Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 57

Thread: Fielding Statistics

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    The Moon
    Posts
    5,073

    Fielding Statistics

    Which statistic(s) do you use to evaluate fielders?

    How about for old-timers? Besides anecdotal data, what do you use as a guide? It can be very tricky in the absence of UZR, etc. due to the lack of data
    "Allen Sutton Sothoron pitched his initials off today."--1920s article

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Memphis,Tn
    Posts
    584
    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrus4189Cobb View Post
    Which statistic(s) do you use to evaluate fielders?

    How about for old-timers? Besides anecdotal data, what do you use as a guide? It can be very tricky in the absence of UZR, etc. due to the lack of data
    It`s funny that you ask,because for the past few days I have been going to the Baseball Gauge@Seamheads.com and have mostly been looking at the Fielding Percentile.That ratings of that graph are interesting.I have just been punching players names as they come to mind.The results are very similar to Bill James`ratings that he had in some book I saw at the store maybe 10 years ago.James had some sort of formula to rate fielders.He would give them grades like you would see in school,that is:A-,C,D,B+,and so on.The Baseball Gauge has graphs that rate individual players compared to their contemporaries.There doesn`t seem to be too many shockers as regards to reputations.Tris Speaker gets his 95%,Hack Wilson gets 18%.I still don`t understand a lot of this stuff.Amos Otis had a .991 career fielding average and a higher range factor than even Willie Mays,as well as 3 Gold Gloves,so how does he end up with a below average rating and dWar?

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Nimrod View Post
    I still don`t understand a lot of this stuff.Amos Otis had a .991 career fielding average and a higher range factor than even Willie Mays,as well as 3 Gold Gloves,so how does he end up with a below average rating and dWar?
    Otis played in an era where fly balls were more common (league OF range factor was 2.36) and stopped playing at age 37. Mays played in an era were flyballs were less common (league OF range factor was 2.16) and played to age 42.

    Mays range factor through age 37 was 2.71 while the league was 2.11. In the last 5 years of his career he was at 2.45 versus a league of 2.45, that is, he was average.

    Otis had a career 2.76 (to age 37) compared to a league of 2.36, 17% better or +.4, however one wants to look at it.
    Mays had a career 2.71 (to age 37) compared to a league of 2.11, 28% better or +.6, however one wants to look at it.

    TBH, one could dig much deeper into this and look at flyballs for the Giants versus flyballs for the Royals, but I didn't do that. It's possible if one did that, that we'd be surprised, although I think Mays was better.

    Amos Otis was a very good center fielder. Few teams would ever regret having him roam their yard for 12-15 years. Mays was just that much better.
    Last edited by drstrangelove; 04-16-2012 at 05:19 PM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Memphis,Tn
    Posts
    584
    Quote Originally Posted by drstrangelove View Post

    Amos Otis was a very good center fielder. Few teams would ever regret having him roam their yard for 12-15 years. Mays was just that much better.
    Agree totally.My point wasn`t that Otis was superior to Mays.I used Mays because he is the obvious yardstick to measure other outfielders by.To be able to at least compare favorably with Mays should prevent one from being ranked below Rico Carty as Otis is.Otis is ranked as a BELOW average fielder.Otis has a slightly lower rating as a fielder than even your namesake Dr. Strange Glove(Dick Stuart)has at first base!!

  5. #5
    I use my own defense metric, as yet unpublished, because I've developed it over a nine-ten year period and find it more consistently credible than other metrics that are both published and widely known.

    The reason for attempting to construct a defense metric was to address the question directly raised in this thread: Where does one go to compare defensive player skills from different playing generations? It's a daunting task, especially due to the availability of detailed data, where innings played at each position; caught stealing rates for catchers; sometimes even strikeouts and other specifics are vague or unrecorded.

    I decided to focus on one place where data has been recorded, fairly religiously, back to 1901 [where my interest in the modern game as we know it begins]: the box score. I have become increasingly convinced that PO, A, DP, E, PB, WP are all we really need to built a credible defense metric, which captures all the essentials and from which all modifications are matters of equivalence.

    As I see it, the interpretations of the above data elements and their individual and collective impact on "runs" are the keys to a solid metric. Arriving at player RATINGS is a two-step process:

    1. Gather the basic input elements for the player at the position being studied. Each position has its own weightings, + or - for each data input.
    2. Relate each data input to playing time [innings, if available and converted to Games].
    3. Tally the + and - inputs to arrive at a raw data score that can be converted into something uniform across all positions.
    4. That uniform conversion product is the RATING. It is intended to resemble fielding percentage ONLY for the sake of familiarity and ease of interpretation.
    5. The rating, usually presented as a decimal number between .900 and 1.000 is the rating; and differences in ratings can be converted to Defense Runs because an integral part of the metric is the inclusion of a HARM DONE element by misplays. There are player ratings as low as .830 and some who "break the model" coming in > 1.000.

    Example: Roger Silverweb plays CF and warrants a rating of .962. He has played 1,200 innings of his team's 1,440 innings in CF. The League average for all CF, all innings, is .947. Roger Silverweb is above average; and his rate of defensive run value converts to +5.67 DR [on a full-time basis]. To refine it, Roger played 1,200 of 1,440 innings [83.33%]; so his net defensive value is +5.67 * .833 = +4.72 DR.

    With that as a sample [and with league averages being about .950, I have numerical ratings for Amos Otis for all his playing seasons in CF; but these are immediately at hand:

    1970 .971
    1975 .972
    1976 .956
    1977 .961
    1978 1.023
    1979 .995
    1980 1.015
    1982 .972

    In actual fact, I believe Amos Otis won at least two GG Awards [I am no enthusiast of the Gold Glove]; and I would have him qualifying for at least 4. He was an excellent defensive CF; and I cannot fathom any metric that would place him at "average" or "below average."

    As to the reference to Rico Carty [I checked out Seamheads], I can't figure that, either, unless the offense was weighed in ... Rico has some awesome years with the bat.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    The Moon
    Posts
    5,073
    Quote Originally Posted by leewileyfan View Post
    differences in ratings can be converted to Defense Runs because an integral part of the metric is the inclusion of a HARM DONE element by misplays.
    How can misplays be accounted for? Not all misplays are judged as errors
    "Allen Sutton Sothoron pitched his initials off today."--1920s article

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    The Moon
    Posts
    5,073
    Quote Originally Posted by leewileyfan View Post
    differences in ratings can be converted to Defense Runs because an integral part of the metric is the inclusion of a HARM DONE element by misplays.
    How can misplays be accounted for? Not all misplays are judged as errors
    "Allen Sutton Sothoron pitched his initials off today."--1920s article

  8. #8
    I used the term "misplays" in the sense of errors. However, the "range" elements in the metric also reflect on a player's rating because, especially in the OF, where put-outs are their bread and butter and many "hits" against one OF will end up as PO for another. In that sense, those plays not converted into outs are misplays as well.
    Last edited by leewileyfan; 04-17-2012 at 12:18 PM.

  9. #9
    Lee, just getting away from the numbers for a second, what have you observed over the years.
    Appears that like me you've been watching this game for many years. Looks to me like the official scoring has gone South in recent years.
    I see many misplays today that go as base hits and years ago would be scored as errors, any opinion.

  10. #10
    Also, how many times do we see an error in an inning but no runs are scored and the broadcaster will say, no harm done, the error did not hurt.
    OK, the error did not hurt "at that time" but could hurt later in the game. It could mean that the error could hurt by allowing a heavy or good hitter to get an at bat before the last out is made. If not for that error, that batter might not step to the plate in the last inning.

  11. #11
    Joe: I have been an active fan [avid, eager] as a "wee lad" around the time 1939. Ted Williams had stolen my heart and I started asking my Dad to take me to Yankee Stadium [which he had been planning to do without the nagging]. I missed seeing Lou Gehrig by a year or two; but I did see many greats before they went off to War.

    I hold my tongue a great deal, because I don't want to come off as an old "fogey," grousing about some "Golden Age" that has long gone, never to be recaptured; but I do believe much of the game's finer points, strategies, grooming of players and safeguarding their optimum production have gone "south."

    I can't address today's official scoring too critically, because I haven't really been all that attentive to it. I know that back in the late thirties and into the forties, some scorers were real pros, while others were obvious "homers," allowing the old scoreboards to light up the "H" in "Chesterfield" [cigarettes] instead of one of the "E"'s on a play that was totally botched by a fielder. [Boosted the BA, don'cha know]. My Dad always believed that the press box was getting to be a bad place for planting official scorers, and that "independents" maybe from the umpire pool should be assigned the task. I really believe that most of the old timers gave it their best shot.

    The drift in baseball broadcasting to having a former player in the booth - that came I believe after WW II and most fans welcomed it until some platitudes like Dizzy Dean's "cans o' corn" started to wear thin. Some guys were positive additions to the coverage; some wore out the welcome mat recalling their own greatest memories.

