This is our old blog. It hasn't been active since 2011. Please see the link above for our current blog or click the logo above to see all of the great data and content on this site.

Bloops: Newsday Piece on Mitchel Lichtman

Posted by Neil Paine on August 20, 2009

Here's a short article from Newsday's Ken Davidoff on sabermetrician Mitchel Lichtman -- or as many of you know him by, "MGL" -- and specifically his Ultimate Zone Rating defensive stat. Here's a tidbit from the piece: despite the Yankees' rave reviews, Mark Teixeira has actually been below-average at first base according to UZR. Hmm, come to think of it, this kind of gulf between perception and reality seems to happen to the Yankees a lot...

7 Responses to “Bloops: Newsday Piece on Mitchel Lichtman”

  1. Raphy Says:

    "this kind of gulf between perception and reality seems to happen to the Yankees a lot"

    Neil - I'll admit I don't know much about fielding stats,so you can tell me if I'm way off.

    This season Mark Texiera, a player with a superb fielding reputation, joined Yankees and all of a sudden the much maligned Derek Jeter's UZR skyrockets. Meanwhile, Texira's UZR plummets.

    Maybe UZR is not quiet "reality" just yet.

  2. Neil Paine Says:

    No, I definitely agree, that was more of a throwaway joke about the big discrepancy between Jeter's perceived defensive ability and his numbers (in essentially every metric) throughout his career, especially about 7-10 years ago.

  3. JohnnyTwisto Says:

    Jeter appears to be getting to a lot more balls than he has in the past, and I'm not the only one who has observed this. I don't see how Teixeira would have anything to do with that.

  4. tomepp Says:

    I suspect that Teixeira's numbers this year are more of a single season glitch than a trend - we'll see after a few more years. Perhaps playing for a new team (especially under the Yankees microscope) has made Mark nervous - or at least more conservative in the field. Like batting stats, fielding stats have year-to-year fluctuations, and this may be an abberation.

    As to Jeter, he difinitely has gotten better. For years Yankee fans were looking at his fielding through rose-colored glasses. They equated his take-charge leadership in the field with good fielding rather than taking a cold hard look at the numbers. (Winning those four World Series didn't hurt, either, in terms of perception.)

  5. JohnnyTwisto Says:

    Well everyone who watches the Yankees believes Teixeira has been above-average in the field. I'm very aware perception doesn't = reality, but the wisdom of the crowds is useful. I think it's more likely UZR is missing something in this instance than that Tex really isn't playing that well. Will be interesting to see what Tango's fan scouting report (http://www.tangotiger.net/scouting/index.html) finds this season. To evaluate defense, I still use a mix of my own observations, what I read or hear from others, and the stats. I think Tex has been good, most observers seem to believe he's been very good, and one stat finds he's been average. (Does anyone know what +/- or any other stats say at this point?) Mix it all together and I'm sure he's been above average.

    Unfortunately, I don't see most players nearly enough for my own opinion to have any weight.

  6. eorns Says:

    The difference between an average and an excellent fielder may be as little as one ball reached every week or two, which is not something people can pick up upon. I think most people's perceptions rely on more memorable events like good plays and errors, not a fielder's reaction time or positioning or footwork. "Perception" was that Jeter was an excellent shortstop because he had a flair for the great/memorable play, but the truth was that day-to-day he was not, which the numbers bore out. I think Tomepp is right that it's probably just a down/unlucky fielding year for Tex. We shouldn't devalue a stat because it doesn't jibe with our subjective observations, especially in something as fuzzy as fielding.

  7. JohnnyTwisto Says:

    What you say is true, Eorns. And I'm not devaluing UZR because it doesn't jibe with my impression. Like I said, I consider everything. I just don't give UZR a lot _more_ weight than I give to what I see and the subjective reports of others, whether it's for Tex or anyone else. I think UZR is an informative data point, but it just isn't that accurate yet.