LBJackal wrote:Also, history has shown that ZR correlates very well to UZR. There are always exceptions, but ZR is a much better measring stick for defensive range than any other stat out there that I know of... and better than just watching the game.
A) Here's a little tid bit from stat class: Correlation does not mean causation.
B) You have to understand that every single defensive statistic is inherently faulty since the model requires assigning points to things that are not direct outputs. It's a fallacious use of statistics that shouldn't be used.
I've taken enough stats classes, but thanks for the little primer there buddy.
ZR is relevant, and the players who are viewed as perennial Gold Glovers usually have a history of great seasons with ZR early in their careers, and rightfully win Gold Gloves because of it. The problem with just watching them play, is that they keep that aura of being great throughout their career even when their range drastically declines, such as the case with Andruw, Edmonds, Vizquel, Bret Boone, and many other players.
I've conceded the whole time it's not perfect, but don't go and say it has no relevence, and no defensive stat has relevence (most don't however, since only a couple - ZR and UZR - are based play-by-play data). There is obviously a margin for error which is why it shouldn't be used to rank range exactly as the ZR's go. But when your ZR declines steadily, do you not think there is a reason behind that, which is a decline in the player's range?
How does Andruw go from top tier in 1997, 1998, and 1999 (avg ZR of .910) to dead last over the span of 2 years, 2003-2004 (avg ZR of .838)? Sure that doesn't mean he's for sure the worst for range, although he very well could be, but it's a pretty solid indication that he's gotten a lot worse, and that he isn't nearly the best OF in the league like many people make him out to be.