What will the lineup be..........
newservice
1 vs righties
2 vs lefties
Ben Edelman
I don't think it will be much different. The Pads don't have many players with
huge platoon splits ... even Klesko has become an OK hitter vs. lefties --
enough so that I don't think they'll drop him in the lineup.
I'd guess:
Vazquez
Jimenez
Nevin
Klesko
Trammell (vs. LHP) / Lankford (vs. RHP)
Kotsay
Burroughs
Wiki
Pitcher
In the long run, I'm guessing that Burroughs slots in better as a #2 or #3
hitter, but they may bat him lower to start to "take the pressure off".
thw...@bellatlantic.net
I also wouldn't be surprised to see him moved to lead-off and
Burroughs moved to #2 as the season wears on.
But as with any Bochy team, speculating as to what line-up he'll use
is an exercise in futility. The man hasn't used fewer than 110
different line-ups in a season since his first year as the manager.
On Sat, 26 Jan 2002 04:31:19 GMT, Ben Edelman <vze3...@verizon.net>
wrote:
Spreading the Gospel of Baseball
http://longgandhi.com
Aztec basketball Fan
Kotsay
Jimenez
Klesko
Nevin
Lankford
Burroughs
Gonzalez
Vazquez
Notes: Bochy will play bat Gonzalez 8th - I prefer to have a higher
OBP batting 8th to allow the pitcher to do something productive. I
like having 4 "Z"s in the 7th and 8th position. The Padres have never
had that - although they have produced a few zzzz.... :> If Jimenez
or Vazquez shows leadoff potential against righties Kotsay will move
to the 2nd spot.
Lefties.
Jackson (CF)
Jimenez
Nevin
Trammell
Gant
Gonzalez
Burroughs
Vazquez
Notes: DJ plays a great defensive CF. Kotsay has had trouble keeping
his OBP above .300 agasint lefties. DJ hits lefties better and is a
legit leadoff hitter. If Jimenez or Vazquez shows leadoff potential
against lefties Colangelo can play CF.
On Fri, 25 Jan 2002 19:02:33 -0800, "newservice" <b0b...@aol.com>
wrote:
iceberg
Aztec basketball fan? What a joke! Are they going to win another
conference game this season? Maybe not, because their season is
already over and this slightly below average team will probably quit!
0-8 in OT games? 5 years without winning one. The only thing that
keeps the Az-dregs basketball team from being the biggest
laughingstock in San Diego is the Az-dregs alleged football team.
Iceberg - an embarrassed alum!
Seapig
> Lefties.
>
> Jackson (CF)
> Jimenez
> Nevin
> Trammell
> Gant
> Gonzalez
> Burroughs
> Vazquez
>
> Notes: DJ plays a great defensive CF. Kotsay has had trouble keeping
> his OBP above .300 agasint lefties. DJ hits lefties better and is a
> legit leadoff hitter. If Jimenez or Vazquez shows leadoff potential
> against lefties Colangelo can play CF.
I think DJ probably could be a good defensive CF, but he's played so
little out there, it's just speculation. He did hit lefties a lot
better than Kotsay did last year, but historically neither has much of
a platoon difference.
My guess is that Kotsay plays every day, although they may drop him in
the order against lefties. The Pads see him as the "new Finley" and
Finley was always in there for his glove even though he couldn't hit
lefties. Colangelo is no longer an option; they let him go over the
winter.
badlands420
> 0-8 in OT games? 5 years without winning one. The only thing that
> keeps the Az-dregs basketball team from being the biggest
> laughingstock in San Diego is the Az-dregs alleged football team.
>
> Iceberg - an embarrassed alum!
Aw, keep your chin up. You've still got the guy in the purple dress with the
ballet slippers.
Don't fuck with the Aztecs, baby! Or else Ambassador Montezuma will drop a
double-reverse pirouette on your sorry ass!
Darren Webb
Jackson won't be a part of the Padres by the end of spring training.
Someone will have a need for a speedy utility bat and he will fill
that void. Also count on some aging vet at SS or 2b to go down in ST.
When that happens, Jackson will be the first one that gets called
because he's cheap, is an adequate fill in for the short term, and is
expendable after they use him. Ron Gant, if he still has any baseball
left in him would likely be kept because of his RH bat and power
potential.
That's what I THINK will happen. I think they should hang on to
Jackson though. He provides a solid backup to SS, 2b, LF, and CF.
Along with Cesar Crespo they are covered in the infield. If they
traded Jackson, that leaves only Crespo as backup for middle infield.
I wouldn't be comfortable with him at SS, even in just a one or two
games.
Padres Depth Chart going into ST:
Catcher: Gonzalez, Lampkin, Wilkins?
1b: Nevin, Klesko, Trammell
2b: Jimenez, Jackson, Crespo
SS: Vazquez, Jackson
3b: Burroughs, Nevin
RF: Klesko, Gant, Trammell
CF: Kotsay, Lankford
LF: Lankford, Trammell, Gant
SP: Tomko, Jarvis, Lawrence, Tollberg, Jones
RHR: Middlebrook, Herndon, Fikac, Baerlocher, Hoffman, Reed
LHR: Nunez, Embree
DL: Eaton, Davey, Walker
Ready in the minors if/when needed: Peavy, Tankersly
Big Al
<thw...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:3c543fbc....@news.bellatlantic.net...
> It wouldn't surprise me to see Kotsay batting #2 to start the season.
> I also wouldn't be surprised to see him moved to lead-off and
> Burroughs moved to #2 as the season wears on.
>
> But as with any Bochy team, speculating as to what line-up he'll use
> is an exercise in futility. The man hasn't used fewer than 110
> different line-ups in a season since his first year as the manager.
>
>
Oh well, at least we won't see Dave Friggen Magadan as clean-up hitter this
year ;-)
--
"Go Ahead, Bite the Big Apple
Don't Mind the Maggots"
Mick Jagger
Shattered
JD jackson
"Big Al" <big...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:OP558.603$By6....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> <thw...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
> news:3c543fbc....@news.bellatlantic.net...
> > It wouldn't surprise me to see Kotsay batting #2 to start the season.
> > I also wouldn't be surprised to see him moved to lead-off and
> > Burroughs moved to #2 as the season wears on.
> >
> > But as with any Bochy team, speculating as to what line-up he'll use
> > is an exercise in futility. The man hasn't used fewer than 110
> > different line-ups in a season since his first year as the manager.
>
> Oh well, at least we won't see Dave Friggen Magadan as clean-up hitter
this
> year ;-)
Hey, I'm gonna miss the big lug!!! -- and if you really believe that... :>)
--
If our lives were that simple, we'd live in the past--
If the phone doesn't ring, it's me.
--Jimmy Buffett
Bill Kno
As a Padres fan you should understand what a building process is all about.
Oh, I forgot it is you - Iceburg.
Getsjocked
all.
badlands420
> why is everyone just flat out ignoring mike darr.
He's the fifth outfielder. How much attention do you want people to pay to
him? I'm even ignoring the guy, and I'm one of his supporters.
JustTerrie
>all.
Mike Darr is a singles hitter and a crappy outfielder. Before he gets any
consideration from me he has to get some power and become a better OF.
Getsjocked
>consideration from me he has to get some power and become a better OF.
>
true, darr hasn't shown alot of power, but he's young enough that it can
develop. id rather have the guy who is a light doubles hitter with a good eye
than the guy that can hit the ball a long way but will whiff 100 times in 300
ABs. a walk is a walk and a whiff is a whiff, but power can come in many forms.
darr could easily become a 40+ doubles hitter to go with 10-15 homers. that
should be good for a tidy .850+ OPS given his eye.
as for his defense, i disagree. he is above league average. you might be a
little spoiled having seen kotsay out there, as kotsay is one of the best
defenders in the game, in my opinion.
i think darr's ceiling is rusty greer, and if he falls short of that he still
won't be a bad player (and look up rusty's stats before you start laughing).
Ben Edelman
Getsjocked wrote:
> true, darr hasn't shown alot of power, but he's young enough that it can
> develop. id rather have the guy who is a light doubles hitter with a good eye
> than the guy that can hit the ball a long way but will whiff 100 times in 300
> ABs. a walk is a walk and a whiff is a whiff, but power can come in many forms.
> darr could easily become a 40+ doubles hitter to go with 10-15 homers. that
> should be good for a tidy .850+ OPS given his eye.
>
> as for his defense, i disagree. he is above league average. you might be a
> little spoiled having seen kotsay out there, as kotsay is one of the best
> defenders in the game, in my opinion.
>
> i think darr's ceiling is rusty greer, and if he falls short of that he still
> won't be a bad player (and look up rusty's stats before you start laughing).
From 1996 to 1999, Greer hit at least 16 HR every year, with at least 31 doubles
and a .300 average. I'd be thrilled if Darr became that good.
Unfortunately, he really has shown nowhere near that much power ... his career
high for HR was 15, in high-A in 1997. Since then, he has not hit more than 12
in a season (1999: 10 in AAA, 2 in SD).
