TheLeviathan

We agree there Brock, the misuse of them has been my biggest beef from the start of this. UZR is limited by what it is, but that's also why I hope new advancements will improve and eliminate some of those limitations.

Maybe I'm wrong too in how a team UZR is calculated vs. a players, maybe that sample is large enough.

Personally, I don't want anything from UZR. I think what it tries to do with the limitations we have measuring defense is fine, IF (big if) it is used properly. Fangraphs states pretty clearly that using it over larger samples greatly increases it's usefulness, yet stating KC saved X runs over Cleveland in one season betrays their very recommendation. Ditto using WAR alone to say Trout > Cabrera for MVP. I like looking at UZR and WAR as ranking tools over 3+ seasons, which is sort of what we're told they are for and best at. So why does the saber community so frequently not follow their own advice on defensive metrics?

Split the difference and go with Walleye on a stick.

I thought this was a helpful and amusing little article on the subject that I came across.

Maybe and maybe that is part of the problem. At the same time, statistics in sports have been precise for most of their existence. If you want people to understand and accept imperfect approximations (which, AGAIN, everyone agrees is their known intent. Trying to save you a ramble here), than perhaps the onus is on the writer. Sabermetrics are new and if they are new both in how they measure and what they measure, I'd think wider acceptance and understanding isn't the job of the reader. It's the writer. You sort of made a rambling assumption after this, so I'll just respond here: A change in how advanced metrics discuss and utlize their metrics so as not to cause so much confusion. Wasn't talking about changing which metric is used (please, get off that, no one is saying that to you), just a change in how the metrics are discussed.

I'm not being stubborn, it's part of my point. You continually deride anyone with a different viewpoint for a lack of understanding of the statistic, but the very site employing it is less than clear about the distinction you are drawing. In fact, I used the exact same words to describe a problem I saw as Fangraphs and you blew a gasket over misunderstanding. Sort of speaks to my point of a better presentation of strengths and weaknesses being an area of improvement for sabermetrics. I'm sure you'll disagree, but you're on the side of it that doesn't see the need for change because you THINK it's clear when it perhaps is not as much as you believe it to be.

They are aware of it and over time looking at the stats I am aware of it, but to those that are being introduced to it or are new to interacting with it, it is not so clear to them. I would imagine the proponents of this work want to expand the appreciation of it, so less confusing presentation may be helpful. Rather than continually telling people they don't "get it" or they are "reading it wrong" - perhaps attack that problem on the front end instead? I feel like sometimes these stats are talked about in the same way that one might talk about OPS or batting average, when that isn't fair. (To either statistic's strengths or weaknesses quite frankly) Some effort to make sure these approximations are read as approximations would go a long way to helping these stats be accepted and properly interpreted IMO.

I merely used the same exact phrase that the experts at Fangraphs used to describe the stat. You should take your issue up with them.

Please, drop the strawman. The problem is not what they believe, but in how they communicate it so that others don't believe that they are. I never insinuated anyone believes that, not even close. In fact, I made the exact opposite point about their intentions, my point was about their delivery confusing their intentions to some that might read them. I think that issue is one of the main problems in why sabermetrics believers versus old school people continue to talk past each other.

Straight from Fangraphs: In general, UZR isn’t perfect because it doesn’t factor in shifts, positioning, and can’t perfectly measure everything it needs to, but it’s still among the best options out there. So, please, take your issue up with them and their phrasing.

I'm not sure they are at odds Chief, but it seems like it at times. From my vantage point SABR stats are meant to better approximate value by looking deeper into what a player can control. I think that's great, but where I think many SABR people lose those that they want to join them is with forgetting to differentiate that they are approximating value, not precisely or perfectly measuring it. That's an important distinction IMO. In sports, many of the stats that we see are not approximations. A QB's completion rate, a player's RBI total, a player's shooting percentage, etc. I don't think enough time and effort is made to make clear that these two sorts of statistics are not in quite the same family. It may seem trivial or ridiculous, but I disagree. People bristle that they have to have some sort of caveat or disclaimer everytime...but maybe that's what it has to be. The SABR community wants to be more largely accepted by the sport they follow, so maybe they need to make it clear what they are actually doing. They are using science/math to approximate what is largely thought to be subjective, not necessarily giving a precise measurement. At the same time, that community (and the post that started this comes to mind) has to be careful about the manner in which they state their statistics to not make them sound so concrete. It isn't that hard to phrase your use of UZR or WAR or whatever else in a way that won't make people get stuck on 120 runs vs. 100 runs and yet there is virtually no effort to do so. That's what confuses people IMO. It also doesn't help when you openly acknowledge in your primers that UZR doesn't factor in positioning but others claim it does. Or that you should use UZR in larger samples for the most reliability and then have that very same site post about defensive rankings and gush about a one year difference between KC and CLE. Or to say UZR is less reliable the smaller the sample size but use WAR over short periods with little thought to how that might be impacting the numbers. It sends mixed messages about the stats and how to properly interpret them or use them. As a way or ranking players over periods of time they are great, but that isn't the limits of their use and that's what causes some confusion. Just my two cents.

