MLB 14 The Show Official Trade Discussion Thread

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: MLB 14 The Show Official Trade Discussion Thread

It has real inputs. They're not proxies and they're not made up. They're tracked. They're based on real events. The reason that they fluctuates may not be their fault. Fluctuation may not be in UZR ... but in defense itself. Players get more chances, less chances, more difficult chances, and easier chances, season to season, they position themselves differently, etc. So what if the fluctuation is in defense itself and not in UZR?

Cliffnotes: UZR has real inputs. It's more than likely measuring fluctuations in defense rather than providing it. That's my point of view.

Real inputs that are human estimations of certain "zones" and how defensive plays fit into those zones. In all reality we have no knowledge of how "good" of an estimator is in any given ballpark on any given day. Real inputs that are as subjective (actually more so since viewed from a greater distance) as called balls and strikes or error/hit calls by an official scorekeeper. My position is that any metric that negatively rates a SS (Castro in this case) who is responsible for the most outs at his position in baseball--I want no part of that metric.

I agree, however, that UZR can be helpful in a very qualitative way. Like a -20 guy versus a +4 guy. But there are stat misers out there who always look past the assumptions built into how the data is collected, which turns me off. I do like Fangraphs' take on the matter.

From Fangraphs:

UZR uses Baseball Info Solutions (BIS) data in calculating its results. It’s important to note that this data is compiled by human scorers, which means that it likely includes some human error. Until FIELDF/x data gets released to the public, we are never going to have wholly accurate defensive data; human error is impossible to avoid when recording fielding locations by hand, no matter how meticulous the scorers. That said, BIS data is still the best, most accurate defensive data available at this time, so just be careful not to overstate claims of a player’s defensive prowess based solely on defensive stats.

Check out this link for the full intro article.

[AC]

Re: MLB 14 The Show Official Trade Discussion Thread

Real inputs that are human estimations of certain "zones" and how defensive plays fit into those zones. In all reality we have no knowledge of how "good" of an estimator is in any given ballpark on any given day. Real inputs that are as subjective (actually more so since viewed from a greater distance) as called balls and strikes or error/hit calls by an official scorekeeper. My position is that any metric that negatively rates a SS (Castro in this case) who is responsible for the most outs at his position in baseball--I want no part of that metric.

I agree, however, that UZR can be helpful in a very qualitative way. Like a -20 guy versus a +4 guy. But there are stat misers out there who always look past the assumptions built into how the data is collected, which turns me off. I do like Fangraphs' take on the matter.

From Fangraphs:


Check out this link for the full intro article.

Imo, having solidified, calculable zones is better than having human perception. Who knows. Cameron <s>would definitely</s> could watch Jose Reyes and Xander Bogaerts botch the exact same play in the same zone and be asked to assign a run value to that event and be lighter on Bogaerts than Reyes simply because he likes the Red Sox, and that's not a bad thing.

That's human nature and loving our team. But for the purposes of quantitative analysis, it isn't as effective. Sure, it's not perfect; MLBAM is gonna be a TON better. But I think it's the best we've got and a lot better than people make it out to be. Obviously imperfect but hey, nothing is! Obviously there are people out there - trust me, I've met some of them - who are like "Lawrie is -4.5 in 65 games? I thought he was good!?" (nearly an exact quote, unfortunately.) It takes a good while to stabilize, a few seasons. But I think my theory has some merit and I think UZR is better than people make it out to be, so long as people consider a.) the eye test b.) sample size c.) small human error margin (confidence intervals pls) and d.) Differences between UZR, DRS and dWAR and the potential reasons behind it, as well as e.) they regress it to the mean appropriately.


And haha I've already read every single page of the fangraphs glossary. UberNerd.

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: MLB 14 The Show Official Trade Discussion Thread

Yeah, sorry for the double post and I'm certainly no mod, and I'm surprised I'm saying this to easily one of the best posters in this thread, but you don't need to insult the dude. He asked a question. There's no such thing as a stupid question. I know you weren't trying to make him feel bad or anything but it came off a little harsh, I think.

But there absolutely is! The OP acknowledged that no matter how dumb the trade is, he's asking about it anyway. If you already know it's a dumb proposal, then why bother? What a waste of time if everyone in here asked about every single trade the cpu cooked up. Although the more half-baked cpu deals can be entertaining to look at for a good laugh.

Not wanting to be harsh with respect to the original poster as it's not inconceivable that in some alternative universe someone might think a declining Beltran for JD Martinez makes sense, but the issue in my mind is more that if the same poster (not necessarily the one involved here) asks tooo many questions, then people will start to ignore his posts. I know I start to gloss over and not answer posts that are the 3rd or 4th separate proposal (or 'bumped' proposals) from the RDS guys especially. I'd have to imagine some others selectively answer (or choose not to answer) posts in the same way. In that sense, it's good to ask questions when you are really in need of advice so people will be eager to help instead of possibly creating the sense like someone is abusing the trade community in here wherein posts are starting to get ignored for the repetitive nature of them (again, nothing personally projected at the Beltran/Martinez poster).

[AC]

Re: MLB 14 The Show Official Trade Discussion Thread

If you already know it's a dumb proposal, then why bother?

Because our opinions matter to these guys too. They don't profess to be perfect and they won't our opinion. Just cause they think it's dumb doesn't mean we all do. Everyone has opinions and theirs might not match up with ours, so they ask.

But ... some of that stuff ... yeah. The bumping and throwing out proposal after proposal is stuff I tend to gloss over. Not that OP did that, he didn't. Like I'm 100% sure of that. But generally speaking, I feel you bruh.

[moth to a flame]

Re: MLB 14 The Show Official Trade Discussion Thread

Imo, having solidified, calculable zones is better than having human perception. Who knows. Cameron <s>would definitely</s> could watch Jose Reyes and Xander Bogaerts botch the exact same play in the same zone and be asked to assign a run value to that event and be lighter on Bogaerts than Reyes simply because he likes the Red Sox, and that's not a bad thing.

That's human nature and loving our team. But for the purposes of quantitative analysis, it isn't as effective. Sure, it's not perfect; MLBAM is gonna be a TON better. But I think it's the best we've got and a lot better than people make it out to be. Obviously imperfect but hey, nothing is! Obviously there are people out there - trust me, I've met some of them - who are like "Lawrie is -4.5 in 65 games? I thought he was good!?" (nearly an exact quote, unfortunately.) It takes a good while to stabilize, a few seasons. But I think my theory has some merit and I think UZR is better than people make it out to be, so long as people consider a.) the eye test b.) sample size c.) small human error margin (confidence intervals pls) and d.) Differences between UZR, DRS and dWAR and the potential reasons behind it, as well as e.) they regress it to the mean appropriately.

I have to agree and disagree with both of you. UZR has its faults and its successes and there have been articles on their correlations year-to-year.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/uzr-2008-to-2009/

http://www.hardballtimes.com/tht-live/how-reliable-is-uzr/

But, back to the original UZR post on Castro. I don't think -3.7 UZR/150 is bad at all. That's basically average when you regress to the mean. Saying that's not manning the position is harsh, IMO.

[AC]

Re: MLB 14 The Show Official Trade Discussion Thread

I have to agree and disagree with both of you. UZR has its faults and its successes and there have been articles on their correlations year-to-year.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/uzr-2008-to-2009/

http://www.hardballtimes.com/tht-live/how-reliable-is-uzr/

But, back to the original UZR post on Castro. I don't think -3.7 UZR/150 is bad at all. That's basically average when you regress to the mean. Saying that's not manning the position is harsh, IMO.

It's not particularly good. I wasn't trying to insult the dude a ton, I like him a lot as a Cubs fan. I just don't think he's a particularly good fielder. And how much do you have to regress Castro? He's played there for a solid amount of innings.

Quite frankly, I'm dead tired, so I didn't read every word, but the takeaways I got from those two articles are: There's a lot of noise when the sample is small. Yup. I think that's because the defense events are a lot of noise. Batted ball isn't a skill based on DIPS theory, why is it considered a skill for fielders who have even less control on their # of opportunities? That's my view on the matter.