Greer's career Isolated Power (SLG-AVG) is .179. Darr topped .170 only once in
his career (the year he hit 15 HR). In the majors so far, his ISO is .098.
He's got a long way to go to become Rusty Greer, and he hasn't exactly put
himself on the fast track with his play so far.
Getsjocked
>doubles
>and a .300 average. I'd be thrilled if Darr became that good.
>
look at Greer's age when he started hitting that well, and look at Darr's age
now. Ok, I'll do it for you. Greer had his breakthrough season in terms of
power at age 27. Darr will play this year as a 26 year old. Darr has shown he
can hit for power in the minors (twice slugged over .500). I think he's still
getting better. Don't give up on him just yet.......
JustTerrie
>little spoiled having seen kotsay out there, as kotsay is one of the best
>defenders in the game, in my opinion.
No. I formed my opinion of Darr's defense by watching balls fly over his head
that he should've gotten to. He does not get a good read on the ball off of
the bat. Alhough I have seen him a couple spectacular plays, until he can make
the routine everytime, I won't change my opinion.
FunKiNjEfF
I gotta agree with Terrie here. I don't follow stats, so when you say he is
above the league average, that very well could be. I don't know numbers. What
I do know is I feel I have seen far too many times him not get to a ball that
he should get to, that any OF should have gotten to. When I saw the Padres
play in Seattle, one sailed over his head and didn't even hit the wall. It was
very catchable. But I agree we don't give up on him yet, that is unless he
becomes part of a package deal that brings us something good in return. He is
very expendable, but I like having the tattoos on the team.
- Jeff
badlands420
>He is
> very expendable, but I like having the tattoos on the team.
Me too. I think it's cool that there's a guy on the team with more tattoos
than me.
iceberg
Building process? Every five years the football program(??????) starts
over with a new five year plan. The basketball team has made the NCAA
tournament once(?) - EVER? You can be sure of one thing about the
Az-dregs, when they talk about having a good team (football or
basketball) they are going to fall flat on their faces. The football
team will get beaten by a horrible UNLV team or the basketball team
will be out of the race 5 games into their conference season. No
progress - ever.
And the pods? What? 6-7 winning seasons out of 33? No home grown
players? No plan. Future success based solely on seasons when they
manage to sign some FAs and the rest of the NL west falters. Yeah, I
understand the building process and know that from the teams to the
stadiums it just doesn't exist in San Diego!
And you morons who continually misspell iceberg intentionally - wow,
what wit!
Iceberg!
Ben Edelman
Zone Rating might be the best measure of how a player makes the routine plays.
Stats, Inc. invented the stat by tracking every single ball hit in every game.
They divide the field into "zones" of responsibility ... so that the center
fielder has a certain "zone" he is expected to cover, the right fielder has a
different zone, etc.
Zone rating is calculated as the percentage of successful plays made by a player
on balls in his zone, as compared with the total number of balls hit in his
zone. So .900 means a player successfully fielded 90% of the balls hit in his
allotted "zone", according to Stats, Inc.
Mark Kotsay has a career ZR of .882 with a fielding percentage of .987 as a
center fielder, and a ZR of .856 with a fielding percentage of .985 as a RF.
Mike Darr has a career ZR of .866 with a fielding percentage of 1.000 in 51
games as a center fielder, and a ZR of .939 with a fielding percentage of .991
in 137 games as a right fielder.
While I don't put complete confidence in those stats, they indicate that Kotsay
has been a slightly better CF than Darr, but that Darr has been a significantly
better RF than Kotsay.
FunKiNjEfF
Ditto. He makes me look tame, but I can't afford to get sleeves. It just
wouldn't go well with working.
Ben Davis was getting up there with his inkings too, and I think Davey has a
ton too, I think. I saw someone on the TV last night who did on the Padres
Report.
FunKiNjEfF
>Kotsay
>has been a slightly better CF than Darr, but that Darr has been a
>significantly
>better RF than Kotsay.
>
Which is why I don't read stats and rely on numbers. Anyone with two eyes...
shoot, anyone with one eye, would see that Kotsay is a FAR FAR better defensive
player than Darr. Any arguement otherwise I would find ridiculous.
- Jeff
badlands420
> Ditto. He makes me look tame, but I can't afford to get sleeves. It just
> wouldn't go well with working.
I'm sleeved down slightly past the elbow on one arm and I'm currently
working on the other.
PS- Getting tattooed on the point of your elbow absolutely SUCKS.
thw...@bellatlantic.net
wrote:
>Zone Rating might be the best measure of how a player makes the routine plays.
>Stats, Inc. invented the stat by tracking every single ball hit in every game.
>They divide the field into "zones" of responsibility ... so that the center
>fielder has a certain "zone" he is expected to cover, the right fielder has a
>different zone, etc.
In a perfect world, yes. But there are 2 very significant flaws in
ZR:
1) it assumes that a player's position on the field is fixed. The
zones of resposibility do not move when the player moves his starting
position, something that happens very frequently when coaches move
players according to scouting reports.
2) Having worked in the pressbox right next to the guys scoring for
STATS, I can tell you that they don't always record precise locations.
I can also tell you that the scoring zones are still fairly sizeable,
so that while a ball may be scored as falling into the correct zone,
the result is still not precise.
Until the scorers record the starting position of the fielders, the
precise point (or landing point trajectory) and the speed of each
batted ball, then discussions regarding defensive proficiency will
remain largely anecdotal. The technology is certainly available to
record such things. It's just matter of some enterprising individual
or organization implementing it.
JustTerrie
>player
Sorry. I tend to rate the players with what i see with my own two eyes. You
can quote stats til you're blue in the face and I won'[t change my opinion of
Darr. Luike I said, I've watched him blow too many plays. And him not
havuing some poower really bothers me.
>While I don't put complete confidence in those stats, they indicate that
>Kotsay
>has been a slightly better CF than Darr, but that Darr has been a
>significantly
>better RF than Kotsay.
>
I see how these stats you provided were "career" stats. Any major league
stats. I'm not too interested what a guy did in the minors.
badlands420
> Sorry. I tend to rate the players with what i see with my own two eyes.
You
> can quote stats til you're blue in the face and I won'[t change my opinion
of
> Darr.
Damn Terrie, you're starting to sound like me. Rock on!
Vinay Kumar
[Zone Rating]
: 1) it assumes that a player's position on the field is fixed. The
: zones of resposibility do not move when the player moves his
: starting position, something that happens very frequently when
: coaches move players according to scouting reports.
I don't think this is a weakness of ZR. If a player moves into a
better position, he will catch more balls (potentially he'll catch
more balls out of his zone, and he might also miss a few in his zone,
but overall he'll catch more zones -- unless he's moving into worse
position). That helps his zone rating. Positioning is part of range;
it's what has made Cal Ripken an extraordinary defensive player.
That *used* to be a weakness of zone rating; they would count an
extra opportunity for an out-of-zone play made, which penalized guys
who would adjust their positioning. I believe they corrected this a
few years ago.
And because they adjust their definition of ZR (and possibly the
zones) every so often, it means that using ZR across years is
dangerous; comparing Darr's career ZR and Kotsay's career ZR doesn't
tell us enough, we need to go season-by-season.
--
/---------------------------------------------------------------\
| Vinay Kumar |
| vi...@baseball.org http://www.baseball.org/~vinay |
\---------------------------------------------------------------/
Chris Dial
thw...@bellatlantic.net says...
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2002 19:40:22 GMT, Ben Edelman <vze3...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Zone Rating might be the best measure of how a player makes the routine plays.
> >Stats, Inc. invented the stat by tracking every single ball hit in every game.
Small quibble: STATS didn't really invent the idea though. The Baseball
Workshop did the same stuff with Project Scoresheet.
> >They divide the field into "zones" of responsibility ... so that the center
> >fielder has a certain "zone" he is expected to cover, the right fielder has a
> >different zone, etc.
There's a long document explaining ZR in depth in the glossary at
bigbadbaseball.com
>
> In a perfect world, yes. But there are 2 very significant flaws in
> ZR:
>
> 1) it assumes that a player's position on the field is fixed. The
> zones of resposibility do not move when the player moves his starting
> position, something that happens very frequently when coaches move
> players according to scouting reports.
I don't think that's a flaw. Players don't move that far from "the
standard position" very often. And if you move and get burned, the value
of you play is lower. The pruimary exception is when Bonds is up leading
off an inning.
>
> 2) Having worked in the pressbox right next to the guys scoring for
> STATS, I can tell you that they don't always record precise locations.
Having been a scorer for STATS, I'll say that they do a good job.
> I can also tell you that the scoring zones are still fairly sizeable,
They are quite big. About as much room as a fielder can cover after a
ball is hit. Which is the goal.
> so that while a ball may be scored as falling into the correct zone,
> the result is still not precise.
It's pretty close. But no, it isn't laser-sighting.
>
> Until the scorers record the starting position of the fielders, the
> precise point (or landing point trajectory) and the speed of each
> batted ball, then discussions regarding defensive proficiency will
> remain largely anecdotal. The technology is certainly available to
> record such things. It's just matter of some enterprising individual
> or organization implementing it.
