by fielding percentage is a fruitless effort that won't significantly change the conclusions generated by the fielding percentage and if it does, one must ask the precise formula used to suggest that fielding percentage isn't accurate. I have yet to see that proof. Can you produce it? Otherwise, fielding percentage remains the most accurate way to measure the defensive skills of a player.

Your statement of factual voting does reflect the travesty that happened with Jeter. The fact that it happened doesn't mean the evaluation was about performance as much as politics. That's for each fan to evaluate because the HOF isn't known for being a performance-based organization, it's a political-based organization. You do realize your last line shows just how bad you are at reading comprehension. Nothing I wrote had anything to do with reading comprehension unlike your interpretations of my comments with no regard to context. You might want to stop while you are so far behind.

Your opinion of his future is valid to you. I for one, don't have any idea what he will due in the future because trends are inaccurate. But patterns in baseball can be observed. Players go through hot and cold streaks. Players must adjust throughout the season based on how opponents are approaching them with their pitching staff. Fangraphs GUESSES have absolutely no validity because like me they don't know the future so it's nothing more than a likely faulty opinion just like mine would be. As a fan, I simply root for slumps to end and success to be as great as possible for each Red Sox player. Now, help me with your first comment? When I provide data about Duran's performance, is that biased? After Mookie got shipped was Duran not a godsend because he filled a hole that had been killing the team for years? Does presenting facts about Duran that contradict comments made in the previous comment or the article make me biased or does it introduce a sense of fairness in the treatment of Duran? Was your comment meant to be a cheap shot? It sure seems like it. Apparently, that is a trend on this website. Open with an insult and then make your point.

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.

As usual. Not a fact in your comment supporting your beliefs. You opinion must weigh heavy in your circles because you never have to put forth the data that validates what you say.

It appears there is a small group of haters in the ranks. Duran was the team's best player until Bregman showed up. To complain about his defense after watching Devers butcher so many more plays is absurd. The guy is a league average defender and an elite lead-off man on offense. He happens to be in a slump that he will come out of when he makes his adjustments. You have to be a Duran hater to exaggerate the situation as much as the writer and some of the responders have exaggerated it. You folks have such short memories. When the ownership dumped Mookie the team floundered without a lead-off hitter to replace Mookie. Duran was a godsend. Still is. But this is typical of segments of Boston fans who are biased. I remember JD coming to Boston and being the piece that replaced Papi. 2017 didn't end in a Ring becaus Houston cheated AND Boston was missing a lynch pin like Papi to secure the offense. Enter JD. A few years later, people were complaining about a $22Million a year salary. Now we pay DHs over $30Million a year!! It's all in the eye of the beholder and the bias of the beholder. Some players in Boston are loved for no reason other than who they know, and others are hated. We've seen this over the years. Mookie was hated by the front office then he became a MVP and he was acceptable but not loved by them. Only the fans loved him for what he contributed to Boston winning. Duran was hated like Mookie when Duran made it to the MLB and struggled on a couple plays on national TV. He got sent down but not before a group of haters emerged. He came back like Mookie with a break-out year, and an all-star status and the haters still persist and scrutinize every little thing he does wrong, and they make mountains out of mole hills. Too bad fans can't be objective in their criticism. Whan a player is defensively the worst in the history of the game, and they want to move the guy from 3rd to 1st, that just shows you the brains get turned off and the hearts are all that matter. The guy has no business owning a glove based on 14 seasons of failure data back to his days in the Dominican Republic Baseball Academy. Haters will be haters. Facts don't matter in their arguments. It's a part of fandom but hopefully there are many who will stick up for Duran because as I mentioned, he's the second most talented player on the team right now and his numbers and achievements document that fact. I believe most Boston fans will be routing for him to continue his turn around just like most fans will be rooting for Bregman to get hot again and for Devers to not regress from his hot state to his cold state.

Why are you so intimidated by me that you must insult me each time you write something. Grow up. Reading comprehension is an important skill. Next time try to pay attention to the topic. Elite wasn't the discussion. The point was he didn't perform at a level throughout his career to earn a first year induction into the HOF. Do you even realize that you changed the topic to being elite and then quoted meaningless information relating to your new topic of being elite? And then you have the nerve to suggest I make YOU laugh!! hahaha Don't give up your day job. WOW.