I think this is really unsurprising, but man I hope by July first we have a lot more names to be excited about on this roster. May, Meyer, Sano, Rosario, the relievers, etc. To be fair though, this time last year we didn't have as many young guys with stories to pay attention to. Santana, Vargas, and Arcia alone have more intrigue to them than we've seen in awhile.

There is not a better statistical alternative so feel no pressure to dismiss anything. I'm just not on the bandwagon due to skepticism.

We've sort of floated back and forth between a couple different things. UZR has it's own issues even if it is accounts better for positioning. You keep saying you (and everyone else) don't deny those weaknesses so I'm not sure why we have to constantly go back and forth on that. If we all accept the weaknesses than we should all be in agreement this new technology has some exciting potential to minimize those effects and help us get better value measurements.

It would help then if you approached the issue without that coming across. I have no doubt that saying it defied common sense sounded like an insult to people who took the numbers at face value - that was never my intent. But I can't think of a term that conveys that feeling when I read it any better than has been expressed more than a few times. I'm glad some others helped flesh this out a bit more because it's been enlightening. No matter where you fall on this particular metric, that should be seen as a good thing. Anyone willing to ask a question or express skepticism is a person trying to embrace the value of the metric or find out where it is weak or strong. Baseball metrics are where they are now because lots of people have said "No...I don't buy that, we can find a better way to measure that" And now we have a whole host of interesting ways of measuring the game and I think that's a good thing.

See, I think this is the part that some people are stuck on - the "noise in the data". I really hope we can get to the point that we can just look at the other effects and I hope the new technology will help with that. Of course, then we have to hope the Twins will care to look at it too,

I would argue it was already off track on the first page of this thread when there was some healthy skepticism expressed and then patronizingly unaddressed.

I agree and look, I have a hard time expressing my response to the numbers here as anything but common sense-defying. You pick a term that is less offensive to you I guess. If I call it counter-intuitive than that gets shot down. The point is, something feels off about that number. It feels like an extreme outlier being used to prop up the case and being portrayed as common. Whatever approach you want to take something about it doesn't mesh with me. Am I wrong? Maybe, jay has made a few compelling arguments. Some I still struggle with and much of it stems from my own misgivings about the confidence people have in defensive metrics, but it's not an unfair question.

No offense, but have you read the tone of some people responding to the skepticism? No one is dismissing anything - every step of this thread has been more about questioning (the heart of skepticism) and it has been met with derision. Thank goodness a few like jay have tried to keep the dialogue productive and interesting rather than dogmatic and dismissive

Positioning is absolutely unaccounted for in some WAR calculations. Or, at least, calculated very imprecisely. (You can google some SABRheads lamenting this very notion if it feels better coming from someone else. Here's one ) And, to repeat your tone - no one is claiming we exclude it. It was a comment on something being better. Sport Trac will hopefully be better, more accurate, and less subjective. That's why it will be such a fascinating new tool. Also, and I've said this before, something being the best current option doesn't make it "good". Thank god we didn't take that mentality with....hell...every damn scientific innovation in human history. Science and math are supposed to be about skepticism driving the development of better understanding. So be open to the idea that some of this might benefit from some fleshing out and airing of grievances - it will only make things better understood and better developed. Yeesh.

"Bad" is subjective. The point is that the current metrics are missing a lot of important components. Positioning alone is basically unaccounted for and that matters for more than just shifts. You couple those weaknesses with all of the interpretation going on and you get something less than perfect. It's why it's always wise to take these ratings in larger sample sizes than even season. I'm not sure why there is anything other than appreciation for things being less subjective.

Not just removing the human error, but incorporating positioning of players, distance they are covering, speed getting to plays, and just a host of other things that are vital components of defensive success that are only vaguely (if at all) in the equation. Sport-Trac is one of the most interesting things to watch the next 5 years.

If jay is saying that outlier defenses can make a 140 run difference a year.....isn't that what some are saying? It feels like we're all settled in around 30/70, but disagree about outliers being 50/50. Maybe I'm misunderstanding that earlier point. But I think what Brock is saying is important - we seem to lack the equivalent of a "replacement" defense to see what the true baseline is for how much better than average these teams are and instead we seem to be assuming great defenses are constantly making great plays in run saving situations. That's counter-intuitive to my baseball watching experience.

You mean the sort that WAR might not be the best single stat to use when evaluating?