Brief Neyer Interview with Hendry

[RynoRules]

Short but interesting read.

 

http://myespn.go.com/blogs/sweetspot/0-4-53/Cubs--Jim-Hendry-speaks.html

[DiamondMind]

...It was one of those things where we were looking for the best possible hitter, left-handed or switch...

 

It's bad when I'm three sentences into the article and I already smell crap.

[SouthSideRyan]

Neyer can be a real prick.

 

Anywho, Waserstrom is not a stats analyst. He was in some other department collecting those useless stats like BA on Sundays, and is likely the buffoon that came up with whatever ridiculous stat that was Hendry used for Burnitz (something like 4th best BA of guys with 130+ Ks)

[Tarver]

Neyer can be a real prick.

 

Anywho, Waserstrom is not a stats analyst. He was in some other department collecting those useless stats like BA on Sundays, and is likely the buffoon that came up with whatever ridiculous stat that was Hendry used for Burnitz (something like 4th best BA of guys with 130+ Ks)

 

It was 2nd best.

 

That quote still cracks me up. Had I been in the room when he spouted that BS, I'd be laughing my ass off.

[chuckywang]

Neyer can be a real prick.

 

Anywho, Waserstrom is not a stats analyst. He was in some other department collecting those useless stats like BA on Sundays, and is likely the buffoon that came up with whatever ridiculous stat that was Hendry used for Burnitz (something like 4th best BA of guys with 130+ Ks)

 

It was 2nd best.

 

That quote still cracks me up. Had I been in the room when he spouted that BS, I'd be laughing my ass off.

 

So Hendry was looking for high K guys that hit for decent average?

[jersey cubs fan]

Neyer can be a real prick.

 

Anywho, Waserstrom is not a stats analyst. He was in some other department collecting those useless stats like BA on Sundays, and is likely the buffoon that came up with whatever ridiculous stat that was Hendry used for Burnitz (something like 4th best BA of guys with 130+ Ks)

 

I believe Chuck was in media or public relations or something like that.

 

Not sure how Neyer is labeled as a prick. He calls out dopey baseball people for being dopey.

 

I like that Hendry is talking about stats saying Bradley should be fine, but his scouts tell him who can play defense. Wouldn't his scouts have been able to tell him that Bradley was not playing defense, and then Hendry could surmise that perhaps they didn't know how well he could handle RF, or how well his hitting would hold up if they both took him out of Arlington and made him play the OF everyday?

[Guest]

What defensive metrics does Neyer propose Hendry use?

 

Errors? Fielding %? They are about the only stable defensive metrics available right now. Things may change, but banking on UZR or any of the others isn't any more reliable than using a scout who has a lot of experience.

 

Defense isn't nearly as easy to quantify as hitting.

[davearm2]

What defensive metrics does Neyer propose Hendry use?

 

Errors? Fielding %? They are about the only stable defensive metrics available right now. Things may change, but banking on UZR or any of the others isn't any more reliable than using a scout who has a lot of experience.

 

Defense isn't nearly as easy to quantify as hitting.

Well said.

 

It could be that Hendry and Neyer both understand the importance of defensive metrics, but only Hendry realizes there are no real great ones available yet that are more valuable than scouting assessments.

[Tyrant]

What defensive metrics does Neyer propose Hendry use?

 

Errors? Fielding %? They are about the only stable defensive metrics available right now. Things may change, but banking on UZR or any of the others isn't any more reliable than using a scout who has a lot of experience.

 

It's may not be more reliable, but it's just another piece of information to take into account. It'd be foolish to base all defensive evaluations solely on UZR. Just like it's similarly foolish to base all defensive evaluations on the judgment of a scout.

[Guest]

What defensive metrics does Neyer propose Hendry use?

 

Errors? Fielding %? They are about the only stable defensive metrics available right now. Things may change, but banking on UZR or any of the others isn't any more reliable than using a scout who has a lot of experience.

 

It's may not be more reliable, but it's just another piece of information to take into account. It'd be foolish to base all defensive evaluations solely on UZR. Just like it's similarly foolish to base all defensive evaluations on the judgment of a scout.

What do you do when they are in disagreement?

 

IMO, using something like UZR is worse than using information a scout or group of scouts complied. UZR gives objectivity. Objectivity is important, but when the anchor on which the tool is based rests on a shaky foundation, objectivity is irrelevant.

 

I think it's important to try to find better ways to evaluate players. However, just because something is new does not mean it is better. With defense I'll take a collection of scout's reports over any metric currently available.

