Comments on: The Yankees are good at offense http://riveraveblues.com/2009/09/the-yankees-are-good-at-offense-16953/ A New York Yankees Blog Wed, 15 Feb 2012 04:42:27 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: TT http://riveraveblues.com/2009/09/the-yankees-are-good-at-offense-16953/#comment-576724 TT Fri, 11 Sep 2009 23:13:09 +0000 http://riveraveblues.com/?p=16953#comment-576724 I hope this is a joke I hope this is a joke

]]> By: Whitey14 http://riveraveblues.com/2009/09/the-yankees-are-good-at-offense-16953/#comment-576668 Whitey14 Fri, 11 Sep 2009 21:01:00 +0000 http://riveraveblues.com/?p=16953#comment-576668 Flexibility is huuuuuge. Imaging if Teixeira could have swung over and played third while ARod was out early in the season.... Flexibility is huuuuuge. Imaging if Teixeira could have swung over and played third while ARod was out early in the season….

]]> By: Tank Foster http://riveraveblues.com/2009/09/the-yankees-are-good-at-offense-16953/#comment-576654 Tank Foster Fri, 11 Sep 2009 19:39:41 +0000 http://riveraveblues.com/?p=16953#comment-576654 I wish we could edit and remove our own posts.....hate to post so much, but some days... Matt, the reason I think your rankings are wrong is that catching fly balls is markedly easier than catching grounders and throwing guys out. Infield positions will always be more important than outfield. The 1b may not get as many grounders as the other 3 positions, but his role in catching every ground ball out also accounts for significant importance in his defensive value. But I don't know for sure, if on study, you aren't right about CF being more important than 1b. I would bet you a whole pile of money, though, that 1b is more important defensively than LF or RF is. I wish we could edit and remove our own posts…..hate to post so much, but some days…

Matt, the reason I think your rankings are wrong is that catching fly balls is markedly easier than catching grounders and throwing guys out. Infield positions will always be more important than outfield. The 1b may not get as many grounders as the other 3 positions, but his role in catching every ground ball out also accounts for significant importance in his defensive value.

But I don’t know for sure, if on study, you aren’t right about CF being more important than 1b. I would bet you a whole pile of money, though, that 1b is more important defensively than LF or RF is.

]]> By: king of fruitless hypotheticals http://riveraveblues.com/2009/09/the-yankees-are-good-at-offense-16953/#comment-576645 king of fruitless hypotheticals Fri, 11 Sep 2009 19:02:15 +0000 http://riveraveblues.com/?p=16953#comment-576645 mmm...dont care: we have both. :) mmm…dont care: we have both.

:)

]]> By: king of fruitless hypotheticals http://riveraveblues.com/2009/09/the-yankees-are-good-at-offense-16953/#comment-576644 king of fruitless hypotheticals Fri, 11 Sep 2009 18:59:41 +0000 http://riveraveblues.com/?p=16953#comment-576644 (see also: me) (see also: me)

]]> By: Tank Foster http://riveraveblues.com/2009/09/the-yankees-are-good-at-offense-16953/#comment-576640 Tank Foster Fri, 11 Sep 2009 18:35:42 +0000 http://riveraveblues.com/?p=16953#comment-576640 Your rankings are interesting. I thought, though, that the STATS guys or Bill James or someone actually has studied this issue - the relative importance of the different positions. I don't remember the results. I'm a gonna look it up. Your rankings are interesting. I thought, though, that the STATS guys or Bill James or someone actually has studied this issue – the relative importance of the different positions. I don’t remember the results. I’m a gonna look it up.

]]> By: RCK http://riveraveblues.com/2009/09/the-yankees-are-good-at-offense-16953/#comment-576639 RCK Fri, 11 Sep 2009 18:35:30 +0000 http://riveraveblues.com/?p=16953#comment-576639 There are Yankees fans who hate Nick Swisher?! Do they also hate Xmas and puppy dogs? There are Yankees fans who hate Nick Swisher?! Do they also hate Xmas and puppy dogs?

]]> By: Tank Foster http://riveraveblues.com/2009/09/the-yankees-are-good-at-offense-16953/#comment-576636 Tank Foster Fri, 11 Sep 2009 18:32:52 +0000 http://riveraveblues.com/?p=16953#comment-576636 Your whole argument is based around UZR. You and I have no idea what the fidelity of UZR numbers are (ordinal, interval, ratio?), nor do we know even a faint estimate of the measurement error. And yeah, I know, you or someone else will say "well, Tank, it's the best thing we've got, so we've got to go with it." Horse hockey. You have to look at those numbers as being rather loose figures. I could go on and on as to how those differences might be confounded by things which have nothing to do with either player's defensive ability, but it's way too boring. I'll give you props for the circumspect conclusion...not sure I agree with it, but it's nicely put. Your whole argument is based around UZR. You and I have no idea what the fidelity of UZR numbers are (ordinal, interval, ratio?), nor do we know even a faint estimate of the measurement error. And yeah, I know, you or someone else will say “well, Tank, it’s the best thing we’ve got, so we’ve got to go with it.”

Horse hockey. You have to look at those numbers as being rather loose figures. I could go on and on as to how those differences might be confounded by things which have nothing to do with either player’s defensive ability, but it’s way too boring.

I’ll give you props for the circumspect conclusion…not sure I agree with it, but it’s nicely put.

]]> By: Tank Foster http://riveraveblues.com/2009/09/the-yankees-are-good-at-offense-16953/#comment-576632 Tank Foster Fri, 11 Sep 2009 18:21:49 +0000 http://riveraveblues.com/?p=16953#comment-576632 No, it isn't a straw man, not remotely. It doesn't matter how long it's been around. It has a fancy name and number attached to it, but it it's root, it depends on the subjective evaluation of "stringers" watching baseball games. They make crude distinctions in how hard balls are hit (hard, medium, slow), and have to just "judge" (with their own eyes, mind you), whether they thought a ball was catchable, etc. And even if the the observations were unassailable, they still account for things like ground ball tendencies in very approximated ways. No, there are very good reasons to doubt UZR. Now, do I mean to suggest that the number is meaningless? No. But can anyone say that the difference between a UZR of 4 and 6 is the same as the difference between a 9 and 11? No way. Nor even whether the difference between 3 and 7 is significant...there are no confidence intervals in any of these numbers, so people assume that decimal point differences mean something. There is error in any kind of measurement, and even if you completely accept the theory and methodology, taking results at face value without regard to error is just stupid. I'm telling you, some people are just thick headed about some of these stats. No, it isn’t a straw man, not remotely. It doesn’t matter how long it’s been around. It has a fancy name and number attached to it, but it it’s root, it depends on the subjective evaluation of “stringers” watching baseball games. They make crude distinctions in how hard balls are hit (hard, medium, slow), and have to just “judge” (with their own eyes, mind you), whether they thought a ball was catchable, etc. And even if the the observations were unassailable, they still account for things like ground ball tendencies in very approximated ways.

No, there are very good reasons to doubt UZR. Now, do I mean to suggest that the number is meaningless? No.

But can anyone say that the difference between a UZR of 4 and 6 is the same as the difference between a 9 and 11? No way. Nor even whether the difference between 3 and 7 is significant…there are no confidence intervals in any of these numbers, so people assume that decimal point differences mean something. There is error in any kind of measurement, and even if you completely accept the theory and methodology, taking results at face value without regard to error is just stupid.

I’m telling you, some people are just thick headed about some of these stats.

]]> By: iYankees http://riveraveblues.com/2009/09/the-yankees-are-good-at-offense-16953/#comment-576629 iYankees Fri, 11 Sep 2009 18:08:58 +0000 http://riveraveblues.com/?p=16953#comment-576629 Great issues brought up by Matt and tommie. Great issues brought up by Matt and tommie.

]]>