Thanks for this response. To begin here is the definition of fielding percentage according to the MLB. Fielding Percentage (FPCT) Definition Fielding percentage answers the question: How often does a fielder or team make the play when tasked with fielding a batted ball, throwing a ball, or receiving a thrown ball for an out. The formula is simple: the total number of putouts and assists by a defender, divided by the total number of chances (putouts, assists and errors). The denominator of this fraction is a 1 if an out is achieved and a 0 if it is not. The total chances is a 1 with every play that the fielder participates in. The numerator is the number of putouts which is NEVER controversial because it is an official out and assists are not controversial because they are directly tied to an official out. The denominator is where I think people get confused and wrongfully dismiss the statistic. Since there are three components to the denominator and two are the same as the numerator only the errors create controversy. Let's start there and expand into concepts like range later. When a ball is hit between players it is classified as a "HIT". He a ball is hit to a player, or a player attempts to field it then two things can happen: 1 - An out 2) a base runner. The latter is a failure but that's where things get complicated. The word error has a negative connotation and reflects a score keeper's belief that the ball was playable. There is no phrase for an unplayable ball except hit, but is it a hit or a misplay because it could have caught by the defender if he was a better player? This is a shortcoming of defensive statistics. Mishaps aren't an official they are embedded in the hits during a game. All balls hit to a player are not included in the total chances, they are hits. This artificially raises the fielding percentage of a player by the mishaps committed by him. For every mishap you would need to add 1 more to the denominator lowering his fielding percentage. Consequently, the fielding percentage is a ceiling value that gets reduced based on mishaps. Now let's compare two players. In 2022 as I have explained before Devers made 14 official errors and 38 mishaps. His fielding percentage that year was .964 (379/393) his best ever. His 393 total chances was a fairly normal frequency for plays at 3B during his career. Let's now build his fielding percentage range. If he makes no mishaps on the 38 plays that were logged as mishaps by Baseball Reference, then his ceiling fielding percentage is .964. If EVERY mishap should have been documented as an error his 379/393 fielding percentage drops to 379/431 or .879!!! Devers range that year was huge due to high volume mishaps. These numbers are not easily interpreted since there is no video replay that definitively defines the true errors. So, let's just use the ceiling number and give him the benefit of the doubt like the score keepers. Now lets look at Bregman. He had 414 chances and 7 errors so 407 POs and Assists. His fielding percentage ceiling was .983. Since I have NOT gone game by game to dig out the "base hit to 3B" noted plays from the 2022 season I have no number to reflect his basement number like Devers .879 but let's just assume it's the midpoint of the Devers total or 19. Personally, I believe that to be very high so it's a conservative number that favors Devers in this comparison. Assume 407 assists and put outs like before and add 19 more total chances. His floor fielding percentage is .940. Based on these two ranges, it's clear who is by far the superior defender based on fielding percentage. Is that fair or correct? Let's now discuss other factors like range. I want to start with RF because I used to live near a guy named Bill James who in 1984 when we started our Keeper League was at the infant stage of ruining baseball from a statistical viewpoint. We communicated with him about our stat categories in the league and we settled on offensive categories only since defensive measurement were hard to find weekly. We agreed that the components of a scoring system should include Runs Produced (R+RBI=HR), Batting Average, Stolen Bases and we struggled with capturing other data that shows the value of a hitter. Walks and Extra Base hits along with sacrifices needed to be incorporated so we built a stat called Extra Base Percentage that was the new stat called Isolated Power (Slugging = Batting Average) and Walk rate (OBP-Batting Average). Unfortunately, James and others agreed on a batting average biased stat called OPS which double accounts batting average (On base percentage plus Slugging Percentage). This became a popular misrepresentation of measuring a players value as did much of the metrics James invented. He once wrote that the problem with fielding percentage is that it over emphasizes the importance of efficiency in converted batted balls into outs when the true measure of defense was the range of a player. That's why today, you believe the things you do about metrics. That's why so many blindly repeat his viewpoint because it's the basis of modern defensive metrics. He started with Range Factor. Range Factor (RF) in baseball is a defensive statistic that measures a player’s range or the number of defensive opportunities they have. It’s calculated differently for infielders and outfielders. RF=(Putouts + Assists) / (Games Played) Enter the world of the Range Factor, a statistic that transcends traditional metrics, offering a deeper glimpse into a player’s ability to cover ground and transform difficult plays into outs. This is the explanation I found. This is what you are suggesting is so important. The guy whose range is so great because he's an athlete and an elite defender. What's wrong with this formula and what does it actually represent? If a player plays one game and he gets 2 putouts and 3 assists his RF is 5.0. That is the number of successful plays he made during the game. It does NOT include errors or misplays. The higher the number the higher the DWAR (defensive wins above replacement - Nice name can the name be more obscure?) If DWAR is a measure of a players defense how is it significant if it doesn't reflect missed opportunities for outs? It's simply volume data. Nothing more significant that counting how many times a ball gets hit to a player and he successfully does his job. Does the player in any way control that number? No the pitcher and hitter create a result that adds to his count per game. So what does DWAR tell you about quality of his play? Absolutely nothing. Fangraphs evaluates fielding percentage as follows: all we had were errors, assists, and putouts. These statistics aren’t very useful, however. You certainly want to avoid errors because in order for something to be called an error you have, by definition, failed to convert a batted ball into an out. Yet there are two key problems with errors. First, they are determined by official scorers who don’t always make the right decision. Human error isn’t a problem, per se, but you’ve all seen enough scoring decisions to be skeptical about the quality of their decision making. Now go back to the RANGE described earlier. Does the accuracy of the errors matter or does the percentage of successful outs matter? This fangraphs comment is pure ignorance. They don't understand the fielding percentage statistic and why it is the single most important piece of data about a player's defense. Next they write: More importantly, however, is that errors are a subset of misplays. Even if official scorers got the rule book definition exactly right and perfectly uniform, we would still be ignoring a huge portion of bad defensive plays. Think back to a moment when you watched a player get a horrible jump on an easy ball. Think about the time an infielder took too long to get the ball out of their glove. Picture an easy pop fly falling four feet from the second baseman. None of those are errors even though they are relatively easy plays. This is a bit of an exaggeration because if you can't get the ball out of your glove it is an error, but they have just documented what I told you about with respect to fielding percentage. There is a floor that is unknown normally, but the ceiling is known. They go on: Measuring defense using Assists + Put Outs / Assists + Put Outs + Errors ignores a huge slice of defense. If a player fails to get to an easy ball, there is no penalty. That alone should be reason enough for you to want something better. (WOW... a gross generalization that does not explain why he didn't get to an easy ball and does this person define what EASY BALL means?) These types of issues exist because score keepers give the player the benefit of the doubt. As long as a source like Baseball Reference records it as a hit to 3B or RF or wherever the lazy player exists it becomes a misplay for the player but no error. It's part of his floor fielding percentage. This leads to their discussion of UZR and DRZ. Like in Baseball Reference some balls hit are classified as hits to a specific position and others are simply hits. Defensive Zones are the same concept. Credit for performance in your Zone in metrics is the point where what happened in the game gets suspended and a new world is fabricated based on normalized data that may or may not reflect the reality of the play. The metrics force explanations for the gray areas of plays. The assumptions built in these metrics could suggest accurate measurements of a player's success just as easily as they can produce completely inaccurate assessments of a player's success. An example that relates to your comments. If a player is lazy and doesn't hustle and a ball in his zone goes to the outfield and then the next play he is hustling for a ball and his cleat catches an unseen seem in the turf. Metrics try to quantify both circumstances where one is a motivational issue and the other is a physical issue out of the hands of the player. Fielding percentage does NOT attempt to pigeon hole each individual play into a bucket arbitrarily. Yes the buckets have rules to define the play but their accuracy is crap. There are simply too many anomalies that can't be correctly slotted into the defined parameters in each metric formula. This is called exception processing. There is a concept of diminishing returns when it comes to exception processing. I believe metrics have crossed that line and used normalized data as if it was representative of a singular event. It's a global average that might not be at all like the actual event. At this point I will pause and send so you can help me understand how RF measures the greatness of a player. I hope the ceiling concept helps explain why the gray area of misplays doesn't need to be accurate for fielding percentage to clearly represent the upside potential of any fielder. In Devers case it shows just how incredibly bad he was and why Bregman's defense is light years better. Those facts are clear with fielding percentage. I still can't figure out how Bregman in 2022 can have one of his highest fielding percentages and a -5 RDRS then the next year have a league average fielding percentage and have a positive 5 RDRS. Maybe you can dig into DRS and all it's offshoots, UZR/DRZ, DWAR and RF. All I can tell from the formulas is that normalized data which is NOT reflected in the actual play gets used to draw conclusions about the play but may not be appropriate because one size does not fit all. I know this is long and I hope you are the only one that takes time because we agreed to discuss this. I'm sure negative feedback will come from those who live in a texting length of messages world.

