Cameron Trade Idea

[3Putt]

"Honestly, the smug way you just say all this wouldn't bother me if the facts weren't lined up against you on this one. "

 

"That game was televised on my satellite package. I remember the play you are referring to. The Texas telecast replayed that hit. Hall was shading toward the hole on that play and couldn't have flagged that one down with a broom not could any 3rd baseman alive or dead."

 

Gang, I'm going to respond to your points and then let it go since I seem to be pushing this discussion in a negative and non-productive direction. I apologize if I appear smug in my postings. I respect your views and understand where you're coming from. My intention was only to illustrate what TheCrew07 did an excellent job (much better than I) of illustrating. Stats are imperfect as is pure observation. I don't believe stats such as UZR can capture much of what happens in a game. Granted my example was subjective but I was sitting with my son directly in behind home plate and thought with a dive he could have potentially gotten a glove on it. The paid employees charting pitches behind me thought the same thing and they likely see many more games than we ever will. Another example is Rickie Weeks issues with turning the DP last year. It's an area that stats don't generally capture.

 

Sorry if I offended anyone. I appreciate the insights you bring and inciting a good back & forth was all I intended. Guess I better be more careful about what I wish for.

 

Play Ball!

[TooLiveBrew]

Gang, I'm going to respond to your points and then let it go since I seem to be pushing this discussion in a negative and non-productive direction. I apologize if I appear smug in my postings.

 

Ok, fair enough. No need to just leave a good discussion, though http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

 

 

Stats are imperfect as is pure observation. I don't believe stats such as UZR can capture much of what happens in a game. Granted my example was subjective but I was sitting with my son directly in behind home plate and thought with a dive he could have potentially gotten a glove on it. The paid employees charting pitches behind me thought the same thing and they likely see many more games than we ever will. Another example is Rickie Weeks issues with turning the DP last year. It's an area that stats don't generally capture.

 

I know what you mean. But for Hall there's a lot of data that backs up that he's a solid fielder, and for the most part when you watch him you can see why. Both he & Weeks seem to be cut from the cloth of 'gets to a lot of balls, but isn't a natural fielder', as opposed to someone like Branyan who looks to excercise good fundamentals but doesn't have the range.

 

Also, I think it's totally fair to criticize a player if effort is in question, and the example you provided of Hall just happened to be in a ST game. We could probably come up with some 'real game' examples if we thought long enough on Hall. It is kind of odd to see, though, when a guy just isn't as bad an option as he may appear. Fittingly, this discussion is in a Cameron thread, since many people this offseason have felt that Cam is a guy we could 'do better than', but then when compared across the league you see it's actually kinda tough to improve on Mike. Even with his technical shortcomings, Hall appears able to play at least at a competent level defensively.

[Spidey]

TooLiveBrew wrote:

E is just about the worst way to evaluate defenders. All that tells you is that Hall got to a lot more balls than many of his peers.

I don't understand this statement. Errors often come from misplaying routine plays like Crew07 said, but also come from throwing errors. I know that there are much better ways to measure an infielder's defense, but I do think errors matter. I wonder if the Brewers would have moved Braun off 3B if he hadn't committed so many errors in 07? Maybe, maybe not. Anyway, I just think that sometimes Billy's throws go wild and his errors don't mean that he just got to more balls. (Although there very well could be stats of errors fielding vs. errors throwing that will prove me wrong).

[TooLiveBrew]

Good distinction... should have phrased it as, 'Using E as a standalone measurement is just about the worst way...'

[Brawndo the Thirst Mutilat]

The routine play should carry a higher weight than that of the fringe play.

Why? A missed play is a missed play -- in either case you have a runner on base who wouldn't otherwise have been. If player A makes 10 more errors on routine plays than player B over the course of a season, but makes 10 extra plays on balls that are very difficult to get to, how doesn't that even out?

 

It's one thing to say you don't trust that the stringers are getting it right when they log a play as in a certain zone that 90% of defenders do not convert into an out. This is the source data for UZR. But I would suggest that however subjective that fact is, it's hardly any more subjective (and probably based on much clearer and more logical guidelines), than the mind-numbingly ridiculous scoring decisions I see made about whether a play should count as an error or not.

 

But I'm not really even sure that's your argument here. With respect to your point about "consistency", I'm just not sure I follow. Is the argument that a botched routine play carries some sort of psychological impact that is more harmful than a missed opportunity for a great play? Isn't it just as possible that a team receives some sort of psychological boost from Ozzie Smith type defensive wizardry? I don't really believe either of these possibilities matters too much, but I'm pretty sure it would be nearly impossible for me to believe in the one without also believing in the other.

 

Is your problem with UZR that it assumes context-neutrality (your point about the vacuum)? I'll grant that it isn't literally true that every missed play on defense results in exactly 0.8 runs. That's obvious enough -- I've never seen a team score a fraction of a run. But the only reason to try to keep track of the actual context when a missed play occurs and the actual amount of runs that result would be if there were such a thing as "clutch defense" that is a significant enough repeatable skill that it actually would wind up having a real impact on player evaluation. Considering how dry that well has proved on the hitting front, I'm pretty sure it ain't worth the effort.

