I think for that stat to be taken seriously, for instance, what about balls he gets to, has to eat because there are no outs to be made, but a runner stays at 3rd? I could go on, but you get the drift of my stance. And I'm not disregarding it at all. I'm simply saying that offensive stats are much less subjectively quantified.

 

Those plays are taken into account. That's what I'm trying to tell you all. He would get a positive bump for that play because his getting to the ball kept the runner at 3rd.

 

I completely agree about the offensive metrics.

Those plays are taken into account. That's what I'm trying to tell you all. He would get a positive bump for that play because his getting to the ball kept the runner at 3rd.

 

I completely agree about the offensive metrics.

Then how do you qualitatively measure range then in the equation?

This post shows that you clearly have no idea how that stat is calculated...Every single play made or not made by a player is a part of their calculation. Example: BP makes a tremendous play with no one on and 2 outs to end an inning, it is entered into the equation and gives him a positive impact on his runs saved.

 

I am not disagreeing because obviously you know exactly how each point is determined apparently. Since you do know it, I have another question. How much positive or negative points do they get? So say they do make a diving catch with a runner in scoring position is it the same amount of points given, as if someone wasn't on base? If they get more points for that, then why? An out to prevent a guy getting on base also is very important and can save runs. Then we get into how the odds go up for a team to score a run, once a guy is on base. Is that also calculated? What about the range they guy had to make that play? Is that calculated to go with a guy a wouldn't have had the range to make that play? Which if a guy didn't have the range to make that play, do they get negative points against them for runs saved?

 

I am really not trying to be smart ars about this, I am just trying to get a better understanding of it. I really do like what I know about sabromatrics, and I am going to start to do more reading about it myself. It just seems to me with this stat at least, it is very hard to completely back it up.

I am not disagreeing because obviously you know exactly how each point is determined apparently. Since you do know it, I have another question. How much positive or negative points do they get? So say they do make a diving catch with a runner in scoring position is it the same amount of points given, as if someone wasn't on base? If they get more points for that, then why? An out to prevent a guy getting on base also is very important and can save runs. Then we get into how the odds go up for a team to score a run, once a guy is on base. Is that also calculated? What about the range they guy had to make that play? Is that calculated to go with a guy a wouldn't have had the range to make that play? Which if a guy didn't have the range to make that play, do they get negative points against them for runs saved?

 

I am really not trying to be smart ars about this, I am just trying to get a better understanding of it. I really do like what I know about sabromatrics, and I am going to start to do more reading about it myself. It just seems to me with this stat at least, it is very hard to completely back it up.

 

My understanding is say BP makes a play that only one other 2B could make to open an inning. They factor in how many runs a team averages in an inning with a runner on 1st and no outs compared to nobody on and one out. If he gets to a ball with bases loaded and one out that turns a double play not only do they factor in the two runs that would have scored on that play they factor in how many more runs would have scored in the inning by assigning expected runs scored based off of games the last 100 years. They have everything factored in you could think of. Spindoc's point (I think), and it's a good one, is how do they know that only one other guy could make that play. For him I think though he's asking if they are saying 12 other guys would make it how do they know. I'm not really sure on that. My other question is do they factor in eras. For instance a guy on 1st no outs is different today than it was when Barry Bonds was injecting steroids. I think though that they are so far out in front of this that anything we could think of they already have.

Is he gone yet? I haven't kept up with the Reds much since they fired the Toothpick...but have the Reds dealt him yet? If not where does everyone currently think he will end up.

My understanding is say BP makes a play that only one other 2B could make to open an inning. They factor in how many runs a team averages in an inning with a runner on 1st and no outs compared to nobody on and one out. If he gets to a ball with bases loaded and one out that turns a double play not only do they factor in the two runs that would have scored on that play they factor in how many more runs would have scored in the inning by assigning expected runs scored based off of games the last 100 years. They have everything factored in you could think of. Spindoc's point (I think), and it's a good one, is how do they know that only one other guy could make that play. For him I think though he's asking if they are saying 12 other guys would make it how do they know. I'm not really sure on that. My other question is do they factor in eras. For instance a guy on 1st no outs is different today than it was when Barry Bonds was injecting steroids. I think though that they are so far out in front of this that anything we could think of they already have.

 

Thank you for the info, I was curious on how all that worked.

My understanding is say BP makes a play that only one other 2B could make to open an inning. They factor in how many runs a team averages in an inning with a runner on 1st and no outs compared to nobody on and one out. If he gets to a ball with bases loaded and one out that turns a double play not only do they factor in the two runs that would have scored on that play they factor in how many more runs would have scored in the inning by assigning expected runs scored based off of games the last 100 years. They have everything factored in you could think of. Spindoc's point (I think), and it's a good one, is how do they know that only one other guy could make that play. For him I think though he's asking if they are saying 12 other guys would make it how do they know. I'm not really sure on that. My other question is do they factor in eras. For instance a guy on 1st no outs is different today than it was when Barry Bonds was injecting steroids. I think though that they are so far out in front of this that anything we could think of they already have.

 

We are in an age where baseball teams have been hiring Harvard grads to crunch numbers for the past decade and NBA teams are installing missile tracking technology in their rafters to crunch numbers on things like Kevin Durant's shooting percentage when he takes six dribbles.

 

Player tracking transforming NBA analytics - Sports Technology, Gaming - Tech Blog - ESPN Playbook - ESPN

 

Trust me, when you are spending on things like missile tracking technology to reform your statistics, you've probably thought of everything that could be a factor.

 

Is some of it subjective? Of course. But even at that, it's still probably far more accurate than the alternative.

 

The point of statistics is to have hundreds or thousands of reference points so that random outliers are kind of taken care of. So many that you couldn't recall the actual number of instances off the top of your head if you tried.

We are in an age where baseball teams have been hiring Harvard grads to crunch numbers for the past decade and NBA teams are installing missile tracking technology in their rafters to crunch numbers on things like Kevin Durant's shooting percentage when he takes six dribbles.

 

Player tracking transforming NBA analytics - Sports Technology, Gaming - Tech Blog - ESPN Playbook - ESPN

 

Trust me, when you are spending on things like missile tracking technology to reform your statistics, you've probably thought of everything that could be a factor.

 

Is some of it subjective? Of course. But even at that, it's still probably far more accurate than the alternative.

 

The point of statistics is to have hundreds or thousands of reference points so that random outliers are kind of taken care of. So many that you couldn't recall the actual number of instances off the top of your head if you tried.

 

Well said. Statistical analyses have surged in popularity in everything from business to politics to sports as they've shown a lot of the "gut feeling" types of analyses have been outright wrong or severely limited.

 

At the same time, there's risk of an overcorrection. People are becoming too beholden to anything with numbers. There are a lot of things that are simply difficult if not impossible to quantify, and there are even more things where there just isn't enough or accurate data to analyse. But, that hasn't stopped a lot of people from doing it. I think this is where you run into the grey area where a good "instinct" is more valuable. Ideally, an analysis that blends good feel with solid data is hard to beat. Zealots from either side are going to be less accurate simply due to their blind spots and overconfidence.

 

Anyway, I said all of that to now say I think a lot of defensive statistics in baseball are in that area of "overcorrection." People rely on them religiously because they are a number. But, I think dividing putouts and assists by innings played is a very, very fuzzy quantification of a player's range, for instance. I would hardly rely on something like that without severe caveats.

Anyway, I said all of that to now say I think a lot of defensive statistics in baseball are in that area of "overcorrection." People rely on them religiously because they are a number. But, I think dividing putouts and assists by innings played is a very, very fuzzy quantification of a player's range, for instance. I would hardly rely on something like that without severe caveats.

^This

Bowden says BP is gone before the winter meetings end next week.

Bowden says BP is gone before the winter meetings end next week.

 

Where'd you see that?

 

 

I would still love for the Braves to land him for the right price.

Bowden says BP is gone before the winter meetings end next week.

 

Has he ever been right on one of these predictions?

Where'd you see that? I would still love for the Braves to land him for the right price.

 

It was mentioned on the MLBNetwork when they were discussing all the trades that have taken place.

And now Ken Rosenthal is reporting he will stay. My guess is it's too tough to find a dance partner.

Well said. Statistical analyses have surged in popularity in everything from business to politics to sports as they've shown a lot of the "gut feeling" types of analyses have been outright wrong or severely limited.

 

At the same time, there's risk of an overcorrection. People are becoming too beholden to anything with numbers. There are a lot of things that are simply difficult if not impossible to quantify, and there are even more things where there just isn't enough or accurate data to analyse. But, that hasn't stopped a lot of people from doing it. I think this is where you run into the grey area where a good "instinct" is more valuable. Ideally, an analysis that blends good feel with solid data is hard to beat. Zealots from either side are going to be less accurate simply due to their blind spots and overconfidence.

 

Anyway, I said all of that to now say I think a lot of defensive statistics in baseball are in that area of "overcorrection." People rely on them religiously because they are a number. But, I think dividing putouts and assists by innings played is a very, very fuzzy quantification of a player's range, for instance. I would hardly rely on something like that without severe caveats.

 

I have a very hard time believing the fielding bible awards people only look at the defensive metric you are talking about.