Monday, August 16, 2010

More on defensive stats

The Monday print column discusses the difficulty of defensive stats. In it I promised links to two pieces, one a critique of the newfangled formulas, the other a defense.

For Tim Marchman's critique, click here.

For Joe Posnanski's take, click here.

If you read them carefully, I think you'll find they agree on a lot. The difference is one of attitude. Posnanski acknowledges that the numbers aren't perfect, but he's still willing to put more weight on them than Marchman will; Marchman knows the numbers are advancing closer to something resembling the truth, but isn't willing to drive his truck over their bridge.
at

3 comments:

  1. ChrisAugust 16, 2010 at 8:13 PM

    I wonder how Strato-matic used to determine their fielding ratings.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Edward ThomaAugust 16, 2010 at 9:03 PM

    I don't know how Strat devises their ratings. Reputation clearly matters, but ... the 2010 cards (based on the 2009 season) have Delmon Young as a 3 in LF -- 3e9 in the advanced side -- and that makes little sense to me. Ought to be a 4. Maybe a 3 for next year's set. Maybe.

    Hal Richman, the genius behind Strat, has a role in Baseball Info System's "Fielding Bible Awards," but the annual Bill James Handbook always has a disclaimer that Richman's votes don't necessarily reflect the coming fielding ratings, which are said to be based on Start's original research.

    ReplyDelete
  3. ChrisAugust 16, 2010 at 10:04 PM

    Haven't seen a Strato-card in many many years. . .

    ReplyDelete