from Amazon
Friday, October 24, 2008
UZR positional adjustments, revised with 2008 UZR
Redoing this study: UZR positional adjustments, with the 2008 data (no age adjustments, yet), I get this:
pos1 pos2 r1 r2 diff G
7 9 0.6 0 -0.6 9595
This means that of the guys who played both LF and RF, they were +0.6 in LF, +0 in RF, for a difference of -0.6. That’s with 9595 games. A difference of minus means that you have worse fielders that you are being compared against (that’s why you have an overall plus rating). So, in this case, we can say that LF are a bit worse than RF. This does not include Arm ratings.
pos1 pos2 r1 r2 diff G
7 8 5.9 -5.1 -11 7190
No big surprise here. Of guys who played both, they look good in LF and bad in CF. The gap is 11 runs, on 7190 games.
pos1 pos2 r1 r2 diff G
8 9 -8.9 3 11.9 6664
Similar situation here, with a 12 run gap (this makes it seem that RF is a bit worse than LF, when comparing to the previous line). So, all 3 in summary
pos1 pos2 r1 r2 diff G
7 8 5.9 -5.1 -11 7190
7 9 0.6 0 -0.6 9595
8 9 -8.9 3 11.9 6664
Best-fitting it, we can say:
11 CF
0 RF, LF
That is, the run gap is around the same for RF and LF, and each are about 11 runs from CF. There should be very little disagreement here (other than arm), considering the enormous number of games, and the similar skillset of the three positions. Aging may be an issue, which I’ll look at later.
I’ll post infielders in a little bit…