Today’s UZR Doozy

Comments on Today’s UZR Doozy

1. MJ
   August 17th, 2009 | 5:00 pm
   

   I’ll be the first to say that I don’t fully understand defensive metrics. There doesn’t seem to be a definitive way to quantify defensive performance and, as a result, the defensive numbers are often confusing or somewhat contradictory or counter-intuitive.

   It does seem strange to me — along the lines of what Kepner said — that a defensive measurement would tell us that Teixeira’s been a “bad” defensive first baseman. He got off to a rock start through the first six weeks of the season on defense but since mid-May, he’s been sterling in my opinion.

2. Rich
   August 17th, 2009 | 8:24 pm
   

   Defensive metrics are a useful tool that adds to any reasonable person’s understanding of the game. That doesn’t mean that they aren’t flawed at times, and that flaw doesn’t vitiate their utility.

3. Evan3457
   August 17th, 2009 | 9:03 pm
   

   As I understand it, sample size error on fielding metrics such as UZR is such that it requires 2-3 years of fielding data for the same reliability as offensive statistics.

   And remember, it’s not that uncommon for a real .300+ hitter to have a bad year where he hits .250, .260, .270.

   Tex looks like a great firstbaseman to us, and he may well be one, but

   a) It’s been a long time since the Yanks had one, and we’re comparing him to Giambi, who basically couldn’t do anything at the position except scoop throws decently.

   b) He might just be having an off-year, defensively, relative to the league as a whole.

   c) Sample size for this season hasn’t evened out yet. I note that I’ve been following the UZR’s of the various Yankees through Fangraphs, ever since Steve posted them earlier this year a couple of times. Tex was -5 runs/150 games early in the year, so he’s been a plus fielder since then.

   d) As with any statistic of this type, there are going to a few players it gets flat wrong every season. It’s not like counting home runs for a player’s HR total.

   e) A rating of -1/per 150, with the error involved in a stat like this, really means he’s anywhere from -6/per 150 to +4/per 150. Big difference there.

   It seems to me he’ll likely wind up a small plus for the year, and probably slide back up toward his ratings of recent past next year.

Leave a reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.