A Fleshner Fantasy wrote:Yes, it's measuring a player against all other players at his position, but it's not measuring every aspect of playing that position. There's still variance, which I've already noted in other posts. Separating balls hit into 3 categories titled hard, medium, and soft) DOES NOT account for how hard a ball is actually hit. In that scenario, a ball in the 35th percentile is the same as one in the 65th percentile. That's well below average as compared to well above average, yet for the purposes of UZR, they are the same.
Except that there are really 12 batted ball types, when you look at the 4 (ground balls, bunt ground balls, outfield line drives, and outfield fly balls) X 3 (slow, medium, soft). Pretending that there's but three buckets with which to bucket all batted balls is just not true.
A Fleshner Fantasy wrote:You say that it's hard to take me seriously, yet you've essentially tried to ram down my throat the theory that UZR is the be all end all stat that definitively shows how good a player is defensively: it's not, because a stat like that does not (and never will) exist, just like there is no stat that shows exactly how good a player is at hitting. Sure, things like UZR can be useful, as long as you take the information with a grain of salt, but it really bothers me to see people talking about players as if they're the greatest thing since sliced bread because they are a good fielding CF according to UZR, despite hitting .258.
1. I've never said that UZR is the end-all, be-all. It and +/- are the best things we've got now, and they're based on sound principles with enough data support to be reasonable.
2. I think with HitFX we might actually get close to saying definitively how good a player is, although there will always be room for debate.
3. There is a stat that shows how good a player is at hitting, it's called wOBA.
4. I'm not sure why it bothers you to see people talking about how valuable good fielding players are. Maybe you should try to not be bothered so easily. Although I guess it kind of bothers me that there are still people who think RBIs are a good way to measure players as well, but I just chalk that up to people being stupid and watching too much ESPN. There's really no reason to not believe that there aren't players out there who derive most of their value from their skill with the leather.
A Fleshner Fantasy wrote:And as for the Teixeira example, yes, I'm sure it is starting to get really old for you to see an example that goes completely against your point that you struggle to combat. If I was on your side of this discussion, I wouldn't want to discuss that example either.
Teixeira isn't an example of anything when it comes to the virtues of UZR. He's had a negative UZR once in his entire career, and even then it was -1.6 which is basically average. If that's evidence that UZR thinks he's a bad fielder, I'd love for someone to explain that to me. And I know that I've made similar comments several times, but I'll just link you to David Appelman to refute the whole Teixeira non-story from last year
. Moral of the story: use your brain, people!