Why Does Michael Young Get No Hobby Love?

[jbhofmann]

I don't think this has been said yet but I think Steroid use is a cloud over any of those Rangers that were on the team during that Arod usage period.

Your 2002 Texas Rangers in question:
A-Rod
Juan Gone
Rafael Palmeiro
Ivan Rodriguez

Players I think probably did off that team:
Mike Young
Blalock
Hafner

JMOpininon though.

 

[All The Hype]

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?pl ... osition=SS[/url]
Here, we can see his defensive value over the years using advanced metrics. Since 2002 when the UZR/150 stat is kept, Jeter is on average 6 runs per year WORSE than the average shortstop with poor range numbers, and his improvement the last 2 years has helped that stat. He is still a valuable player and once was super elite because of his bat at the shortstop position, but he now is nowhere close to the best at his position.

I'm afraid I don't know how to read/comprehend any of those numbers on that page...or even know what any of the abbreviations stand for :?

Call me stubborn, but I'm not buying it regardless. I've seen Jeter play a number of times and he is very good in the field. Should he have won all three of those gold gloves? Maybe, maybe not. But being top 4 in fielding % tells me that he makes the majority of the plays. Even if he didn't deserve any of the gold gloves, this number alone shows that he is not the worst fielder in the league no matter what kind of range he has.

Stubborn! There's a glossary on the page that explains all of the statistics, but for defense, the Ultimate Zone Rating is the big one and determines how many runs a player saves or gives back on defense. Really, this is how the game is being looked at by those in charge and making personnel decisions (the numbers available to the public for free are just the tip of that iceberg). Its why Michael Young won a gold glove and was told to play a new position. The Rangers front office knew he was an awful fielder, and no award could prove it otherwise. And unlike watching players, there is no bias. I love Matt Kemp and he's been awesome in the field, but I cant say "Well, he's been the best defensive center fielder in baseball this year" without getting funny looks. But, you look at the numbers, and you see that Kemp is a top 3 defensive center fielder in any metric. Even if you dont believe the numbers about Jeter, just watch a guy like Jimmy Rollins or Jason Bartlett and you can see the difference. I'm guessing you have a belief that Jeter is a good fielder, and your confirmation bias will pick out plays that support that belief. Computers and numbers only have biases towards the good players.[/quote:3aroggn8]

Good post, thanks for the explanation.

It's not that I have a Jeter-bias as I am no Yankee fan...it's just that I get tired of seeing 900 people posting how he is the worst fielder in the league when I knew better. Even after seeing the UZR number, I still don't think he's the WORST in the league, but perhaps he is not one of the better defensive players like I thought.

Either way, I still think Fielding % is a determinant of how well a guy can make most of the routine plays. So maybe on balls hit 5 feet either way of him, Jeter is one of the best in the game.

 

[dooly]

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?pl ... osition=SS[/url]
Here, we can see his defensive value over the years using advanced metrics. Since 2002 when the UZR/150 stat is kept, Jeter is on average 6 runs per year WORSE than the average shortstop with poor range numbers, and his improvement the last 2 years has helped that stat. He is still a valuable player and once was super elite because of his bat at the shortstop position, but he now is nowhere close to the best at his position.

I'm afraid I don't know how to read/comprehend any of those numbers on that page...or even know what any of the abbreviations stand for :?

Call me stubborn, but I'm not buying it regardless. I've seen Jeter play a number of times and he is very good in the field. Should he have won all three of those gold gloves? Maybe, maybe not. But being top 4 in fielding % tells me that he makes the majority of the plays. Even if he didn't deserve any of the gold gloves, this number alone shows that he is not the worst fielder in the league no matter what kind of range he has.

Stubborn! There's a glossary on the page that explains all of the statistics, but for defense, the Ultimate Zone Rating is the big one and determines how many runs a player saves or gives back on defense. Really, this is how the game is being looked at by those in charge and making personnel decisions (the numbers available to the public for free are just the tip of that iceberg). Its why Michael Young won a gold glove and was told to play a new position. The Rangers front office knew he was an awful fielder, and no award could prove it otherwise. And unlike watching players, there is no bias. I love Matt Kemp and he's been awesome in the field, but I cant say "Well, he's been the best defensive center fielder in baseball this year" without getting funny looks. But, you look at the numbers, and you see that Kemp is a top 3 defensive center fielder in any metric. Even if you dont believe the numbers about Jeter, just watch a guy like Jimmy Rollins or Jason Bartlett and you can see the difference. I'm guessing you have a belief that Jeter is a good fielder, and your confirmation bias will pick out plays that support that belief. Computers and numbers only have biases towards the good players.[/quote:gyt5wib9]

Good post, thanks for the explanation.

