11 responses to “Ultimate Zone Rating”

  1. obsessivegiantscompulsive

    I am curious, why is Burriss’s stats too small to have predictive value? I don’t know all the statistical terminology (or the answer), but know that when a value is at an extreme, then the possibility that it represents something predictive improves a lot, the null hypothesis could be calculated and determined to be true N% of the time. Typically, you want to see N to be greater than or equal to 90 or 95 percent, but it would also be significant to know if, say, maybe it was 75-80%, which is still a strong chance, just not the slam dunks 90-95% is.

    Burriss’s UZR is at the opposite end of the spectrum of Winn and Vizquel. He might only have 315 innings but that is half of what Vizquel played. Is there a study that shows at what size the sample has to be? Or a way to analyze sample size with UZR and get a guess at what the true level might be? I know with stats that one can do that, just don’t know if that applies to UZR.

    About Rowand, I have to think that there is either an adjustment period or permanent problem with playing CF in AT&T. Take a look at Winn’s numbers for CF after joining the Giants. After years of mildly positive UZR, he comes to the Giants and post negative numbers. Per your point with Burriss, could be small samples, but for him, it is multiple seasons, and always negative. And if hitters have to adjust to hitting there, I would assume that fielders would have to adjust as well, given the odd shape of the ballpark. Too bad we can’t see the UZR for each month, see how it jumps around, or by home vs. road.

  2. baetown415

    Rowand is actually projected to +7 in the corner, 0 in center. Same as Winn.

  3. baetown415

    Yeah, I’m worried about those years too. Maybe Sabes unloads him before he falls off dramatically.

  4. MrLomez

    Like OGC, Rowand worries me. This is all observational, but CF at ATT seems like death for guys who don’t have blazing speed (and don’t be fooled by his age, even at 41 Trash could fly). I just don’t think Rowand has the wheels to cover that kind of turf.

    In Philly, not only was he playing in a bandbox, he also was basically playing Left-Center since Victorino was able to cover about 3/5 of the outfield. His success in CHI, I think, was a combination of playing with Posednick, who at that point was covering more ground than just about any LF in baseball, and the fact that Rowand was still at peak age.

    The problem now is that if Rowand can’t be an above average defensive CF, he ceases to have any real value. He doesn’t have the arm to be an effective RF, and he doesn’t hit enough to be a worthwhile LF.

    I’m still a huge fan of the GAMERness, and yes, I do believe that he provides some “intangibles” that go beyond the numbers, but I’m not optimistic that his defensive numbers will rebound.

  5. MrLomez

    So, I think, we’re more or less in agreement. Rowand is suspect going forward, the reasons for which (injury-ness or incompatibility with ATT) are moot. Rowand is the CF for the foreseeable future, which is somewhat troubling.

    I do think it’s inaccurate to say that Lewis and Winn are the equivalent of CF’s. Lewis certainly not. He has the speed, but oh my, it makes me cringe to imagine him running in circles in center. Minus drastic improvement in reading the ball off the bat, Lewis would be a tragedy in CF.

    Winn’s prowess, I think, is more a consequence of his utter mastery of ATT’s RF dimensions and quirks than innate ability. He is probably the most cerebral outfielder I’ve ever watched, but throw him in the boundless terrain that is CF and all that cerebralness and mastery of angles is negated.

    Yes Rowand is surrounded by two guys who are good at playing their respective spots in the OF, but it’s different than playing with true CF’s flanking you, like a Carl Crawford, or Victorino, or Posednik circa 2004.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.