Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. Become a Premium member and you won't see any ads! 


Reminder: Defensive metrics are a load of shit


Recommended Posts


Defensive metrics ARE totally worthless.

Because Bourjos never knew how to play defense. How to run fast and have balls clank off his glove? He has that down, but catching balls? Not so much.



or you know...there's reality. but you do you boo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

defensive metrics suffer from only being able to compare players from one position as well as just a general lower number of chances depending on where said player plays.  


a hitter gets 700 at bats and is stacked up vs. every other player in the league or about 180,000 other plate appearances in any given season.  


a CFer gets 400 chances stacked up against about 12,000 chances from others around the league.  


you'd need two seasons worth of a CFers numbers compared to 15 seasons worth of compiled data for it to be comparable to one seasons worth of a hitters data.  


and we all know that a players performance at the plate can vary significantly from year to year.  


Frankly, the eye test is probably as accurate as using one seasons worth defensive data.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using 250 innings of defensive stats to judge a player's defensive prowess is like using 60 at bats to judge whether they can hit.

It's not the stat that's the problem. It's you trying to use it in a way it wasn't developed for.

In 2012 Mike Trout was considered the best defensive player in the league. At the 2013 all star break he was simultaneously considered the worst defensive player in the league by Fangraphs and average by Baseball Reference.

Stats that vary so dramatically based on the same data, and stats that their own supporters claim require three seasons worth of data to be significant are worthless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haha. Okay. I guess since you're used to waiting until someone gets 300 at bats before you judge their stats you believe that all stats should reach conclusions in similar timeframes. Sorry this one doesn't. I'll make sure the people who made it are aware of your disapproval.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...