It's not that I have a Jeter-bias as I am no Yankee fan...it's just that I get tired of seeing 900 people posting how he is the worst fielder in the league when I knew better. Even after seeing the UZR number, I still don't think he's the WORST in the league, but perhaps he is not one of the better defensive players like I thought.

Either way, I still think Fielding % is a determinant of how well a guy can make most of the routine plays. So maybe on balls hit 5 feet either way of him, Jeter is one of the best in the game.[/quote:gyt5wib9]

The thing is fielding % doesnt determine how well a guy can make routine plays. A guy with great range may have a worse fielding % even while making every single routine play because he gets to the hard to reach balls that most players cant get to, but if the ball glances off his glove or he makes an akward throw to first after snagging a difficult ball, he will be charged with an error.

 

[abncollectsautos]

Michael Young = Mark Grace

No hobby love for doubles hitters.

and they were each among the best of their generation

 

[All The Hype]

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?pl ... osition=SS[/url]
Here, we can see his defensive value over the years using advanced metrics. Since 2002 when the UZR/150 stat is kept, Jeter is on average 6 runs per year WORSE than the average shortstop with poor range numbers, and his improvement the last 2 years has helped that stat. He is still a valuable player and once was super elite because of his bat at the shortstop position, but he now is nowhere close to the best at his position.

I'm afraid I don't know how to read/comprehend any of those numbers on that page...or even know what any of the abbreviations stand for :?

Call me stubborn, but I'm not buying it regardless. I've seen Jeter play a number of times and he is very good in the field. Should he have won all three of those gold gloves? Maybe, maybe not. But being top 4 in fielding % tells me that he makes the majority of the plays. Even if he didn't deserve any of the gold gloves, this number alone shows that he is not the worst fielder in the league no matter what kind of range he has.

Stubborn! There's a glossary on the page that explains all of the statistics, but for defense, the Ultimate Zone Rating is the big one and determines how many runs a player saves or gives back on defense. Really, this is how the game is being looked at by those in charge and making personnel decisions (the numbers available to the public for free are just the tip of that iceberg). Its why Michael Young won a gold glove and was told to play a new position. The Rangers front office knew he was an awful fielder, and no award could prove it otherwise. And unlike watching players, there is no bias. I love Matt Kemp and he's been awesome in the field, but I cant say "Well, he's been the best defensive center fielder in baseball this year" without getting funny looks. But, you look at the numbers, and you see that Kemp is a top 3 defensive center fielder in any metric. Even if you dont believe the numbers about Jeter, just watch a guy like Jimmy Rollins or Jason Bartlett and you can see the difference. I'm guessing you have a belief that Jeter is a good fielder, and your confirmation bias will pick out plays that support that belief. Computers and numbers only have biases towards the good players.

Good post, thanks for the explanation.

It's not that I have a Jeter-bias as I am no Yankee fan...it's just that I get tired of seeing 900 people posting how he is the worst fielder in the league when I knew better. Even after seeing the UZR number, I still don't think he's the WORST in the league, but perhaps he is not one of the better defensive players like I thought.

Either way, I still think Fielding % is a determinant of how well a guy can make most of the routine plays. So maybe on balls hit 5 feet either way of him, Jeter is one of the best in the game.[/quote:1m3nfc6i]

The thing is fielding % doesnt determine how well a guy can make routine plays. A guy with great range may have a worse fielding % even while making every single routine play because he gets to the hard to reach balls that most players cant get to, but if the ball glances off his glove or he makes an akward throw to first after snagging a difficult ball, he will be charged with an error.[/quote:1m3nfc6i]

Luckily, that's where the scorekeeper comes in.

It has been their job since the beginning of statistics in baseball to USE THEIR BEST JUDGMENT to determine whether a batted ball deserves a hit or if the fielder not making the play caused him to get on base resulting in an error.

This is what levels the playing field for fielding percentage. Even if you have great range, there are some balls that you simply can't make a play on, and this is what the scorekeeper determines.