As a Mets fan, I really enjoy watching Rey play defense. Anyone traveling through the asb-mets group has seen a Rey ROOLZ! thread. We split into two teams, shirts and skins. No, it was statheads and morons. Unfortunately, I had to be the captain of the moron side.
After many skirmishes and many moron casualties (fortunately, we have infinite resources; just add WebTV), the battle came down to one thing: does Rey's defense make up for his bat?
I took on this small thing by using a Total Player Ranking system. For each player, I calculated his RC. After some discussion with the statheads' peace negotiation committee, adjusted every player's RC to a season's worth of outs. This turns out to be ~465. I then normalized every batter's RC to RC/465, and adjusted for STATS 3-yr. park factor for runs. This is the RC a player would contribute if he were Cal Ripken: played every inning of every game. What's frightening is who the average player is: Eric Karros. Karros played every inning, and hit .266 (lge avg) with an OBP of .329 (~lge avg). It's a shame he isn't a shortstop. He actually played in enough innings to count 165 games, and he made 480 outs, just above average. Thanks, Eric, for your help.
A player's offensive value is PRC+ (park-adjusted, normalized to 465 runs created).
Defense is a real bear to quantify. I used to score for STATS, so I have a really good grasp of what they do and how well it works (in terms of measuring balls in play). I think it is an excellent scoring system. How STATS happens to sort the data and assign it isn't the best, but it is what we have.
I do apologize to Dale Stephenson for not studying his work more, and I may be making some errors he knows how to fix. Hopefully, he'll chime in with some fixes.
I planned to normalize the defense as well. To do this, I have to establish how many plays each position will get during the course of a season. And a defensive season is defined by the Cal Ripken season: every inning of every game. That is 162*8.75 = 1418. For each position, I determine the average # of plays per game each defender playing in 130+ games gets. That average multiplied by 162 is the number of plays each position is normalized to (sometimes I fudge to make it a round number). That makes each position with a different number. Here are the plays per season a Ripken can expect: Pos AL NL 1B: 300 300 Note: the raw numbers here are 1.81 ppg and 1.82 ppg. Wow. 2B: 500 515 3B: 445 425 SS: 520 505 LF: 395 360 CF: 475 450 RF: 375 350
AL: 3010 NL: 2905
Pretty amazing that AL teams get just 100 more chances over 162 games.
For infielders, everything tends to even out. Since I normalize the chances, lefty-righty staffs and groundball/flyball staffs don't affect the data too much. It is possible that the players used to calc the seasons chances play for LHP/RHP or GB/FB, but each was averaged with at least four starters. Hard hit balls, tough chances etc tend to even out. I'd rather have the raw data (plays in each zone for every player), but I takes what I gots. Nonetheless, the plays I do have are certainly outs. At worst, ZR undervalues defense (depending on pop-ups and line drives, and DPs).
With these season total of plays, I multiply by the fielder's ZR. That's how many plays he would have made. I think this converts to runs easily, and almost obviously: any play not made results in a baserunner.
Each out has a value: if it takes away a single, that's worth 0.47 (hit) + 0.27 (out). Each subsequent base is worth 0.31 runs (per Linear Wts)
pitching staff factor is calculated by: SLG+ = (total bases-(tb from hr))/(ab-K-hr) then set as a percentage of league average (less that team's SLG+)
This increases the value of plays made by OF who play in screwy parks or behind bad pitchers. I am pretty sure it removes park effects mostly.
I compare the players to one another, rather than replacement value. I do this mostly because I want to know who is better, not who needs to be replaced, and partly because establishing defense for a replacement player is damned near impossible. My experience with minor league official scorers is that they suck. Not just in assigning errors, but even paying attention to the freakin' game. And, yes, I would do a better job.
Basically, I can only really evaluate players with enough PT. I am in the process of calculating the Defensive Runs Saved for 1996, so I can attempt to establish the above plays per season. How much those numbers fluctuate is not known to me.
And the answer is: Rey's DTPR: -21, worst in the league. His defense was actually second to Royce Clayton, but his offense was a whopping -40 RC vs. average.
After this post on the Mets' ng, the morons ostracized me. A man without a country...
In article <35EAB375.EA25C...@baseball1.com>, s...@baseball1.com says...
> Chris Dial wrote: > > I took on this small thing by using a Total Player Ranking system.
> Maybe you could pick a different name? That's what Pete Palmer calls > the output from his linear weights technique.
I'm fairly certain that Chris hasn't decided on a name for his system yet. It seems fairly obvious to me that while the wording may not be ideal, saying "a" Total Player Ranking system just meant that he knew it was similar to Palmer's system. Using linear weights on defense and utilizing zone rating, however, is a more interesting approach than the wacky adjusted range factors tha TB uses.
> And though many people don't like his methods, Pete's attempt is to do > the same thing - rate players combined offense and defense.
In article <6s9sco$bp...@supernews.com>, Chris Dial <acd...@intrex.com> wrote: >As a Mets fan, I really enjoy watching Rey play defense. Anyone traveling >through the asb-mets group has seen a Rey ROOLZ! thread. We split into two >teams, shirts and skins. No, it was statheads and morons. Unfortunately, I >had to be the captain of the moron side.
So how did we end up with Ken V. ? (I keep trying to trade him for Barry M. Still no takers.)
(snippage)
>SS/2B: ((plays made-2)*0.74)+(2*1.05)
As I've commented before, I'd like to see a correction for DP opportunities. ZR counts a DP as two plays made (reasonable) but has no adjustment for the fact that the DP's in order more frequently on some teams than others.
Still I haven't worked out how and the errors that this causes aren't going to be huge.
>pitching staff factor is calculated by: SLG+ = (total bases-(tb from >hr))/(ab-K-hr) >then set as a percentage of league average (less that team's SLG+)
>This increases the value of plays made by OF who play in screwy parks or >behind bad pitchers. I am pretty sure it removes park effects mostly.
Might be a problem in Fenway or in places with a sun field. IE in parks where one of the fields is more difficult. Still, I think it's a big step forward.
The real answer as you say is to get the data. Before she bowed out, Sherri Nichols offered me (and a few others) the raw DA data to try and get a handle on DA related park effects. Sadly it never happened.
(If this sounds like I'm complaining, I'm not. She was a new mom - she had things to do. If you're lurking, we miss you.)
<'Nother snip>
(Rey comes out horrid.)
Of course after the style points for his perfect Telemark landing ...
No wait that's wrestling or something.
>After this post on the Mets' ng, the morons ostracized me. A man without a >country...
What do you expect?
Best kind of stahead stuff. Right up to reporting results that you didn't agree with before starting the study.
Sean Lahman wrote in message <35EAB375.EA25C...@baseball1.com>... >Chris Dial wrote: >> I took on this small thing by using a Total Player Ranking system.
>Maybe you could pick a different name? That's what Pete Palmer calls >the output from his linear weights technique.
I tried, unsuccessfully. How about Dial Ratings...is that ostentatious enough? I am taking suggestions. My wife suggested "Huge Wastes of Time".
>And though many people don't like his methods, Pete's attempt is to do >the same thing - rate players combined offense and defense.
I think that is the only "fair" way to do it. One of the general knocks on any player value system is that player R saves more runs with his glove than he costs with his bat. Every decent newsgroup has this argument. How about the Angels' ng standard squabble over DiSarcina? The problem (to me) with ZR is that fielders get shortchanged...that is save more runs than show up in ZR. Probably not a lot more, but I am working on that as well.
How was Gary? He was the best defensive SS in the AL (+17 runs over average). Unfortunately he was -34 runs with his bat. Basically as bad as Rey...
It has been mentioned to me that _really_ good players skew the average, making poor players look worse. AL SS has ARod and Nomar and Jeter, and Jay Bell had a good season. But no, DiSar's defense doesn't make up for his bat.
I don't think the Dial Ratings (better?) are perfect, and am open to suggestions for improvement, but I'd like to keep it simple. Most of us can do Tech-RCs, and can get ZRs. Once you extrapolate everyone to equal outs and opportunities, you can size up who you'd rather have.
Ron Johnson wrote in message <6sf1qm$...@cosmos.ccrs.emr.ca>... >In article <6s9sco$bp...@supernews.com>, Chris Dial <acd...@intrex.com> wrote: >>As a Mets fan, I really enjoy watching Rey play defense. Anyone traveling >>through the asb-mets group has seen a Rey ROOLZ! thread. We split into two >>teams, shirts and skins. No, it was statheads and morons. Unfortunately, I >>had to be the captain of the moron side.
>So how did we end up with Ken V. ? (I keep trying to trade him for >Barry M. Still no takers.)
We've offered spannerjaxs, and Hank (3838?). I think that's a little more fair...
>(snippage)
>>SS/2B: ((plays made-2)*0.74)+(2*1.05)
>As I've commented before, I'd like to see a correction for DP >opportunities. ZR counts a DP as two plays made (reasonable) >but has no adjustment for the fact that the DP's in order >more frequently on some teams than others.
I haven't looked at this closely enough.
>Still I haven't worked out how and the errors that this causes >aren't going to be huge.
I think some adjustment should be made for 1B and infield throwing errors. The Mariners' ng is often pissin' and moanin' about how Segui saves all these throwing errors (and still Davis has 120). Playing SS for my 30+ team, I know what it's like to go from a 6'4" lifetime 1B to a 5'7" short-armed former SS (that plays first because he's the manager). It's like throwing it through the clown's mouth. Sure, my situation is exagerrated, but I know the good 1B saves *tons* of errors. Every scoop is a throwing error, and there are several chances per game per 1B.
>>pitching staff factor is calculated by: SLG+ = (total bases-(tb from >>hr))/(ab-K-hr) >>then set as a percentage of league average (less that team's SLG+)
>>This increases the value of plays made by OF who play in screwy parks or >>behind bad pitchers. I am pretty sure it removes park effects mostly.
>Might be a problem in Fenway or in places with a sun field. IE in >parks where one of the fields is more difficult. Still, I think it's >a big step forward.
Even in Fenway, if the pitchers surrender a bunch of 2B, it will show up in their pitf. The Metrodome has that bad roof, too.
>The real answer as you say is to get the data. Before she bowed out, >Sherri Nichols offered me (and a few others) the raw DA data to try >and get a handle on DA related park effects. Sadly it never happened.
Some of you know her. I'll be happy to go through the data, I very familiar with the Project Scoresheet system, and it would really help with looking at other things.
><'Nother snip>
>(Rey comes out horrid.)
>Of course after the style points for his perfect Telemark landing ...
>No wait that's wrestling or something.
>>After this post on the Mets' ng, the morons ostracized me. A man without a >>country...
>What do you expect?
>Best kind of stahead stuff. Right up to reporting results that you didn't >agree with before starting the study.
I was stunned Rey still came up so bad. I did the same thing cursing McMichael the previous year...
>Dan, you did give him the secret handshake right?
I'm still planning that trip to Baltimore (to pick up my asb-bo's prediction award, cough cough)...
Still on the burner: catchers. That is some tough defense to analyze...and the question is: does Rodriguez' defense make up for his bat vs. Piazza?
Ron Johnson wrote in message <6sf1qm$...@cosmos.ccrs.emr.ca>... >In article <6s9sco$bp...@supernews.com>, Chris Dial <acd...@intrex.com> wrote: >>As a Mets fan, I really enjoy watching Rey play defense. Anyone traveling >>through the asb-mets group has seen a Rey ROOLZ! thread. We split into two >>teams, shirts and skins. No, it was statheads and morons. Unfortunately, I >>had to be the captain of the moron side.
>So how did we end up with Ken V. ? (I keep trying to trade him for >Barry M. Still no takers.)
We've offered spannerjaxs, and Hank (3838?). I think that's a little more fair...
>(snippage)
>>SS/2B: ((plays made-2)*0.74)+(2*1.05)
>As I've commented before, I'd like to see a correction for DP >opportunities. ZR counts a DP as two plays made (reasonable) >but has no adjustment for the fact that the DP's in order >more frequently on some teams than others.
I haven't looked at this closely enough.
>Still I haven't worked out how and the errors that this causes >aren't going to be huge.
I think some adjustment should be made for 1B and infield throwing errors. The Mariners' ng is often pissin' and moanin' about how Segui saves all these throwing errors (and still Davis has 120). Playing SS for my 30+ team, I know what it's like to go from a 6'4" lifetime 1B to a 5'7" short-armed former SS (that plays first because he's the manager). It's like throwing it through the clown's mouth. Sure, my situation is exaggerated, but I know the good 1B saves *tons* of errors. Every scoop is a throwing error, and there are several chances per game per 1B.
>>pitching staff factor is calculated by: SLG+ = (total bases-(tb from >>hr))/(ab-K-hr) >>then set as a percentage of league average (less that team's SLG+)
>>This increases the value of plays made by OF who play in screwy parks or >>behind bad pitchers. I am pretty sure it removes park effects mostly.
>Might be a problem in Fenway or in places with a sun field. IE in >parks where one of the fields is more difficult. Still, I think it's >a big step forward.
Even in Fenway, if the pitchers surrender a bunch of 2B, it will show up in their pitf. The Metrodome has that bad roof, too.
>The real answer as you say is to get the data. Before she bowed out, >Sherri Nichols offered me (and a few others) the raw DA data to try >and get a handle on DA related park effects. Sadly it never happened.
Some of you know her. I'll be happy to go through the data, I very familiar with the Project Scoresheet system, and it would really help with looking at other things.
: I think some adjustment should be made for 1B and infield throwing errors. : The Mariners' ng is often pissin' and moanin' about how Segui saves all : these throwing errors (and still Davis has 120). Playing SS for my 30+ : team, I know what it's like to go from a 6'4" lifetime 1B to a 5'7" : short-armed former SS (that plays first because he's the manager). It's : like throwing it through the clown's mouth. Sure, my situation is : exaggerated, but I know the good 1B saves *tons* of errors. Every scoop is : a throwing error, and there are several chances per game per 1B.
What complicates matters is that these errors are never charged to the 1B, so you can't even look at his errors to see whether he can catch or not. Tino Martinez is terrible at catching throws that bounce into the dirt, but of course he's never held responsible for it.
Tino does have ten errors this year, but he also should get credit for a lot of Brosius' 22 errors.
>: I think some adjustment should be made for 1B and infield throwing errors. >: The Mariners' ng is often pissin' and moanin' about how Segui saves all >: these throwing errors (and still Davis has 120). Playing SS for my 30+ >: team, I know what it's like to go from a 6'4" lifetime 1B to a 5'7" >: short-armed former SS (that plays first because he's the manager). It's >: like throwing it through the clown's mouth. Sure, my situation is >: exaggerated, but I know the good 1B saves *tons* of errors. Every scoop is >: a throwing error, and there are several chances per game per 1B.
>What complicates matters is that these errors are never charged to the 1B, so >you can't even look at his errors to see whether he can catch or not. Tino >Martinez is terrible at catching throws that bounce into the dirt, but of >course he's never held responsible for it.
Sorry, Tom, I may have misled you where I was going with that.
>Tino does have ten errors this year, but he also should get credit for a lot of >Brosius' 22 errors.
And he can. Again, it won't be a perfect system, but instead of looking at scoops (those will tend to even out over 160 games), look at infield throwing errors. Ryne Sandberg didn't have a throwing error for like 10 seasons. It wasn't just because he made good throws; having a good first baseman helped tremendously. Last season, Seattle had 68 throwing errors. Some were OF throws, but probably few, so there were probably 55 throwing errors, with Paul Sorrento at first. In spite of Davis' arm, how many throwing errors did Cora and ARod make this season versus last season? STATS has these numbers. How they are distributed is the only problem with better quantification. Since the most throwing errors for a team is 69 (Boston - Vaughn! and Sand Diego - Joyner), and the low is 34, there should be an available breakdown. We may be talking about 10 plays a year on average, but you have a swing of 30 baserunners/outs worth nearly 22 runs.
In article <6shodg$ek...@supernews.com>, "Chris Dial" <acd...@intrex.com> wrote: > better quantification. Since the most throwing errors for a team is 69 > (Boston - Vaughn!...
That's just Wakefield throwing him all those knucklers...
> I planned to normalize the defense as well. To do this, I have to establish > how many plays each position will get during the course of a season. And a > defensive season is defined by the Cal Ripken season: every inning of every > game. That is 162*8.75 = 1418. For each position, I determine the average > # of plays per game each defender playing in 130+ games gets. That average > multiplied by 162 is the number of plays each position is normalized to > (sometimes I fudge to make it a round number). That makes each position > with a different number. Here are the plays per season a Ripken can expect: > Pos AL NL > 1B: 300 300 Note: the raw numbers here are 1.81 ppg and 1.82 ppg. Wow. > 2B: 500 515 > 3B: 445 425 > SS: 520 505 > LF: 395 360 > CF: 475 450 > RF: 375 350
> AL: 3010 > NL: 2905
> Pretty amazing that AL teams get just 100 more chances over 162 games.
What is considered a "play" here? ZR opportunities, or an estimate of chances started? I'm guessing ZR opportunities, since otherwise using a ZR multiple doesn't work. My scoreboards are packed away right now, but IIRC the lists in back just have the league average, not the total opportunities and outs. Am I remembering incorrectly?
> For infielders, everything tends to even out. Since I normalize the chances, > lefty-righty staffs and groundball/flyball staffs don't affect the data too > much. It is possible that the players used to calc the seasons chances play > for LHP/RHP or GB/FB, but each was averaged with at least four starters. > Hard hit balls, tough chances etc tend to even out. I'd rather have the raw > data (plays in each zone for every player), but I takes what I gots. > Nonetheless, the plays I do have are certainly outs. At worst, ZR > undervalues defense (depending on pop-ups and line drives, and DPs).
Do DPs still contaminate the ZR opportunities?
> With these season total of plays, I multiply by the fielder's ZR. That's > how many plays he would have made. I think this converts to runs easily, > and almost obviously: any play not made results in a baserunner.
> Each out has a value: if it takes away a single, that's worth 0.47 (hit) + > 0.27 (out). Each subsequent base is worth 0.31 runs (per Linear Wts)
OK, I follow this so far...
> SS/2B: ((plays made-2)*0.74)+(2*1.05)
The doubles are fixed for ss/2b? Or is there a pm in there?
Per DA data, giving up multiple bases at first and third is not a function of DA -- the "guarding the line" effect. Lacking specific data about doubles and triples through first allowed, though, it's a good approximation.
> pitching staff factor is calculated by: SLG+ = (total bases-(tb from > hr))/(ab-K-hr) > then set as a percentage of league average (less that team's SLG+)
> This increases the value of plays made by OF who play in screwy parks or > behind bad pitchers. I am pretty sure it removes park effects mostly.
The doubles/triples allowed versus DA is a big variable in the DA reports. Again, lacking the specific 2b/3b allowed data this is a reasonable estimate, but it introduces a huge possible area of error. FWIW, the only outfielder in the DA reports who was good enough at preventing doubles/triples to negate his poor range was Raul Mondesi.
I don't think assists should be here, at least without folding in extra bases taken from the "holding runner" section of the scoreboard. The runners taking extra bases on the fielder have to be considered along with the assists he gets nailing some of them.
I'm a bit leery of the pitching factor. SLG+ is a function of fielding as well as pitching. If you have an outfield of poor-range outfielders who are positioned too shallowly, the resulting bad performance of the pitchers will make the lot of poor-range outfielders look average.
Also, I would bet groundball pitchers have a SLG+ substantially superior to that of flyball pitchers. A groundball staff (especially an excellent groundball staff -- Atlanta?) should have a way low SLG+, and a resulting degradation of their outfielder's performance, through no fault of their own. What we need is real park effects....
I'm of the unsupported opinion that when you take out walks, strikeouts, homers, flyball/groundball tendencies, and the running game, that fielding is much more important for determining safe/out than pitching. I believe strongly in park effects, but I'm unconvinced that there really is a large "bad pitcher" effect on DA/ZR-like measures.
> I compare the players to one another, rather than replacement value. I do > this mostly because I want to know who is better, not who needs to be > replaced, and partly because establishing defense for a replacement player > is damned near impossible. My experience with minor league official scorers > is that they suck. Not just in assigning errors, but even paying attention > to the freakin' game. And, yes, I would do a better job.
I think average is the correct baseline defensively. Although there may be a rookie effect on fielding (see the DRs of most shortstops, and guys like Griffey), a "replacement fielder" includes guys like Rafael Belliard too.
-- Dale J. Stephenson * dst...@sirius.com * past his prime
"I know nothing, Colonel Turner, nothing." -- Sgt. Schuerholz
In article <dsteph-0309980237050...@ppp-asok06--070.sirius.net>, Dale J. Stephenson <dst...@sirius.com> wrote:
>Do DPs still contaminate the ZR opportunities?
Yeah. Counts as two plays made (reasonable) but there's no adjustments for how frequently the DP is in order. Better still would be to have DPs treated as DA did.
>I'm a bit leery of the pitching factor. SLG+ is a function of fielding >as well as pitching. If you have an outfield of poor-range outfielders >who are positioned too shallowly, the resulting bad performance of the >pitchers will make the lot of poor-range outfielders look average.
>Also, I would bet groundball pitchers have a SLG+ substantially superior >to that of flyball pitchers.
Something more to check. I've started a study on pitching/defense retationship. Turned out to be way more work than I thought.
I can tell you that there is a tiny correlation between the GB/FB out rate of the pitcher and the rate that the defense converts opportunities into outs. Or to put it in English, groundball pitchers tend to make the defense look better. But the effect is minor as best I can tell.
>A groundball staff (especially an excellent groundball staff -- Atlanta?) >should have a way low SLG+, and a resulting degradation of their >outfielder's performance, through no fault of their own. What we need >is real park effects....
I'm with you here.
>I'm of the unsupported opinion that when you take out walks, strikeouts, >homers, flyball/groundball tendencies, and the running game, that fielding >is much more important for determining safe/out than pitching. I >believe strongly in park effects, but I'm unconvinced that there really >is a large "bad pitcher" effect on DA/ZR-like measures.
That's not what I've found. (cautionary note. I'm digging up more data) I've found wildly differing rates for pitchers on the same staffs. I don't have error data though so I'm in the process of working out estimated errors - (raj you've muttered something about this. Details?) maybe this will smooth things out.
Right now what I have is that there's no meaningful correlation between the team a pitcher pitches for and the rate that balls put into play are converted into outs. Surprised me.
Ron Johnson wrote in message <6sm7go$...@cosmos.ccrs.emr.ca>... >In article <dsteph-0309980237050...@ppp-asok06--070.sirius.net>, >Dale J. Stephenson <dst...@sirius.com> wrote: >>In article <6s9sco$bp...@supernews.com>, >>"Chris Dial" <acd...@intrex.com> wrote:
>>I'm a bit leery of the pitching factor. SLG+ is a function of fielding >>as well as pitching. If you have an outfield of poor-range outfielders >>who are positioned too shallowly, the resulting bad performance of the >>pitchers will make the lot of poor-range outfielders look average.
>>Also, I would bet groundball pitchers have a SLG+ substantially superior >>to that of flyball pitchers.
Nope. Certainly not at the team level.
>Something more to check. I've started a study on pitching/defense >retationship. Turned out to be way more work than I thought.
The average SLG+ for teams with *low* gb/fb rates was 0.998. Oddly, the distribution was exactly the same in the AL (0.998 ave SLG+ for low gb/fb)
>I can tell you that there is a tiny correlation between the GB/FB >out rate of the pitcher and the rate that the defense converts >opportunities into outs. Or to put it in English, groundball pitchers >tend to make the defense look better. But the effect is minor as best I >can tell.
>>A groundball staff (especially an excellent groundball staff -- Atlanta?) >>should have a way low SLG+, and a resulting degradation of their >>outfielder's performance, through no fault of their own. What we need >>is real park effects....
>>I'm of the unsupported opinion that when you take out walks, strikeouts, >>homers, flyball/groundball tendencies, and the running game, that fielding >>is much more important for determining safe/out than pitching. I >>believe strongly in park effects, but I'm unconvinced that there really >>is a large "bad pitcher" effect on DA/ZR-like measures.
>That's not what I've found. (cautionary note. I'm digging up more data) >I've found wildly differing rates for pitchers on the same staffs. >I don't have error data though so I'm in the process of working out >estimated errors - (raj you've muttered something about this. Details?) >maybe this will smooth things out.
>Right now what I have is that there's no meaningful correlation between the >team a pitcher pitches for and the rate that balls put into play are >converted into outs. Surprised me.
Dale J. Stephenson wrote in message ... >In article <6s9sco$bp...@supernews.com>, "Chris Dial" <acd...@intrex.com> wrote:
>[I like the concept. I have meant to getting around to creating a ZR-based >DR, since DA data has dried up and it beats using Total Baseball...]
>[snip] >> I planned to normalize the defense as well. To do this, I have to establish >> how many plays each position will get during the course of a season. And a >> defensive season is defined by the Cal Ripken season: every inning of every >> game. That is 162*8.75 = 1418. For each position, I determine the average >> # of plays per game each defender playing in 130+ games gets. That average >> multiplied by 162 is the number of plays each position is normalized to >> (sometimes I fudge to make it a round number). That makes each position >> with a different number. Here are the plays per season a Ripken can expect: >> Pos AL NL >> 1B: 300 300 Note: the raw numbers here are 1.81 ppg and 1.82 ppg. Wow. >> 2B: 500 515 >> 3B: 445 425 >> SS: 520 505 >> LF: 395 360 >> CF: 475 450 >> RF: 375 350
>> AL: 3010 >> NL: 2905
>> Pretty amazing that AL teams get just 100 more chances over 162 games.
>What is considered a "play" here? ZR opportunities, or an estimate >of chances started? I'm guessing ZR opportunities, since otherwise using >a ZR multiple doesn't work. My scoreboards are packed away right now, >but IIRC the lists in back just have the league average, not the total >opportunities and outs. Am I remembering incorrectly?
It is ZR opportunities. I don't have all the Scoreboards, so I'm not sure how they are listed. STATS seems to change that format yearly. I got my # of plays by taking all players at a given position that played 130+ defensive games (Innings/8.75) and averaging their individual chances per game. I then multiplied by 162 games.
>> For infielders, everything tends to even out. Since I normalize the chances, >> lefty-righty staffs and groundball/flyball staffs don't affect the data too >> much. It is possible that the players used to calc the seasons chances play >> for LHP/RHP or GB/FB, but each was averaged with at least four starters. >> Hard hit balls, tough chances etc tend to even out. I'd rather have the raw >> data (plays in each zone for every player), but I takes what I gots. >> Nonetheless, the plays I do have are certainly outs. At worst, ZR >> undervalues defense (depending on pop-ups and line drives, and DPs).
>Do DPs still contaminate the ZR opportunities?
I don't know if "contaminate" is the word I'd use. But, yes, they are included.
>> With these season total of plays, I multiply by the fielder's ZR. That's >> how many plays he would have made. I think this converts to runs easily, >> and almost obviously: any play not made results in a baserunner.
>> Each out has a value: if it takes away a single, that's worth 0.47 (hit) + >> 0.27 (out). Each subsequent base is worth 0.31 runs (per Linear Wts)
>OK, I follow this so far...
>> SS/2B: ((plays made-2)*0.74)+(2*1.05)
>The doubles are fixed for ss/2b? Or is there a pm in there?
It is presently a fixed number. It is fixed with just masking tape, so we can take it out with better information. I'd like a pm, but I don't have enough DA or ZR raw data.
>> pitching staff factor is calculated by: SLG+ = (total bases-(tb from >> hr))/(ab-K-hr) >> then set as a percentage of league average (less that team's SLG+)
>> This increases the value of plays made by OF who play in screwy parks or >> behind bad pitchers. I am pretty sure it removes park effects mostly.
>The doubles/triples allowed versus DA is a big variable in the DA reports. >Again, lacking the specific 2b/3b allowed data this is a reasonable >estimate, but it introduces a huge possible area of error. FWIW, the only >outfielder in the DA reports who was good enough at preventing doubles/triples >to negate his poor range was Raul Mondesi.
>I don't think assists should be here, at least without folding in >extra bases taken from the "holding runner" section of the scoreboard. >The runners taking extra bases on the fielder have to be considered >along with the assists he gets nailing some of them.
Well, every assist is definitely an out, and a baserunner removed. They definitely have to count. The holding runner, to me, is far too affected by the hit itself. I'll have to think about it some more. When I look at the Scoreboard leaders from 1996 (1997 SB), the RF list is headed by 6 turf fielders, Sosa and Mondesi. That certainly screams park effect to me. I'm not sure how it will work.
>I'm a bit leery of the pitching factor. SLG+ is a function of fielding >as well as pitching. If you have an outfield of poor-range outfielders >who are positioned too shallowly, the resulting bad performance of the >pitchers will make the lot of poor-range outfielders look average.
That's true. But it's hard to tell, which is which. I'll check the pitf and see how it matches up with HR allowed.
>Also, I would bet groundball pitchers have a SLG+ substantially superior >to that of flyball pitchers. A groundball staff (especially an >excellent groundball staff -- Atlanta?) should have a way low SLG+, and >a resulting degradation of their outfielder's performance, through no >fault of their own. What we need is real park effects....
I posted the NL pitf earlier, and the pitf will be biased against the good staff. But I think the Braves' pitchers are good *independent* of who is behind them. Here they are again:
Atl 0.928 ChN 1.013 Cin 1.001 Col 1.099 Fla 0.988 Hou 0.953 LA 0.938 Mon 0.964 NYM 0.969 PhN 1.095 Pit 1.044 StL 0.977 SD 1.046 SF 0.986
Ana 0.975 Bal 0.953 Bos 1.036 ChA 0.988 Cle 1.007 Det 0.965 KC 0.965 Mil 0.951 Min 1.035 NYY 0.984 Oak 1.106 Sea 1.021 Tex 1.027 Tor 0.991
>I'm of the unsupported opinion that when you take out walks, strikeouts, >homers, flyball/groundball tendencies, and the running game, that fielding >is much more important for determining safe/out than pitching. I >believe strongly in park effects, but I'm unconvinced that there really >is a large "bad pitcher" effect on DA/ZR-like measures.
Well, I am open to suggestions on how to "cipher" it. It was tough working that out (and convincing myself it made enough sense to fly here). My database will allow me to manipulate the numbers considerably, without too much work.
>> I compare the players to one another, rather than replacement value. I do >> this mostly because I want to know who is better, not who needs to be >> replaced, and partly because establishing defense for a replacement player >> is damned near impossible. My experience with minor league official scorers >> is that they suck. Not just in assigning errors, but even paying attention >> to the freakin' game. And, yes, I would do a better job.
>I think average is the correct baseline defensively. Although there may >be a rookie effect on fielding (see the DRs of most shortstops, and guys >like Griffey), a "replacement fielder" includes guys like Rafael Belliard >too.
> >I'm a bit leery of the pitching factor. SLG+ is a function of fielding > >as well as pitching. If you have an outfield of poor-range outfielders > >who are positioned too shallowly, the resulting bad performance of the > >pitchers will make the lot of poor-range outfielders look average.
> >Also, I would bet groundball pitchers have a SLG+ substantially superior > >to that of flyball pitchers.
> Something more to check. I've started a study on pitching/defense > retationship. Turned out to be way more work than I thought.
> I can tell you that there is a tiny correlation between the GB/FB > out rate of the pitcher and the rate that the defense converts > opportunities into outs. Or to put it in English, groundball pitchers > tend to make the defense look better. But the effect is minor as best I > can tell.
In balls that were tracked by DA, for instance, the DAs of infielders are significantly higher than that of outfielders. IOW, even if defense is *completely* independent of pitching effects, a groundball pitcher will have a better DA against than a flyball pitcher, because the people who are handling his chances are better at converting them into outs. (Or more accurately, it's easier to handle a grounder to first than a flyball to right.) It's not quite that simple, of course. DA reports didn't have *infield* flies logged, and those should be the higher percentage plays of all.
It sounds like you're working with actual data, rather than just correlating defensive efficiency with GB/FB. The latter says nothing about affecting the chances at individual positions, just distributing the chances among higher percentage positions. For the same reason, I'd guess the defensive efficiency is better among righthanded pitchers (face more lefties hitting the ball to first/second) than lefthanded pitchers (face more righties hitting the ball to short/third).
> >A groundball staff (especially an excellent groundball staff -- Atlanta?) > >should have a way low SLG+, and a resulting degradation of their > >outfielder's performance, through no fault of their own. What we need > >is real park effects....
> I'm with you here.
> >I'm of the unsupported opinion that when you take out walks, strikeouts, > >homers, flyball/groundball tendencies, and the running game, that fielding > >is much more important for determining safe/out than pitching. I > >believe strongly in park effects, but I'm unconvinced that there really > >is a large "bad pitcher" effect on DA/ZR-like measures.
> That's not what I've found. (cautionary note. I'm digging up more data) > I've found wildly differing rates for pitchers on the same staffs. > I don't have error data though so I'm in the process of working out > estimated errors - (raj you've muttered something about this. Details?) > maybe this will smooth things out.
Is this defensive efficiency, or are you working with real ZR/DA-at-position behind a pitcher data? I expect that pitchers distribute the ball differently between popups, infield lineouts, groundball to X, and flyball to Y. All of those are converted at somewhat different rates. What I haven't seen strong evidence for is that ZR/DA at a position is strongly influenced by the pitching staff -- but I've lacked a good way to test this, so if you've got a way, I'm *very* interested in the results.
Anecdotal points:
DA for infielders showed a fairly strong correlation for infielders who changed teams. Not true, IIRC, for outfielders. DA subjectively seems to be more consistent than starting pitching (which, granted, is not saying a great deal).
In 1990-1991, the pitching staff was fairly stable, but the infield had a dramatic improvement at every position (in terms of personnel's past DA). The pitching staff improved in similarly dramatic fashion, excepting Leibrandt and flyballer John Smoltz. Holdover Jeff Blauser, on a *rate* basis, was unchanged in DR (he did dramatically improve in later years).
If you take away the low walk rate, the good strikeout rate, and the few homers (plus the many chances he handles himself), plus the normally higher DA (and lower SLG) of a high gb ratio, there isn't a lot of Greg Maddux's remarkable years to explain with "good defense" and/or "easy chances".
> Right now what I have is that there's no meaningful correlation between the > team a pitcher pitches for and the rate that balls put into play are > converted into outs. Surprised me.
> -- > RNJ
-- Dale J. Stephenson * dst...@sirius.com * past his prime
"I know nothing, Colonel Turner, nothing." -- Sgt. Schuerholz
In article <6sn6hu$lu...@supernews.com>, "Chris Dial" <acd...@intrex.com> wrote: > Dale J. Stephenson wrote in message ... > >In article <6s9sco$bp...@supernews.com>, "Chris Dial" <acd...@intrex.com> > wrote:
[defensive chances snipped]
> >What is considered a "play" here? ZR opportunities, or an estimate > >of chances started? I'm guessing ZR opportunities, since otherwise using > >a ZR multiple doesn't work. My scoreboards are packed away right now, > >but IIRC the lists in back just have the league average, not the total > >opportunities and outs. Am I remembering incorrectly?
> It is ZR opportunities. I don't have all the Scoreboards, so I'm not sure > how they are listed. STATS seems to change that format yearly. I got my # > of plays by taking all players at a given position that played 130+ > defensive games (Innings/8.75) and averaging their individual chances per > game. I then multiplied by 162 games.
OK, this seems good. I found a single scoreboard that hadn't been packed away (the 1990 scoreboard), and it doesn't even list the averages of the leagues. Pfft. But it does have chances and innings for individual players, so your procedure should give a very reasonable estimate.
I also notice that P > Outs for outfielders. How does an outfielder get a putout without it being considered a ZR chance? (Or does this change for later books -- I know there's been some changes with the out-of-zone plays).
> >> For infielders, everything tends to even out. Since I normalize the > chances, > >> lefty-righty staffs and groundball/flyball staffs don't affect the data > too > >> much. It is possible that the players used to calc the seasons chances > play > >> for LHP/RHP or GB/FB, but each was averaged with at least four starters. > >> Hard hit balls, tough chances etc tend to even out. I'd rather have the > raw > >> data (plays in each zone for every player), but I takes what I gots. > >> Nonetheless, the plays I do have are certainly outs. At worst, ZR > >> undervalues defense (depending on pop-ups and line drives, and DPs).
> >Do DPs still contaminate the ZR opportunities?
> I don't know if "contaminate" is the word I'd use. But, yes, they are > included.
I'm not in favor of eliminating DP evaluation, but I *do* think they should be considered separately from straight ZR/DA type out conversion. You need the DP-ops in order to make it fair. OTOH, STATS also gives DP conversion for pivot men, which I'd like to roll in as well. I'm not sure how to split the DP credit between initiator and pivot man. Any ideas?
> >> With these season total of plays, I multiply by the fielder's ZR. That's > >> how many plays he would have made. I think this converts to runs easily, > >> and almost obviously: any play not made results in a baserunner.
> >> Each out has a value: if it takes away a single, that's worth 0.47 (hit) > + > >> 0.27 (out). Each subsequent base is worth 0.31 runs (per Linear Wts)
> >OK, I follow this so far...
> >> SS/2B: ((plays made-2)*0.74)+(2*1.05)
> >The doubles are fixed for ss/2b? Or is there a pm in there?
> It is presently a fixed number. It is fixed with just masking tape, so we > can take it out with better information. I'd like a pm, but I don't have > enough DA or ZR raw data.
I have the DA reports for 88-96. Here's the league number of doubles/triples for 93-95 in the NL.
I go ahead and adjust 2b/3b allowed by player, but it doesn't amount to much. The career NEB (Net Extra Base prevented) leaders at second and short are Ryne Sandberg (+9 in 7 seasons) and Royce Clayton (+9 in 5 seasons). As you know that's in the order of half a run per season -- only worth counting at all because the data happens to be there.
There's more impact to make on the negative side, of course. Kevin Elster managed -13 in 5 seasons, while Chuck Knoblauch managed -21 (!) in 6 seasons. Of course, it's *still* not a lot of runs, and when a second baseman manages to give up that many doubles you've got to wonder if he's been penalized for Kirby Puckett playing too deep.
Of course, you don't penalize anyone, since it's a constant. That's not true at first/third, where the doubles/triples are more common *and* the fielder is likely to have more influence on the result of the play.
> >Per DA data, giving up multiple bases at first and third is not > >a function of DA -- the "guarding the line" effect.
> I'm not sure what you mean here.
It's pretty simple. A first baseman can stand very close to the first base bag, giving up a hole in part of his area for hits to go through (sometimes he *has* to do this, due to a runner being held). But this way he can prevent the ball from being hit right down the line, which is more likely to be a double or triple by the time the outfielder gets to it. You've seen the prevent-the-double defense employed in ball games -- first and third at the lines, outfielders playing deep.