[Tyrant]

I think it's important to try to find better ways to evaluate players. However, just because something is new does not mean it is better. With defense I'll take a collection of scout's reports over any metric currently available.

 

UZR has been around since '00 or '01. It's not new.

[Guest]

I think it's important to try to find better ways to evaluate players. However, just because something is new does not mean it is better. With defense I'll take a collection of scout's reports over any metric currently available.

 

UZR has been around since '00 or '01. It's not new.

When the game of baseball has been around for over a hundred years a tool that's only been invented since 2000 is new. It's has also been revised several times because of it's lack of stability.

 

Until they find a better way measure what they are attempting to measure it will suck.

[Tyrant]

I think it's important to try to find better ways to evaluate players. However, just because something is new does not mean it is better. With defense I'll take a collection of scout's reports over any metric currently available.

 

UZR has been around since '00 or '01. It's not new.

When the game of baseball has been around for over a hundred years a tool that's only been invented since 2000 is new.

 

This is both irrelevant and nonsensical.

 

As long as I'm convinced it sucks, it will suck.

 

Fixed.

[jersey cubs fan]

I think it's important to try to find better ways to evaluate players. However, just because something is new does not mean it is better. With defense I'll take a collection of scout's reports over any metric currently available.

 

UZR has been around since '00 or '01. It's not new.

When the game of baseball has been around for over a hundred years a tool that's only been invented since 2000 is new.

 

This is both irrelevant and nonsensical.

 

As long as I'm convinced it sucks, it will suck.

 

Fixed.

 

Actually, in that discussion, your claim that it is not new was the irrelevant portion. You did not address CubinNY's point at all.

[SouthSideRyan]

I think it's important to try to find better ways to evaluate players. However, just because something is new does not mean it is better. With defense I'll take a collection of scout's reports over any metric currently available.

 

UZR has been around since '00 or '01. It's not new.

 

And it's still spitting out some ridiculous results. I'm not saying dismiss it without looking at it, but it's hard to take it seriously.

 

*Disclaimer* I have a hatred for Mitchell Lichtman usually reserved for the likes of Hitler or Aaron Miles.

[Guest]

I think it's important to try to find better ways to evaluate players. However, just because something is new does not mean it is better. With defense I'll take a collection of scout's reports over any metric currently available.

 

UZR has been around since '00 or '01. It's not new.

When the game of baseball has been around for over a hundred years a tool that's only been invented since 2000 is new.

 

This is both irrelevant and nonsensical.

 

As long as I'm convinced it sucks, it will suck.

 

Fixed.

What is irrelevant and nonsensical? There have been several "refinements" to ZR since it was first developed. The latest is where he U in UZR came from. The latest version that is used by FanGraphs has been around since 2008. That's pretty new. Either way, new or not, it does not do what it purports to do with any reliability.

 

People on message boards are beginning to use UZR now for some reason I can't quite fathom. I guess it makes them sound smarter.

[SouthSideRyan]

People are using it because it's readily available on fangraphs after being very difficult to track down for years.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

And it's still spitting out some ridiculous results. I'm not saying dismiss it without looking at it, but it's hard to take it seriously.

 

*Disclaimer* I have a hatred for Mitchell Lichtman usually reserved for the likes of Hitler or Aaron Miles.

 

What makes the results ridiculous?

[SouthSideRyan]

I only feel comfortable thinking I have a good grasp of defensive capabilities of Cubs because I've seen them enough. Bradley as a -7.7 and Theriot as a +3.3 is pretty damn nuts to me.

 

I understand the concept that if it doesn't give you any unexpected results, then there's no point in having the stat; but there's too much gray area, and too much variance for me to put a whole lot of stock in them.

[Guest]

I only feel comfortable thinking I have a good grasp of defensive capabilities of Cubs because I've seen them enough. Bradley as a -7.7 and Theriot as a +3.3 is pretty damn nuts to me.

 

I understand the concept that if it doesn't give you any unexpected results, then there's no point in having the stat; but there's too much gray area, and too much variance for me to put a whole lot of stock in them.

The point in having the stat is to quantify something that exists so people can make good judgment.

 

In general, I'd rather have data that show me how often X happens, not the relative performance of one person compared to a mythical average player. In regard to baseball, it just easier for me to make judgments. I understand the importance of inferential data, but the problem is with professional baseball players the standard deviation in performance is usually so small, the numbers are only important at the margins. If they are only important at the margins, meaningful differences are likely to be known rather easily without having to resort to using the tool.

[sneakypower]

I only feel comfortable thinking I have a good grasp of defensive capabilities of Cubs because I've seen them enough. Bradley as a -7.7 and Theriot as a +3.3 is pretty damn nuts to me.

