2009 STRATOMATIC DEFENSIVE RATINGS ARE HERE...

[Palmtana]

[quote:10e21a6e46="maligned"]I know he's been using data, but his ratings have not reflected fielding bible/UZR, etc. nearly as closely in the past.[/quote:10e21a6e46]

So I guess the question is, which reflects more accurately something as subjective as range rating? Fielding Bible or Hal and his 9 formulas and other criteria (which include scouting reports).

[maligned]

First, fielding evaluation is becoming less and less subjective every day. Bill James says he thinks we now have 65-70% of the knowledge base for quantifying fielding evaluation in comparison to what we have for quantifying hitting evaluation. I don't know if this is true, but it's definitely true that fielding evaluation is becoming more and more scientific. If you've read any of the most recent fielding bible material, you know that based on thousands of hours of video research and analysis literally every effect of every play is calculated along with the minute difficulty level of every play to quantify each fielder's ability.
Second, Strat even admits that it is now relying much less on Gold Glove results...this subjective process has become antiquated. If you put 9 elements into a matrix, the mathematical process of synthesizing these 9 doesn't redeem the subjective foundation of some of the elements. Only reducing the less effective evaluators and focusing on the objective elements will yield a more objective final rating system...as Strat is now doing.
By the way, I'm glad Strat uses scouting reports as part of its rating system still. Scouting reports often include raw data about players' speed, throwing velocity, quickness of conversion of particular throws, etc. that are still important in looking at players' abilities...they're just a lot smaller piece of the evaluation puzzle than they used to be.

[AeroDave10]

Does anyone know if any of the objective defensive measures incorporate "positioning" into their equations? Particularly for older, more experienced players, they are able to get to balls not because they are fast but because they knew where to stand before the ball was pitched and subsequently had less distance to run.

[The Biomechanical Man]

Aerodave, while some players might utilize savvy positioning, I think the point is moot. IMO a good defensive range player gets to a lot of balls, regardless of whether he moved far or knew where to be before the ball was hit.

[AeroDave10]

[quote:cdf2f85f9c="The Biomechanical Man"]Aerodave, while some players might utilize savvy positioning, I think the point is moot. IMO a good defensive range player gets to a lot of balls, regardless of whether he moved far or knew where to be before the ball was hit.[/quote:cdf2f85f9c]

Except that I believe some metrics break the field into parts and place a theoretical player at a fixed "normal" position, and then assign credit (i.e. degree of difficulty) to batted balls based on where that fixed position is, not necessarily where guys stand. At least that's what I'm guessing the metric does.

[qksilver69]

AeroDave, I think you're on the right track here. I know I read about 1 defensive metric (forget which though) which measured how far the fielder had to travel within their zone to get to the ball. So this was an attempt to show truly greater range vs. best positioning.

[maligned]

AeroDave,
The fielding bible +/- system divides the entire field into dozens of vectors and has a % system that details what percentage of balls hit to those areas at which speeds (popup, hard liners, soft liners, tweeners, etc.) are fielded.
For example, if a particular type of ball to a particular vector is converted 75% of the time by shortstops, and Jeter fields this type of ball because he was positioned well and makes an easy play; he gets +.25 credit for fielding it, even though he didn't need great range to get to it. If Tulowitzki was mis-positioned, but still dives and makes the play with phenomenal range, he gets the same credit. Similarly, if a slower range shortstop was mis-positioned and seemingly has no chance whatsoever for that same ball (watches it roll into leftfield from 3 yards away), he is penalized -.75 for not getting a ball that is fielded 75% of the time. In the end, this type of matrix is able to incorporate positioning, range, throwing arm, hands, everything.
Vector values are created using literally thousands and thousands of plays on thousands of hours of video. Then, each play for each fielder is charted and rewarded or penalized for an entire season and final +/- totals are calculated.
This has been the general philosophy for a while. The system has now been upgraded so that each +/- value considers runs saved or lost for each type of play to each vector. Each minute play or mis-play (only getting one out instead of two on a double play ball for example) is converted into a + value (runs saved) or minus value (runs lost) based on average results over hundreds of thousands of game situations. In other words, a diving play down the line by a third baseman is greater than a diving play in the hole to his left (because he saved a double instead of a single). If a double down the line is worth .5 runs to a team on average and the particular ball fielded is only fielded 10% of the time; it is worth +.45 runs if fielded (.90 over normal * .5 runs) and -.05 runs if not fielded (.10 below normal *.5 runs allowed).
Finally, each player is given a runs saved or runs lost total at the end of the season that details how many runs his every movement saved his team or cost his team. Pop-ups, grounders, bunts, double play conversion ability--everything is considered down to the greatest detail possible.

I hope this helps. Others probably know more than I do and can chime in with corrections or clarifications.

[AeroDave10]

Thanks, maligned. That was pretty much how I thought Bill James and folks calculated things. That is one limitation with getting a bunch of statistical nerds interested in things that they've never actually done. They don't have the experience of playing baseball to consider things that players think about regularly.

[maligned]

I've played and/or been around baseball all my life. My brother played professionally and we love to sit for hours and discuss all the ins and outs of the strategy and psychology of the game. That doesn't mean I can't appreciate the objective, measurable elements of the game that reveal things over time that our eye didn't catch. That's why most of the top GMs employ guys like James and others as advisors. I don't love everything James does or says, but guys like him have unlocked many previously inaccessible evaluation techniques for the game, plus proven analytically many age-old adages of the game to be true. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

[AeroDave10]

I wasn't referring to you as a statistical nerd :lol:, but rather James. I don't think we're disagreeing, either. I also agree that James and folks like him have taken a very objective approach to measuring baseball. I just think it would have been nice if he would have actually played/coached a bit, too, so he would have a more complete view of the game.

I played baseball in college and, at 29, still play recreationally.