I disagree. I think recording where every batted ball is hit is done
sufficiently. Multiple scorers being cross-checked will diminish a
single ball location error.
Now, STATS could be more generous witht he ZR information and let others
see what can be learned from the data, but I think the data keeping
itself is pretty good.
I do think a note of a fielder playing out of position is appropriate,
but the usual fielder's shading a step or three to his right should
adversely affect his ZR. If it does, he should stop doing it.
Chris Dial
Chris Dial
> thw...@bellatlantic.net writes:
>
> [Zone Rating]
>
> : 1) it assumes that a player's position on the field is fixed. The
> : zones of resposibility do not move when the player moves his
> : starting position, something that happens very frequently when
> : coaches move players according to scouting reports.
>
> I don't think this is a weakness of ZR. If a player moves into a
> better position, he will catch more balls (potentially he'll catch
> more balls out of his zone, and he might also miss a few in his zone,
> but overall he'll catch more zones -- unless he's moving into worse
> position). That helps his zone rating. Positioning is part of range;
> it's what has made Cal Ripken an extraordinary defensive player.
>
> That *used* to be a weakness of zone rating; they would count an
> extra opportunity for an out-of-zone play made, which penalized guys
> who would adjust their positioning. I believe they corrected this a
> few years ago.
I don't think so. I think the zones are adjusted to minimize out of zone
plays. I watch for this and I don't think any fielder plays more than a
step or two differently than his counterpart. You can check the infield
dirt for verification at the next game.
>
> And because they adjust their definition of ZR (and possibly the
> zones) every so often, it means that using ZR across years is
> dangerous; comparing Darr's career ZR and Kotsay's career ZR doesn't
> tell us enough, we need to go season-by-season.
This is true.
Kotsay is an outstanding defensive outfielder.
Chris Dial
Seapig
The way I've found to get around this problem is I don't get tattooed
on the point of my elbow.
JustTerrie
uh oh.....lol
itzme
"JustTerrie" <justt...@aol.comnoQjunk> wrote in message
news:20020129210537...@mb-cu.aol.com...
> >one rating is calculated as the percentage of successful plays made by a
> >player
>
> Sorry. I tend to rate the players with what i see with my own two eyes.
You
> can quote stats til you're blue in the face and I won'[t change my opinion
of
> Darr. Luike I said, I've watched him blow too many plays. And him not
> havuing some poower really bothers me.
He's got SOME power--remember, some people in this NG wanted to make his
freakin home runs some of their most treasured moments of 2001 :>) As we've
discussed in this group before, Darr and Eric Owens can be the same
fielder...they sometimes make marginally difficult catches look spectacular
because they break wrong, then make up for it with their speed. And I can
do without watching either of them doing their damn pirouettes as they try
to decide how they should be going back on a ball directly over their heads.
The Baba
>>Mark Kotsay has a career ZR of .882 with a fielding percentage of .987 as
a
center fielder, and a ZR of .856 with a fielding percentage of .985 as a
RF.>>
Zzzzzzzzzzz...
--
喊`昂喊`昂喊`昂
If you lived in your car, you'd be home by now.
______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Binaries.net = SPEED+RETENTION+COMPLETION = http://www.binaries.net
badlands420
> The way I've found to get around this problem is I don't get tattooed
> on the point of my elbow.
Dammit, that never occurred to me.
*smacks self upside head*
FunKiNjEfF
>working on the other.
>
>PS- Getting tattooed on the point of your elbow absolutely SUCKS.
I'm sure. I got one on my back, and when it hit different bones on my spinal
cord, it would make weird shit like my arm hurt, and there was nothing going on
with my arm. My latest, and greatest, idea was up and down my side, from my
arm pit to my hip, more or less. I got the outline about 6 months ago, and
I'll get it filled......... sometime. Then do the other side! Yeah, that's
the ticket.
Sorry to be off subject here, anyone else can feel free to talk about tattoos,
or just strange markings on their body... Or the times you woke up and said to
yourself, "My, that's a strange place for a zit.... if it's a zit, that is."
- Jeff
thw...@bellatlantic.net
<ctd...@baseballprimer.com> wrote:
>In article <un0ywv...@baseball.org>, vi...@baseball.org says...
>> thw...@bellatlantic.net writes:
>>
>> [Zone Rating]
>>
>> : 1) it assumes that a player's position on the field is fixed. The
>> : zones of resposibility do not move when the player moves his
>> : starting position, something that happens very frequently when
>> : coaches move players according to scouting reports.
>>
>> I don't think this is a weakness of ZR. If a player moves into a
>> better position, he will catch more balls (potentially he'll catch
>> more balls out of his zone, and he might also miss a few in his zone,
>> but overall he'll catch more zones -- unless he's moving into worse
>> position). That helps his zone rating. Positioning is part of range;
>> it's what has made Cal Ripken an extraordinary defensive player.
>>
>> That *used* to be a weakness of zone rating; they would count an
>> extra opportunity for an out-of-zone play made, which penalized guys
>> who would adjust their positioning. I believe they corrected this a
>> few years ago.
>
>I don't think so. I think the zones are adjusted to minimize out of zone
>plays. I watch for this and I don't think any fielder plays more than a
>step or two differently than his counterpart. You can check the infield
>dirt for verification at the next game.
I thought we were talking about outfielders. However, if you'd like
to bring infielders into the equation, a step or two can make a huge
difference in a fielder's ability to get a ball on the infield.
Outfield shifts are much more dramatic. It's more than just a step or
two from dead center to right center or left center.
thw...@bellatlantic.net
<ctd...@baseballprimer.com> wrote:
>In article <3c572abd...@news.bellatlantic.net>,
>thw...@bellatlantic.net says...
>> 2) Having worked in the pressbox right next to the guys scoring for
>> STATS, I can tell you that they don't always record precise locations.
>
>Having been a scorer for STATS, I'll say that they do a good job.
Good enough for government work.
>> I can also tell you that the scoring zones are still fairly sizeable,
>
>They are quite big. About as much room as a fielder can cover after a
>ball is hit. Which is the goal.
>
>> so that while a ball may be scored as falling into the correct zone,
>> the result is still not precise.
>
>It's pretty close. But no, it isn't laser-sighting.
"Close"? But that's what we're talking about. One step is the
difference between a great fielder and a good one. Two steps and
we've dropped from great to merely average. Without precision, range
discussions are largely anecdotal. Mike Darr becomes roughly
equivalent to Mark Kotsay.
Why does ZR devalue the balls fielded outside the designated zone?
Great fielders get to those. Seems like throwing the baby out with
the bathwater.
Further, I don't understand why people are so eager to dismiss the
small differences in baseball. Two hits a month seperate a guy who
hits .275-.280 and one who hits .300. One step is the difference
between an out and a single in the infield, or a double or triple in
the outfield. Unless you're Tom Glavine, one inch is the difference
between a ball and a strike. Measurement of the game can use all the
precision it can get.
>I do think a note of a fielder playing out of position is appropriate,
>but the usual fielder's shading a step or three to his right should
>adversely affect his ZR. If it does, he should stop doing it.
It'd be interesting to see how often shading is a decision by the
player or by the manager.
The Baba
>>anyone else can feel free to talk about tattoos>>
I have 4 tats that I got at Rose's Bar & Tattoo Parlor, in Newport, RI, in
my teens...Both drinking and getting tattoos were against the law in
Massachusetts at my age...Tattoos were illegal until last year...I got an
Irish harp, and a little Irish devil on a cloud on my right arm, a clover
with Erin Go Bragh above it on my left arm, and a pair of lips on my ass...I
planned on, but never did get around to, have 'Kiss me I'm Irish' put around
them though ;-)
--
喊`昂喊`昂喊`昂
He was in a quandary...being devoured by the swirling cesspool of his own
steaming desires... uh.. the guy was a wreck.
Chris Dial
thw...@bellatlantic.net says...
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2002 22:37:14 -0500, Chris Dial
> <ctd...@baseballprimer.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <3c572abd...@news.bellatlantic.net>,
> >thw...@bellatlantic.net says...
> >> 2) Having worked in the pressbox right next to the guys scoring for
> >> STATS, I can tell you that they don't always record precise locations.
> >
> >Having been a scorer for STATS, I'll say that they do a good job.
>
> Good enough for government work.
>
>
> >> I can also tell you that the scoring zones are still fairly sizeable,
> >
> >They are quite big. About as much room as a fielder can cover after a
> >ball is hit. Which is the goal.
> >
> >> so that while a ball may be scored as falling into the correct zone,
> >> the result is still not precise.
> >
> >It's pretty close. But no, it isn't laser-sighting.
>
> "Close"? But that's what we're talking about. One step is the
> difference between a great fielder and a good one. Two steps and
> we've dropped from great to merely average. Without precision, range
> discussions are largely anecdotal. Mike Darr becomes roughly
> equivalent to Mark Kotsay.
I don't agree. Proper positioning and jumps on the ball are what makes a
great fielder. Andruw Jones and Mike Darr can stand in the same spot,
and Jones gets to balls Darr won't. And that doesn't affect how zones
are assigned nor how balls are scored wrt which zone they land in.
>
> Why does ZR devalue the balls fielded outside the designated zone?
> Great fielders get to those. Seems like throwing the baby out with
> the bathwater.
They just don't give as much credit as they should. It's hardly throwing
the baby out with the bathwater. It isn't like thye don't count at all.
>
> Further, I don't understand why people are so eager to dismiss the
> small differences in baseball. Two hits a month seperate a guy who
> hits .275-.280 and one who hits .300. One step is the difference
> between an out and a single in the infield, or a double or triple in
> the outfield.
Except the reason a person is playing one step differently is because it
is supposed to give him an advantage on turning a ball into an out. If
it costs him the play - tough shit.
> Unless you're Tom Glavine, one inch is the difference
> between a ball and a strike. Measurement of the game can use all the
> precision it can get.
Yes, but it can't get the precision you are suggesting at a reasonable
cost.
>
>
> >I do think a note of a fielder playing out of position is appropriate,
> >but the usual fielder's shading a step or three to his right should
> >adversely affect his ZR. If it does, he should stop doing it.
>
> It'd be interesting to see how often shading is a decision by the
> player or by the manager.
About as often as the pitches called are the pitcher's decision. It's
still his ERA. 8-)
Chris Dial
Mr Padre
>precise point (or landing point trajectory) and the speed of each
>batted ball, then discussions regarding defensive proficiency will
>remain largely anecdotal.
In addition to this, the fielders' positioning is influenced by his
perceived abilities (arm strength/speed/judgement) and game situation.
JustTerrie
>do without watching either of them doing their damn pirouettes as they try
>to decide how they should be going back on a ball directly over their heads.
Exactly!
JustTerrie
>
No shit! It's not putting me to sleep, but it's given me one hell of a
headache.
thw...@bellatlantic.net
<ctd...@baseballprimer.com> wrote:
>In article <3c583b7b...@news.bellatlantic.net>,
>thw...@bellatlantic.net says...
>> Unless you're Tom Glavine, one inch is the difference
>> between a ball and a strike. Measurement of the game can use all the
>> precision it can get.
>
>Yes, but it can't get the precision you are suggesting at a reasonable
>cost.
Define reasonable. Are we talking within yours or my budget? Then
no. Are we talking within the budget of a company like STATS or a
academic study with a government grant? Oh, I think so. Are we
talking about within the budget of MLB or even a single team? If they
weren't so techno-phobic, something like this would definitely come at
a reasonable cost, especially given the data that could be gathered.
>> >I do think a note of a fielder playing out of position is appropriate,
>> >but the usual fielder's shading a step or three to his right should
>> >adversely affect his ZR. If it does, he should stop doing it.
>>
>> It'd be interesting to see how often shading is a decision by the
>> player or by the manager.
>
>About as often as the pitches called are the pitcher's decision.
Got any evidence?
FunKiNjEfF
>planned on, but never did get around to, have 'Kiss me I'm Irish' put around
>them though ;-)
You gotta do that. I think we can get an antee up on this board to pay for it.
I got $10, and a couple friends who work in tattoo parlors. One of them
worked in Hillcrest for a while, until someone came in and wanted "Daddy's Boy"
tattooed on his ass. My buddy quit on the spot, and now works up in Kearny
Mesa.
- Jeff
FunKiNjEfF
>>
>
>No shit! It's not putting me to sleep, but it's given me one hell of a
>headache.
I just find it amusing what different directions the subject line went. On one
hand, there's arguing over STATS. On the other, there's talk of the tattoo on
Baba's Irish arse.
Seapig
If you're not Tony Gwynn, you need to get a new name. There's only
one Mr. Padre.
[Who knows, maybe it is Tony Gwynn. He's probably not real crazy
about the ZR stat.]
The Baba
>>now works up in Kearny Mesa.>>
What's the name of the place? I still wanna get a Celtic cross on my left
forearm...
--
喊`昂喊`昂喊`昂
Never stop until your good becomes better, and your better becomes the best.
The Baba
>>but it's given me one hell of a headache.>>
You ain't shittin'...As soon as I see a friggin' stat thread, I mark them
all as read...
--
喊`昂喊`昂喊`昂
For Sale: Parachute. Only used once, never opened, small stain.
FunKiNjEfF
>forearm...
I actually have two friends that do tattoos. The one in KM is at "Absolute
Tattoo", his name is Nick. The other works at MB Tattoo, across the street
from the roller coaster in Mission Beach, he's Scott. Nick does better fill in
work, Scott better outlines, from my experience. Nick's a bit more artistic, I
had him do a couple Salvador Dali paintings, and those are tough. Let me know
if you are going to call him, I'll give him a heads up so he gives you a good
price.
- Jeff
El Jefe
Gotta be time for this....
Hitler.
Chris Dial
thw...@bellatlantic.net says...
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2002 00:33:23 -0500, Chris Dial
> <ctd...@baseballprimer.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <3c583b7b...@news.bellatlantic.net>,
> >thw...@bellatlantic.net says...
>
> >> Unless you're Tom Glavine, one inch is the difference
> >> between a ball and a strike. Measurement of the game can use all the
> >> precision it can get.
> >
> >Yes, but it can't get the precision you are suggesting at a reasonable
> >cost.
>
> Define reasonable. Are we talking within yours or my budget? Then
> no. Are we talking within the budget of a company like STATS or a
> academic study with a government grant? Oh, I think so. Are we
> talking about within the budget of MLB or even a single team? If they
> weren't so techno-phobic, something like this would definitely come at
> a reasonable cost, especially given the data that could be gathered.
What technology would you suggest?
>
>
> >> >I do think a note of a fielder playing out of position is appropriate,
> >> >but the usual fielder's shading a step or three to his right should
> >> >adversely affect his ZR. If it does, he should stop doing it.
> >>
> >> It'd be interesting to see how often shading is a decision by the
> >> player or by the manager.
> >
> >About as often as the pitches called are the pitcher's decision.
>
> Got any evidence?
Of what?
Chris Dial
thw...@bellatlantic.net
<ctd...@baseballprimer.com> wrote:
shading decisions is to player's decision as pitches called is to
pitcher's decision. Your statement sounded like conjecture.
thw...@bellatlantic.net
<ctd...@baseballprimer.com> wrote:
>In article <3c590e1a...@news.bellatlantic.net>,
>thw...@bellatlantic.net says...
>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2002 00:33:23 -0500, Chris Dial
>> <ctd...@baseballprimer.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <3c583b7b...@news.bellatlantic.net>,
>> >thw...@bellatlantic.net says...
>>
>> >> Unless you're Tom Glavine, one inch is the difference
>> >> between a ball and a strike. Measurement of the game can use all the
>> >> precision it can get.
>> >
>> >Yes, but it can't get the precision you are suggesting at a reasonable
>> >cost.
>>
>> Define reasonable. Are we talking within yours or my budget? Then
>> no. Are we talking within the budget of a company like STATS or a
>> academic study with a government grant? Oh, I think so. Are we
>> talking about within the budget of MLB or even a single team? If they
>> weren't so techno-phobic, something like this would definitely come at
>> a reasonable cost, especially given the data that could be gathered.
>
>What technology would you suggest?
Any number of technologies could be used, from basic radar to a
modified form of GPS for the tracking technology. As far as the data
recording, there are already computer programs that break down
components in video and analyze the changes. A system could be
devised and built for each stadium for around $100,000, certainly no
more than $200,000, per stadium.
For a company like STATS that every game pays 1 scorer in the press
box and at least one other watching on the tube, such a system would
pay for itself in 10 years.
SDPadreBob
>>> >> between a ball and a strike. Measurement of the game can use all the
>>> >> precision it can get.
>>> >
>>> >Yes, but it can't get the precision you are suggesting at a reasonable
>>> >cost.
>>>
>>> Define reasonable. Are we talking within yours or my budget? Then
>>> no. Are we talking within the budget of a company like STATS or a
>>> academic study with a government grant? Oh, I think so. Are we
>>> talking about within the budget of MLB or even a single team? If they
>>> weren't so techno-phobic, something like this would definitely come at
>>> a reasonable cost, especially given the data that could be gathered.
>>
>>What technology would you suggest?
>
>Any number of technologies could be used, from basic radar to a
>modified form of GPS for the tracking technology. As far as the data
>recording, there are already computer programs that break down
>components in video and analyze the changes. A system could be
>devised and built for each stadium for around $100,000, certainly no
>more than $200,000, per stadium.
>
>For a company like STATS that every game pays 1 scorer in the press
>box and at least one other watching on the tube, such a system would
>pay for itself in 10 years.
>
>
>
>
>
>Spreading the Gospel of Baseball
>http://longgandhi.com
>
HITLER!!!! Fer Chrissakes!!!!!!!
thw...@bellatlantic.net
>HITLER!!!! Fer Chrissakes!!!!!!!
Huh? I'm not proposing a program of eugenics. First of all, baseball
is only a sport, not a system of government. Secondly, this is
nothing more than an increase in the efficiency of labor by automating
one aspect. At worst, I'm Bill Gates.
Chris Dial
Players change shading on each pitch. They do based on a variety of
things - pitch being called, baserunner situation, bunt likelihood...
Not to mention, between every pitch the fielders relax and mill around.
They then take position two feet left of where tehy were on the last
pitch. Or two feet further back. And then as the pitch is thrown, they
break down and lean, or creep in. Fielders are constantly in motion.
The one-step difference is not measurable.
Besides, the manager can't possibly shift every player exactly before
each pitch. And even if the manager *did* want a player to move, the
player has to move.
That's what I mean about pitchers calling their pitches. Plenty of
catchers look to the dugout for every pitch. The dugout (Pitching coach
or manager) tells the catcher, who signals the pitcher. Then the pitcher
throws that pitch or shakes him off. No matter what, in the end, the
pitcher throws the pitch.
Chris Dial
Chris Dial
Now *that* sounds like conjecture. What does the pitch track thing ESPN
does cost? And that works because you have enough cameras focused on the
right spot, because you know where the ball will be. I don't think it's
nearly as easy, technologcally, as you suggest. Nor as cost feasible.
DO you have any examples of where technology has done anything like this?
--
Chris Dial
SDPadreBob
>
>Huh? I'm not proposing a program of eugenics. First of all, baseball
>is only a sport, not a system of government. Secondly, this is
>nothing more than an increase in the efficiency of labor by automating
>one aspect. At worst, I'm Bill Gates
At the worst your a pathetic little man who ignores multiple requests to cease
this thread since most of the readers have grown weary of it.
thw...@bellatlantic.net
Then we are talking about 2 different things. Outfielders make shifts
based on the tendencies of hitters, for example a center fielder would
move from dead center to right center. This is much more than a
couple of steps and therefore calls into question the validity of a
static zone.
thw...@bellatlantic.net
Sorry, but I don't have AOL, so I didn't see the multiple requests to
cease this thread. I only see yours.
The rest of my posts have been in a direct dialogue with Chris Dial
regarding the validity or lack thereof of a certain unit of
measurement and possible alternatives. I will cease responding to
you, though.
Ron Johnson
<ctd...@baseballprimer.com> wrote:
For what it's worth, I work at a place which does image processing
from resmote sensing data.
I've talked with the scientists and they don't see anything
particularly difficult about this. Hell, we did something moderately
similar a decade ago (using low flying aircraft).
You do need some pretty serious computing power to process the data in
any kind of timely fashion, but the layout of a baseball stadium ought
to help. Plenty of ground contol points which rates to save you a lot
of processing time.
thw...@bellatlantic.net
<ctd...@baseballprimer.com> wrote:
>In article <3c5b30a4....@news.bellatlantic.net>,
>thw...@bellatlantic.net says...
>> Any number of technologies could be used, from basic radar to a
>> modified form of GPS for the tracking technology. As far as the data
>> recording, there are already computer programs that break down
>> components in video and analyze the changes. A system could be
>> devised and built for each stadium for around $100,000, certainly no
>> more than $200,000, per stadium.
>
>Now *that* sounds like conjecture. What does the pitch track thing ESPN
>does cost? And that works because you have enough cameras focused on the
>right spot, because you know where the ball will be. I don't think it's
>nearly as easy, technologcally, as you suggest. Nor as cost feasible.
>DO you have any examples of where technology has done anything like this?
So far as I know, no one has ever done what I propose at a baseball
stadium. However, that doesn't mean that similar technology can't be
applied in new ways.
All that would be required is a picture of the starting position of
each player at the moment of contact and a picture of each player when
each portion of the play is completed. It doesn't have to be real
time analysis. The data could be examined at any time. There are
computer programs available that measure the differences between
images. As for the velocity of the ball, simple radar could measure
that.
For a more complex and perhaps real-time measurement, one could place
beacons at varying points around the ballpark and triangulate the
position of the ball and the players as it travels. One small piece
of practically weightless trackable material could be woven into the
baseball and into the uniforms of the players, maybe into the belt
buckle. The baseballs already have more synthetic materials in them
than the rules stipulate; one more thread isn't going to matter much.
Both NASA and the defense department use a more advanced form of this
technology already. Department store security also uses a variation.
This solution would obviously be more expensive given the parameters,
but the cost wouldn't be exorbitant if the changes were grandfathered
in.
Other solutions are myriad. These are just the ones off the top of my
head.
SDPadreBob
>cease this thread. I only see yours.
what does me having AOL have to do with the price of rice in china? I was not
the first to ask that this thread die.
Dan Szymborski
sdpad...@aol.com says...
Why? Is this thread destroying the normal DIE RUBEN RIVERA~! threads?
--
Dan Szymborski
d...@baseballprimer.com
"A critic who refuses to attack what is bad is not a whole-hearted
supporter of what is good."
-Robert Schumann
Chris Dial
thw...@bellatlantic.net says...
I think the zone is certainly valid. And the fielder moves on a
tendency, then that should *help* his ZR. It's shifting on whims that
would hurt. Then you are guessing. In the OF, the zones are of the size
that a fielder can get to the ball from either side of it. The zones are
drawn around the area of the field where CFs catch 50% of balls. Not
each CF, but cumulative. If half the balls hit to point X are caught,
then an average CF should catch it. Sometimes he will have shaded the
wrong way, and somtimes he will have shded the right way. ZR isn't so
much a measure of how far a fielder can range, but a measure of how well
he turns FBs into outs in the area where average OFs turn balls into
outs.
My experience in scoring games (in the STATS manner) is that shifting is
not a problem.
--
Chris Dial
Chris Dial
sdpad...@aol.com says...
Hey, Bob, that's not how USENET works. If you don't want to read the
thread, don't read it. I don't think you know how most readers feel.
You'll note that two new posters added comments since your request for
the thread to end. That means people are reading and found an area of
the thread they might contribute.
If you don't want to read it, skip it. But please don't attempt to
censor a baseball topic you aren't interested in. I, for one, won't
listen.
HTH,
Chris Dial
Chris Dial
says...
Actually, thinking about what th wrote, they could add sensors in the
ground at various distances and in the ball.
What about cost? My experience with large projects would suggest the
cost would run in the $millions (equipment and installation and
operation). It would cost more to operate the system per team game than
the $100 STATS presently spends. Would the accuracy warrant the cost?
And what happens when we blow a fuse? No data for that game? And then
there are the years of validating the work.
If STATS starts in 2002, reliability would take a few years to establish.
I'm not sure where the payoff would come. That's only partly true, as a
scientist, I know what the payoff would be - more accurate data, but does
anybody in baseball care about that? STATS doesn't use the data they
have properly, so we know they don't. There is a firm, from my
understanding, that now buys STATS data and uses analysis of it in
arbitration cases (Andruw Jones saves 30 runs more than the average CF in
a season). Sounds like my stuff (except that AJones is grossly over-
rated)... 8-)
Chris Dial
SDPadreBob
>thread, don't read it. I don't think you know how most readers feel.
>You'll note that two new posters added comments since your request for
>the thread to end. That means people are reading and found an area of
>the thread they might contribute.
>
>If you don't want to read it, skip it. But please don't attempt to
>censor a baseball topic you aren't interested in. I, for one, won't
>listen.
>
>HTH,
>Chris Dial
Than take the discussion to ALT.SPORTS.BASEBALL.STAT.GEEK because this
discussion has no further relavence to a "Padres" discussion.
Chris Dial
sdpad...@aol.com says...
Of course it does. It's what determines whether or not Ray Lankford is
worth keeping on the roster.
Do I have to specifically use a Padre every post to make you feel better?
ObPadres: Phil Nevin.
--
Chris Dial
Padres Prof
"Chris Dial" <ctd...@baseballprimer.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.16c71f9f8...@news.intrex.net...
>
> What about cost? My experience with large projects would suggest the
> cost would run in the $millions (equipment and installation and
> operation). It would cost more to operate the system per team game than
> the $100 STATS presently spends. Would the accuracy warrant the cost?
> And what happens when we blow a fuse? No data for that game? And then
> there are the years of validating the work.
I fail to see why an expensive image processing system would need to be
designed. A high resolution camera behind home plate and one somewhere along
one of the foul lines is sufficent enough to track the location and velocity
of the ball and all the fielders. Given the quality of the resolution, the
cameras would not need to be operated by humans during the game. I am quite
sure that off the shelf image tracking software is available to allow a
user, such as a STATS scorer, to read the data with regards to the ball's
location and velocity and thus score with greater accuracy. If questions
arose, the data could be reviewed later by more sophisticated software.
> If STATS starts in 2002, reliability would take a few years to establish.
> I'm not sure where the payoff would come. That's only partly true, as a
> scientist, I know what the payoff would be - more accurate data, but does
> anybody in baseball care about that?
But if error in the accuracy of the current data is overwhelming our ability
to distinguish differences in the quality of play, then we should care about
this issue. One way to tell if we need to improve upon accuracy is to
examine the variance of an individual player's ZR score. For example, within
the past couple years, even with more practice, several players appear to
be becoming significantly worse fielders. Phil Nevin is such an example.
Derek Jeter is another. Also, if the top fielders for each position change
radically each year (as I am told, but please correct me), this would also
indicate the error for this measurement is too large.
P.S. - Its nice to see this discussion in the Padres newsgroup - it raises
the level of intelligent discussion.
Vinay Kumar
: Than take the discussion to ALT.SPORTS.BASEBALL.STAT.GEEK because this
: discussion has no further relavence to a "Padres" discussion.
Excuse me, but who the hell are you to tell people to take this
subject elsewhere. It's obviously a baseball discussion, and it
started by discussing Mike Darr's defensive abilities.
Lots of threads move off-topic. If something doesn't interest you,
then stop reading it. Heck, this is a lot more interesting and a lot
more on-topic than Jeff's and Baba's tattoos, but you don't see me
complaining about that.
--
/---------------------------------------------------------------\
| Vinay Kumar |
| vi...@baseball.org http://www.baseball.org/~vinay |
\---------------------------------------------------------------/
Sam Hutcheson
>sdpad...@aol.com (SDPadreBob) writes:
>
>: Than take the discussion to ALT.SPORTS.BASEBALL.STAT.GEEK because this
>: discussion has no further relavence to a "Padres" discussion.
>
>Excuse me, but who the hell are you to tell people to take this
>subject elsewhere. It's obviously a baseball discussion, and it
>started by discussing Mike Darr's defensive abilities.
>
>Lots of threads move off-topic. If something doesn't interest you,
>then stop reading it. Heck, this is a lot more interesting and a lot
>more on-topic than Jeff's and Baba's tattoos, but you don't see me
>complaining about that.
i could start doing movie reviews in this newsgroup too. man, they
don't know off-topic until i start playing that card.
s/
*****
"I've declared a moratorium on saying Maddux and Glavine aren't
going to do it forever, because apparently they are."
Jayson Stark, 1.24.2002
FunKiNjEfF
>>more on-topic than Jeff's and Baba's tattoos, but you don't see me
>>complaining about that.
C'mon. Just the knowledge of Baba having a shamrock on his ass is worth it's
weight in gold. Well, I guess that's nothing.
>i could start doing movie reviews in this newsgroup too. man, they
>don't know off-topic until i start playing that card.
>
Well, pitchers and catchers report in 2 weeks (hopefully), so I'm sure the
group will revel in the multitude to talk about then. Until then, barring any
trade, all we have is stats and tattoos. Sounds kinda like a punk rock band.
- Jeff
Vinay Kumar
: >> Heck, this is a lot more interesting and a lot more on-topic than
: >>Jeff's and Baba's tattoos, but you don't see me complaining about
: >>that.
: C'mon. Just the knowledge of Baba having a shamrock on his ass is
: worth it's weight in gold. Well, I guess that's nothing.
Note I didn't tell you guys *not* to post about that either. Like I
said, I wasn't complaining.
: Well, pitchers and catchers report in 2 weeks (hopefully), so I'm
: sure the group will revel in the multitude to talk about then.
: Until then, barring any trade, all we have is stats and tattoos.
: Sounds kinda like a punk rock band.
Has anybody been able to squeeze "Incaviglia" into a haiku?
FunKiNjEfF
The first and last line
In a haiku fit the name
Incaviglia.
I had to look up online how to write a haiku, and I think I suck at them. And
I'm not positive I'm pronouncing the name correctly either. I'd have better
luck getting Irabu in a size 4 skirt than writing a good haiku <shuddering at
the idea>
Stats and tats aside,
Jeff
Sam Hutcheson
that's not a bad first try, actually. although i think incaviglia has
four syllables, though it is spelled as though it should have five.
perhaps something like:
a drive to the gap
incaviglia on his horse
the cut off man waits
Chris Dial
sa...@mindspring.nospam.com says...
> On 04 Feb 2002 12:20:24 -0800, Vinay Kumar <vi...@baseball.org> wrote:
>
> >sdpad...@aol.com (SDPadreBob) writes:
> >
> >: Than take the discussion to ALT.SPORTS.BASEBALL.STAT.GEEK because this
> >: discussion has no further relavence to a "Padres" discussion.
> >
> >Excuse me, but who the hell are you to tell people to take this
> >subject elsewhere. It's obviously a baseball discussion, and it
> >started by discussing Mike Darr's defensive abilities.
> >
> >Lots of threads move off-topic. If something doesn't interest you,
> >then stop reading it. Heck, this is a lot more interesting and a lot
> >more on-topic than Jeff's and Baba's tattoos, but you don't see me
> >complaining about that.
>
> i could start doing movie reviews in this newsgroup too. man, they
> don't know off-topic until i start playing that card.
That "Black Hawk Down" was one of the best and most realistic movies I've
ever seen. I was impressed with how the military even said it was the
most accurate portrayal of events they'd ever seen.
Those guys are real heroes.
HTH,
Chris Dial
Chris Dial
says...
>
> "Chris Dial" <ctd...@baseballprimer.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.16c71f9f8...@news.intrex.net...
> >
> > What about cost? My experience with large projects would suggest the
> > cost would run in the $millions (equipment and installation and
> > operation). It would cost more to operate the system per team game than
> > the $100 STATS presently spends. Would the accuracy warrant the cost?
> > And what happens when we blow a fuse? No data for that game? And then
> > there are the years of validating the work.
>
> I fail to see why an expensive image processing system would need to be
> designed. A high resolution camera behind home plate and one somewhere along
> one of the foul lines is sufficent enough to track the location and velocity
> of the ball and all the fielders. Given the quality of the resolution, the
> cameras would not need to be operated by humans during the game. I am quite
> sure that off the shelf image tracking software is available to allow a
> user, such as a STATS scorer, to read the data with regards to the ball's
> location and velocity and thus score with greater accuracy. If questions
> arose, the data could be reviewed later by more sophisticated software.
I couldn't be more ignorant about that. Would it follow every hit
though? GBs past the SS have to be assigned to a zone. What would be
cool would be super-imposing a grid and *then* scoring it.
>
>
> > If STATS starts in 2002, reliability would take a few years to establish.
> > I'm not sure where the payoff would come. That's only partly true, as a
> > scientist, I know what the payoff would be - more accurate data, but does
> > anybody in baseball care about that?
>
> But if error in the accuracy of the current data is overwhelming our ability
> to distinguish differences in the quality of play, then we should care about
> this issue. One way to tell if we need to improve upon accuracy is to
> examine the variance of an individual player's ZR score. For example, within
> the past couple years, even with more practice, several players appear to
> be becoming significantly worse fielders. Phil Nevin is such an example.
> Derek Jeter is another. Also, if the top fielders for each position change
> radically each year (as I am told, but please correct me), this would also
> indicate the error for this measurement is too large.
The top fielders don't change radically, but some. Scott Rolen is
consistently one of the best. So is Jeff Cirillo. Rey Sanchez at SS.
The rating could be better, but it is pretty good.
>
> P.S. - Its nice to see this discussion in the Padres newsgroup - it raises
> the level of intelligent discussion.
I have a wicked Mets tattoo.
Chris Dial
>
>
Sam Hutcheson
you, sir, are an evil, evil bastard.
(and again, in case you don't read emails, it's "smhutcheson")
Padres Prof
> > I fail to see why an expensive image processing system would need to be
> > designed. A high resolution camera behind home plate and one somewhere
along
> > one of the foul lines is sufficent enough to track the location and
velocity
> > of the ball and all the fielders. Given the quality of the resolution,
the
> > cameras would not need to be operated by humans during the game. I am
quite
> > sure that off the shelf image tracking software is available to allow a
> > user, such as a STATS scorer, to read the data with regards to the
ball's
> > location and velocity and thus score with greater accuracy. If questions
> > arose, the data could be reviewed later by more sophisticated software.
>
> I couldn't be more ignorant about that. Would it follow every hit
> though? GBs past the SS have to be assigned to a zone. What would be
> cool would be super-imposing a grid and *then* scoring it.
Agreed - and it would be relatively inexpensive (compared to other MLB
activities like personal video tape collections for each player, etc.) to
implement.
Actually, I think the system as designed is significantly better than past
systems, but if the error bars are drowing out the analysis, its not a
terribly accurate system. <grin>
> > P.S. - Its nice to see this discussion in the Padres newsgroup - it
raises
> > the level of intelligent discussion.
>
> I have a wicked Mets tattoo.
Loser. <g>
Aztec basketball Fan
On Tue, 29 Jan 2002 17:15:12 GMT, rha...@cts.com (iceberg) wrote:
>On 28 Jan 2002 16:17:23 -0800, bil...@hotmail.com (Bill Kno) wrote:
>
>>rha...@cts.com (iceberg) wrote in message
>news:<3c54729a...@nntp.cts.com>...
>>> Aztec basketball fan? What a joke! Are they going to win another
>>> conference game this season? Maybe not, because their season is
>>> already over and this slightly below average team will probably
>quit!
>>>
>>> 0-8 in OT games? 5 years without winning one. The only thing that
>>> keeps the Az-dregs basketball team from being the biggest
>>> laughingstock in San Diego is the Az-dregs alleged football team.
>>>
>>> Iceberg - an embarrassed alum!
>>
>>As a Padres fan you should understand what a building process is all
>about.
>>
>>Oh, I forgot it is you - Iceburg.
>
>
>Building process? Every five years the football program(??????) starts
>over with a new five year plan. The basketball team has made the NCAA
>tournament once(?) - EVER? You can be sure of one thing about the
>Az-dregs, when they talk about having a good team (football or
>basketball) they are going to fall flat on their faces. The football
>team will get beaten by a horrible UNLV team or the basketball team
>will be out of the race 5 games into their conference season. No
>progress - ever.
>
>And the pods? What? 6-7 winning seasons out of 33? No home grown
>players? No plan. Future success based solely on seasons when they
>manage to sign some FAs and the rest of the NL west falters. Yeah, I
>understand the building process and know that from the teams to the
>stadiums it just doesn't exist in San Diego!
>
>And you morons who continually misspell iceberg intentionally - wow,
>what wit!
>
>Iceberg!
Aztec basketball Fan
Chris,
What happens when a routine fly ball is hit between on the edge of the
right field zone and the center fielder catches it after calling off
the right fielder?
On Sun, 3 Feb 2002 10:10:11 -0500, Chris Dial
Chris Dial
>
> Chris,
>
> What happens when a routine fly ball is hit between on the edge of the
> right field zone and the center fielder catches it after calling off
> the right fielder?
The CF gets credit for a "play out of zone". The RF is not penalized for
not making the play - it just doesn't count in his ZR.
FWIW, the CF would have to run about 60 feet while the RF stumbled about
35. Those balls are *usually* in the zone in between teh two players "no
man's land".
Check out asb-giants and a thread called "You ask for a miracle? I give
you the FB..um, ZR". There's a really indepth ZR explanation.
Chris Dial
JustTerrie
>ever seen. I was impressed with how the military even said it was the
>most accurate portrayal of events they'd ever seen.
I want to see that movie. I saw the documentary called "The Real Story of
Black Hawk Down". Excellent!!!
>Those guys are real heroes.
>
Yes, they are.
Ron Johnson
<ctd...@baseballprimer.com> wrote:
>In article <3c5f7b86...@news.znet.com>, G...@Aztecs.com says...
>>
>> Chris,
>>
>> What happens when a routine fly ball is hit between on the edge of the
>> right field zone and the center fielder catches it after calling off
>> the right fielder?
>
>The CF gets credit for a "play out of zone". The RF is not penalized for
>not making the play - it just doesn't count in his ZR.
>
>FWIW, the CF would have to run about 60 feet while the RF stumbled about
>35. Those balls are *usually* in the zone in between teh two players "no
>man's land".
That's one of the major differences between DA and ZR. DA ones
covered the whole field and overlapped. Pity we lost DA.
Worth noting though. Gary Gillette sold The Baseball Workshop's
(DA's data source) raw data to Total Sports. Total Sports is
going through bankruptcy. Somebody may be able to get their hands
on TBW's data pretty cheap.
Incidently Chris, one thing that we could do with the TBW data is
figure out old ZR with the DPs removed. And account for them
separately as DA used to do -- making it possible to adjust for
context.
Aztec basketball Fan
good center fielder who loves to call him off. That is like saying we
won't count doubles in your batting average one way or the other so it
won't hurt your BA. Another one of the problems with ZR.
Sam Hutcheson
wrote:
>If it isn't counted in the RF ZR, then he is penalized by having a
>good center fielder who loves to call him off. That is like saying we
>won't count doubles in your batting average one way or the other so it
>won't hurt your BA. Another one of the problems with ZR.
no, the play just doesn't exist in his rating. he doesn't *lose*
points for it. his ZR stays the same.
Chris Dial
sa...@mindspring.nospam.com says...
> On Wed, 06 Feb 2002 08:08:17 GMT, G...@Aztecs.com (Aztec basketball Fan)
> wrote:
>
> >If it isn't counted in the RF ZR, then he is penalized by having a
> >good center fielder who loves to call him off. That is like saying we
> >won't count doubles in your batting average one way or the other so it
> >won't hurt your BA. Another one of the problems with ZR.
>
> no, the play just doesn't exist in his rating. he doesn't *lose*
> points for it. his ZR stays the same.
Besides, it doesn't happen. Not never, but it's rare enough not to
matter. Twice a season if at all. It's like saying there's a flaw in
BA/OBP/SLG because twice a year a guy reaches on error when it might have
been a hit. It's not (and I know that reach on aerror has potential, but
not on FBs).
Chris Dial
Chris Dial
says...
> On Tue, 5 Feb 2002 17:48:53 -0500, Chris Dial
> <ctd...@baseballprimer.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <3c5f7b86...@news.znet.com>, G...@Aztecs.com says...
> >>
> >> Chris,
> >>
> >> What happens when a routine fly ball is hit between on the edge of the
> >> right field zone and the center fielder catches it after calling off
> >> the right fielder?
> >
> >The CF gets credit for a "play out of zone". The RF is not penalized for
> >not making the play - it just doesn't count in his ZR.
> >
> >FWIW, the CF would have to run about 60 feet while the RF stumbled about
> >35. Those balls are *usually* in the zone in between teh two players "no
> >man's land".
>
> That's one of the major differences between DA and ZR. DA ones
> covered the whole field and overlapped. Pity we lost DA.
It's a pity we lost the data.
>
> Worth noting though. Gary Gillette sold The Baseball Workshop's
> (DA's data source) raw data to Total Sports. Total Sports is
> going through bankruptcy. Somebody may be able to get their hands
> on TBW's data pretty cheap.
When and where? Drop Greg Spira a line and see what he knows. I think
Woolner's got his hands on it though.
>
> Incidently Chris, one thing that we could do with the TBW data is
> figure out old ZR with the DPs removed. And account for them
> separately as DA used to do -- making it possible to adjust for
> context.
I think Dale or some site I read said the DAers figured it both ways and
DPs really didn't matter much. IIRC.
Chris Dial
Seapig
Thanks for the link, I've heard a lot of talk about ZR, but I never
really understood it before.
I think I liked it better in theory than in practice. It seems to me
that ZR has the same flaw that fielding percentage does - it only
grades fielders on the plays they "should" make. What separates great
fielders from good fielders is the plays they make that ordinary
fielders aren't expected to make - plays on balls hit outside their
"zone." Yes, ZR credits these plays, but then so does fielding pct. -
they just don't credit them enough. I think somewhere else in this
thread someone mentioned a system where the whole field was covered by
somebody's zone. That makes more sense to me.
I do like that the 5.5 hole is known as "Zone G." Seems appropriate.
Aztec basketball Fan
I just don't believe that. I see a lot of fly balls that can be caught
by either outfielder. Which ever fielder doesn't catch it is hurt by
removing (or not adding) a positive result from his average.
That is like saying you can flip a coin and throw out 10% of the heads
results and still expect close to a 50/50 split.
Sam Hutcheson
wrote:
>On Wed, 6 Feb 2002 22:35:55 -0500, Chris Dial
><ctd...@baseballprimer.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <3c614c30...@news.mindspring.com>,
>>sa...@mindspring.nospam.com says...
>>> On Wed, 06 Feb 2002 08:08:17 GMT, G...@Aztecs.com (Aztec basketball Fan)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >If it isn't counted in the RF ZR, then he is penalized by having a
>>> >good center fielder who loves to call him off. That is like saying we
>>> >won't count doubles in your batting average one way or the other so it
>>> >won't hurt your BA. Another one of the problems with ZR.
>>>
>>> no, the play just doesn't exist in his rating. he doesn't *lose*
>>> points for it. his ZR stays the same.
>>
>>Besides, it doesn't happen. Not never, but it's rare enough not to
>>matter. Twice a season if at all. It's like saying there's a flaw in
>>BA/OBP/SLG because twice a year a guy reaches on error when it might have
>>been a hit. It's not (and I know that reach on aerror has potential, but
>>not on FBs).
>>
>>Chris Dial
>
>
>I just don't believe that. I see a lot of fly balls that can be caught
>by either outfielder. Which ever fielder doesn't catch it is hurt by
>removing (or not adding) a positive result from his average.
no, they're not. both players are out of zone at that point, so no
one is "hurt". the guy that calls off the other guy (presumeably the
better fielder anyway) gets extra credit for making the out of zone
play, but neither player is penalized for not making the play, because
neither player is actually in their zone at that point.
>That is like saying you can flip a coin and throw out 10% of the heads
>results and still expect close to a 50/50 split.
um, no, i don't think it's like that at all.
Vinay Kumar
: On Thu, 07 Feb 2002 07:03:18 GMT, G...@Aztecs.com (Aztec basketball Fan)
: wrote:
: >I see a lot of fly balls that can be caught by either
: >outfielder. Which ever fielder doesn't catch it is hurt by removing
: >(or not adding) a positive result from his average.
: no, they're not. both players are out of zone at that point, so no
: one is "hurt". the guy that calls off the other guy (presumeably the
: better fielder anyway) gets extra credit for making the out of zone
: play, but neither player is penalized for not making the play, because
: neither player is actually in their zone at that point.