    I agree that there is less keen observation coming from the booth, like Vin Scully used to offer and Red Barber always seemed to be on the lookout for. Jack Buck was also a great observer [and anticipator] of strategies. I guess the shoddy observation simply reflects the mindset of most fans today: Hit that long ball and let the closer burn holes in the bats for one inning.

    I have studied defense, probably dating back to my days as a kid and playing sandlot ball. Ted Williams was my idol; but glove men like Jimmy Bloodworth, Stan Spence, Dom DiMaggio [and Vince, with the rifle arm] were real treats. Jim Hegan was a big favorite; and I remember a conversation one night at a friend's house with his older brother and father talking about a catcher the pitchers loved to pitch to ... and see nail would-be stealers ... and pick-off napping runners with lazy "leads." That was Ray Berres who went on to be a great pitching coach.

    I'm beginning to rant here; but I am convinced that aluminum bats, Little League dimensions, and amateur adult wannabee coaches have spoiled generations of young players learning bad batting habits, a disregard for bat manipulation and contact, and limited personal expectation among young pitchers whose futures lie in "specialization," ... if they grow big enough.

    [Funny, most of the really great pitchers, all-time and into the present, are [have been] between 5'10" and 6'1", maybe 6'2"]. Of course, there are exceptions; but the population upholds the generalization, IMHO.

    Thanks for the questions.
    Last edited by leewileyfan; 04-18-2012 at 09:10 AM.

  12. #12
    Thanks for your question, Shoeless Joe, and your very entertaining reply, LWF. I also have my misgivings about contemporary scoring, but like Leewileyfan don't want to come across or think of myself as an old crank. I'm very much of two minds about the whole league quality issue, but one statistical marker seemed to point clearly one way: Every year fielding gets better and errors go down. But then I noticed some really egregious scoring calls, and I thought, "Gee, who knows, really? I don't think that would have been a hit in 1957." But that's just the kind of thing where memory can mislead you.

    Anyway, it's a delight to hear again, from someone who saw them, about these players I only knew by reputation growing up. Just remember, this is Baseball Fever, so no ranting allowed

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Jackaroo Dave View Post
    Thanks for your question, Shoeless Joe, and your very entertaining reply, LWF. I also have my misgivings about contemporary scoring, but like Leewileyfan don't want to come across or think of myself as an old crank. I'm very much of two minds about the whole league quality issue, but one statistical marker seemed to point clearly one way: Every year fielding gets better and errors go down. But then I noticed some really egregious scoring calls, and I thought, "Gee, who knows, really? I don't think that would have been a hit in 1957." But that's just the kind of thing where memory can mislead you.

    Anyway, it's a delight to hear again, from someone who saw them, about these players I only knew by reputation growing up. Just remember, this is Baseball Fever, so no ranting allowed
    Jack, just want to say this is not about "hooray" for my time, the past. Anytime I'm watching the game it's my time, I'm not longing for the game from the past, enjoying the game as much as I ever did. My starting post is about official scoring and nothing to do with quality of the game or players. The game is great today, so many good and great players. As for the fielding probably as good as ever. Amazed at some of these middle infielders fielding balls in short right and even more amazing short left field and throwing out some fast runners

    So I don't think it's memory misleading me. In recent years have seen outfielders attempting a running catch, not a spectacular catch, get good leather on the ball, drop it and it's a hit.
    Thanks for the reply.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by SHOELESSJOE3 View Post
    Jack, just want to say this is not about "hooray" for my time, the past. Anytime I'm watching the game it's my time, I'm not longing for the game from the past, enjoying the game as much as I ever did. My starting post is about official scoring and nothing to do with quality of the game or players. The game is great today, so many good and great players. As for the fielding probably as good as ever. Amazed at some of these middle infielders fielding balls in short right and even more amazing short left field and throwing out some fast runners

    So I don't think it's memory misleading me. In recent years have seen outfielders attempting a running catch, not a spectacular catch, get good leather on the ball, drop it and it's a hit.
    Thanks for the reply.
    No, no, I didn't mean to suggest you were cheerleading the past or misled by your memory. I was strictly talking about my own. I just have the impression that scoring is more lax than it was, but I don't quite trust it. I'm relieved to hear yourmand Leewileyfan's concurring observations.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Jackaroo Dave View Post
    No, no, I didn't mean to suggest you were cheerleading the past or misled by your memory. I was strictly talking about my own. I just have the impression that scoring is more lax than it was, but I don't quite trust it. I'm relieved to hear yourmand Leewileyfan's concurring observations.
    Got that Jack. Just saying it looks like the official scorer of today is being a bit generous to the hitter. And by doing so when scoring a hit on what at one time was an error, he's being generous to the fielder, no error.

    Does anyone recall this some years ago, maybe around 1999-2000. Juan Gonzalaz playing for the Rangers against the Yanks put a ball in play, was scored an error on the second baseman and he was angry with the official scorer, cost him an RBI or two. In his next at bats as he scored he looked up at and pointed at the official scorer and waved a white towel from the dugout.
    No balls for this official scorer, after the game he changed it to a hit.
    Last edited by SHOELESSJOE3; 04-18-2012 at 10:55 AM.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by SHOELESSJOE3 View Post
    Also, how many times do we see an error in an inning but no runs are scored and the broadcaster will say, no harm done, the error did not hurt.
    OK, the error did not hurt "at that time" but could hurt later in the game. It could mean that the error could hurt by allowing a heavy or good hitter to get an at bat before the last out is made. If not for that error, that batter might not step to the plate in the last inning.
    Joe: You have raised a very interesting point here, about errors. their impact on statistical evaluations and the ripple effects in giving the opponent's batting order some extra [or delayed] opportunities to hurt you.

    On another thread here, dedicated to determining whether or not Gary Sheffield is the "worst" defensive liability ever, I tried to respond with how I see the dynamics of defense as being position-specific ... and also much diluted or exaggerated by playing time.

    Can you give me any feedback on those observations, if you get a chance, I'd appreciate it.

    The thread is right here in the Strategy & Sabermetrics board and asks specifically if Gary Sheffield is the greatest liability. I made my post about 48 or so hours ago.
    Last edited by leewileyfan; 04-18-2012 at 12:19 PM.

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by leewileyfan View Post
    Joe: You have raised a very interesting point here, about errors. their impact on statistical evaluations and the ripple effects in giving the opponent's batting order some extra [or delayed] opportunities to hurt you.

    On another thread here, dedicated to determining whether or not Gary Sheffield is the "worst" defensive liability ever, I tried to respond with how I see the dynamics of defense as being position-specific ... and also much diluted or exaggerated by playing time.

    Can you give me any feedback on those observations, if you get a chance, I'd appreciate it.

    The thread is right here in the Strategy & Sabermetrics board and asks specifically if Gary Sheffield is the greatest liability. I made my post about 48 or so hours ago.
    I have glanced at that thread but sorry to say, I have only dabbled in the defensive aspect of the game and am really not familiar with all the terms, metrics and other factors that go in to the defensive end of the game.
    I do follow all your posts and like what I see. Easy to see when you do post, you put forth lots of time and effort into what ever the subject may be.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Ca
    Posts
    6,937
    Quote Originally Posted by leewileyfan View Post
    … 2. Relate each data input to playing time [innings, if available and converted to Games]…
    I won’t even pretend to understand what you’re doing, but when it comes to what data points to use to denote playing time, I’d like to offer a thought. Take a look at the attachment. tim2.pdf

    A long time ago, I decided that it might be wise to come up with a way to keep parents from throwing hissy fits about how much playing time their kid got. As you well know, the standard measure is innings, or really blocks of 3 outs. In a typical LL Inc. scenario, Little Johnny isn’t very good, so he only gets the minimum time required by the rules, 2 innings, and usually the coach puts that off until absolutely necessary.

    The thought occurred to me that using innings to measure actual playing time wasn’t at all the best measure. I had already accepted innings was a poor measure of pitching time, and gone over to the dark side of pitch counts, but I couldn’t see an easy way to apply pitch counts to defense. But, before pitch counts became the “standard” for pitching, batters was given a try. Batters is a much more precise measurement than innings, but not as precise as pitch counts. But for defense, I thought I’d give it a try.

    So, I came up with my 1st “Defensive Playing Time” metric, which is the one you see in the attachment. There’s nothing tricky about it. All I do is count the number of batters each player played in the field against. Now for the ML, the breakdowns would be much different because unlike lower levels where there’s typically all kinds of changes going on because of the various rules like re-entry, there aren’t a lot of position changes going on.

    I ASSUME its possible to do the same thing from the ML records, and was wondering what a more precise measurement of playing time would do to your final numbers.
    Last edited by scorekeeper; 04-21-2012 at 07:26 AM.
    The pitcher who’s afraid to throw strikes, will soon be standing in the shower with the hitter who's afraid to swing.

  19. #19
    To the first part of your post, what I am trying to do is create a defense metric that actually tells it like is IS [WAS], without adorning the study of defense elements with batted ball "qualifiers," [some batted-ball types discarded]; standards and expectations taking precedence over actual events; park factors; handedness issues; and equivalence modifiers ... all well regressed and presented as diverse products, like talent, true talent, projected performance and payroll worth.

    With all that, I am not "knocking" any or all other metrics. They have, at a minimum, gathered some reputation for credibility, being widely published. After studying several of them, I find enough variance among them [and with my own findings] to have encouraged me to devise a metric of my own.

    Any metric needs a denominator, if it is in any way rate-oriented. GAMES is ill-defined. GAMES STARTED is an improvement; and GAMES FINISHED merely muddies the waters. INNINGS PLAYED AT POSITION is just fine in that it defines UNITS of defensive playing experience, which can further be divided into thirds, if one has reason for wanting a higher pixel count for his data.

    INNINGS being just fine for my purposes, I'll stick with it.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Ca
    Posts
    6,937
    Quote Originally Posted by leewileyfan View Post
    To the first part of your post, what I am trying to do is create a defense metric that actually tells it like is IS [WAS], without adorning the study of defense elements with batted ball "qualifiers," [some batted-ball types discarded]; standards and expectations taking precedence over actual events; park factors; handedness issues; and equivalence modifiers ... all well regressed and presented as diverse products, like talent, true talent, projected performance and payroll worth.

    With all that, I am not "knocking" any or all other metrics. They have, at a minimum, gathered some reputation for credibility, being widely published. After studying several of them, I find enough variance among them [and with my own findings] to have encouraged me to devise a metric of my own.
    Nothing at all against what you’re trying to do. In fact, I compliment folks like yourself who won’t just accept what’s offered, but try to find “truth”. But to tell the truth, the main reason I don’t get into the numbers at the ML level, is because HS ball is where my main interests lie when it comes to numbers. Unfortunately though, there are s few things missing from the numbers at that level that make most of the more recent and accurate metrics impossible to do.

    Any metric needs a denominator, if it is in any way rate-oriented. GAMES is ill-defined. GAMES STARTED is an improvement; and GAMES FINISHED merely muddies the waters. INNINGS PLAYED AT POSITION is just fine in that it defines UNITS of defensive playing experience, which can further be divided into thirds, if one has reason for wanting a higher pixel count for his data.

    INNINGS being just fine for my purposes, I'll stick with it.
    I understand that, since you’re doing it and seem satisfied with the results. What I was wondering, was what would happen to the numbers if you tried for that additional precision. FI, let’s say an inning starts and there are 6 batters and no outs have been made. Now the manger decides to change pitchers, and while he’s at it, moves F4 to short and brings in a new F4. At the end of the inning, who gets credit for what?

    I know there’s not a lot of that going on in the ML, but at the lower levels its very common.
    The pitcher who’s afraid to throw strikes, will soon be standing in the shower with the hitter who's afraid to swing.

  21. #21
    After considering all the possibilities of what I might be doing wrong, right from the start, I came to the personal conviction that perhaps is was not quite so "wrong" as far as what I was trying to accomplish.

    I guess that's what lies at the core of any study or metric [of anything]. The person doing the study and the reviewer vetting it and the prospective reader[s] digging into it have to be on the same page; OR, failing that, there will be rampant dispute and disagreement over the results.

    What I am attempting is a credible defense evaluation system that can accomplish the following:

    1. Recognize that defense is highly specialized [at the MLB level], by position, as to purpose, opportunity, challenge and cost of failure.
    2. Entertain the common fan interest [me included] in comparing players with their peers, and, if possible, across several generations of play, such that we can in some way appreciate how matchups of a Lajoie, Hornsby, Collins, Frisch, Doerr, Utley and or Hudson can be discussed with some degree of faith in the evaluations [defense emphasized] offered.
    3. Maintain focus on the topic at hand DEFENSE and its in-play EXECUTION, cautious to include relevant data and a bit cynical about introducing too many EQUIVALENCY MODIFIERS that might do more to skew credible results in favor of granular mathematical precision. The subject, at the bottom line, is baseball and defense ... not calculus.
    4. In the process of building the metric, being open to input and suggestion ... and constructive criticism.

