Competitive window or This year’s draft talent??

[SRB]

Players with great range who miss incredibly difficult plays will *not* have a worse fielding percentage because they're not being given an error for that play. Errors on given for when plays *should* be made. Just because Arcia has great range and gets to a ball doesn't mean he should still get the runner out. There are a lot of variables at play - the defenders starting position, how hard is the ball struck, defenders body position when fielding (diving, sliding, on knees, etc), throwing (off balance, side arm, jump throw, back foot set in ground, etc), arm strength, how fast is the runner, did the runner stumble out of the box or trip at any point slowing them down, etc. It's never *just* if you get to a ball it's an error.

 

Guys that get to more balls will have more opportunities to make a play but that doesn't mean they're getting an error if the play isn't made. *one* benefit of great range is simply keep the ball in the infield so runners don't take that extra base even though a play will never be made for an attempted out.

 

Not in practice, because assigning errors is incredibly subjective and players are still punished for bobbling balls that they get to as opposed to simply not getting to them. It has to be incredibly obviously an impossible play for an error not to get assigned if the fielder gets to the ball.

 

Almost every player with incredible range is going to have a worse fielding percentage. Didi Gregorious and Asdrubal Cabrera had a higher fielding percentage at SS than Andrelton Simmons last season.

[True Blue Brew Crew]

The Brewers were 24th in fielding percentage yet 2nd in defensive runs saved last season. That should tell everyone what they need to know about the usefulness of fielding percentage as a statistic. The Brewers excel at looking at the data that matters. The ability to play Shaw at 2B and not fall off a cliff defensively illustrated that proper placement is the most important aspect of fielding. Teams and individuals who cling to fielding percentage offer a clear competitive advantage for Milwaukee.

[xisxisxis]

The Brewers were 24th in fielding percentage yet 2nd in defensive runs saved last season. That should tell everyone what they need to know about the usefulness of fielding percentage as a statistic.

So statistics that are positive for the Brewers are correct and stats that are negative for the Brewers are worng?

 

The Brewers excel at looking at the data that matters. The ability to play Shaw at 2B and not fall off a cliff defensively illustrated that proper placement is the most important aspect of fielding.

I agree with you. The Brewers are very successful at fielder positioning/shifting as a strategy as their DRS numbers indicate, however, the players that they are putting in an excellent position to field batted balls have room for improvement in their efficiency of converting those opportunities into successful outs (their fielding %). I am not a big fan of fielding % as it only tells you about one very small component of defense AND, as SBR pointed out, is a subjective metric influenced by 30 "official" scorers, but it isn't irrelevant, it's misused.

[True Blue Brew Crew]

So statistics that are positive for the Brewers are correct and stats that are negative for the Brewers are worng?

 

You might want to take another crack at thinking that one through. Those 2 statistics say exactly what the numbers indicate. And that is that fielding percentage plays very little role in the ability to prevent runs from scoring. I can't dictate where the Brewers rank on either. I can point out that they rank well on the one that carries a direct correlation to the scoreboard though.

[KeithStone53151]

So statistics that are positive for the Brewers are correct and stats that are negative for the Brewers are worng?

 

You might want to take another crack at thinking that one through. Those 2 statistics say exactly what the numbers indicate. And that is that fielding percentage plays very little role in the ability to prevent runs from scoring. I can't dictate where the Brewers rank on either. I can point out that they rank well on the one that carries a direct correlation to the scoreboard though.

 

So basically what you are saying is...it doesn't matter how good someone is at actually fielding the baseball? All that matters is shifting and range right? Being surehanded and being able to make routine-moderately difficult plays a high percentage of the time is completely irrelevant to a teams defense? This argument is so ridiculous...it's like saying batting average is irrelevant. Fielding percentage is a useful stat and a piece of the puzzle in determining how good a defender is. Simply looking at 1 or 2 stats like UZR and/or DRS is simply insufficient when trying to determine a players value as a defender.

[True Blue Brew Crew]

I guess its teaching time. What those numbers tell baseball people is that unless you're a Ryan Braun at 3B-like butcher at a given position, what's most important to run prevention is positioning. The best fielding team (Houston .989) was separated by the worst (StL .978) by just over 1% of balls in play. That means 1 error per 100 chances. Defensive positioning (or being where the ball is hit) has far greater impact than 1 in 100 chances.

 

So in essence, given the fact that the vast majority of major league baseball players play a position that they can competently field, Yes - the most important aspect of preventing runs from scoring on defense is having your defenders in the right spots. And it certainly isn't a player's fielding percentage. If teams were throwing .750 fielding percentage players out there it would have an impact but they're not.

[True Blue Brew Crew]

If fielding percentage was detrimental to a team's ability to prevent runs from scoring the Brewers 24th ranked percentage (.982) would have disallowed them from saving the 2nd most runs defensively in all of baseball. But it's not. Positioning is vastly more important.

[True Blue Brew Crew]

Another factor ranking much higher is terms of importance towards preventing runs from scoring rather than fielding percentage is the ability to strike batters out. If a team's pitching staff can't strike anybody out and has their defenders positioned poorly, they could have a 1.000 fielding percentage and still do a worse job at saving runs defensively than the Brewers did last year. A stellar fielding percentage but a negative rating in DRS means the opponent is hitting the ball where the defense isn't.

[True Blue Brew Crew]

The Toronto Blue Jays (.983) ranked just ahead of the Brewers (.982) in fielding percentage last year. Yet the Brewers ranked 2nd in defensive runs saved (116) while the Blue Jays were ranked 2nd last in DRS (-100).

 

That's a 216 run swing even though the Blue Jays had a better fielding percentage. Is this beginning to make some sense?

[True Blue Brew Crew]

The inverse was the Washington Nationals. They tied for the major league lead in fielding percentage (.989) yet finished 25th in defensive runs saved at -55. All that tremendous glove work and yet they were one of the worst defenses at run prevention.

[True Blue Brew Crew]

It can be ignored and it really should be ignored.

 

Pretty much, yep.

 

[wallus]

Someone should teach usage of the edit button.

[True Blue Brew Crew]

Someone should teach usage of the edit button.

 

I decided to go the stream of consciousness route. Sorry.

[KeithStone53151]

I guess its teaching time. What those numbers tell baseball people is that unless you're a Ryan Braun at 3B-like butcher at a given position, what's most important to run prevention is positioning. The best fielding team (Houston .989) was separated by the worst (StL .978) by just over 1% of balls in play. That means 1 error per 100 chances. Defensive positioning (or being where the ball is hit) has far greater impact than 1 in 100 chances.

 

So in essence, given the fact that the vast majority of major league baseball players play a position that they can competently field, Yes - the most important aspect of preventing runs from scoring on defense is having your defenders in the right spots. And it certainly isn't a player's fielding percentage. If teams were throwing .750 fielding percentage players out there it would have an impact but they're not.

 

LOL that is some kind of arrogance. We should add a section to the forums called "ask true blue crew"...and you can give us all the answers since you know everything. Did you learn it all from Vinny Rottino?

 

I never said fielding percentage matters more than shifting. I simply said it matters and is absolutely relevant to a players defensive value. A team's overall defense is going to be better based on how well the team aligns their players, but frankly that has 0 to do with how valuable a specific defender is. The shifting positions are going to be the same whether it's Simmons or Yuni B playing SS. Houston or Milwaukee or whichever team that you think is an excellent shifting team, their overall defense will be better with surehanded fielders that record high fielding percentages than crappy defenders that record low fielding percentages.

[RollieTime]

I guess its teaching time. What those numbers tell baseball people is that unless you're a Ryan Braun at 3B-like butcher at a given position, what's most important to run prevention is positioning. The best fielding team (Houston .989) was separated by the worst (StL .978) by just over 1% of balls in play. That means 1 error per 100 chances. Defensive positioning (or being where the ball is hit) has far greater impact than 1 in 100 chances.