Actually, the guy who gets called off *is* hurt, relative to his
imaginary twin brother who plays next to a bad fielder and catches the
ball. There is some teammate dependence, and so the real question is
whether this happens often enough to affect the ordering of ZR.
Chris Dial
> sa...@mindspring.nospam.com (Sam Hutcheson) writes:
> : On Thu, 07 Feb 2002 07:03:18 GMT, G...@Aztecs.com (Aztec basketball Fan)
> : wrote:
>
> : >I see a lot of fly balls that can be caught by either
> : >outfielder. Which ever fielder doesn't catch it is hurt by removing
> : >(or not adding) a positive result from his average.
>
> : no, they're not. both players are out of zone at that point, so no
> : one is "hurt". the guy that calls off the other guy (presumeably the
> : better fielder anyway) gets extra credit for making the out of zone
> : play, but neither player is penalized for not making the play, because
> : neither player is actually in their zone at that point.
>
> Actually, the guy who gets called off *is* hurt, relative to his
> imaginary twin brother who plays next to a bad fielder and catches the
> ball. There is some teammate dependence, and so the real question is
> whether this happens often enough to affect the ordering of ZR.
And my answer is that balls that are hit to the zones between fielders
are caught less than 50% of the time by either fielder. The CF gets 500
balls to his zone and teh LF/RF gets 350. I think the balls *actually*
to the zone swamp out the "two guys together" chances.
Vinay hs the real question, and while I don't have all the data, my
experience of actually scoring games by zone plays is "No".
Chris Dial
Chris Dial
sea...@altavista.com says...
> Chris Dial <ctd...@baseballprimer.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.16ca2b5ca...@news.intrex.net>...
> > In article <3c5f7b86...@news.znet.com>, G...@Aztecs.com says...
> > >
> > > Chris,
> > >
> > > What happens when a routine fly ball is hit between on the edge of the
> > > right field zone and the center fielder catches it after calling off
> > > the right fielder?
> >
> > The CF gets credit for a "play out of zone". The RF is not penalized for
> > not making the play - it just doesn't count in his ZR.
> >
> > FWIW, the CF would have to run about 60 feet while the RF stumbled about
> > 35. Those balls are *usually* in the zone in between teh two players "no
> > man's land".
> >
> > Check out asb-giants and a thread called "You ask for a miracle? I give
> > you the FB..um, ZR". There's a really indepth ZR explanation.
>
> Thanks for the link, I've heard a lot of talk about ZR, but I never
> really understood it before.
I am glad it helped.
>
> I think I liked it better in theory than in practice. It seems to me
> that ZR has the same flaw that fielding percentage does - it only
> grades fielders on the plays they "should" make. What separates great
> fielders from good fielders is the plays they make that ordinary
> fielders aren't expected to make - plays on balls hit outside their
> "zone." Yes, ZR credits these plays, but then so does fielding pct. -
> they just don't credit them enough.
FP doesn't even consider total plays hit to a player. It only considers
the ones he makes. It's not remotely similar to FP.
> I think somewhere else in this
> thread someone mentioned a system where the whole field was covered by
> somebody's zone. That makes more sense to me.
Except who do you assign a GB up the middle? The SS or the 2B? What
about a line drive? The CF? And I hate assigning plays to a fielder
that he *can't* make. Not just isn't likely to - can't. I do think all
GBs could be assigned to someone.
>
> I do like that the 5.5 hole is known as "Zone G." Seems appropriate.
As in Gwynn? What is this, the Padres newsgroup? 8-)
Chris Dial
Aztec basketball Fan
In economics there is a prinicple called opportunity cost. This is it.
The fielder not catching the ball lost the opportunity. If the Center
fielder didn't have such good range or wasn't such a hog of tweeners,
the right fielder would have caught the ball and received a bump in
ZR. Therefore he is hurt. It happens a lot. Everytime a ball is hit
high between the fielders. Everytime a good fielding 3B cuts off a
ball in front of a SS. I will take note of the number this year but it
seems like it happens at least once a game.
Seapig
> > > Check out asb-giants and a thread called "You ask for a miracle? I give
> > > you the FB..um, ZR". There's a really indepth ZR explanation.
> >
> > Thanks for the link, I've heard a lot of talk about ZR, but I never
> > really understood it before.
>
> I am glad it helped.
>
> >
> > I think I liked it better in theory than in practice. It seems to me
> > that ZR has the same flaw that fielding percentage does - it only
> > grades fielders on the plays they "should" make. What separates great
> > fielders from good fielders is the plays they make that ordinary
> > fielders aren't expected to make - plays on balls hit outside their
> > "zone." Yes, ZR credits these plays, but then so does fielding pct. -
> > they just don't credit them enough.
>
> FP doesn't even consider total plays hit to a player. It only considers
> the ones he makes. It's not remotely similar to FP.
I'd say they're at least remotely similar. They both attempt to
measure what percentage of plays are made that should be made. ZR
considers balls hit into a player's zone, FP considers balls hit into
his glove. They both fail to properly credit range.
> > I think somewhere else in this
> > thread someone mentioned a system where the whole field was covered by
> > somebody's zone. That makes more sense to me.
>
> Except who do you assign a GB up the middle? The SS or the 2B? What
> about a line drive? The CF? And I hate assigning plays to a fielder
> that he *can't* make. Not just isn't likely to - can't. I do think all
> GBs could be assigned to someone.
I guess we're not giving pitchers any defensive responsibility, so I'd
assign grounders up the middle to the SS. Unless there's some kind of
extreme shift on, it's an easier play for him than the 2B because his
momentum is carrying him toward first.
The only problem I see with assigning "unmakable" plays to a fielder
would be if some fielders were strapped with an inordinate amount of
them. I don't see any reason to think that it wouldn't even out over
the course of a season, at least to the extent that factors which
distort other stats even out.
I also think there are very few truly unmakable plays if we consider
positioning before the pitch as part of playing defense.
> > I do like that the 5.5 hole is known as "Zone G." Seems appropriate.
>
> As in Gwynn? What is this, the Padres newsgroup? 8-)
Yes and yes. I wonder if anyone made as much use of Zone U as Tony
did with Zone G. Bob Uecker? No. Willie Upshaw? I don't think so.
I don't really remember what kind of hitter Del Unser was.
Chris Dial
> > > > Check out asb-giants and a thread called "You ask for a miracle? I give
> > > > you the FB..um, ZR". There's a really indepth ZR explanation.
> > >
> > > Thanks for the link, I've heard a lot of talk about ZR, but I never
> > > really understood it before.
> >
> > I am glad it helped.
> >
> > >
> > > I think I liked it better in theory than in practice. It seems to me
> > > that ZR has the same flaw that fielding percentage does - it only
> > > grades fielders on the plays they "should" make. What separates great
> > > fielders from good fielders is the plays they make that ordinary
> > > fielders aren't expected to make - plays on balls hit outside their
> > > "zone." Yes, ZR credits these plays, but then so does fielding pct. -
> > > they just don't credit them enough.
> >
> > FP doesn't even consider total plays hit to a player. It only considers
> > the ones he makes. It's not remotely similar to FP.
>
> I'd say they're at least remotely similar. They both attempt to
> measure what percentage of plays are made that should be made. ZR
> considers balls hit into a player's zone, FP considers balls hit into
> his glove. They both fail to properly credit range.
The zones are drawn as a reflection of where plays can be made. ZR
considers plays that are made only 50% of the time. That's not really
"should" be made, but more "can reasonably be made". FP consoders only
plays that are made or are dropped. If a fielder doesn't flinch, it's
not reflected anywhere in his FP.
>
> > > I think somewhere else in this
> > > thread someone mentioned a system where the whole field was covered by
> > > somebody's zone. That makes more sense to me.
> >
> > Except who do you assign a GB up the middle? The SS or the 2B? What
> > about a line drive? The CF? And I hate assigning plays to a fielder
> > that he *can't* make. Not just isn't likely to - can't. I do think all
> > GBs could be assigned to someone.
>
> I guess we're not giving pitchers any defensive responsibility, so I'd
> assign grounders up the middle to the SS. Unless there's some kind of
> extreme shift on, it's an easier play for him than the 2B because his
> momentum is carrying him toward first.
What about the one three feet to the other side of 2B?
>
> The only problem I see with assigning "unmakable" plays to a fielder
> would be if some fielders were strapped with an inordinate amount of
> them. I don't see any reason to think that it wouldn't even out over
> the course of a season, at least to the extent that factors which
> distort other stats even out.
>
> I also think there are very few truly unmakable plays if we consider
> positioning before the pitch as part of playing defense.
I disagree. Line Drive base hits are largely unmakable plays -
positioning or not. There's just no way any player can catch a line
drive that is 12' feet in the air and lands at the 200 ft mark from home.
No player can be positioned there at the risk of giving up a more
damaging hit.
Check out ESPN's hit charts (pick any player). I'd say the Tony Gwynn
flipped line drive is unplayable. You can't afford to play a player
where he can catch that.
Chris Dial