Jeter at -15 is a good ball player still. Add in the runs he saved from the HR he had taken away (which I intend to do in every argument I have about the guy) and he’s an All Star.

Nice to see Ensberg sucks defensively too so far. I realize that that kind of sample doesn’t actually mean anything because the ball distribution hasn’t neccesarily balanced out, but still, I’m starting to dislike him.

As Melky’s defense climbs, his offense sinks. He needs to start hitting again damnit!

I’ve got to hand it to Jeter.  I’ve been very critical of his defense this year, but clearly in the last few weeks he has improve greatly.  So you have to wonder if that quad injury was really slowing him up.

You’re tracking ZR daily, right SG?  How about some selective end-points for Jeter. Not sure what those would be, but maybe first 27 games vs. last 27?

Oh, and A-rod is back! Let the winning begin!

maybe first 27 games vs. last 27

Or better yet, first 22 vs. last 22, since that actually adds up to 44.

Hardball Times’ revised ZR likes Melky a lot more it seems.  He leads the AL with a .952 RZR, a couple of ticks above Sizemore and Baltimore’s Jones.  Also, that’s a pretty stark difference in LF between Matsui and Damon, obviously with small sample size caveats.

I love selective endpoints.  Here’s one split for Jeter.

<u>First 10 Games</u>
Innings: 83
Chances: 32
Plays Made: 23
Zone Rating: .719
Diff: -3
RS: -3
RS/162: -45

<u>Last 28 Games</u>
Innings: 245
Chances: 81
Plays Made: 67
Zone Rating: .827
Diff: -1
RS: -1
RS/162: -5

Hardball Times’ revised ZR likes Melky a lot more it seems.

I’m not a big fan of revised ZR.  They use smaller zones, which means more plays are categorized as out of zone.  That means we have to make assumptions on chances out of zone since that’s not recorded and I think it means a bigger margin of error.

Melky’s been pretty good of late.  He had a ZR of .571 after 2 games (4 PM in 7 CH, -2 PM, -2 RS).  Since then, he’s made 93 plays in 100 chances, ZR of .93, +3 PM, +2 RS).

RS: -1

And that’s not even counting the HR he robbed!

I agree that RZR is suspect.

Add in the runs he saved from the HR he had taken away (which I intend to do in every argument I have about the guy) [sic]

and

And that’s not even counting the HR he robbed!

What are you people talking about??

Jeter was the one who questioned the Delgado HR which was subsequently called back.

A-Rod A-Rod A-Rod A-Rod A-Rod A-Rod A-Rod A-Rod A-Rod A-Rod A-Rod A-Rod A-Rod A-Rod A-Rod A-Rod A-Rod A-Rod A-Rod A-Rod A-Rod A-Rod A-Rod A-Rod A-Rod A-Rod A-Rod A-Rod A-Rod A-Rod A-Rod A-Rod A-Rod A-Rod A-Rod A-Rod A-Rod A-Rod A-Rod A-Rod A-Rod

Who’s excited?

Jeter was the one who questioned the Delgado HR which was subsequently called back.

You’re kidding right? You acutally want that to count in favor of Jeter?

You’re kidding right? You acutally want that to count in favor of Jeter?

Intangibles!

I’m not a big fan of revised ZR.

Ah, I will defer then.  I’m still a neophyte at this whole defensive metrics thing.  I just thought it was cool that Melky was at the top.  I’m still curious as to why the fielding bible had him near the bottom of the league last year while ZR had him near the top.  I would think that there at least should be a qualitative correlation.

I would think that there at least should be a qualitative correlation.

The problem is all these metrics that claim to measure the same thing don’t, exactly.  There are variations in the data that make them different enough that over the course of a few hundred chances there can be big differences.

I’m sure RZR captures things that regular ZR may not and may be better in certain aspects.  I think we should at least consider what all the metrics say to get a better general idea of what the numbers may say about a player’s defensive ability.

One thing I’ve peripherally noticed with RZR is big swings from year to year.  I’m pretty sure the smaller zones have a lot to do with that.

ZR isn’t perfect, so don’t take these numbers as the final truth either.

So you have to wonder if that quad injury was really slowing him up.

I don’t wonder at all.  A quad injury will degrade anyone’s defense, whether they’re starting from excellent, horrible, or somewhere in between.

Or better yet, first 22 vs. last 22, since that actually adds up to 44.

Don’t be so hard on yourself.

They use smaller zones, which means more plays are categorized as out of zone.

Theoretically, I like the idea of smaller zones, but Idislike the idea of more plays categorized as out of zone.  I think there should be sort of a zone gradient.  The further you have to go to make a play, the more credit you get (or the less you get dinged for not making it).  There should also be a velocity gradient and for OFers, a trajectory gradient.  Of course, you couldn’t get the raw data you’d need for this kind of system from a couple of human observers.  You’d have to do a lot of video analysis with multiple camera angles, etc.

The further you have to go to make a play, the more credit you get (or the less you get dinged for not making it).

I’m pretty sure that’s the heart of UZR.  All plays are not weighed equally, so rangy players get more credit.

There should also be a velocity gradient and for OFers, a trajectory gradient.

I think they have some velocity considerations now, but trajectory is still not available.  I also think positioning needs to be considered as a part of any real comprehensive defensive metric and I hope that will be available at some point in the near future.

I also think positioning needs to be considered as a part of any real comprehensive defensive metric and I hope that will be available at some point in the near future.

It has to be if you’re going to give credit for covering more ground to get to a ball. If MGL is giving more credit for rangy plays and using average positioning as his baseline, it’s no wonder his numbers are so much more extreme (+30s to -40s) then just about all the other metrics. I think it’s pretty irresponsible and misleading to assume a player’s starting position on a given play, and until it’s accounted for, I’d rather see all plays within a zone be attributed equal value based on the likelihood of the outcome if the ball in play in that zone becomes a hit. Players positioning is a huge part of defense and being unable to account for it is why all defensive stats, especially when they disagree with one another or the naked eye, should be taken with a grain of salt.

I don’t wonder at all.  A quad injury will degrade anyone’s defense, whether they’re starting from excellent, horrible, or somewhere in between.

Well yes, certainly.  Jeter and everyone around the Yankees claimed he was at (or near at least) 100% when he came back.  However, perhaps now we have some statistical evidence that he was still bothered by it.

The further you have to go to make a play, the more credit you get (or the less you get dinged for not making it).

That is kind of the root of The Fielding Bible.  I’m sure you could pick up a copy at a used book-stored for cheap; and get a much better explanation than I could give you.  But essentially they use video replay and computers to attempt to answer questions like how hard the ball was hit, what the trajectory was, etc.  They also take into account positioning, BUT only for “typical” positioning.  E.g. runner on 1st not on 2nd, first-baseman is probably playing closer to the bag, etc.

They then group these things together, and try to determine how “fieldable” the ball was.  E.g. if a ball is hit up the middle, to the SS side of 2nd, at a certain velocity/trajectory, and NO SS made a play on a ball like that, it is considered un-fieldable.  Then based on how fieldable the ball was, they give a certain amount of credit for making the play; or deduct a certain amount for not making it.  They also take a step further and try to break up how good a fielder is in certain areas, e.g. pop-ups, going left, going right, charging the ball, fielding bunts, etc.

Anyway, I like the concept, but at least through the first release I’m not quite ready to trust it.  I don’t recall the exact numbers but one year when ZR and UZR both seemd to agree that Jeter was decent at SS, The Fielding Bible had him as one of the worst fielders in all of baseball.

Changing the topic, if I may, Jeff Karstens is back to his old tricks at AAA, giving up 2 HR in 5 innings.  This guy clearly has no role on the major league club and he is taking up a spot in AAA that should belong to someone with a hint of upside such as Dan McCutchen or even Chase Wright (who is a lefty after all).

A-Rod’s first game back tonight and I’m assigned to the Mets-Braves nightcap.  Oh, the pain.

They should have traded Karstens when they could have gotten something useful for him.

ZR isn’t perfect, so don’t take these numbers as the final truth either.

Truth! The first step.

“I think it’s pretty irresponsible and misleading to assume a player’s starting position on a given play”

But isn’t that the correct way to give players credit for good positioning?

Yeah, Jeter’s quad. That is why saint Brian messed around with A-Freud’s quad injury. This team never learns.

I’m not sure the Yanks ever could have gotten anything useful for Karstens.  Even during his decent stretch in 2006 he was only throwing 88 mph and facing weak offensive teams.  The hope, I believe, was that he could be a useful long man but Rasner is a far better man for the job as he tends to keep the ball on the ground and has actually been effective in a major league game recently.

They should have traded Karstens when they could have gotten something useful for him.

When was that?

“I think it’s pretty irresponsible and misleading to assume a player’s starting position on a given play”

But isn’t that the correct way to give players credit for good positioning?

Depends on what you’re trying to measure, doesn’t it?  Let’s stipulate that a player with excellent range and poor positioning will make about the same number of plays as a guy with excellent positioning and less impressive range.  If you’re a GM thinking about acquiring one or the other of these players, would you consider them equivalent, or would you think that the rangy guy might improve with more experience and/or better coaching?  Also depends on who is responsible for said positioning.  People always raved about Ripken’s positioning, but was that really a skill that he possessed?  Or does the credit belong to the guys who scouted and coached for the Orioles during his career?

Depends on what you’re trying to measure, doesn’t it?

Yep.  Are we trying to measure ability/talent or are we trying to measure value? If it’s the former, then poor positioning could mean that a player is not playing as well as his tools may allow him to be.  But in terms of what his value to the team is, positioning is part of the package when assessing how many runs he is saving for the team.

Seems to me the first thing one does in measuring something complex is get the simplest useful info out.  Then one can try to tease out the various components.

Like the issue of situational positioning - how does one score on infield-in, or no-doubles defensive setups?

People always raved about Ripken’s positioning, but was that really a skill that he possessed?  Or does the credit belong to the guys who scouted and coached for the Orioles during his career?

Probably a little of each.  I’m sure that the coaches told Ripken where to play, but that he used his understanding of the game to “fine tune” that position a little.  It would be interesting I suppose to look at fielding stats for a manager.  E.g. Tony Larussa has had lots of SS play for him, that also played for other managers.  Did those SS have a better or worse ZR under Larussa, than other managers?  Perhaps, that could help answer the question of who is “more responsible” for positioning.

IE @ 25 , Agree.

This is what is frustrating about Ian Kennedy. Three years ago he was at 91-92. Then he had a terrible 2006, velocity down to 88, and fell to the Yankees. Last year he was great and was up to his old velocity. Now we come to 2008 and his velocity, so far, is back to 2006 levels.

Can’t wait for 2009 then. Maybe he’s like the Spurs.

Uhh, Mike, those were rhetorical questions.  But I guess you gave rhetorical answers, too.

Where are you getting your velocity data, Don?  Fangraphs has Ian Kennedy’s average fastball at 89.3 mph last year and 89.0 mph this year.  That’s a pretty small sample for 2007, of course.  But then again, it’s the small major league sample that got everybody excited about the kid.  I’m not saying that pitchers don’t gain and lose velocity from year to year, but I tend to be pretty skeptical of reported radar readings for college kids.

Uhh, Mike, those were rhetorical questions

Yep, I knew you weren’t expecting an answer.  But I think in this thread (and others) there has been a debate about whether “poor positioning” is due to the failure of the player or the failure of the coach, so I thought I’d throw my opinion out there, FWIW.

But then again, it’s the small major league sample that got everybody excited about the kid.

In case this isn’t clear, I’m referring to Kennedy’s results in that small sample, not his fastball velocity.  I’ll be very excited if my son is throwing 89 in three or four years, but it’s obviously nothing to get all worked up about for a major leaguer.

Thus far this season, Kennedy hasn’t been able to throw his secondary pitches for strikes.  That basically exposes his fastball.  It also greatly reduces his ability to induce strikeouts.  In terms of velocity, I was at his major league debut and the Stadium board generally had him at 90-92.  That was on a warm September day.  At the same time, he struck out a lot of guys because he was able to use the curve, slider and change-up to complement his fastball.  In the end, I’m not sure whether throwing 89 or 92 will be key for Kennedy.  Mastering command of his secondary pitches (and his fastball too) will determine whether he can succeed in the big leagues.

In the end, I’m not sure whether throwing 89 or 92 will be key for Kennedy.  Mastering command of his secondary pitches (and his fastball too) will determine whether he can succeed in the big leagues.

Exactly, and this is the reason why it’s ridiculous obsess over things like Phil Hughes’ velocity - it’s his control and command that’ll determine his success, not whether he can throw 91 or 94.  Flamethrowing is not everything - just ask Kyle Farnsworth.

Love you guys, love this site, but those numbers are basically meaningless at this stage of the season.

Per Abraham:

Damon LF
Jeter SS
Abreu RF
Rodriguez 3B <—- what a welcome sight this is!
Matsui DH
Giambi 1B
Cano 2B
Cabrera CF
Molina C
Mussina RHP

Also, Dan McCutchen has been officially promoted.

And suddenly, the lineup looks good again!

It’s going to be great to get Posado back as well.  It’s just much friendlier on the eyes.  Hopefully the WOE can be banished.

Love you guys, love this site, but those numbers are basically meaningless at this stage of the season.

Hey man, it’s an off-day.  But yes, you are right.  A lot can/will change.