A fielder can naturally play closer to the line, preventing extra base hits at the possible expense of a lower DA/ZR. Your formula assumes that the extra bases allowed are directly proportional to the hits allowed. I don't think that's true:
A snippet from the career DR leaders:
->FIRST BASE *Range* Most Hits Stolen 88-96: 132) Mark Grace 77) John Olerud 67) Mark McGwire 63) Rafael Palmiero 52) Tino Martinez
Least Hits Stolen 88-96: -67) Pedro Guerrero -53) J.T. Snow -47) Frank Thomas -44) Fred McGriff -38) Paul Sorrento
Single Season Best: 36) Mark Grace (1992)
Single Season Worst: -40) Fred McGriff (1992)
*Preventing Extra Bases* Most Extra Bases Saved 88-96: 30) Will Clark Jeff Bagwell 17) Glenn Davis 16) John Olerud 15) Mo Vaughn Eric Karros
Least Extra Bases Saved 88-96: -31) Tino Martinez -27) Andres Galarraga -22) Frank Thomas Rico Brogna -21) David Segui
Single Season Best: 13) Jeff Bagwell (1996)
Single Season Worst: -14) Jeff Bagwell (1991) Andres Galarraga (1994)
-->THIRD BASE *Range* Most Stolen Hits 88-96: 154) Terry Pendleton 89) Robin Ventura 82) Matt Williams 73) Tim Wallach 69) Kelly Gruber
Least Stolen Hits 88-96: -75) Dean Palmer -56) Todd Zeile -46) Gary Sheffield -43) Sean Berry -41) Howard Johnson
Best Season: 45) Chris Sabo (1988)
Worst Season: -39) Dean Palmer (1992)
*Knocking It Down* Most Extra Bases Prevented 88-96: 50) Ken Caminiti 49) Robin Ventura 38) Matt Williams 27) Tim Wallach 22) Wade Boggs
Least Extra Bases Prevented 88-96: -25) Scott Leius -24) Dean Palmer -22) Craig Worthington -21) Luis Salazar -19) Howard Johnson Jim Presley
Best Season: 14) Tim Naehring (1996)
Worst Season: -14) Scott Leius (1995)
Yes, there's some correlation here. But Mark Grace had 132 NHS while logging only *2* NEB. Meanwhile, Rico Brogna managed to get -22 NEB in two seasons, with basically average DA (-3 HS). At third, while Ventura, Williams and Wallach managed to accumulate plenty of NEB and NHS, Terry Pendleton had -11 NEB to go with his outstanding 154 NHS. Terry did a lot of things right, but preventing extra base hits wasn't one of them.
Now, making hits into outs is a lot more important than preventing extra-base hits, so I don't think your system is fatally flawed at all. But the skills are independent enough that superimposing an extra-base weight on ZR proficiency distrubs me.
> >Lacking specific > >data about doubles and triples through first allowed, though, it's > >a good approximation.
> I struggled with these figures. Finally I worked out that these are > basically the distribution of hits not homers.
Sure, on average. But a first and third baseman can have an influence on what kind of hits get through their area. (Though I'll grant with the smaller ZR ranges, they probably *aren't* hit through their area.)
> >> pitching staff factor is calculated by: SLG+ = (total bases-(tb from > >> hr))/(ab-K-hr) > >> then set as a percentage of league average (less that team's SLG+)
> >> This increases the value of plays made by OF who play in screwy parks or > >> behind bad pitchers. I am pretty sure it removes park effects mostly.
> >The doubles/triples allowed versus DA is a big variable in the DA reports. > >Again, lacking the specific 2b/3b allowed data this is a reasonable > >estimate, but it introduces a huge possible area of error. FWIW, the only > >outfielder in the DA reports who was good enough at preventing > doubles/triples > >to negate his poor range was Raul Mondesi.
> >I don't think assists should be here, at least without folding in > >extra bases taken from the "holding runner" section of the scoreboard. > >The runners taking extra bases on the fielder have to be considered > >along with the assists he gets nailing some of them.
> Well, every assist is definitely an out, and a baserunner removed. They > definitely have to count. The holding runner, to me, is far too affected by > the hit itself.
Every caught stealing is an out and a baserunner removed -- but without knowing how many people are running, catcher assists don't do you much good. Outfield isn't *that* bad, but since STATS kindly presents us with chances for runners to advance and the percentage that *do* advance, we should be able to combine this with the assists to see the effect on the running game -- are all those assists because people are taking lots of chances, or because of the great arm?
Assists aren't a function of ZR at all, so it really belongs in a separate line.
> I'll have to think about it some more. When I look at the > Scoreboard leaders from 1996 (1997 SB), the RF list is headed by 6 turf > fielders, Sosa and Mondesi.
In <1998090114120400.KAA10...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, NawrockiT <nawroc...@aol.com> claimed:
>Chris Dial wrote: >: I think some adjustment should be made for 1B and infield throwing errors. >: The Mariners' ng is often pissin' and moanin' about how Segui saves all >: these throwing errors (and still Davis has 120). Playing SS for my 30+ >: team, I know what it's like to go from a 6'4" lifetime 1B to a 5'7" >: short-armed former SS (that plays first because he's the manager). It's >: like throwing it through the clown's mouth. Sure, my situation is >: exaggerated, but I know the good 1B saves *tons* of errors. Every scoop is >: a throwing error, and there are several chances per game per 1B. >What complicates matters is that these errors are never charged to the >1B, so you can't even look at his errors to see whether he can catch or >not. Tino Martinez is terrible at catching throws that bounce into the >dirt, but of course he's never held responsible for it. >Tino does have ten errors this year, but he also should get credit for a >lot of Brosius' 22 errors.
Obviously this is a factor of 1b defense, but it's got to be overstated. The difference in errors between the throwing infielders on different teams just isn't that large.
(The only argument I can see is that a bad scooper deters infielders from even *trying* tough throws.) -- David M. Nieporent "Mr. Simpson, don't you worry. I niepo...@alumni.princeton.edu watched Matlock in a bar last night. 2L - St. John's School of Law The sound wasn't on, but I think I Roberto Petagine Appreciation Society got the gist of it." -- L. Hutz
>> wrote: >[defensive chances snipped] >> >What is considered a "play" here? ZR opportunities, or an estimate >> >of chances started? I'm guessing ZR opportunities, since otherwise using >> >a ZR multiple doesn't work. My scoreboards are packed away right now, >> >but IIRC the lists in back just have the league average, not the total >> >opportunities and outs. Am I remembering incorrectly?
>> It is ZR opportunities. I don't have all the Scoreboards, so I'm not sure >> how they are listed. STATS seems to change that format yearly. I got my # >> of plays by taking all players at a given position that played 130+ >> defensive games (Innings/8.75) and averaging their individual chances per >> game. I then multiplied by 162 games.
>OK, this seems good. I found a single scoreboard that hadn't been >packed away (the 1990 scoreboard), and it doesn't even list the averages >of the leagues. Pfft. But it does have chances and innings for individual >players, so your procedure should give a very reasonable estimate.
>I also notice that P > Outs for outfielders. How does an outfielder >get a putout without it being considered a ZR chance? (Or does this >change for later books -- I know there's been some changes with >the out-of-zone plays).
I believe that this is because of plays made out of zone. This is almost completely a function of shifted OFs. I would expect there to be a bigger effect for CF, but I haven't looked.
>> >> For infielders, everything tends to even out. Since I normalize the >> chances, >> >> lefty-righty staffs and groundball/flyball staffs don't affect the data >> too >> >> much. It is possible that the players used to calc the seasons chances >> play >> >> for LHP/RHP or GB/FB, but each was averaged with at least four starters. >> >> Hard hit balls, tough chances etc tend to even out. I'd rather have the >> raw >> >> data (plays in each zone for every player), but I takes what I gots. >> >> Nonetheless, the plays I do have are certainly outs. At worst, ZR >> >> undervalues defense (depending on pop-ups and line drives, and DPs).
>> >Do DPs still contaminate the ZR opportunities?
>> I don't know if "contaminate" is the word I'd use. But, yes, they are >> included.
>I'm not in favor of eliminating DP evaluation, but I *do* think they >should be considered separately from straight ZR/DA type out conversion. >You need the DP-ops in order to make it fair. OTOH, STATS also gives >DP conversion for pivot men, which I'd like to roll in as well. I'm >not sure how to split the DP credit between initiator and pivot man. >Any ideas?
Many things I do are tweaked based on my personal experience/observation. DP-ops seem to be pretty random (# per team), and I am not confident in STATS ability to deliver the proper breakdowns on these numbers. The seasonal # of DP ops seems fairly constant (225 per AL team in 96, 97) and the std dev is about 9 chances. How significant that is, when I don't think there is a correlation between these Ops season to season. I'll have to check the ZRs of the MI for the teams with higher DP-ops.
{snip 2b/3b stuff}
Thanks for the xbh data. That certainly makes 2 a pretty good starting point, but it looks like I'll increase it to 3.5 (3.64 in AL and 3.35 in NL)
>Of course, you don't penalize anyone, since it's a constant. That's >not true at first/third, where the doubles/triples are more common >*and* the fielder is likely to have more influence on the result of >the play.
>> >Per DA data, giving up multiple bases at first and third is not >> >a function of DA -- the "guarding the line" effect.
>> I'm not sure what you mean here.
>It's pretty simple. A first baseman can stand very close to the first >base bag, giving up a hole in part of his area for hits to go through >(sometimes he *has* to do this, due to a runner being held). But this >way he can prevent the ball from being hit right down the line, which >is more likely to be a double or triple by the time the outfielder gets >to it. You've seen the prevent-the-double defense employed in ball >games -- first and third at the lines, outfielders playing deep.
>A fielder can naturally play closer to the line, preventing extra base >hits at the possible expense of a lower DA/ZR. Your formula assumes >that the extra bases allowed are directly proportional to the hits >allowed. I don't think that's true:
<snip DR leaders>
>Yes, there's some correlation here. But Mark Grace had 132 NHS while >logging only *2* NEB. Meanwhile, Rico Brogna managed to get -22 NEB >in two seasons, with basically average DA (-3 HS). At third, while >Ventura, Williams and Wallach managed to accumulate plenty of NEB >and NHS, Terry Pendleton had -11 NEB to go with his outstanding 154 >NHS. Terry did a lot of things right, but preventing extra base >hits wasn't one of them.
>Now, making hits into outs is a lot more important than preventing extra-base >hits, so I don't think your system is fatally flawed at all. But the >skills are independent enough that superimposing an extra-base weight >on ZR proficiency distrubs me.
I'm not sure that they are all skills like that. Positioning of infielders isn't always their decision, especially at the corners. And from watching him, Pendleton's particular style of play was to be a big "backhander", and shade the hole, while Ventura, Williams, and Wallach were play close to the line. That type of positioning is mostly habitual, and for this system I don't see it as very practical to establish each players particular habit, esp. when I have to depend on STATS giving up data.
Score board did a "study" on whether or not guarding the line worked (1993?) and their data showed, IIRC, that guarding the line usually gave up more singles than it prevented doubles; that is it wasn't a strong strategy. I'll have to re-read that.
>> >Lacking specific >> >data about doubles and triples through first allowed, though, it's >> >a good approximation.
>> I struggled with these figures. Finally I worked out that these are >> basically the distribution of hits not homers.
>Sure, on average. But a first and third baseman can have an influence >on what kind of hits get through their area. (Though I'll grant with >the smaller ZR ranges, they probably *aren't* hit through their area.)
>> >> pitching staff factor is calculated by: SLG+ = (total bases-(tb from >> >> hr))/(ab-K-hr) >> >> then set as a percentage of league average (less that team's SLG+)
>> >> This increases the value of plays made by OF who play in screwy parks or >> >> behind bad pitchers. I am pretty sure it removes park effects mostly.
>> >The doubles/triples allowed versus DA is a big variable in the DA reports. >> >Again, lacking the specific 2b/3b allowed data this is a reasonable >> >estimate, but it introduces a huge possible area of error. FWIW, the only >> >outfielder in the DA reports who was good enough at preventing >> doubles/triples >> >to negate his poor range was Raul Mondesi.
>> >I don't think assists should be here, at least without folding in >> >extra bases taken from the "holding runner" section of the scoreboard. >> >The runners taking extra bases on the fielder have to be considered >> >along with the assists he gets nailing some of them.
>> Well, every assist is definitely an out, and a baserunner removed. They >> definitely have to count. The holding runner, to me, is far too affected by >> the hit itself.
>Every caught stealing is an out and a baserunner removed -- but without >knowing how many people are running, catcher assists don't do you much >good. Outfield isn't *that* bad, but since STATS kindly presents us >with chances for runners to advance and the percentage that *do* advance, >we should be able to combine this with the assists to see the effect on >the running game -- are all those assists because people are taking lots >of chances, or because of the great arm?
Personal observation and experience still leads me to believe CF and LF assists are rarely based on the fielder's arm. With only 30 OF assists per team, runners trying to tag up and score are usually the outs, with several batters trying to stretch singles into to doubles, and then there are guys getting doubled off.
>Assists aren't a function of ZR at all, so it really belongs in a separate >line.
It sort of is. I guess I should multiply the SLG+ and then add the assists. I also think the hold% is widely misled, because a fielder will create his own chances. If a LF (we'll call him Gregg Jefferies) is slow to come in on a sinking liner, he holds a runner, that thought he should have caught the damned thing. Jefferies takes a ZR hit, but gains a hold.
>> I'll have to think about it some more. When I look at the >> Scoreboard leaders from 1996 (1997 SB), the RF list is headed by 6 turf >> fielders, Sosa and Mondesi. That certainly screams park effect to me. I'm >> not sure how it will work.
>Interestingly, the 1990 scoreboard also screams park effect, but with >the opposite reasoning: "You'll note from the chart that eight of the nine >leaders [in hold percentage, three from each field] are from American League >teams. This probably isn't because American League outfielders are >superior. More likely, it's because AL parks tend to be smaller than their >National league counterparts. American League parks are also primarily >grass fields, and on grass an outfielder can charge the ball much more >easily. (Seven of the nine leaders played their
