Comments on: They Call Him Boog

By: Barry D.

Barry D. — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 23:19:40 +0000

In the years that Boyer and Robinson played head to head against each other (1960-1966), Boyer had a better range factor rating per nine innings than Robinson each year. Yet Robinson, and not Boyer was winning the Gold Glove awards.

By: Spudchukar

Spudchukar — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 16:09:09 +0000

Rollins can no longer hold a candle to Ryan. Watching Rollins these days gives the impression all plays are made with the Gold Glove in mind. He has become a conservative SS. Happy to make all plays that do not cost him an error. Numerous times this year he was satisfied to stay back on, a ball rely on his arm and Not retire the runner. No error though, for play it safe Jimmy. Ryan on the other hand, at times even to his detriment, plays balls out on every opportunity. He is the one who will make the play to save games. Kudos on his recognition here. I am often a critic of the super-stats, but seeing him in action only emboldens his defensive abilities.

By: Joe R

Joe R — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 06:47:46 +0000

Fair, since Rollins have been consistently above-average in his career with the glove and the hypothetical jury is still out on Ryan. Rollins may be better, but I do think Ryan’s having a better season.

But like I said, 1 year of fielding data isn’t very predictive at all.

By: Nathan

Nathan — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 01:14:55 +0000

I agree Escobar shouldn’t be in this discussion, but i wouldn’t call him below average, he makes some terrific plays, has pretty good range, and has a rocket arm

By: Kincaid

Kincaid — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 22:33:36 +0000

That’s not really a good example. Boyer was also retired at 34. Brooks was playing third until he was 40 and played twice as many innings at third as Boyer. You can’t take players with samples that disparate and just compare their rates as if they are on the same scale, or else you will run into a case where you are arguing with a stubborn old-timer who is actually right.

By: NEPP

NEPP — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 04:00:07 +0000

I will definitely give you the 3 year range is a better indicator of a player’s true ability. That is pretty much true with any statistic (offensive or defensive).

I think Rollins wins simply because he’s have a very solid year and is the incumbent. He has a great fielding percentage (something people still look at despite its limitations) and he makes the spectacular play from time to time. He doesn’t look to have really lost a step this year. Feliz and Utley being healthy have helped him out immensely as he hasn’t had to range as far to either side to make plays. That could be hurting his overall statistics. The same could be said for Victorino as he now gets a full year of Werth (who has great range in RF) and a much improved LF in Ibanez. Even though Ibanez has been average at best, he is a far cry from the statue that was Pat Burrell.

By: Joe R

Joe R — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 20:36:14 +0000

NEPP and rolo

UZR, as stated, is very volatile. Most experts on the stat suggest a 3 year sample size to really, accurately judge a fielder. It is very possible a gold glover one year could be average the next without anything being “wrong” with them or the metric.

Also, everyone knows fielding metrics are currently to the wheel what hitting metrics are to Ferraris. While one can call UZR glorified range factor (I kind of see it that way), it provides an objective way to look at defense that’s more reliable than older metrics or simply watching to judge a fielder. Even if, say, someone watches 240 NL games a year (or about 30 games each team). How many plays will you get to see each player make in the field. 90-110? Tops? And remember all of it to accurately judge them all without bias? Metrics are better. Metrics and watching are best.

Obviously one thing people hate about metrics is sometimes it gives a weird result. Example: Ellsbury’s range in 2009 is said to be well below average. This is weird to a lot of people, especially Sox fans. The first thought is to just reject it. But if you look at the metric, then watch Ellsbury vs, say, BJ Upton, you can see that his range vs. contemporaries isn’t as great. Does this mean he’s bad at playing center? No. Just means others are better.

Personally, I think the high standard deviation of metrics can be kind of fun. GG’s really aren’t that important anyway, but hey, give it to a different guy annually. Giving Ryan the GG isn’t an inditement of Rollins, he’s been fine with the glove. But last season he was sensational, and we shouldn’t be handing out 2009 awards for 2008 performance.

By: rolo

rolo — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 19:37:33 +0000

I kind of agree with NEPP. UZR has a bit too much variance for me to take too seriously. The range for results from year to year seems to wide for what I’d expect. I can’t yet wrap my head around how someone goes from being off the charts fantastic in one year (Utley) to more in line with what we’d expect (i.e. closer to the rest of the good fielders). Seems like too high a standard deviation (this is solely based on a thought exercise, I have done zero research)…

Regardless, this award is difficult to predict because there have been so many instances where it went to someone that really appeared to be an average defensive player.

I think, in general, we should be happy if either a guy like Rollins or Tulowitzki wins it, in addition to the kid from the Cardinals. However, it seems unlikely that the voters would look past an easy metric like fielding percentage and award it to Rollins (.991) versus the the others (.988, .987)

By: NEPP

NEPP — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 16:43:51 +0000

To clarify, I think that a lot of good comes from statistical analysis and the attempt to quantify defense through these programs. However, there are clearly some issues with such a system. Barring a major injury, how does a guy like Shane Victorino go from 6.5 in 2008 to -5.2 in 2009? He hasn’t lost a step. If anything, he’s taking better routes to balls this year as he has more experience in CF. Its not as if a ton of balls are falling in either.

The same could be said for Chase Utley. How does he go from posting a 20.2 UZR in 2008 on a bum hip to just an 8.7 this year when he’s fully healthy?

Its a great tool but there are clearly some quirks in it still. Just as there are issues in the Pitchfx tool still there are issues with UZR. To ignore it is silly at best.

By: NEPP

NEPP — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 16:37:52 +0000

Or perhaps UZR isn’t the end all be all of statistical analysis.