04/06/04 Brewers (Davis) @ Cardinals (Marquis)

[Al the Thinking Man]

I didn't see much of the game, as I was working, but if you're referring to Wes' failure to get the ball out of his glove in the 9th, I certainly don't think that was an error. Coming in and off balance, that's a play that can often be made, but it shouldn't be considered routine. Also, it was nice hustle by Rolen, anything less, he'd have been out.

[DHonks]

I might have given an error on Edmonds' double that hit the heel of Pods' glove, but Spivey and Helms did not deserve errors.

[Al the Thinking Man]

Again, if you're referring to Junior's attempt in the 9th, it was far from routine. No error from my vantage point either.

 

I will say, however, that in the minors, both those would probably be given E's. Scorers are downright mean, at least in games I've seen, in the minor leagues. Garciaparra got one last year after he dove, stopped the ball, then threw the ball in the dirt. I thought the runner had it beat out anyway. E6, it was scored.

[danzig6767]

I had a really bad vibe when Pujols came up.The guy is just soooooooo good,it's only a matter of time before he starts ripping rockets all over the park.I was hoping big time Kolb wouldnt make a mistake on 3-1 and leave one out over the middle of the plate.

 

Those are such tough situations,you can't just intentionally walk on the winning baserunner,but outside of Bonds there is no hitter in the game i fear more than Pujols with the game on the line.

[tomwopat]

i nearly @#%$ my pants when bennet went up against pujols, so i can just imagine how he felt. but just imagine when you batting champ to pop out in your major league debut.

[rluzinski]

What about the ball that hit Pod's glove, when he attempted an over the shoulder catch. Again, not an easy play, but one probably 90% of CFs make. Pods can certainly get to balls in teh gaps that some CFs wouldn't, but he doesn't look very good going back on the ball sometimes.

 

BTW, am I being unfair or does Greive look REALLY slow?

[RobertR]

I disagree on the Helms call. He had it in his glove, all he had to do was pull it out and throw it to first.

 

And that play's only difficult for a third baseman without much range. Rolen or Chavez or Cirillo make that play look easy.

 

Robert

[JohnBriggs12]

I have to agree with Robert. That tapper to third was not a tough play. If he handles it cleanly, they get him at first though it would have been a close play.

 

Two games now that Helms has not been charged with an error but has made bad plays in the field. Fortunately, Kolb was up to the task last night despite the shaky defense behind him. None of the balls hit off him were hit hard.

 

It's only two games, so I am willing to cut Helms some slack.

 

Hopefully, they can keep it rolling tonight.

[RobertR]

At the very least, it's an example of why I like Zone Rating and Range Factor more than Fielding %. A good defender makes that play and gets credit for it in ZR and RF.

 

I'm not all that down on Helms for not making a couple of plays. I think everyone understands his limits, little range, strong arm, and o.k. hands and that's fine as long as he hits.

 

Robert

[GenoSeligPrieb]

"At the very least, it's an example of why I like Zone Rating and Range Factor more than Fielding %. A good defender makes that play and gets credit for it in ZR and RF."

 

Robert:

 

I'd like to learn more about these 2 factors, and possibly (if you know) how they're calculated, because they've always seemed like a more thorough way to assess a player's defensive contributions, besides fielding percentage alone.

 

I hope they're not as difficult to determine as Quarterback Ratings, (which I suspect involve taking a QB's completion ratio, subtracting interceptions, multiplying the remainder by his shoe size, and adding his uniform number), so maybe we can use them in my arguments/debates here.

 

And by the way, how do our Brewers stack up against MLB averages?

 

Thanks...

[igor67]

Range Factor is fairly straight forward Geno. Just assissts + Putouts/ games. It is simply how often the guy makes a play. A variety of things can make it less than accurate in terms of true ability (namely how many chances he gets), but it has it's uses.

 

Zone Rating unfortunately requires The BatComputer. I believe it's STATS Inc that collects the data. They divide up the field into zones and then assign each zone to particular fielders and count chances vs. success.

 

It's problems include interpreting Astroturf data, unusual positioning (Bonds shift), and players making plays out of their assigned zones (the rangy SS who crosses over into third base territory and fires a Laser to first wouldn't recieve credit for making an outstanding play).

 

A variety of more complicated methods are being used by various places, and they tend to agree on general player quality, but can find some interesting disagreements.

[RobertR]

Igor explained RF well enough, although they use defensive innings / 9 as the divisor. And those numbers can be skewed by the number of chances a player gets. A flyball heavy staff hurts infielders' ratings. A K-heavy staff hurts everybody's ratings. Etc. And, of course, there are park effects to consider. I'm sure having an infield like a hayfield helps.

 

ZR is like Igor said, basically plays made per chances. There are again limits to the accuracy of ZR. Ball's that hit 20 feet up on the Green Monster are technically counted as "in the zone", high walls in general are going to hurt a players rating, and the size of an outfielder's zone can change drastically from park to park. Centerfield in Miller Park isn't the same as centerfield in Pro Player stadium. And more foul territory, like in Oakland, can only help a corner player's rating.

 

And there are limits. ZR doesn't do a good job, IMO, on gauging a player's ability to turn the DP. Or a first baseman's ability to receive the ball. Or a catcher's ability to block balls in the dirt and throw out runners. And they've periodically changed the zones, which makes career ZR a misleading statistic when comparing it to a specific year.

 

One of the things that I do like about ZR and RF is that they do take the scorekeepers, often faulty, judgement out of the statistic. Wes Helms being a good example. Those plays could have been ruled differently by different scorekeepers, but they're still counted the same in ZR and RF.

 

I generally like using the whole set of F%, RF, and ZR when evaluating a player. I think they're simply more descriptive. They help identify the sure handed statues. Or the error prone players that can make up for it via range and arm strength. And the descriptive nature adds value.

 

Robert

[danzig6767]

And that play's only difficult for a third baseman without much range. Rolen or Chavez or Cirillo make that play look easy.

 

I agree a guy like Rolen makes that play much easier

 

At the very least, it's an example of why I like Zone Rating and Range Factor more than Fielding %. A good defender makes that play and gets credit for it in ZR and RF.

 

I dont have the same faith in those stats that you do Robert.Rolen is an elite defensive thirdbaseman,according to ZR Helms and Rolen are equals,both posted a .751 ZR last year.If you put faith in both ZR/RF then you have to believe Rolen is a very very mediocre defensive thirdbaseman,Alex Sanchez is one of the best defensice CF's in baseball,Eckstein is a Gold Glove SS,and Eric Young is a better defensive secondbaseman than Brett Boone.

[RobertR]

I never said ZR is perfect, only that I prefer it to F%. There's a lot going on that's not accounted for in the statistic. Interaction with teammates, park conditions, the handedness of pitchers, etc.

 

In the case of Helms vs. Rolen, I'd suggest that the height of the infield grass, the quality of the shortstop next to them, Renteria vs. Clayton, and the quality of the first baseman receiving throws, Sexson vs. Martinez, all played a role.

 

In many ways, I prefer the defensive efficiency metric for teams as an excellent tool. But all of the metrics have their limits. That doesn't mean they're useless, only that you have to account for thier limitations.

 

Robert

[danzig6767]

Well Robert for now at least i just dont have much faith in defensive stats,to full of variables.Maybe one day they can come up with defensive stats that you can put stock in,but the current ones are at best a small thing to consider when rating defensive players.

 

I just know if i was building a team i dont think it's that hard to tell what players are good defenders just by watching them play.It's obvious by watching that Jeter has slipped as a defensive SS,that Helms has very little range,that Renteria is a very good SS,and Sanchez/Pods have trouble tracking balls while running backwards.

 

I didn't really need a stats to tell me these things.

[igor67]

I think a lot of the advanced metrics are pretty good, especially since they provide numers in runs.

I liked defensive efficiency until a wise individual pointed out that all it really measures is the flyball tendency of the staff. Basically the difference in hit rate for fly balls vs. ground balls (flies ebing hits less frequently) tends to swamp out the effects of actual team defense.