[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
THE BOOK cover
The Unwritten Book
is Finally Written!

Read Excerpts & Reviews
E-Book available
as Amazon Kindle or
at iTunes for $9.99.

Hardcopy available at Amazon
SABR101 required reading if you enter this site. Check out the Sabermetric Wiki. And interesting baseball books.
Shop Amazon & Support This Blog
RECENT FORUM TOPICS
Jul 12 15:22 Marcels
Apr 16 14:31 Pitch Count Estimators
Mar 12 16:30 Appendix to THE BOOK - THE GORY DETAILS
Jan 29 09:41 NFL Overtime Idea
Jan 22 14:48 Weighting Years for NFL Player Projections
Jan 21 09:18 positional runs in pythagenpat
Oct 20 15:57 DRS: FG vs. BB-Ref

Advanced

Tangotiger Blog

A blog about baseball, hockey, life, and whatever else there is.

Tuesday, December 17, 2013

LF v RF

Patriot made this rather ambiguous point, where he notes that RF generated about 5% more runs than LF in 2013, and 2% historically:

Right fielders went back to their recent trend of solidly outhitting their left field cousins (one of the quirks that one must be cognizant of when attempting to use offensive data to craft positional adjustments).?

I'm not sure exactly what he's proposing, or asking us to consider.  Typically, our expectation is that the worse fielders you find at a position, the better the hitters.  It's why you find the best hitters at 1B and the worst ones at SS or C.  So, when we try to evaluate a player's performance, we have to be aware that the peer groups are not the same.

For LF and RF, this is the quirk that Patriot is probably pointing out, that it's almost certain that the fielders in RF are better fielders than those you find in LF, and at the same time, they are also the better hitters.  This kind of imbalance exists most obviously in high school, where your best hitter and best fielder might be playing SS.  Therefore, we would not compare one SS to another SS, and one 2B to another 2B, since that will allow a whole host of 2B to be considered to be better than a whole host of SS.  If you were to pool all the SS+2B from high school together, probably 90% of the better players are at SS.  This is best evidenced by how MLB teams draft.

The theory is that by the time you get to MLB, you would get an equilibrium, so that, overall, at each position, you have equal talent, that the off+def at each position is the same.  If your path to SS is blocked because you are not a good enough fielder,  you move to 3B or 2B or CF because your hitting can help you overcome whatever shortcoming  you may have with your fielding.  And so on in terms of being blocked at CF so  you move to LF or RF, etc.

Unfortunately, this theory is only something that is a figment of our imagination.  It's certainly not true in other sports.  In the NHL, likely half the best forwards are centres, while the other half are split between LW and RW.  And we don't even bother distinguishing between left D and right D.  It's just D.  It's not even clear that the average D is equal to the average forward.  And since goalies are as unique to hockey as pitchers are to baseball, we wouldn't try to match on the average all being equal.

So, we then get to the "replacement level" to try to justify the theory.  Which works well enough when trying to compare pitchers to non-pitchers or goalies to non-goalies, and so on.  But, it doesn't work when comparing CF to LF.  After all, it's not like the replacement level LF is from a distinct pool from the replacement level CF.  They are all chosen from the same pool.  So, even trying to compartmentalize players to the point that we have two distinct groups, and we'd compare players to those groups doesn't work, because reality says otherwise.

Getting back to the LF v RF, there are two things that we know to be true, or highly suspect to be true: the average RF is a better hitter than the average LF and the average RF is a better fielder than the average LF.  And so, we have to conclude that the average RF is a better player than the average LF, and the average RF will get paid more than the average LF (all other things equal, like service time).

If Patriot's point is that since RF are obviously better fielders, or at worst as good fielders as LF, then we shouldn't use the offensive positional results to infer that RF are WORSE fielders than LF, then I concur.  If his point is something else, then I would dispute the notion.

 

Latest...

COMMENTS

Nov 23 14:15
Layered wOBAcon

Nov 22 22:15
Cy Young Predictor 2024

Oct 28 17:25
Layered Hit Probability breakdown

Oct 15 13:42
Binomial fun: Best-of-3-all-home is equivalent to traditional Best-of-X where X is

Oct 14 14:31
NaiveWAR and VictoryShares

Oct 02 21:23
Component Run Values: TTO and BIP

Oct 02 11:06
FRV v DRS

Sep 28 22:34
Runs Above Average

Sep 16 16:46
Skenes v Webb: Illustrating Replacement Level in WAR

Sep 16 16:43
Sacrifice Steal Attempt

Sep 09 14:47
Can Wheeler win the Cy Young in 2024?

Sep 08 13:39
Small choices, big implications, in WAR

Sep 07 09:00
Why does Baseball Reference love Erick Fedde?

Sep 03 19:42
Re-Leveraging Aaron Judge

Aug 24 14:10
Science of baseball in 1957

THREADS

December 17, 2013
LF v RF