Not to mention, fans doing the Eye Test tend to have incredibly lopsided sample sizes for players on their own team. Watching 1400 innings of Bradley and comparing it to 70 innings of, say, Kevin Kiermaier doesn't make for a fair and unbiased evaluationOriginally Posted by moonslav59
Yes, the small sample size should not be used to judge a player's defense, but it is curious to see JBJ somewhat low so far this year, when my eye test has seen greatness.
The "Range" part of UZR has Jackie at +3.1 runs. His overall UZR, and hence his UZR/150, has been hurt by his "Arm" runs, which are at -2.4.
Advanced metrics are not likely to be 'deceived' by a player making a play look easy, even in the rankings of "difficult" plays versus "routine" plays. Those plays are not measured by the eye test, so Jackie making a play look easy would not affect the ranking.
Even if a fan watched the exact same plays in the exact same number of innings, the evaluation is likely to be biased. It's just human nature.
A Red Sox fan would 'see' Bradley as the better CFer, and a Rays fan would 'see' Kiermaier as the better one.
Maybe that biased thing would be true of some fans, but not all.
The King of TalkSox has Spoken.
The bias is heavily influenced by sample size. As Sox fans watch infinitely more Bradley than Kiermaier or Pillar - two equally elite defensive centerfielders - they will obviously see Bradley make more great plays than they will see the other two make. It's hard to get around it.
Are you implying you're not biased by lopsided samples? If so, what's your ranking of Bradley, Kiermaier and Pillar as defensive centerfielders and why?
I would need to watch each of them in person, preferably from an outfield seat, for a series or two, preferably against each before I would offer an opinion ranking them in order. I haven't seen Kiermaier in person, but based on what I have seen on TV, I do consider him to be top shelf with Bradley and Pillar. As to who is best or a ranking of the three, I would expect the differences to be minor, and I am not sure the differences between the 3 of the very best would be very meaningful or that anyone's opinion or any data measure would be definitive.
The King of TalkSox has Spoken.
I'll bite.
Of course I have seen much more of JBJ.
I think Kiermaier is probably equal to Bradley in getting to the ball because he appears to have better speed.
Bradley seems to have a better arm but I have not seen Kiermaier throw all that much.
I think Pillar has less skill overall but does have speed to run down shots.
It's a tough call.
"Hating the Yankees like it's a religion since 94'" RIP Mike.
"It's also a simple and indisputable fact that WAR isn't the be-all end-all in valuations, especially in real life. Wanna know why? Because an ace in run-prevention for 120 innings means more often than not, a sub-standard pitcher covering for the rest of the IP that pitcher fails to provide. You can't see value in a vacuum when a player does not provide full-time production."
This makes sense.
I wonder how ballpark factors effect rankings. Especially those with turf.
"Hating the Yankees like it's a religion since 94'" RIP Mike.
"It's also a simple and indisputable fact that WAR isn't the be-all end-all in valuations, especially in real life. Wanna know why? Because an ace in run-prevention for 120 innings means more often than not, a sub-standard pitcher covering for the rest of the IP that pitcher fails to provide. You can't see value in a vacuum when a player does not provide full-time production."
I remember the math from Major League, 2 scratch hits a week turns .250 into .300. I'm too lazy to do the math but would 2 hits not turn .200 into .250?. But I said he may take away 1-2 more hits than the Orioles center fielder. Maybe. And many weeks it's 1 or none. And of course his erratic arm may give back one of these plays every few weeks.
But as I said I understand mine is not a popular opinion and I can certainly see your side of the debate.
I think you mean Bull Durham, and not Major League. And it was 1 hit pet week, not 2. But that was also based on 500 at bats over 25 weeks for .050 points of batting average
Basically most starters get about 25 at bats per week. So each hit is worth .040 on their avetage for that week. So if Bradley is saving 2 hits per week, is that or not worth the same as getting 2 more hits per week?
1-2 plays per week is a bigger difference than you seemed to think in your original post. To a hitter, it can be .2018040 batting average points. Don't you think it helps a pitcher similarly?
I think you mean Air Bud: Seventh Inning Fetch. When you are on all fours seems to be increase range 100%. Also, catching the ball with your mouth rather than stretching at 1B is equal to 1 WAR over the course of a single WS game.
And then we get into the unknowns of the issue, how many runs do those 1-2 "extra" plays he makes in a week save? Just last night we saw a SS mishandle a ball on a DP that cost his team 4 runs - and it wasn't even a charged error.
It's a mere moment in a man's life between the All-Star game and the Old Timer's game.
-Vin Scully
You cannot trust your " eye test ". You have to go by UZR , which is essentially someone else's " eye test ".
But all those other eyes are objective!!!!!!
"Hating the Yankees like it's a religion since 94'" RIP Mike.
"It's also a simple and indisputable fact that WAR isn't the be-all end-all in valuations, especially in real life. Wanna know why? Because an ace in run-prevention for 120 innings means more often than not, a sub-standard pitcher covering for the rest of the IP that pitcher fails to provide. You can't see value in a vacuum when a player does not provide full-time production."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote