The 44 Worst Contracts in the MLB

[kramnoj]

I'm basing it on the fact that he led the league in errors before being platooned.

 

So if you think that errors mean that a player is bad, what do you think of lack of errors? Where does Braun rank among LF while not being charged with an error all year last year?

 

Just knowing that Hall lead the league in errors doesn't tell us much about his defensive ability. It doesn't tell us anything about plays that he makes that other players don't.

[pete]

Just to throw a wrench in the works, I think zone ratings are conceptually flawed and use questionable raw data. There is no way to say that it is "objective" without an examination of the system and that is impossible. I also think, based on my observation, that Hall is a pretty good defender: a natural infielder with soft hands and a strong arm. He had a cluster of errors right around the time he started getting platooned. I'd guess that he was upset and he let it affect his game, but that's just a guess.

 

I'm not a big Hall fan either. If he hits like last year, I could see the argument that his is/was a bad contract. If not, I'd say it wasn't. But hey, its a new season. Rather than hatin' on the guy, I'd like to see what is yielded by LASIK surgery, a different training regimen focused on flexibility and the help from Sveum with Macha's expectations rather than Ned's permissiveness.

[kramnoj]

I think zone ratings are conceptually flawed and use questionable raw data. There is no way to say that it is "objective" without an examination of the system and that is impossible.

 

Why is it impossible? There are descriptions of what Zone Rating is for anybody interested. What concepts of Zone Rating do you think are flawed, and how is the raw data questionable?

[3Putt]

I'm basing it on the fact that he led the league in errors before being platooned.

 

So if you think that errors mean that a player is bad, what do you think of lack of errors? Where does Braun rank among LF while not being charged with an error all year last year?

 

Just knowing that Hall lead the league in errors doesn't tell us much about his defensive ability. It doesn't tell us anything about plays that he makes that other players don't.

Again, visual evidence is a helpful compliment to stats. Either alone gives an incomplete picture.

[kramnoj]

Again, visual evidence is a helpful compliment to stats. Either alone gives an incomplete picture.

 

I'm not sure how this relates to the questions asked. What visual evidence are you talking about? The visual evidence of the scorer who rules on what an error is, which then becomes a stat? Or your visual evidence? You seem to have based the statement "You'll never convince me this guy is above average defensively" at least in part on Hall's error total.

[pete]

I think zone ratings are conceptually flawed and use questionable raw data. There is no way to say that it is "objective" without an examination of the system and that is impossible.

 

Why is it impossible? There are descriptions of what Zone Rating is for anybody interested. What concepts of Zone Rating do you think are flawed, and how is the raw data questionable?

 

A description means next to nothing. Its impossible to judge because its a closed system, it isn't evaluated by anyone outside of what may go on within their company. The answer to your other two questions is rather long. I think I put some of it in the stat forum at one time. Its also a subject that usually ends up in a debate that isn't that fruitful.

[3Putt]

OK Gang, you win. Billy Hall is a Gold Glover who just hasn't been getting his due. The next time he gets an error I'll chalk it up to a vast right wing conspiracy and disregard what my eyes record as Miller Lite induced.

[logan82]

Nobody said that Hall is a Gold Glover(of course he might be, Jeter won one after all so almost anybody could be). They are pointing out that even if you watch every single Brewers game, you don't have a good basis of comparison to figure out where a player rates compared to other MLB players on defense.

[kramnoj]

AKA Pete, if you can't answer the simple question of what concepts are flawed, I question whether you really know the subject. It's not that difficult a concept.

 

3Putt, I'm not sure what the point of that was. If you can find one person here who said that Hall is so great he deserves a Gold Glove, that would be helpful. Not every point has to be dramatic. Hall's defense was valuable last year. That's really all that anybody has said here.

 

I think one other thing should be emphasized. Hall did seem to improve as the year went on, which wouldn't exactly be unexpected as he gained more experience at the position. For some people, they may have formed the impression from early on that Hall wasn't doing well, which would make it more difficult to change that perception once Hall actually improved. That's the other tough thing about using one's own observation as a judgment of a players ability. Once an opinion has been formed, it is only natural to filter subsequent information through that opinion.

[pete]

AKA Pete, if you can't answer the simple question of what concepts are flawed, I question whether you really know the subject. It's not that difficult a concept.

 

kramnoj, how well do you know the subject? Questions about the raw data and methodology aren't new. It's a thread about bad contracts and I offered my opinion on Bill Hall and provided a perspective that was different.

[3Putt]

"Hall did seem to improve as the year went on".

 

"Seem", did someone use the word "seem"? Seems like an opinion based on watching Brewer baseball. Interesting, I can respect that even if I don't agree with it.

[kramnoj]

"Seem", did someone use the word "seem"? Seems like an opinion based on watching Brewer baseball.

 

I don't believe that I ever said that people can't have opinions based on observation. I don't even think I said people shouldn't share observations. But I do believe people shouldn't just ignore defensive data because it doesn't match what their own perceptions are.

 

kramnoj, how well do you know the subject? Questions about the raw data and methodology aren't new.

 

Most of what I know is based on this article: http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/dialed_in/discussion/what_is_zone_rating/

[3Putt]

Apparently I didn't say the same thing in posts 65 & 67 since I received considerable pushback. Maybe I'm writing in code without realizing it.

[TheCrew07]

Why is observation the worst way? Why should range be rated so highly by defensive metrics when the fewest defensive plays will come at the extremes?

 

Because the observation is made by people who are ruled by emotion, watching an event they care about. It would be incrediby difficult to ignore all the vested emotion from the observation of the play.

 

Also because the average fan watching a game doesn't watch enough other games to truly know what "average" is at that position across baseball at any given time.

The "average fan" gets picked on quite a bit around here, it's fair to say that many of us aren't average fans, and while some of us are, it certainly doesn't make their opinions any less valid than the rest of us.. I should have stated my opinion better, most people around here won't like observation because they consider it subjective. While I agree that there is the potential for knee jerk analysis, that's really not the issue here. For years defensive metrics didn't like Hardy all that much when observation showed him to be a better defender than his numbers would have suggested. In the same way Hall is so inconsistent that I feel he's not as good as his numbers would suggest. He's just not a fundamental baseball player in any way, that's what I base my opinion on.

 

There's a prevailing notion that statistical analysis is devoid of bias, when that isn't necessarily the truth.. If you're sitting a room trying to devise a defensive metric where do you go all things be equal? Obviously the player who gets to more batted balls, or has more range... then the question becomes how to weight the different elements of fielding, what's the most important, the least important, what weight should each aspect get, which leads to study, and so on. The problem is that all things are rarely equal, and in the end it's just some statistician's, or group of statistician's best guess. A best guess based on imperfect data, as I'm not aware of a metric that has the data available to account for all defensive variables. Take a team like the Brewers for example, who utilize many exaggerated shifts, how does that affect the data? What if the defender is pulled out of position covering a stolen base, and so on... After watching over 80 Brewer games per year the last 3 years (many more the last couple as the number of games on FSN continues to climb), probably 30-40 other random games per year, and the 1000s of games I've watched and played in over the years, I'm pretty comfortable in my opinion that Hall isn't a good defender, regardless what the numbers say.

 

If I'm building a team, I'm looking for players that will consistently make the routine play, doesn't matter what sport, I'm looking for consistency. I learned the hard way through personal experience that it's very difficult to win with very talented but inconsistent players. I've never been on the Hall bandwagon, which probably why I've always come out on the other side... I wanted Hardy over him, Braun over him, and Weeks over him, and I never wanted him signed to that contract. He's just not my kind of player, I admit a bias towards him, he's done some good things late in ball games and had a very nice season and a half, but I think it's fair to criticize the way he plays the game. He's a tremendous athlete that plays baseball, but he's not a baseball player, he's never really understood the game. How can you play IF, be the cut off man, and then not know where to throw the ball to in the OF? How can he continually make the same mistakes on the base paths? In the field? At the plate? I'd rather have a player who happens to be an athlete than an athlete who happens to play the game.

[3Putt]

TheCrew07,

 

That was the most insightful, well thought out and superbly documented post I've seen on this topic. I agree completely.

 

Boy, are you gonna get hammered!

[Never Outhustled]

I would agree that in Halls case, defense metrics don't paint a true picture. They give Hall credit for all 19 of his errors, even though we can easily go through game video and see that half his errors were throws that a 1B should catch. There was also numerous throws he made which no out and no error were given that the 1B should have been able to convert into an out. Those plays give Hall a worse range factor though its no fault of his own. Theres no correction factor for the fact that Hall had to throw to that limbless stump of a 1st baseman, Prince Fielder.

 

Hall was a terrific defense 3B in the 2nd half of last season, and I expect we'll see more of that this year.

[silversurferr]

I agree with X llence: Bill fields much better than the metrics. With time, he will be a better than average fielding third baseman. It's his bat that worries me.....

[kramnoj]

I'm pretty comfortable in my opinion that Hall isn't a good defender, regardless what the numbers say.

 

This is stumbling block. UZR isn't saying Hall is a good defender. UZR is saying that Hall has had positive defensive value at some positions relative to his peers at those positions. Those are different things. There is no way that your observation of 110 or so games in a year would be able to tell you how Hall relates to all other players who play at his position.

[TheCrew07]

I wasn't speaking to any specific metric, though I can see where since I used range as a fundamental component of defense that you took it that way. I don't need to see every other 1B to know that Fielder isn't a good defender. I understand that the concept is relational to a league average or to other players, but that really isn't my point. For argument's sake, the league may be trending towards poor defensive play, and a player may be better than his peers, but that doesn't make players at the top of the scale "good" defenders, it just means they are the cream of the crap so to speak. Do I think baseball has a ton of bad defenders at 3B? Not at all. However given the flaws in all defensive metrics, I don't think it's fair to say that player X is better than player Y based any particular defensive metric or set of defensive metrics. There are so many variables they simply cannot account for because it's impossible to watch every single play... not all GBs are equal, defensive positioning, movement on the base paths, pitch location.. Hall may very well benefit from extra chances because of how often he ends playing SS as a 3B so I have no problem with subjective analysis when it comes to defense.

 

This is no different than Weeks, who while he's improved, still botches the turn on the DP more than any 2B I can ever remember playing for the Brewers. He may rate out as averagish by a statistical measure, but a player who doesn't consistently make the turn or eat the ball when the play isn't there isn't an average defender in my opinion. He also gets eaten up by line drives which I don't understand at all, he'll get to a ground ball 10 steps away but can't get a step either way to get to a liner? Is his reaction time so slow that I just don't notice on the ground balls what a bad break he gets? On the flip side Hardy rated out very well this year, but I thought it was his poorest season in the field, and I believe he's a very capable defender.

 

X, I'm not going to defend Fielder's play at 1B, I've been as critical of him as anyone, but Hall's inaccuracy is entirely on him, Hardy hits Fielder above the waste on almost every throw. Even watching Billy when they are warming up in the field between innings his throws are all over the place. Hall likes to show off his arm, he snags the ball, hangs onto it so that he can showcase his arm, which has absolutely nothing to do with Fielder. I forget what game it was last year, but Hall did his usual show and the runner was safe at 1B when he should have been out by 4 steps, that's on nobody but Billy, and when I think of him, that's the first play that comes to mind. Those sort of things are inexcusable, and just because Hall was better after he was benched doesn't mean that much to me personally. He got his money and has does nothing but regress, I don't buy into positional changes as the reason why, he was bouncing around when he had his best seasons. I would love for him to rebound, but I'm certainly not going to count on it.

 

There has to be some subjective analysis, plenty of players who were poor defenders have become capable defenders without position changes. As baseball fans we've reached a place where it's more about the numbers than the scouting, the debates about the various MiLB players are a prime example. There should be good mix of number crunching and scouting, not one or the other. I've seen enough of Hall to be comfortable in my opinion that he's an athlete who's playing baseball, and playing with poor instincts at that. It's been the same arguments about him since 2005, some believe he's good because metrics like him, some believe he's not because of his inconsistent play, nothing much has changed over the years or will change, he's a polarizing figure.

[kramnoj]

There are so many variables they simply cannot account for because it's impossible to watch every single play... not all GBs are equal, defensive positioning, movement on the base paths, pitch location..

 

In the article that I linked about ZR, it says that STATS scorers do watch every play, many have TIVO, and the scorers are scored.

 

I don't need to see every other 1B to know that Fielder isn't a good defender. I understand that the concept is relational to a league average or to other players, but that really isn't my point.

 

It's easy to refute a point by going for the extreme. Hall's defense isn't an extreme. UZR rates him as less than +5 runs over the course of a season. I don't know the exact number, but that would be the equivalent to making an extra play every 20 games, something like that. It would be tough for a casual observer to notice that (note that the number is measured in runs, not plays).

 

I don't know if my point is getting through. You seem to be looking for a metric that qualitatively measures the goodness of a defensive player. I would guess the closest thing to that would be Tango's Fan Scouting Report. ZR and UZR just measure plays made against opportunities with some adjustments made to that. It would even be possible for an average or inferior defensive player to play above his head within a season and get a defensive rating that doesn't match his tools. Just like Milton Bradley can hit .321 in a season. Bradley isn't a .300 hitter, but he can exceed that number in a given year.

[pete]

Man, I would hope that STATS and BIS watch every play. How would the scorers be scored? What is the determinant of correctness?

 

That whole thing about players being able to have whole seasons where they play far above previous ratings is just an attempt to explain why the scores fluctuate so wildly from year to year and between systems. Sometimes the systems will use the same raw data and come to radically different conclusions. I don't think the hypothesis is very believable and other than proposing it, it isn't supported by anything.