 

So in essence, given the fact that the vast majority of major league baseball players play a position that they can competently field, Yes - the most important aspect of preventing runs from scoring on defense is having your defenders in the right spots. And it certainly isn't a player's fielding percentage. If teams were throwing .750 fielding percentage players out there it would have an impact but they're not.

 

LOL that is some kind of arrogance. We should add a section to the forums called "ask true blue crew"...and you can give us all the answers since you know everything. Did you learn it all from Vinny Rottino?

 

I never said fielding percentage matters more than shifting. I simply said it matters and is absolutely relevant to a players defensive value. A team's overall defense is going to be better based on how well the team aligns their players, but frankly that has 0 to do with how valuable a specific defender is. The shifting positions are going to be the same whether it's Simmons or Yuni B playing SS. Houston or Milwaukee or whichever team that you think is an excellent shifting team, their overall defense will be better with surehanded fielders that record high fielding percentages than crappy defenders that record low fielding percentages.

 

I was thinking the same thing. This is getting out of hand.

[True Blue Brew Crew]

I'm glad I could help, Keith. That's one of the best things this place can offer. Amirite?

[KeithStone53151]

I'm glad I could help, Keith. That's one of the best things this place can offer. Amirite?

 

I'm pretty sure my magic 8 ball is more likely to be right about something baseball related than you...

[True Blue Brew Crew]

I'm glad I could help, Keith. That's one of the best things this place can offer. Amirite?

 

I'm pretty sure my magic 8 ball is more likely to be right about something baseball related than you...

 

I think anyone who just read page 2 of this topic would see that's not true. It's also not a very nice thing to say.

[RollieTime]

I'm glad I could help, Keith. That's one of the best things this place can offer. Amirite?

 

If you feel that the best thing that Brewerfan can offer is for you to have your own thread since you know everything and anyone with a varying viewpoint is wrong and gets verbally attacked for it, maybe this isn’t the place for you.

[Humans Need Water]

Players with great range who miss incredibly difficult plays will *not* have a worse fielding percentage because they're not being given an error for that play. Errors on given for when plays *should* be made. Just because Arcia has great range and gets to a ball doesn't mean he should still get the runner out. There are a lot of variables at play - the defenders starting position, how hard is the ball struck, defenders body position when fielding (diving, sliding, on knees, etc), throwing (off balance, side arm, jump throw, back foot set in ground, etc), arm strength, how fast is the runner, did the runner stumble out of the box or trip at any point slowing them down, etc. It's never *just* if you get to a ball it's an error.

 

Guys that get to more balls will have more opportunities to make a play but that doesn't mean they're getting an error if the play isn't made. *one* benefit of great range is simply keep the ball in the infield so runners don't take that extra base even though a play will never be made for an attempted out.

 

Not in practice, because assigning errors is incredibly subjective and players are still punished for bobbling balls that they get to as opposed to simply not getting to them. It has to be incredibly obviously an impossible play for an error not to get assigned if the fielder gets to the ball.

 

Almost every player with incredible range is going to have a worse fielding percentage. Didi Gregorious and Asdrubal Cabrera had a higher fielding percentage at SS than Andrelton Simmons last season.

Yes, in practice, because assigning errors is *not* *incredibly* subjective. A tiny, tiny percentage of border line plays are given errors. The hitter almost always is given the benefit, mainly due to the variables in play I previously mentioned. Just because someone has incredible range doesn't mean they're a better fielder than someone who lacks it. The vast majority of guys that stick at SS are there solely due to their range - the guys that lack that range, or don't have the arm strength, are the one's that shift over to 2b. It's not because they're worse fielders it's because they don't have the range and/or arm.

 

Saying errors are given on incredibly difficult plays is 100% false and borderline absurd. If an error is given on an incredibly difficult play it's *solely* because the player tries to make something happen instead of eating it so they throw it away. That has nothing to do with subjectivity or a play that *should* be made by a player.