data.3news-bydate.train.rec.sport.baseball.104955 Maven / Gradle / Ivy
Subject: Re: Apology for Article
From: [email protected] (David Grabiner)
Organization: /etc/organization
Nntp-Posting-Host: germain.harvard.edu
In-reply-to: [email protected]'s message of 22 Apr 93 16:18:58 GMT
Lines: 51
In article , Steven Thornton writes:
> In article <[email protected]> [email protected]
> writes:
> Just watch me. Mattingly is a below average fielder.
> Before you start up, yes, I have proof. There are really only two
> adequate ways to measure fielding prowess. the first, which has the
> advantage of being applicable to older players, since it uses raw data
> available for almost all of MLB history, is the Total Chances per Game
> method favored by the Total Baseball people among others. It basically
> says that you measure a fielder by how many balls he gets to.
But it is subject to all kinds of bias, and is almost completely useless
for first basemen. From the raw stats, there is no way to tell which of
a first baseman's putouts were made on throws from other fielders, and
which were made on his own plays; likewise, you can't tell whether a
double play was 6-4-3 or 3-6-3. Fielding Runs thus gives a first
baseman no credit for putouts or double plays, only for assists and
errors.
It thus favors first basemen who play deep, reaching a lot of balls but
forcing the pitcher to cover first more frequently. It also hurts first
baseman who play behind left-handed pitching staffs and thus face few
left-handed batters.
> A better method, but newer and based ondata that has only been collected
> over the last few years, measures the percentage of balls hit into the
> part of the field the guy is responsible for.
This is better; of course, it still isn't all of a first baseman's
defense.
> Some references: Mattingly's 1992 defensive rating, STATS method, from
> Mike Gimbel's Baseball Player and Team Ratings: -1.
Defensive Average, which uses larger (and probably better) zones, has
Mattingly tied for second in the league.
> On the other hand, he has contributed 233 runs by his batting
> actions, a pretty healthy number.
While 233 batting runs is good, it is mostly in the past; the runs he
produced in 1986 don't say much about his value in 1993.
--
David Grabiner, [email protected]
"We are sorry, but the number you have dialed is imaginary."
"Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again."
Disclaimer: I speak for no one and no one speaks for me.