Fielding Statistics

[Tyrus4189Cobb]

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

[Nimrod]

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 [email protected] 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?

[drstrangelove]

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.

[Nimrod]

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!!

[leewileyfan]

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.

[Tyrus4189Cobb]

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

[Tyrus4189Cobb]

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

[leewileyfan]

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.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

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.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

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.

[leewileyfan]

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.

[Jackaroo Dave]

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

[SHOELESSJOE3]

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.

[Jackaroo Dave]

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.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

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.