[TheCrew07]

I understand perfectly what you are saying but you're missing my point. I'll address your points and try to simply my opinion.

 

1. There is a finite group of people who do the charting of ball's in play. Their subjective opinion of the play becomes the basis of work for all other statisticians. My intent was to point out that if you're statistician working on a metric, you haven't seen every play, you're working with the raw data provided from an alternate source.

 

2. I'm saying defensive metrics have obvious limitations, the various flaws have been well documented.

 

3. My point is that saying Hall is a + defender, when + would be better than 0 (removing whatever adjective a person would use), because a certain metric says so isn't necessarily accurate given the limitations of defensive metrics.

 

4. I believe metrics find deficient players as averagish and vice versa.

 

5. Metrics in general give a comparison, but do not put mistakes into context. I tried to highlight specific examples in Weeks and Hall that make them poor defenders in my eyes. All errors and misplays are simply not equal in my mind, but on paper they can be, and both players end up right around average defensively. I understand how, I just don't agree.

[Ennder]

I understand perfectly what you are saying but you're missing my point. I'll address your points and try to simply my opinion.

 

1. There is a finite group of people who do the charting of ball's in play. Their subjective opinion of the play becomes the basis of work for all other statisticians. My intent was to point out that if you're statistician working on a metric, you haven't seen every play, you're working with the raw data provided from an alternate source.

 

2. I'm saying defensive metrics have obvious limitations, the various flaws have been well documented.

 

3. My point is that saying Hall is a + defender, when + would be better than 0 (removing whatever adjective a person would use), because a certain metric says so isn't necessarily accurate given the limitations of defensive metrics.

 

4. I believe metrics find deficient players as averagish and vice versa.

 

5. Metrics in general give a comparison, but do not put mistakes into context. I tried to highlight specific examples in Weeks and Hall that make them poor defenders in my eyes. All errors and misplays are simply not equal in my mind, but on paper they can be, and both players end up right around average defensively. I understand how, I just don't agree.

That is all well and fine as long as you accept that many people disagree completely with you. That is the entire point. One fan watches weeks and thinks he was terrible last year, the other fan (myself) watched him and saw huge improvements. There is no way to say which fan is correct but if the stats agree with one then it does in some way validate their opinion.

[kramnoj]

1.

 

So you are objecting to an unknown amount of subjectivity for a professional who has far less emotional investment in the event, but are willing to accept the subjectivity of fans who care deeply about the players and have their own biases already formed? I'm not going to say that scorers are perfect, but the parameters in place for them should give us much better data than the memories of fans.

 

2.

 

The key to any metric is understanding the flaws of the metric, or rather, understanding the use of the metric so that it isn't used in a flawed way. For example, the topic of defensive shifts for players in ZR. How much of an obstacle is this? Have you looked at the ZR chart? The coverage for any position is fairly large. If the number of plays that is missed because a player can't make a play because of being in a position shift is large, that is a problem with the team's positioning, and less a problem for the stat. Again, ZR isn't trying to tell us how inherently good a player is. It is trying to tell us how many plays that player made relative to peers. If a player didn't make a play, he didn't make a play. The whole point of positioning would be to hopefully make more plays, not fewer. If a team consistently puts their players in bad positions and misses plays because of it, I would hope they could realize such and adjust. This is one of the areas where ZR and UZR aren't neccessarily good predictors. They just attempt to give us value after the fact.

 

3.

 

Again, this can be true of any metric. I don't think Milton Bradley is a great hitter. But he was last year.

 

UZR says that Hall was a top 10 defender at 3B last year. Some people will disagree strongly with that. But there's no way that anybody here could objectively list the top 10 performers last year at 3B based on their observations. Nobody has enough time to watch those games, and even if they did, they couldn't account for what they saw better than what ZR and UZR already give us. That doesn't mean that I expect Hall to be a top 10 defender this year. I probably expect Hall to be average or above, because I believe he improved at 3B as he accumulated more time there, but that is just my personal opinion.

[pete]

For example, the topic of defensive shifts for players in ZR. How much of an obstacle is this? Have you looked at the ZR chart? The coverage for any position is fairly large. If the number of plays that is missed because a player can't make a play because of being in a position shift is large, that is a problem with the team's positioning, and less a problem for the stat. .

 

Have you looked at the zone charts? They are different for both BIS and STATS. The problem of a metric making a false assumption is completely with the metric. Why would a team be doing something wrong by positioning players outside of the center of arbitrary zones?