Announcement

Collapse

Updated Baseball Fever Policy

Baseball Fever Policy

I. Purpose of this announcement:

This announcement describes the policies pertaining to the operation of Baseball Fever.

Baseball Fever is a moderated baseball message board which encourages and facilitates research and information exchange among fans of our national pastime. The intent of the Baseball Fever Policy is to ensure that Baseball Fever remains an extremely high quality, extremely low "noise" environment.

Baseball Fever is administrated by three principal administrators:
webmaster - Baseball Fever Owner
The Commissioner - Baseball Fever Administrator
Macker - Baseball Fever Administrator

And a group of forum specific super moderators. The role of the moderator is to keep Baseball Fever smoothly and to screen posts for compliance with our policy. The moderators are ALL volunteer positions, so please be patient and understanding of any delays you might experience in correspondence.

II. Comments about our policy:

Any suggestions on this policy may be made directly to the webmaster.

III. Acknowledgments:

This document was based on a similar policy used by SABR.

IV. Requirements for participation on Baseball Fever:

Participation on Baseball Fever is available to all baseball fans with a valid email address, as verified by the forum's automated system, which then in turn creates a single validated account. Multiple accounts by a single user are prohibited.

By registering, you agree to adhere to the policies outlined in this document and to conduct yourself accordingly. Abuse of the forum, by repeated failure to abide by these policies, will result in your access being blocked to the forum entirely.

V. Baseball Fever Netiquette:

Participants at Baseball Fever are required to adhere to these principles, which are outlined in this section.
a. All posts to Baseball Fever should be written in clear, concise English, with proper grammar and accurate spelling. The use of abbreviations should be kept to a minimum; when abbreviation is necessary, they should be either well-known (such as etc.), or explained on their first use in your post.

b. Conciseness is a key attribute of a good post.

c. Quote only the portion of a post to which you are responding.

d. Standard capitalization and punctuation make a large difference in the readability of a post. TYPING IN ALL CAPITALS is considered to be "shouting"; it is a good practice to limit use of all capitals to words which you wish to emphasize.

e. It is our policy NOT to transmit any defamatory or illegal materials.

f. Personal attacks of any type against Baseball Fever readers will not be tolerated. In these instances the post will be copied by a moderator and/or administrator, deleted from the site, then sent to the member who made the personal attack via a Private Message (PM) along with a single warning. Members who choose to not listen and continue personal attacks will be banned from the site.

g. It is important to remember that many contextual clues available in face-to-face discussion, such as tone of voice and facial expression, are lost in the electronic forum. As a poster, try to be alert for phrasing that might be misinterpreted by your audience to be offensive; as a reader, remember to give the benefit of the doubt and not to take umbrage too easily. There are many instances in which a particular choice of words or phrasing can come across as being a personal attack where none was intended.

h. The netiquette described above (a-g) often uses the term "posts", but applies equally to Private Messages.

VI. Baseball Fever User Signature Policy

A signature is a piece of text that some members may care to have inserted at the end of ALL of their posts, a little like the closing of a letter. You can set and / or change your signature by editing your profile in the UserCP. Since it is visible on ALL your posts, the following policy must be adhered to:

Signature Composition
Font size limit: No larger than size 2 (This policy is a size 2)
Style: Bold and italics are permissible
Character limit: No more than 500 total characters
Lines: No more than 4 lines
Colors: Most colors are permissible, but those which are hard to discern against the gray background (yellow, white, pale gray) should be avoided
Images/Graphics: Allowed, but nothing larger than 20k and Content rules must be followed

Signature Content
No advertising is permitted
Nothing political or religious
Nothing obscene, vulgar, defamatory or derogatory
Links to personal blogs/websites are permissible - with the webmaster's written consent
A Link to your Baseball Fever Blog does not require written consent and is recommended
Quotes must be attributed. Non-baseball quotes are permissible as long as they are not religious or political

Please adhere to these rules when you create your signature. Failure to do so will result in a request to comply by a moderator. If you do not comply within a reasonable amount of time, the signature will be removed and / or edited by an Administrator. Baseball Fever reserves the right to edit and / or remove any or all of your signature line at any time without contacting the account holder.

VII. Appropriate and inappropriate topics for Baseball Fever:

Most concisely, the test for whether a post is appropriate for Baseball Fever is: "Does this message discuss our national pastime in an interesting manner?" This post can be direct or indirect: posing a question, asking for assistance, providing raw data or citations, or discussing and constructively critiquing existing posts. In general, a broad interpretation of "baseball related" is used.

Baseball Fever is not a promotional environment. Advertising of products, web sites, etc., whether for profit or not-for-profit, is not permitted. At the webmaster's discretion, brief one-time announcements for products or services of legitimate baseball interest and usefulness may be allowed. If advertising is posted to the site it will be copied by a moderator and/or administrator, deleted from the site, then sent to the member who made the post via a Private Message (PM) along with a single warning. Members who choose to not listen and continue advertising will be banned from the site. If the advertising is spam-related, pornography-based, or a "visit-my-site" type post / private message, no warning at all will be provided, and the member will be banned immediately without a warning.

It is considered appropriate to post a URL to a page which specifically and directly answers a question posted on the list (for example, it would be permissible to post a link to a page containing home-road splits, even on a site which has advertising or other commercial content; however, it would not be appropriate to post the URL of the main page of the site). The site reserves the right to limit the frequency of such announcements by any individual or group.

In keeping with our test for a proper topic, posting to Baseball Fever should be treated as if you truly do care. This includes posting information that is, to the best of your knowledge, complete and accurate at the time you post. Any errors or ambiguities you catch later should be acknowledged and corrected in the thread, since Baseball Fever is sometimes considered to be a valuable reference for research information.

VIII. Role of the moderator:

When a post is submitted to Baseball Fever, it is forwarded by the server automatically and seen immediately. The moderator may:
a. Leave the thread exactly like it was submitted. This is the case 95% of the time.

b. Immediately delete the thread as inappropriate for Baseball Fever. Examples include advertising, personal attacks, or spam. This is the case 1% of the time.

c. Move the thread. If a member makes a post about the Marlins in the Yankees forum it will be moved to the appropriate forum. This is the case 3% of the time.

d. Edit the message due to an inappropriate item. This is the case 1% of the time. There have been new users who will make a wonderful post, then add to their signature line (where your name / handle appears) a tagline that is a pure advertisement. This tagline will be removed, a note will be left in the message so he/she is aware of the edit, and personal contact will be made to the poster telling them what has been edited and what actions need to be taken to prevent further edits.

The moderators perform no checks on posts to verify factual or logical accuracy. While he/she may point out gross errors in factual data in replies to the thread, the moderator does not act as an "accuracy" editor. Also moderation is not a vehicle for censorship of individuals and/or opinions, and the moderator's decisions should not be taken personally.

IX. Legal aspects of participation in Baseball Fever:

By submitting a post to Baseball Fever, you grant Baseball Fever permission to distribute your message to the forum. Other rights pertaining to the post remain with the ORIGINAL author, and you may not redistribute or retransmit any posts by any others, in whole or in part, without the express consent of the original author.

The messages appearing on Baseball Fever contain the opinions and views of their respective authors and are not necessarily those of Baseball Fever, or of the Baseball Almanac family of sites.

Sincerely,

Sean Holtz, Webmaster of Baseball Almanac & Baseball Fever
www.baseball-almanac.com | www.baseball-fever.com
"Baseball Almanac: Sharing Baseball. Sharing History."
See more
See less

Fielding Statistics

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    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, 12:19 PM.

    Comment


    • #17
      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.

      Comment


      • #18
        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, 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.

        Comment


        • #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.

          Comment


          • #20
            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.

            Comment


            • #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.

              Comment


              • #22
                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.

                Comment


                • #23
                  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

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    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, 08:49 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #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.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Nimrod View Post
                        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)!
                        I'd trust your eye if I was you. I'm not you and I still trust your eye more.
                        "No matter how great you were once upon a time — the years go by, and men forget,” - W. A. Phelon in Baseball Magazine in 1915. “Ross Barnes, forty years ago, was as great as Cobb or Wagner ever dared to be. Had scores been kept then as now, he would have seemed incomparably marvelous.”

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Nimrod: How does my metric evaluation of Joe Morgan comport with what you saw or believed to be true, from your own experience viewing Morgan? I'd appreciate feedback, and then would be encouraged to go on with metric findings on Jeter and Otis.

                          I am working on a book manuscript that I've decided to update and try for publication. A NYC agent had it for over a a year then abandoned it. He runs a pretty big "house" in NYC and I'm inclined to believe he was too big or too busy to give it a proper shot. I do need feedback, though, in order to continue with a renewed sense of purpose.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Nimrod View Post
                            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)!
                            I've seen metrics that have Otis as being very good, but he probably had opportunities taken away by having Willie Wilson in left field. Morgan is rated pretty consistently in almost every metric: below average up until about 1973, good to excellent from '73 to '77 and below average from '77 to the end of his career.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by SHOELESSJOE3 View Post
                              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.


                              In 2001 NL 30.0% of all batted balls in play were "scored" as hits and 1.7% of total chances were errors.
                              In 1940 NL 28.0% of all batted balls in play were scored as hits and 2.8% of total chances were errors.

                              If gloves were able to reduce errors by nearly 40% should they have been able to reduce hits on balls in play by 40% as well?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by brett View Post
                                I've seen metrics that have Otis as being very good, but he probably had opportunities taken away by having Willie Wilson in left field. Morgan is rated pretty consistently in almost every metric: below average up until about 1973, good to excellent from '73 to '77 and below average from '77 to the end of his career.
                                I mainly got to see Morgan in the early 70`s and onward(mainly when he was with the Reds and at his absolute peak),so that would jibe with my memory and that of my friends as to Morgan`s good glove.I guess I should take the Baseball Gauge and a few of the other metrics with at least a little grain of salt.I`m seeing some strange ratings in the BG.I mean when Zeke Bonura(the one time poster-boy for lousy fielders with "pretty"stats)gets a good rating it makes you wonder.Then,maybe he was unfairly maligned in his day.Leewileyfan has an interesting metric evaluation that he is working on.I believe his metrics are also favorable to Otis.There is so much to consider when it comes to evaluating fielders.Even Branch Rickey considered it beyond his grasp.
                                Last edited by Nimrod; 04-24-2012, 11:28 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X