Longevity in the game is a bit of an achievement but Jeter's strength in number comes not from his excellence as much as from his 20 years of playing. He's 6th in all-time hits but it's not nearly as impressive if you review hits per plate appearance. He drops to 39th. Who is first? Ty Cobb, then Sisler and the top 10 is a true representation of the greats in baseball, not the guys that played the longest. Tony Gwynn, Rod Carew and Ichiro all made the top 25 joining the players from eras prior to them. Jeter didn't deserve a first ballot election is what I said and i acknowledged he belonged in the HOF. Clearly, you have some reading and comprehension issues but hey you got a cheap shot in and that's what you are all about.

My thoughts on your suggestions: 1 - Rafaela is cutting it on offense if you look at his recent rise. He's made his adjustments and has significantly improved his hitting. March/April batting average .213, May average .306!!!! I think that shows he's cutting it!! His May OPS is .803!!! 2 - Anothony won't magically appear and be a better hitter than the players in the outfield today. That process will take time so adding Anthony full time would actually hurt the team but if you use him as a back-up to het him familiar with the better pitching in the MLB and use him as a late inning pinch hitter then you give him experience that contains pressure that he will see when he is full time. That would be a good exposure for Anthony as well. 3 - Duran in center and Abreu in RF would NOT be a balanced offense. Are you aware that Abreu is actually a platoon player because he can't hit lefty pitchers? Are you aware Abreu hit .295 in March/April and is hitting .228 in May? Maybe you got Abreu's not cutting confused and blamed Rafaela? BTW Anthony is also a lefty hitter as is Duran. You are also suggesting an all-lefty outfield when it comes to hitting and you are removing the best defender and keeping the weakest defender in Abreu and the currently worst hitter of the three. 4 - When you suggest adding Mayer who is the worst defensive infielder of those you list you are downgrading the current defense. If there is an issue with Story's hitting then you sit him not move him to 2B to bring in a weak fielding, inexperienced injury prone minor league player. Since the current weak spot is 1B, if you don't do the right thing and go get a real 1B, then use Mayer at 1B so the middle infield defense doesn't suffer. Mayer is the same height as Campbell and he has more power so he fits the prototype of a 1B much better than Campbell especially with his average to below average defense at SS. Please check the fielding stats if you doubt what I am saying. His minor league fielding percentage was a miserable .951. 5 - Campbell is not just a versatile athlete he is a stellar defender. Story's career at shortstop documents he's a fine defensive shortstop and since coming to Boston his issue has always been hitting. Campbell should be his back-up due his superior fielding to Mayer. Remember, Mayer has been in the organization since 2021 and has not hit well except in 2024. Campbell was drafted in 2023 and hit so well he moved to the MLB in two seasons while Mayer has yet to make the MLB. Why? Campbell won Minor League Player of the Year in 2024 beating out both Anthony and Mayer. If a new shortstop is to replace Story because he's not hitting, FOR THE TEAM'S SAKE, it needs to be Campbell.