    Thus, my focus is on defense, at the MLB level, from an historic perspective, appreciating how equipment fabrication and design, playing surfaces, ball physics, offensive strategies ... all evollve and have effects on the position players.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Ca
    Posts
    6,937
    leewileyfan,

    All completely understandable, and the way it should be. I do the same thing, unfortunately though, as I said earlier, I try very hard to stay focused on HS ball rather than MLB.

    Heck, at the HS level, my guess is, aside from there being no such thing as BPFs or even linear weights, less than half of the teams even think about defensive metrics. What with reentry and some pretty shaky scoring, there’s an invalid data factor especially when it comes to defensive records that many people wouldn’t believe.
    The pitcher who’s afraid to throw strikes, will soon be standing in the shower with the hitter who's afraid to swing.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    The Moon
    Posts
    5,073
    Not to rip up the good conversation going on, but I must divert us a bit.

    Exactly how meaningful are the sabermetric statistics when evaluating players of old? Joe Morgan, for example, has a negative five-point-something dWAR on Baseball Reference. He also holds a negative 47.0 defensive value on FanGraphs. Morgan is often heralded as a great defensive second baseman. Am I missing something?
    "Allen Sutton Sothoron pitched his initials off today."--1920s article

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Memphis,Tn
    Posts
    584
    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrus4189Cobb View Post
    Not to rip up the good conversation going on, but I must divert us a bit.

    Exactly how meaningful are the sabermetric statistics when evaluating players of old? Joe Morgan, for example, has a negative five-point-something dWAR on Baseball Reference. He also holds a negative 47.0 defensive value on FanGraphs. Morgan is often heralded as a great defensive second baseman. Am I missing something?
    I have NEVER seen Morgan coming out ahead in regards to his defense with any formula.In Total Baseball,for example,he gets a -216!When he was in his prime I recall him being a wonderful fielder who made a lot of clutch plays.Maybe my memory is faulty.I have in recent years been real keen on checking out the defensive metrics,stats,etc of various fielders of the past and present.The two names that sound off an alarm bell, so to speak,are Derek Jeter and Joe Morgan.Derek Jeter has no range and is generally regarded as being overrated and as plain awful.No question there.But Joe Morgan apparently is in the same boat,which surprises me more than any other rating of any other fielder ever(with the very possible exception of outfielder Amos Otis)!
    Last edited by Nimrod; 04-22-2012 at 08:49 AM.

  25. #25
    Nimrod and Tyrus:

    FWIW, here's how I have Joe Morgan rated, over each season of his career, as to defense. My metric presents payer defense RATINGS as a decimal of three or four places. It intentially resembles fielding percentage, ONLY for the purpose[s] of familiarity of presentation and ease of conversion into +/- defense runs compared to whatever model.

    The basis for comparison and determination of +/- DR is MLB defensive average among all players at the position in each season. The average is approximate. I hope you accept the approximation, as I am in the middle of editing a manuscript on defense and its history and evolution [1901-Present; and processing all this data kind of cramps progress if I have to calculate separate precise numbers to address specific issues. The numbers [averages] vary, season-to-season, by league and MLB overall ... these numbers are close.

    The data is presented for Morgan, by season; and the DR are adjusted for actual playing time in each of the seasons. If I remember correctly, Morgan won 5 Gold Glove awards ['74 through '77]. I have him "earning" one: 1970, when he did not win a GG.

    Season.........Rating........ +/-DR [vs. MLB Average @ .945]

    1966........... .949...........+2.01
    1967........... .925...........-4.93
    1967........... .931...........-3.75
    1969........... .929...........-4.32
    1970........... .964...........+5.67
    1971........... .956...........+3.70
    1972........... .953...........+2.55
    1973........... .954...........+2.97
    1974........... .939...........-1.82
    1975........... .959...........+4.26
    1976........... .927...........-5.13
    1977........... .924...........-6.79
    1978........... .915...........-7.20
    1979........... .950...........+1.21
    1980........... .954...........+2.22
    1981........... .972...........+4.80
    1982........... .964...........+4.68
    1983........... .963...........+3.93
    1984........... .940...........-0.92

    From 1978 through 1984, the most games played at 2B for Morgan was 115; and the reduced playing time seems to have afforded him a second wind of sorts. All-in-all, the +/- DR total, career = +3.14 DR.

    Depending upon how granular one wants his results, I'd settle at that number, although some might argue that weighted performance, by inning, would produce a slight minus number. He had a defensive peak ['70 through '73] that was consistent and moderately above average. Moderated playing time game him an encore from '79 through '83.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •