From: kwinkler@pbs.org (The Axe Man)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Errors -- A Recurring Thread (was Re: Robinson and Boyer)
Date: 14 Apr 92 11:51:12 EDT
Organization: PBS:Public Broadcasting Service, Alexandria, VA

In article <1992Apr12.004843.18878@Princeton.EDU>, roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
> In article <1992Apr9.111527.15774@pbs.org> kwinkler@pbs.org (The Axe Man) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr7.152416.13456@adobe.com>, snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols) writes:
>>> So, say we have two second basemen, who played exactly the same number of
>>> innings at second, faced exactly the same number of balls hit to them that
>>> would be reached by an average 2b, converted exactly the same number of
>>> them into outs, but one made 40 errors and the other 20.  Now, who's the
>>> better fielder, and why?
> 
>>You can't say that one's better.  You can say that they're different.
>>One has better range, because he got to 20 more balls.  But he also 
>>made alot of errors on balls he did get to, and it's likely that most
>>of them are routine plays that would be made by the average second
>>baseman.  I don't think this difference is trivial, and its dependent
>>in part on error totals.
> 
>>There.  You've seen some significance for the statistic.  Or haven't
>>you?
> 
> Well, it seems that the two effects neatly cancel each other out.  Yes,
> they're different.  And, yes, the "average" 2B might have made them.  On
> the other hand, the average 2B makes a fair number of errors.  Now, it's
> unlikely that the 20 errors were made on 20 *average* chances; they're
> more likely to come on *tough* chances.  Anyway, I'd take the guy with
> the errors, because the glovework is more likely to improve than the
> range.
> 
> Finally, what *is* the significance for the statistic?  That it
> differentiates the tow players is true.  But what does it tell us about
> them? What would we ever want to find out, that E would tell us?

I would say error totals, given a large enough sample, give you a decent
idea of how likely a guy is to botch a routine play.  (If you want to 
go into the difference between routine and non-routine, we can, but
its kinda nit picky, so I'm just going to assume we're on the same 
page as far as that goes.)

Is it important?  Sure.  Do some fielders get more routine plays than
others?  Sure.  Earl Weaver cut the grass short on the 3B side of the
infield because Robinson and Belanger were getting too many routine
plays.  EVERY grounder in Tiger Stadium is routine.  You'll have 
alot more tough plays at Busch or Riverfront, because the average 
ball moves faster.  So if you're Sparky Anderson, and you're evaluating
two comparable fielders like the two Sherri suggested, you might be a 
little more inclined toward a guy with Ripken-like consistency than 
a guy with Smith-like range.  Because in Tiger, the ratio of routine
plays to difficult ones will go up.

That is an assumption that needs some justification.  One would figure
the number of difficult plays will be about the same for every stadium.
By difficult play, let's say one that is right at the edge of a player's
range.  If the slow Tiger infield gives a fielder an extra step to either
side over Riverfront, then there will be just as many balls hit that 
extra step away from him in Tiger as would have been hit a step closer
to him in Riverfront; i.e., there will be the same number of "just
barely got to it" plays.  BUT.  In Tiger, those difficult balls in 
Riverfront are now routine balls.  So are the routine balls in Riverfront, 
so the overall number of routine balls has increased.  Therefore the
ratio of routine to difficult has increased.

So the question of fielding worth in this sense does not boil down to 
"how many balls hit in this fielder's area did he turn into outs?"
Because if conditions were different, his numbers would be different.

Given what I have just done with fielding effects, we could imagine
other conditions which would change how we might value range versus
fielding pct.  For example, a Robinson, Boyer, Nettles, other 3b fielding
diety would lessen the value of range for a shortstop.  That value
might also fluctuate if our pitching staff was ten Tommy Johns as 
opposed to ten Jim Ackers (whoa!) as opposed to ten Roger Clemens.

There are several factors that go to determine how many balls a player
will see, and how routine they will be.  While I agree that errors are
not nearly important enough to be lumped along with runs and hits, I 
still do not accept that they are without value.  I think I have shown
quite clearly what value they have.

						----Ken Winkler
						    (kwinkler@pbs.org)

*****************************************************************************
* "It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood!" ---FR      *    Television    *
* "Get away from me with that spatula, Fred!" ---Mrs. FR *  worth watching  *
*****************************************************************************


Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball