Example #753 why errors and fielding % are junk

[Blzer]

Re: Example #753 why errors and fielding % are junk

They serve a purpose if they're used for what they are, the limited, highly misleading, and in many cases absolutely worthless statistics that they are.

I think what dk said is accurate, errors and fielding percentage get used constantly as an end-all-be-all of defensive ability and there is absolutely no reason to do so.

Well, though it's not a statistic, I see a lot of people rate outfielders based on their ability to make a diving catch or rob a home run or something. There are guys like Andruw Jones and Torii Hunter that get credit for this every week, but then there are guys like Mark Kotsay who don't need to make a diving catch because they are so quick to getting to the spot. In this situation, Kotsay is completely overlooked. Same happens with outfield assists... players like a challenge in testing Francouer, Guerrero, Ichiro, etc. Meanwhile, they get thrown out... but does it tell the whole story as to how good of an arm these guys have? While they have great arms, I don't think it has much to do with their ability to collect outfield assists.

[Pared]

Re: Example #753 why errors and fielding % are junk

Example #755

Delmon Young, yet again. (he has a nice arm, but man can he be a turd in the field)

2 outs, single to left, Delmon overruns the ball, allows the hitter to advance to second, no error scored on the play.

Next hitter singles and scores the man on second who shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Seems like you have more of an issue with how errors are being scored than their meaning.

At face value, an error, if scored appropriately, should give insight to how "defensive" a player truly is.

[Sandman42]

Re: Example #753 why errors and fielding % are junk

Seems like you have more of an issue with how errors are being scored than their meaning.

At face value, an error, if scored appropriately, should give insight to how "defensive" a player truly is.

The thing though is that errors are truly subjective. Official scorers are only going to give fielders an error if they drop/boot a ball. If they never reach a ball that is catchable by most fielders then they aren't penalized.

That's why fielding starts using zone rating like RZR or UZR are better stats because it measures how many balls a fielder turns into outs that are in his designated "zone". While it's not perfect it's certainly better than errors and fielding percentage. That's what everyones big issue with Jeter was. In those years he won the Gold Gloves he didn't make a ton of errors, but he has terrible range, especially going to his left. He wouldn't make it to a lot of balls that most SS in the league would have made it to.

[Pared]

Re: Example #753 why errors and fielding % are junk

The thing though is that errors are truly subjective. Official scorers are only going to give fielders an error if they drop/boot a ball. If they never reach a ball that is catchable by most fielders then they aren't penalized.

That's why fielding starts using zone rating like RZR or UZR are better stats because it measures how many balls a fielder turns into outs that are in his designated "zone". While it's not perfect it's certainly better than errors and fielding percentage. That's what everyones big issue with Jeter was. In those years he won the Gold Gloves he didn't make a ton of errors, but he has terrible range, especially going to his left. He wouldn't make it to a lot of balls that most SS in the league would have made it to.

I hear you and agree to a certain extent.

I echo Snepp's frustrations with how the errors are scored but I don't think it's a useless statistic if recorded properly.

Here's the exact definition:

An error is a statistic charged against a fielder whose action has assisted the team on offense, as set forth in this Rule 10.12.
(a) The official scorer shall charge an error against any fielder:
(1) whose misplay (fumble, muff or wild throw) prolongs the time at bat of a batter, prolongs the presence on the bases of a runner or permits a runner to advance one or more bases, unless, in the judgment of the official scorer, such fielder deliberately permits a foul fly to fall safe with a runner on third base before two are out in order that the runner on third shall not score after the catch;
Rule 10.12(a)(1) Comment: Slow handling of the ball that does not involve mechanical misplay shall not be construed as an error. For example, the official scorer shall not charge a fielder with an error if such fielder fields a ground ball cleanly but does not throw to first base in time to retire the batter. It is not necessary that the fielder touch the ball to be charged with an error. If a ground ball goes through a fielder's legs or a fly ball falls untouched and, in the scorer's judgment, the fielder could have handled the ball with ordinary effort, the official scorer shall charge such fielder with an error. For example, the official scorer shall charge an infielder with an error when a ground ball passes to either side of such infielder if, in the official scorer’s judgment, a fielder at that position making ordinary effort would have fielded such ground ball and retired a runner. The official scorer shall charge an outfielder with an error if such outfielder allows a fly ball to drop to the ground if, in the official scorer’s judgment, an outfielder at that position making ordinary effort would have caught such fly ball. If a throw is low, wide or high, or strikes the ground, and a runner reaches base who otherwise would have been put out by such throw, the official scorer shall charge the player making the throw with an error.
The official scorer shall not score mental mistakes or misjudgments as errors unless a specific rule prescribes otherwise. A fielder’s mental mistake that leads to a physical misplay—such as throwing the ball into the stands or rolling the ball to the pitcher’s mound, mistakenly believing there to be three outs, and thereby allowing a runner or runners to advance—shall not be considered a mental mistake for purposes of this rule and the official scorer shall charge a fielder committing such a mistake with an error. The official scorer shall not charge an error if the pitcher fails to cover first base on a play, thereby allowing a batter-runner to reach first base safely. The official scorer shall not charge an error to a fielder who incorrectly throws to the wrong base on a play.
The official scorer shall charge an error to a fielder who causes another fielder to misplay a ball—for example, by knocking the ball out of the other fielder’s glove. On such a play, when the official scorer charges an error to the interfering fielder, the official scorer shall not charge an error to the fielder with whom the other fielder interfered.

To be fair, the only issue I have ever had with it is a ball that is misplayed but never touches the fielders glove... but should have been an out. By definition it is not an error but IMO the rule should be expanded upon to include it. If you have a routine grounder coming at you and it goes through your legs, by definition that is not an error. IMO, if they change the rule to include a play that should be made then the stat would have much more meaning.

As you said, it's already subjective, to an extent.

[snepp]

Re: Example #753 why errors and fielding % are junk

Oh I absolutely have a problem with how errors are scored, because it appears official scorers are scared of giving guys obvious errors, and when they do douche bags like Cabrera call them up to get them overturned.

Doesn't change the fact that errors are highly limited in what they can tell you about a player's defensive ability. When a bad defender can be among the league leaders in fewest errors committed and a good defender can be toward the bottom, that should be all you need to know about the statistic's quality and usefulness.