The 44 Worst Contracts in the MLB

[kramnoj]

Why would a team be doing something wrong by positioning players outside of the center of arbitrary zones?

 

In what way are the arbitrary? Per the article that I read, the zones are defined by the number of plays that are typically made at that position. That seems rational to me. How would you define them? As far as them doing something "wrong", the point that I tried to make is that if a team positions a player in a way that they don't make a play, that is the problem. If there is evidence that teams position players in ways that aren't captured in ZR, that the number of plays made is positive because of the positioning and doesn't show up, I'd like to see it.

[pete]

Arbitrary was the wrong word. How about static? If they are defined by some giant averaging of plays made, that doesn't mean that they provide a good way to position players unless the team was required to choose a single positioning point for their defenders and/or the measurement of the value of those plays in total was greater than what would be achieved by positioning elsewhere.

 

 

 

No matter where teams position players, balls will be hit where they can't be fielded. The existence of those hits doesn't define the positioning of those players as incorrect. You can't even use the total of plays as a measure as all plays aren't equal. An example would be what is called "doubles defense."

 

 

 

I'm not sure what you want when you ask for evidence. How about Hardy absolutely smoking every other SS in baseball in the number of out of zone plays? What is the evidence that measuring a player's defensive ability is better served by not considering where he is positioned and assuming he was positioned elsewhere?

[kramnoj]

If they are defined by some giant averaging of plays made, that doesn't mean that they provide a good way to position players unless the team was required to choose a single positioning point for their defenders and/or the measurement of the value of those plays in total was greater than what would be achieved by positioning elsewhere.

 

I may be misreading you, but I don't think the ZR charts should be used to define where players are positioned.

 

How about Hardy absolutely smoking every other SS in baseball in the number of out of zone plays?

 

That would be a problem with ZR, but Hardy does well in UZR. That's why its helpful to understand each stat and look at multiple metrics to try to gain a more complete view of the players performance.

 

What is the evidence that measuring a player's defensive ability is better served by not considering where he is positioned and assuming he was positioned elsewhere?

 

I don't really think UZR cares where a player is positioned, it just cares how many plays are made relative to peers, with several adjustments made. The point of positioning would be to either minimize maximum damage in doubles defense, or to try to take advantage of hitter scouting or spray charts to gain an edge. If this is really a problem and certain players are punished for it, I'd love to see it. Some blogger somewhere must have the time to go through games and show how certain defenders are better than they are perceived because of their positioning.

[pete]

ZR charts are used to define success or failure of defenders. I'd say that is asserting where a player should be positioned. This whole discussion started with the question of whether Bill Hall is a good defender.

 

 

 

Hardy making plays outside of assigned zones, but the latest version of UZR saying he is good, doesn't mean that static zones is a good idea or that the problem is overcome by adding complex calculations to adjust for the flaw. UZR uses those same zones. UZR is sometimes calculated using the other set of raw data. Conceptually they should be nearly identical and they frequently aren't. Also RZR now rates Hardy as excellent because it changed the way it was calculated. Earlier, when it and other metrics said Hardy was somewhere between average and poor as a defender, all the same arguments were made about it being objective et cetera.

 

 

 

UZR absolutely cares where a player is positioned. If a player is far out of position for the Ryan Howard shift and a ball dribbles through his static assigned zone, it is rated as a FAIL. The same is true with doubles defense.

 

 

 

In essence what you want to see has already been shown. Look at the variance in results based on two sets of evaluations, BIS and STATS, of the same performances. Look at the variance between systems in the same year for the same player. Look at the variance of results for players from year to year.

[kramnoj]

Lee's contract is just awful at this point. Combining this year and last year, Lee has been paid almost as much as Suppan was while with the Brewers, and has provided less value. And he still has two years remaining with $37M owed.

[Ennder]

"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"

 

This seems backwards, the fans tend to think Hardy isn't that good because he isn't flashy and doesn't look to have much range but the metrics say he is good giving him one of the best UZR/150 in baseball over his career.