Range doesn't matter if a ball that is hit farther from the player doesn't generate an out. The score keeper will either give a hit or an error and either way the team has not benefitted from the extra range if it's not an out. The out is the measure of the success rate. It's only if the added range results in an out that it matters. FYI, you perceive Fielding Percentage incorrectly. It measures the success rate of the player and the team. The error is just data. What's important is the success rate. Metrics don't document facts, it's a contrived number that is derivative of actual facts like total chances and errors, but metrics interject theoretical normalized data that doesn't relate directly to the play, so it doesn't represent what actually happened in the game! The additional data in metrics is someone's best guess of what might have happened based on simulation but since the one number fits all theory is so incredibly inaccurate, the metrics are incredibly inaccurate. You missed the point about me dissecting it and suggesting you should. I'm not here to teach you. Do the work yourself and learn. You wouldn't believe what I write anyway so it's a complete waste of time for me to do that. You are a player of mine, you are just some guy doubting that I know what I am talking about. Do the work and don't blame others for not doing the work for you. Also, you really don't understand the difference between ESTIMATES and STATS. The fielding percentage is a stat. It's 100% accurate in documenting whether a fielder was successful or not. Why he wasn't isn't the critical information provided by the fielding percentage, the success or no success is the critical information because it explains where the team benefitted from the players defense or did not benefit. Metrics are simulated by using averages of WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN if the exact same event were to happen again and they create an expectation of the fielder's performance. Accumulating one time event data to simulate future scenarios is a fun exercise but it's a prediction, just like you suggesting it MIGHT rain tomorrow. The DRS value and all the other fake stats which are estimates all are just a series of guesses. So statcast posts guesses as if they are stats to define a player. That's a complete joke. If you want to play simulation games, got back to your Playstation. If you want to know if a player is really providing skills on defense, look at stats, especially fielding percentage. It tells you his success rate. The higher the rate, the more value provided to the team regardless of where the ball might have been hit because you can't control where the ball will be hit.

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.

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.

Valuable feedback. Did you once notice that most comments to me that start with an insult are handled differently than the ones that are not? The attitude of the received response drives the attitude of my response. I've had very enjoyable exchanges on this site with many adults that want to talk baseball and not insult my previous comment. Let me ask. How would you explain your knowledge level on a financial blog? Wouldn't you explain your background a bit so others would know where you are coming from with your opinions? Or is that condescending too? Maybe it's just the concept of having adult conversations that make you uncomfortable? See, I assume everyone has a basis for their opinions. Sharing that helps the reader understand the comments and gives them context. That's why your comments appear to be so out of line. Should I apologize for being rooted in baseball for over 50 years? This was an insulting note from you and yet I politely responded to the insults. Call it a freebie because insults are not acceptable to me.

If someone wrote a book about the normal progression of prospects that get promoted to the MLB it would suggest that Campbell is experiencing a normal promotion. Think back to many of the Red Sox promoted over the years and even guys like Griffey and Trout. Here are the steps: 1 - Player gets promoted and starts out hot because pitchers don't have a book on him. 2- A book gets developed with teams cooperating in sharing their experience with regard to the player. 3- The players stats drop dramatically as teams adjust to what they've learned about him. 4- The hitting coaches work with the player to help him make his adjustments to what the opponents have learned about him and his stats start to rise. 5- Repeat the cycle the rest of his career. This is why when fans beg for Anthony and Mayer and start discounting guys like Campbell and Rafaela and even Duran, it's just wrong. The cycle happens to everyone. The great ones make adjustments down the road and suddenly have break out seasons like Duran did and Mookie did and Devers did. The better the farm system history of the player the more likely they will break out. Campbell had a Mookie-like farm system experience so he will bounce back and have a break-out sometime down the road. Hopefully, sooner rather than later. Duran has already made adjustments, and his numbers are climbing again. When Anthony and Mayer arrive expect the same initial hot streak followed by the same cold streak and watch the adjustment process occur. The breakout when it comes will dictate at what level the player will create a standard plateau for his skills. Mookie jumped to elite all-star. Devers jumped to above league average hitter but never repaired his defense. Duran improved on defense and jumped to a near perennial all-star offensive level. I think you are seeing Rafaela maturing into an above league average player with upside that could lead to being an all-star level player. His defense is already JBJ-like, his Ks dropped dramatically, and his run production is returning to his 2024 level as third best on the team while hitting out of the 9 hole. This team has a ton of talent that should mature in 2026 or 2027. Give the young guys time to experience the cycle of development and come out the other end with their break-out years.

Again, baseball acumen. Your words show how much you don't understand about the game. I wrote a long explanation of the difference between statcast BS and statistics created from baseball games. Educate yourself and provide feedback on it because you might simply have not met real baseball people just other young naive people who call themselves fans due to their interest but never really played or understood what is important in the game. I like what-if scenarios as much as the next guy, but I also realize that it's just a gross estimate and not a reality like a batting average or fielding percentage. Let me ask you one simple two-part question to measure your understanding of the game of baseball. What is the goal of a fielder, and which aspect of his job is the most critical to measure? I probably should make this multiple choice, but it won't tell me as much about your concept of the game.