Quote:
Originally posted by Vajracchedika
Well, until I see numbers from the 50's, 60's, and 70's, I'm not going to conclude that the correlation is minimal. To me, it's straight forward. Range Factor clearly tabulates outfield putouts and assists. You can't argue with the fact that many great defensive players have put up much larger assist numbers from the outfield than other players. Those assists are part of RF, but if you want to throw out RF, then just look at the assists. A player with great range is going to have more chances to cut down hits into the gap and make shorter throws. And they may also tend to have better throwing arms. The assist numbers clearly support this. You often see high assist totals for players with, say, a .989 fielding percentage in the outfield. They didn't just get all of those assists because the baserunners were slow.
But there is no data exists for ZR before 2000, so if everyone is going to insist on using ZR, then I think the debate is pointless. I'm sorry, but it makes no sense to judge the correlation based on players who are playing at a time when defense is valued less than it ever has been before, and the home run ball has completely morphed the game into some kind of bastardized form. What use is emphasizing great defense when a one or two-run lead is never safe under any circumstances? And do all the steroids have an effect on throwing ability or range, or both? We'll probably never know.
|
Any proof on RF being a viable measurement on fielding ability? there are already lots of study showed it's meaningless.
Any proof on OF assists being a viable measurement on arm strength? I thought everyone, statheads or not, believes lots of OFs with great arms have low assists because nobody dared to run on them.
Any data on your fielding% vs. asisst claim? and do you know how small a percentage does assists usually contribute in OF range factors? Willie Mays got less than 200 assists to go with his over 7000 putouts.
And I don't know the point of mentioning steroids. Perhaps those old timers field were only good because of all the greenies.
Any reason on defense is valued less means anything to this study? Any proof that defense was worse today than before? Or are they playing different games? I don't know a good way to do that, but at least defensive win shares showed lots of recent players are among the all time fielding greats, and there are always some iron gloves in the league in all eras.
ZR has been around since the 80s. Just can't find them on the net. As for UZR, it's available for even less years, and I think it's been shown that ZR isn't that much worse from UZR, unless you are going for detailed player comparisons.