I know we're off topic on this but a.) it affects Castro's trade value, all of which is /extremely/ relevant to my franchise as I draw up a few things and b.) *** **** do I love these debates. #1 way to get smarter is to talk to people you don't agree with.

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: MLB 14 The Show Official Trade Discussion Thread

I have to agree and disagree with both of you. UZR has its faults and its successes and there have been articles on their correlations year-to-year.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/uzr-2008-to-2009/

http://www.hardballtimes.com/tht-live/how-reliable-is-uzr/

But, back to the original UZR post on Castro. I don't think -3.7 UZR/150 is bad at all. That's basically average when you regress to the mean. Saying that's not manning the position is harsh, IMO.

It's true that 0 +/- 5 is a fairly neutral UZR. BUT, the main problem I have with UZR is what is the goal of defense? To get outs!!!!!! And if you have a prolific out-getter as your SS (even if he boots 25-30 balls per year) that's a very valuable asset to have, and to which a negative UZR value is highly misleading.

[AC]

Re: MLB 14 The Show Official Trade Discussion Thread

It's true that 0 +/- 5 is a fairly neutral UZR. BUT, the main problem I have with UZR is what is the goal of defense? To get outs!!!!!! And if you have a prolific out-getter as your SS (even if he boots 25-30 balls per year) that's a very valuable asset to have, and to which a negative UZR value is highly misleading.

But if he's booting that many balls a year, those are potential outs that aren't being converted, and you can see how much that costs you by checking out ErrR, or error runs, and divide by the R/W number for the year. The outs are considered, the errors are considered, it's all considered.

[moth to a flame]

Re: MLB 14 The Show Official Trade Discussion Thread

It's true that 0 +/- 5 is a fairly neutral UZR. BUT, the main problem I have with UZR is what is the goal of defense? To get outs!!!!!! And if you have a prolific out-getter as your SS (even if he boots 25-30 balls per year) that's a very valuable asset to have, and to which a negative UZR value is highly misleading.

The problem with your argument is that you aren't considering the increase in opportunities Castro has had over the average SS. Just because he gets a lot of put outs doesn't mean he is playing well. Put outs and Errors are very context dependent stats and are much less reliable.

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: MLB 14 The Show Official Trade Discussion Thread

But if he's booting that many balls a year, those are potential outs that aren't being converted, and you can see how much that costs you by checking out ErrR, or error runs, and divide by the R/W number for the year. The outs are considered, the errors are considered, it's all considered.

The problem with your argument is that you aren't considering the increase in opportunities Castro has had over the average SS. Just because he gets a lot of put outs doesn't mean he is playing well. Put outs and Errors are very context dependent stats and are much less reliable.

But maybe he's getting to more balls because he's better? Maybe he's getting to them because of shifting? Maybe it's luck of the draw? UZR does not and cannot sort this fundamental issue out. And if errors are so context-dependent, why are we blaming guys for their errors at all anyway?

The issue that I'm not sure you guys are acknowledging quite enough is the fact that a large component of UZR is entirely subjective and based on balls a player should've gotten to as decreed by a guy in a press box. Is it fair for a guy sitting in a press box hundreds of feet away to make judgment calls on how hard the ball was hit, how high and far, and whether it was in one of 70+ distinct zones? Whether the fielder was shifted away from getting to a ball he would've normally gotten to? This is all too subjective for my tastes and for me to take too seriously.

In addition to that, and this is from Yahoo so discard most of the credibility:

When UZR doesn't work: As with batting average, there are frequent, serious sample size problems associated with UZR. (These sample size problems mean that FanGraphs' UZR/150, a pro-rated version of UZR that prorates performance to a 150-game season, should be used at one's peril. It's useful to have a standardized number to compare across players, to compare their defensive impact across the exact same number of outs — but 150 defensive games is not generally a sufficient sample size for UZR.)

A player's one-year UZR is not a good measure of his true talent level as a fielder, nor is it a good predictor of future performance. UZR also frequently conflicts — or at least it doesn't perfectly align — with the other major defensive stat in use, John Dewan's Plus/Minus, which is published in The Fielding Bible and on Bill James Online.