 

I understand the concept that if it doesn't give you any unexpected results, then there's no point in having the stat; but there's too much gray area, and too much variance for me to put a whole lot of stock in them.

the variance happens because the sample's so small. most analysts agree that you'll need nearly 2-3 years of defensive data for UZR to be a good reliable indicator of defensive value. i know it's not entirely analogous, but looking at AVG right now, i have trouble believing Jason Bartlett is a .370 hitter.

[Tracer Bullet]

I only feel comfortable thinking I have a good grasp of defensive capabilities of Cubs because I've seen them enough. Bradley as a -7.7 and Theriot as a +3.3 is pretty damn nuts to me.

 

I understand the concept that if it doesn't give you any unexpected results, then there's no point in having the stat; but there's too much gray area, and too much variance for me to put a whole lot of stock in them.

the variance happens because the sample's so small. most analysts agree that you'll need nearly 2-3 years of defensive data for UZR to be a good reliable indicator of defensive value. i know it's not entirely analogous, but looking at AVG right now, i have trouble believing Jason Bartlett is a .370 hitter.

 

But does that help? We already know that AVG is a pretty bad measure of the offensive value of a player. For the record, I think Bartlett is hitting closer to .350, but your point remains. Then again, if you're saying you also don't think Bartlett is a .930 OPS player...well, I don't know what to say.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I only feel comfortable thinking I have a good grasp of defensive capabilities of Cubs because I've seen them enough. Bradley as a -7.7 and Theriot as a +3.3 is pretty damn nuts to me.

 

I understand the concept that if it doesn't give you any unexpected results, then there's no point in having the stat; but there's too much gray area, and too much variance for me to put a whole lot of stock in them.

the variance happens because the sample's so small. most analysts agree that you'll need nearly 2-3 years of defensive data for UZR to be a good reliable indicator of defensive value. i know it's not entirely analogous, but looking at AVG right now, i have trouble believing Jason Bartlett is a .370 hitter.

 

But does that help? We already know that AVG is a pretty bad measure of the offensive value of a player. For the record, I think Bartlett is hitting closer to .350, but your point remains. Then again, if you're saying you also don't think Bartlett is a .930 OPS player...well, I don't know what to say.

 

To continue using the Bradley example, looking at his OPS this year you could conclude that OPS is garbage using similar logic used to criticize UZR(not that all the criticisms on that front are illogical or not valid). Because fielding has been so subjective for so long we like to think of it as a static ability. Jim Edmonds is a great defender, Adam Dunn is a terrible defender, etc. But guys can have fielding slumps just like hitting ones, especially when it comes to stuff like range and cutting off balls in the outfield, that's more difficult for us watching at home to identify.

[Guest]

I only feel comfortable thinking I have a good grasp of defensive capabilities of Cubs because I've seen them enough. Bradley as a -7.7 and Theriot as a +3.3 is pretty damn nuts to me.

 

I understand the concept that if it doesn't give you any unexpected results, then there's no point in having the stat; but there's too much gray area, and too much variance for me to put a whole lot of stock in them.

the variance happens because the sample's so small. most analysts agree that you'll need nearly 2-3 years of defensive data for UZR to be a good reliable indicator of defensive value. i know it's not entirely analogous, but looking at AVG right now, i have trouble believing Jason Bartlett is a .370 hitter.

 

But does that help? We already know that AVG is a pretty bad measure of the offensive value of a player. For the record, I think Bartlett is hitting closer to .350, but your point remains. Then again, if you're saying you also don't think Bartlett is a .930 OPS player...well, I don't know what to say.

 

To continue using the Bradley example, looking at his OPS this year you could conclude that OPS is garbage using similar logic used to criticize UZR(not that all the criticisms on that front are illogical or not valid). Because fielding has been so subjective for so long we like to think of it as a static ability. Jim Edmonds is a great defender, Adam Dunn is a terrible defender, etc. But guys can have fielding slumps just like hitting ones, especially when it comes to stuff like range and cutting off balls in the outfield, that's more difficult for us watching at home to identify.

I don't think it is fair to assume that fielding slumps like hitting. I would think that there a lot less variability in range (speed and reading a ball off the bat) than there is in making solid contact.

[treebird]

People are using it because it's readily available on fangraphs after being very difficult to track down for years.

 

yeah, this is really the whole thing right here. it's the one people can access now, so it'd be really convenient if it turned out it was great and we could just point to it and settle arguments.

 

people are way too attached to it. i don't see how it's impressive at all.