dimitrov@csd2.UUCP (Isaac Dimitrovsky) (06/03/85)
[] Watching Keith Hernandez play has given me an idea for a new statistic to measure fielding effectiveness. Call it Runs Saved. Say that a player gets a run saved if he makes a play to prevent a run from scoring, when a failure to make the play probably wouldn't have been an error. What I have in mind is only the plays that directly prevent a run from scoring, not the ones that, for example, prevent a runner from reaching base who would later have scored. So your typical run saved play would be: runners at second and third, Hernandez grabs a line drive over his head - two runs saved. Of course, we should also subtract errors a player makes which directly allow a run to score. It seems to me that this would measure how good a player is at fielding in crucial situations. Isaac Dimitrovsky
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (06/06/85)
> Watching Keith Hernandez play has given me an idea for a new statistic > to measure fielding effectiveness. Call it Runs Saved. Say that a player > gets a run saved if he makes a play to prevent a run from scoring, > when a failure to make the play probably wouldn't have been an error. > What I have in mind is only the plays that directly prevent a run from > scoring, not the ones that, for example, prevent a runner from reaching > base who would later have scored. So your typical run saved play would > be: runners at second and third, Hernandez grabs a line drive over > his head - two runs saved. > Of course, we should also subtract errors a player makes which directly > allow a run to score. It seems to me that this would measure how good a > player is at fielding in crucial situations. > > Isaac Dimitrovsky While the intentions are noble, I have some objections to such a statistic. First, it is situational. Unless someone can demonstrate the existance of "clutch" fielding, it would appear to me that a great fielding play would occur at both critical and non-critical junctures of a game with equal likelihood. Thus the statistic would to a large degree measure random factors (who got the ball hit at them at the critical juncture) rather than skill, which is what we are presumably trying to measure. Second, it is heavily dependent upon the team the player plays on, especially the pitching staff. It favors players who play on teams with poor pitching, as they will have more fielding opportunites and more of those opportunities will occur with runners on base and in scoring position. It would favor first basemen on teams with predominately right-handed staffs, for example. It would favor infielders on teams with a few sinkerballers. It would favor center fielders who play in big ballparks. Etc. Third, it is judgmental. I assume the official scorer would be responsible for deciding if and how many run saved are to be awarded, and I don't trust official scorers. There is sure to be substantial favoritism, as there is now in judging hits and errors. However, since there will supposedly be relatively few runs saved awarded, such biasedness will be tremendously magnified. Fourth, it will encourage hot-dogging. As the league leaders will be rewarded financially for their accomplishment, there will be a financial incentive to make plays look hard. Rather than making a routine running catch, an outfielder may attempt to time his approach to the ball so as to make a diving catch, for example. Fifth (this is the most critical, but also the most opinionated), I believe it will punish true defensive excellence. We already see this in fielding percentage, where a Hernandez is charged an error on a ball where a Garvey would never have been able to even attempt a play. David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david
dimitrov@csd2.UUCP (Isaac Dimitrovsky) (06/07/85)
[] David Rubin writes about my suggestion for a runs saved statistic: > While the intentions are noble, I have some objections to such a > statistic. First, it is situational. Unless someone can demonstrate > the existance of "clutch" fielding, it would appear to me that a great > fielding play would occur at both critical and non-critical junctures > of a game with equal likelihood. Thus the statistic would to a large > degree measure random factors (who got the ball hit at them at the > critical juncture) rather than skill, which is what we are presumably > trying to measure. I think clutch fielding is actually a lot easier to demonstrate than clutch hitting. In a situation where the game is on the line, fielders will clearly try to make plays that they wouldn't ordinarily. For example, imagine the following situation: second inning, one out, noone on, batter hits a blooper to short right field. What are the chances that the right fielder will let it drop? Now, imagine: man on third, score tied, bottom of the eighth inning. What are the chances that the right fielder will dive for the ball now? Also, see my answer to your next point. > Second, it is heavily dependent upon the team the player plays on, > especially the pitching staff. It favors players who play on teams > with poor pitching, as they will have more fielding opportunites and > more of those opportunities will occur with runners on base and in > scoring position. It would favor first basemen on teams with > predominately right-handed staffs, for example. It would favor > infielders on teams with a few sinkerballers. It would favor center > fielders who play in big ballparks. Etc. There certainly is some randomness about who gets the ball hit to him in the crucial situation, but I think it would even out to some extent over the course of the season, at least for each individual position (i.e. the number of times the ball gets hit to first base in a runs saved situation should be *roughly* constant from year to year). What you say about the pitching staff affecting the number of opportunities a fielder gets for runs saved is also true, although I could point out that this is true of errors as well. Also, note that errors which directly allow runs to score are deducted from a players runs saved total, so there is no way for a bad fielder to run up a good runs saved total just because he's on a team with a bad pitching staff. I think this is the strongest objection you raise to the statistic. > Third, it is judgmental. I assume the official scorer would be > responsible for deciding if and how many run saved are to be awarded, > and I donfavoritism, as there is now in judging hits and errors. However, > since there will supposedly be relatively few runs saved awarded, such > biasedness will be tremendously magnified. This is true in part. However, I think you're mistaken about how many runs saved would be awarded. It's my impression that two or three in a game would not be uncommon. Let's try an experiment along the lines of watching three or four games and seeing how many occur. > Fourth, it will encourage hot-dogging. As the league leaders will be > rewarded financially for their accomplishment, there will be a > financial incentive to make plays look hard. Rather than making a > routine running catch, an outfielder may attempt to time his approach > to the ball so as to make a diving catch, for example. I don't think this is true at all. I just don't buy the idea that a fielder will, for example, try to make a diving catch and risk missing the ball altogether instead of making the play as well as he can and risking not getting a run saved. This is especially true in the situations where doing so might allow runs to score, which is presumably when a run saved might be awarded. > Fifth (this is the most critical, but also the most opinionated), I > believe it will punish true defensive excellence. We already see this > in fielding percentage, where a Hernandez is charged an error on a > ball where a Garvey would never have been able to even attempt a play. This I disagree with the most. The whole idea behind this statistic would be to recognize the fielder who makes the game saving plays, as opposed to the one who has the range of a carrot but never drops the ball once he catches it. I would be willing to bet a six month vacation for two in Bora Bora that Hernandez would have more runs saved in a season than Garvey. Isaac Dimitrovsky
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (06/12/85)
Continuing the discussion of Isaac's proposal for "runs saved"... >> .......... First, it is situational. Unless someone can demonstrate >> the existance of "clutch" fielding, it would appear to me that a great >> fielding play would occur at both critical and non-critical junctures >> of a game with equal likelihood. Thus the statistic would to a large >> degree measure random factors (who got the ball hit at them at the >> critical juncture) rather than skill, which is what we are presumably >> trying to measure. > I think clutch fielding is actually a lot easier to demonstrate than > clutch hitting. In a situation where the game is on the line, fielders > will clearly try to make plays that they wouldn't ordinarily..... > ............................................... Now, imagine: > man on third, score tied, bottom of the eighth inning. What are the > chances that the right fielder will dive for the ball ....? Your argument satisfies the first part of my first objection: it is likely there is such a thing as "clutch" fielding, as it is obvious that some players will field differently with the game on the line (unlike hitting, where it is unlikely that players hold back). However, it is does not follow that "runs saved opportunites" will balance out over the course of a season, even for players playing in similar environments. For example, it is well documented that two pitchers pitching for the same team can receive well over a run's difference in average run support over the course of an ENTIRE season. As runs saved will be of a lesser order of magnitude than runs scored, it may suffer the same problem (random luck) as pitcher won-loss records. Indeed, as the runs saved will be scattered over many positions, I'd be very surprised if it didn't. >> Second, it is heavily dependent upon the team the player plays on, >> especially the pitching staff. It favors players who play on teams >> with poor pitching, as they will have more fielding opportunites and >> more of those opportunities will occur with runners on base and in >> scoring position. It would favor first basemen on teams with >> predominately right-handed staffs, for example. It would favor >> infielders on teams with a few sinkerballers. It would favor center >> fielders who play in big ballparks. Etc. > There certainly is some randomness about who gets the ball hit > to him in the crucial situation, but I think it would even out > to some extent over the course of the season, at least for each > individual position ........................................... See my comment above. To elaborate, as the average number of runs saved per player per 4-5 games will be less than the average number of runs scored for a pitcher per start (this is becuase there are more runs scored than runs saved, and fewer starters to divvy up the former than there are fielders to divvy up the latter), most players will have fewer runs saved over the course of a season than a starter will have runs scored in support of him over the course of the season. We know the latter don't even out, so the former will not, either. This effect is RANDOM; it is independent of the objection to environmental BIASES that followed. > ............................ What you say about the pitching > staff affecting the number of opportunities a fielder gets for > runs saved is also true, although I could point out that this > is true of errors as well....................................... It is, but "errors" are misleading, too. I'm certainly not defending the old defensive statistics (except for careful use of putouts and assists). >> Third, it is judgmental.......................................... >> [S]ince there will supposedly be relatively few runs saved awarded, such >> [scorers'] biasedness will be tremendously magnified. > This is true in part. However, I think you're mistaken about how many > runs saved would be awarded. It's my impression that two or three in > a game would not be uncommon. Let's try an experiment along the lines > of watching three or four games and seeing how many occur. Fair enough. I'll make a note of "runs saved" for the next couple of weeks. Other readers are encouraged to do the same, noting date, teams playing, "runs saved" and by whom. If you send me the results, I'll gladly share them with all. Remember, only credit outstanding plays. >> Fourth, it will encourage hot-dogging. As the league leaders will be >> rewarded financially for their accomplishment, there will be a >> financial incentive to make plays look hard........................ > I don't think this is true at all. I just don't buy the idea that a > fielder will, for example, try to make a diving catch and risk missing > the ball altogether instead of making the play as well as he can and > risking not getting a run saved. This is especially true in the > situations where doing so might allow runs to score, which is > presumably when a run saved might be awarded. You are probably right for teams which are in contention and in the game at hand; I am probably right for teams out of contention or out of the game. >> Fifth (this is the most critical, but also the most opinionated), I >> believe it will punish true defensive excellence. We already see this >> in fielding percentage, where a Hernandez is charged an error on a >> ball where a Garvey would never have been able to even attempt a play. > This I disagree with the most. The whole idea behind this statistic > would be to recognize the fielder who makes the game saving plays, > as opposed to the one who has the range of a carrot but never drops > the ball once he catches it. I would be willing to bet a six month > vacation for two in Bora Bora that Hernandez would have more runs > saved in a season than Garvey. It's judged by the same guys who judge errors, and their going to charge Hernandez for "runs allowed" on plays Garvey couldn't even try, and award Garvey "runs saved" on plays that would be routine for Hernandez. (To Garvey fans: I'm not beating up on Garvey because he's a BAD fielder (he's about average for a first baseman, I think), but because he is the beneficiery of the inadequacy of the fielding percentage statistic, and therefore the example par excellence of statistics ill-chosen.) David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david