These differences can often be significant. While Adam Dunn had -64.3 fielding runs by UZR in 2008 and 2009, by Plus/Minus he was only at -45 — still appallingly bad, but 20 runs is a major difference.

Lichtman discusses the contrasts between his stat and Dewan's stat here. Both ultimately make use of a lot of the same data, which is determined by humans watching video of every play and assigning numerical values to what happened. They use different methodologies, but both are predicated on the same concept, trying to determine how many balls a fielder got to at a particular place on the field that other fielders would not have gotten to. Lichtman clearly prefers his own, but rather than discarding either, it's probably best to just keep both in mind when assessing how good a fielder is, rather than trying to get by on UZR alone.

Also, as The Sports Ph.D. has written, "UZR has one large minus: It is almost completely inaccessible to any but the most devoted sabermetric fan. Casual fans can understand it and look it up on sites that list it, but they don't have access to the data necessary to calculate it easily." We're simply not at a point where defense can be measured both accurately and precisely without a very large sample size.

What is a "big enough" sample size? UZR on a 1-year basis is virtually useless as a guy can be +2 one year and -10 the next. So is it 3 years for a stable rating? Does that make sense for all players? Are there cases where this assumption breaks down?

[IWND46]

Re: MLB 14 The Show Official Trade Discussion Thread

one thing that you have to keep in mind about errors/putouts is the range of the player. A lot of times you will see guys who are very athletic and can make crazy plays get more errors than the average normal everyday fielder due to them having more range. (Arenado has a lot of errors, even though he is considered a top 3B in the league defensivly)

[moth to a flame]

Re: MLB 14 The Show Official Trade Discussion Thread

What is a "big enough" sample size? UZR on a 1-year basis is virtually useless as a guy can be +2 one year and -10 the next. So is it 3 years for a stable rating? Does that make sense for all players? Are there cases where this assumption breaks down?

There's a lot I don't know, and because its subjective I take it with a giant grain of salt. But there does seem to be some strong year-to-year correlations. Almost as strong as wOBA. So to dismiss it so easily seems to be just as silly as regarding it as all encompassing.

[moth to a flame]

Re: MLB 14 The Show Official Trade Discussion Thread

one thing that you have to keep in mind about errors/putouts is the range of the player. A lot of times you will see guys who are very athletic and can make crazy plays get more errors than the average normal everyday fielder due to them having more range. (Arenado has a lot of errors, even though he is considered a top 3B in the league defensivly)

Right, that's one reason why its dumb to use errors as a stat. I hardly ever look at it.

[kmoser]

Re: MLB 14 The Show Official Trade Discussion Thread

There's a lot I don't know, and because its subjective I take it with a giant grain of salt. But there does seem to be some strong year-to-year correlations. Almost as strong as wOBA. So to dismiss it so easily seems to be just as silly as regarding it as all encompassing.

"A giant grain of salt" lol.
I've never really understood fielding sabremetrics. I know a pretty decent amount about offense and a little of pitching but I knew that the fielding area was hit or miss



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: MLB 14 The Show Official Trade Discussion Thread

one thing that you have to keep in mind about errors/putouts is the range of the player. A lot of times you will see guys who are very athletic and can make crazy plays get more errors than the average normal everyday fielder due to them having more range. (Arenado has a lot of errors, even though he is considered a top 3B in the league defensivly)

Very good point. And not just because I agree with it. Even when a crazy-range guy gets to a ball and fails to get the guy out, he has the chance of getting dinged with an error that a lesser fielder wouldn't even get a glove on. Lots of Starlin's errors are throwing, but this exact scenario absolutely eats him up with his error numbers.

There's a lot I don't know, and because its subjective I take it with a giant grain of salt. But there does seem to be some strong year-to-year correlations. Almost as strong as wOBA. So to dismiss it so easily seems to be just as silly as regarding it as all encompassing.

Right, but I don't consider an r^2 of 0.28 (the year-over-year UZR correlation in the article you posted) to be much better than tossing a dart at a dartboard in the dark 20 meters away while blindfolded and trying to repeat it.