 

Besides, if I miss a play that would have ended an inning, and the pitcher then allows a 3 run homer, walks 2 more, another pitcher comes in and gives up another 3 run job, exactly how many of the 6 runs are really my fault? That would have to be decided using massive amounts of data and context-neutral, vacuum-style thinking, or else total arbitrary capriciousness.

 

Maybe I'm totally missing what you mean about the vacuum, but context-neutrality is usually what people are objecting to when they make this point. I'll grant that UZR isn't perfect, but for me this always goes back to a point I read someone make a long time ago -- Neither was batting average, but it was still a heck of a lot better than trying to evaluate hitters by using your eyes and looking aesthetically and mechanically at their swings, or by trying to remember who got the one extra hit a week that makes the difference between a good hitter and a bad one without any records at all.

 

As an aside, I do want to say that it is to your great credit that unlike the vast majority of people who are skeptical about the accuracy of metrics like UZR, it's quite clear that you've taken the time to learn a good deal about them. That's the only reason I'm interested in having this discussion with you.

[hauser42]

I thought this thread was about Cameron and trading him?? Hijacked thread.

 

Cameron is the best option in center for the Crew. The list of players that are above him is a typical fan list. That list is full of younger players coming off good seasons. Those shiney new toys have to prove they can do it more than one season before you can put them ahead of a guy that has done it for over a decade.

 

Hunter comparison really would be different if you take out the effect of Hunter playing in the Metrodome for years and Cameron playing in pitcher parks. I like Cameron a lot but was unaware he was that close to the great Torii Hunter.

[TheCrew07]

All misplays are not equal because of the difficulty of the play, and what happens after it.

 

If a fielder drops a double play ball, the offense was just given 2 more outs to work with in addition to putting a runner in scoring position. While it's a single misplay, the statistical significance of the error magnitudes greater than if the bases were empty. If a player makes a throwing error the runners will likely move up, where as if an infielder boots a ball generally the runners aren't able to take an extra base. In the same way generally speaking when an outfielder makes an error the runner is generally getting an extra base or 2. When all misplays are treated equally, the context of the situation is lost, thus baseball in a vacuum. This is basically the same issue I have with pitching analysis, the context of the pitch is lost, the intended location, did it hang, etc? I get that the sample sizes help filter the noise, but sample size doesn't eliminate it.

 

Can we agree through playing experience that it's easier to field a ball hit within 1 step either way because you can easily place your body in front of the ball?

 

Can we agree through playing experience that the farther away from your initial position the ball is hit, the harder it is to field?

 

Can we agree that there is a certain range to the right and left that we expect all MLB position players to be able to make plays on, an average range if you will? Each position on the field will have a unique range associated with it, for lack of a better term I'll call it a box.

 

Can we agree that majority of the defensive plays a position player will be asked to make will fall within that box to the right and left?

 

If you'll agree to all of the questions above then will you agree that how a player defends his position should be based on where he has to make the greatest percentage of plays?

 

If not then there's really nothing to discuss, because that's my whole point. Range isn't a skill as much as it is a tool... if you have 2 players who field their position equally within the "box" then I agree range and plays made outside of the box is the best way to determine who's the better defender. However, if player X fields his position equally crappy inside and outside of the box, the player shouldn't be rated a better defender because he can get to the occasional ball that player Y doesn't. What if Player Y has similar range as Player X, but didn't have as many opportunities to make plays outside the box because balls weren't hit there as much over the course of his career?

 

Let's flip this around, why should the relatively small number of plays made beyond what a player who has average range will make be more statistically important than the plays made within the box? Because the degree of difficulty is higher? What's the statistical significance of a play made outside the box vs in? Why should the area of largest variance with the smallest number of plays be considered the most statistically significant factor in assessing someone's defense? Is that 1 extra step either way worth more than solid glove work? If so how?

 

In Hall's case, I feel better about a ball he has to work hard to get to because he's not going to be nonchalant about it and he's not going to mess around holding the ball. He could be an excellent defender in the same way that he could be an excellent baseball player, but he's not, he's flash over substance. He likes to show off his arm, he'll be lazy (unfocused, nonchalant, whatever) and olay the ball hit right at him, but then he'll make the occasional fantastic diving play that very few other players will get to. I'm not sure how the fantastic carries more value than the routine, but it does in UZR.

 

Also I'm using the term misplay because so many plays that should be errors aren't, like when an OF misjudges the ball initially, manages to get to it and get a glove on it but doesn't make the play. It's a play the OF "should" have made but instead at least 1 runner has moved into scoring position.

 

In any case I agree that any metric is better than nothing, but that's not my point. My point is that people keep treating metrics and projections as absolutes, when they are just another piece of the puzzle. Metrics have built in bias just like people do when making observations, BABIP comparisons favor HR hitters, UZR favors range... all metrics have a bias because someone is out there trying to decide the "best" way to measure value, they are never going to be perfect. It's the not metric I take issue with, it's the people who want to say player A is better than player B because his VORP is 8 points higher. Is that really the case? Can it be proven to be true? Assign values to players all you want, just don't try to convince me that pitchers get hurt because PAP says so (instead of violent repetition of non ergonomic movement), a fielder is better than another because UZR says so, or a hitter has more offensive value than another because his VORP is higher... sport just like life aren't that black and white...sometimes it will be true, sometimes it won't.

[Brawndo the Thirst Mutilat]

In any case I agree that any metric is better than nothing, but that's not my point. My point is that people keep treating metrics and projections as absolutes, when they are just another piece of the puzzle. Metrics have built in bias just like people do when making observations, BABIP comparisons favor HR hitters, UZR favors range...

Sorry to continue the hijack...I'll boil this down to just one simple issue. I do not understand why you think UZR favors range over sure-handedness. Ever since range factor, every new fielding metric has had only one real bias -- they like it when fielders turn batted balls into outs. Any batted balls. UZR, Dewan' plus-minus, all the swankiest new ones...it's true they reward the outstanding play more than they reward the easy one...but at the same time they punish you for blowing an easy play a heck of a lot more harshly than for failing to make a tough one.

 

For simplicity's sake, take two plays -- one that is pretty easy and is converted into an out 90% of the time and one that is very tough and is only converted into an out 10% of the time. If I make the easy one, I get +0.1 plays, if I miss it, I get -0.9 plays. If I make the tough one, I get +0.9 plays, if I miss it, I get -0.1.

 

So, if Freddie Sureglove makes the easy one and misses the hard one, he nets +0 plays.

 

Meanwhile, Bobbles McRange duffs the easy one, but makes the hard one -- he also nets +0 plays.

 

In essence, this is correcting the bias that errors and fielding percentage have in favor of Freddie Sureglove. For most of baseball history, the only defensive stats anybody paid any attention to would have Freddie at 100% FP, 0 errors and Bobbles at 0% FP, 1 error. This is clearly wrong -- they both created the same amount of baserunners and outs.

 

It's true that a lot more outs are recorded on easy plays than hard ones, but I don't see any reason to believe that batted balls are preferentially distributed inside the box you describe...and I don't see any reason to think that Freddie had more value to his team than Bobbles in the above scenario.

[TheCrew07]

I guess let me ask you this... if it's proper to assign weight to how far away a ball is from a fielder then wouldn't be it fair to assign weight in reverse order for a ball that gets through? That's my point.. if you assign a weight to range, then you have to properly negatively weight the other side of the equation to balance it out.

 

If you're going to give due credit for making the play (rightly so), then shouldn't we also heavily penalize for booting the easy play (rightly so)? It should be a sliding scale both ways should it not? A ball getting through a fielder should be a sliding scale from heavily penalized to least penalized the farther away from 0 we get. The reverse would be true for a play made, the farther away the ball is from 0, the greater the value of the play.

 

Lets say a fielder makes 1 of 10 plays at max range, it is fair to only give him credit for the ball he caught? or do we assign a slight negative value for the 9 balls missed as well? What's fair?

 

The only thing that shouldn't be balanced is a throw... Without even taking the negative consequences of a bad throw into account (the possible extra bases) because the next best alternative to an out is eating the ball which is typically scored a single. I would like to see metrics begin to include some situation weight with them... like when a 3B throws a DP ball into RF and the runners end up at 2nd and 3rd for example as opposed to the olay on the same possible which would only allows runners to move up 90 feet to 1st and 2nd. I realize part that becomes team orientated as in are the other players appropriately backing up the throws, but I hope you see my point.

[TooLiveBrew]

Bobbles McRange

 

Rickie Weeks's new nickname?

 

 

I don't see any reason to think that Freddie had more value to his team than Bobbles in the above scenario.

 

That's a great way of looking at it. Imo a large factor here is something I'll call 'fan-expected out conversion rate'. When a player flubs a play someone like Hardy would rarely boot, the perception is far more negative (imo) than it is positive when a player like Weeks converts an out -- for example's sake, let's just say he's able to do so without diving & the appearance of intense physical effort/ability -- that would have gotten past a more surehanded fielder like, say, Ray Durham. I know that last statement's a bit convoluted, so I hope it makes sense.

 

The gist of it is that it seems fans assign a stronger negative value to a misplay on a supposedly easy play than they do positive value on a borderline kind of play, that many MLB fielders at the position would not be able to convert.

[TheCrew07]

The gist of it is that it seems fans assign a stronger negative value to a misplay on a supposedly easy play than they do positive value on a borderline kind of play, that many MLB fielders at the position would not be able to convert.

Why does that have to be fans perspective vs that of a statistician? I would argue that a linear progression would take the grey area out of the various metrics. It should pretty obvious that all errors are not equal in their consequence or in the difficulty of making the play. Instead of side tracking this even further, I made a post here if you care to comment further.

[endaround]

This is where the problem comes in. You seem to think an error on a ball hit to a player is a much worse than a player not getting to a ball the average defender gets to. To me they are exactly the same. I care about the defender getting outs, not if the non outs come from bobbling a ball or inability to move to his left.