Stick a fork in Hunter, he is done.

[twinsnorth49]

True story, I tuned into the Jay's-O's game on Sunday for a bit, one of the Jays hits a slightly less than routine fly ball to right, certainly no frozen rope, probably would have dropped 5 feet short of the track. Delmon drop steps the wrong way, spins and sprints back to make what appears to be quite the catch, the announcer acts as if he was the second coming of Willie Mays, my 9 year old son turns to me and says "That wasn't a hard catch Dad, that was Delmon Young".

 

He really likes Arcia, but I think he's starting to form the same impression.

[LimestoneBaggy]

....Fade in to Chuck Fletcher watching the end of last night's Twins game. Fletcher leans back as if to take in what he's seen over the past few weeks. He signs off his Twins Daily account after reading this thread and presses a small button on his desk phone...

 

Fletcher: "Sally, get me Mike Modano on line 1 immediately!"

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

It's kinda funny, really.

 

The only thing that I find truly telling about Hunter is how many people called him the "worst outfielder in baseball" while my argument was "if the Twins are using publicly-available metrics to rate defense, they're in worse shape than I originally thought". 

 

Turns out that the Twins were probably right and that Hunter's -24.7 defensive runs last season weren't indicative of his ability. Yeah, he's slow and old but I'd still take him in the field over Arcia after watching him for ~30 games. What he's missing physically is somewhat compensated for by instinct and veteran savvy. He looks below average, maybe even bad, but not horrible/terrible/OMG.

I don't think Hunter rated at -24.7 defensive runs anywhere for 2014 (unless you are including a positional adjustment, which you probably shouldn't -- we're comparing him to average RFers not other positions).  UZR had him at -18.3 and DRS similarly at -18.

 

 

There is nothing surprising about some on this board not recognizing an outlier / regression to the mean.  I will say though that plenty of us recognized that Hunter probably wasn't that bad, but that a likely defensive upgrade over Arcia, Willingham, Delmon Young, etc. was setting the bar a little low for our offseason.

 

I actually wouldn't be surprised if no stat-based defensive analysis was honestly considered in advance of the Hunter signing (and there's a few years worth of other evidence backing up that theory).

 

FWIW, Hunter currently sits at -5 runs by DRS, and 0.8 runs by UZR for 2015.  He still could hit the -12 runs/season average that he posted in Detroit.

 

[jimmer]

Yeah, Hunter sits 24th out of 24 in DRS for RF.  At this rate, his DRS will be worse than last year.

 

I'm sorry, but he's looked pretty bad out there.  Perhaps his decent offense (along with homerism and/or memories of better days) has clouded some people's assessment of his defense, like Gold Glove voters. I don't know.

[Willihammer]

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry, but he's looked pretty bad out there.  Perhaps his decent offense (along with homerism and/or memories of better days) has clouded some people's assessment of his defense, like Gold Glove voters. I don't know.

I think Hunter just looks elegantly slow out there compared to Arcia or Hammer who both moved like monster trucks with 4 flat tires in slow motion. As others have said, the bar for good OF defense is very low.

[Mike Sixel]

But like Jeter, he catches everything he gets to.....so he's not bad. Even if he is 24th out of 24.

[USAFChief]

Yeah, Hunter sits 24th out of 24 in DRS for RF. At this rate, his DRS will be worse than last year.

 

I'm sorry, but he's looked pretty bad out there. Perhaps his decent offense (along with homerism and/or memories of better days) has clouded some people's assessment of his defense, like Gold Glove voters. I don't know.

actually, he hasn't looked bad at all.

[jimmer]

 

actually, he hasn't looked bad at all.

yeah he has. again, this is why the eye test stinks,.  different people seeing different things.

[USAFChief]

yeah he has. again, this is why the eye test stinks,. different people seeing different things.

kinda like different defensive metrics then.

[jimmer]

 

kinda like different defensive metrics then.

depends on if the person applying them knows how to do it properly as opposed to just trying to find a way to invalidate them.

[Mike Sixel]

 

kinda like different defensive metrics then.

 

Except they agree he is one of, if not the, worst. They just disagree by how much......you might want to read up on accuracy vs precision, or not, up to you.

[USAFChief]

Except they agree he is one of, if not the, worst. They just disagree by how much......you might want to read up on accuracy vs precision, or not, up to you.

what's his 2015 UZR?

 

Or am I not doing it properly?

[TheLeviathan]

 

Except they agree he is one of, if not the, worst. They just disagree by how much......you might want to read up on accuracy vs precision, or not, up to you.

 

UZR doesn't seem to think that.  DRS certainly does.  They may agree by the end of things but I don't think this argument works right now.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

kinda like different defensive metrics then.

Not as much as you might think:

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/a-visual-look-at-defensive-metrics/

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

what's his 2015 UZR?

Or am I not doing it properly?

I think we've been over this.  Citing a month-plus of a defensive runs estimator as meaningful is indeed not a proper thing to do.

[USAFChief]

I think we've been over this. Citing a month-plus of a defensive runs estimator as meaningful is indeed not a proper thing to do.

shouldn't you be telling that to thosE citing 2015 DRS?

 

I'm OK with NEVER citing them, if those are the rules.

[twinsnorth49]

 

Except they agree he is one of, if not the, worst. They just disagree by how much......you might want to read up on accuracy vs precision, or not, up to you.

So are they highly precise with low accuracy?

Or are they highly accurate with low precision?

They certainly aren't highly precise and highly accurate.

 

Which one is more than the other? They both agree he's last, I guess that's accurate?

[Mike Sixel]

Even smaller sample size........eye tests. I think if people are going to say "in the games I've seen, he's looked good", it is reasonable to point out that, looking at what HAS happened using defensive stats, not using them to predict things, is a reasonable counter argument.

 

 

[Mike Sixel]

 

So are they highly precise with low accuracy?

Or are they highly accurate with low precision?

They certainly aren't highly precise and highly accurate.

 

Which one is more than the other? They both agree he's last, I guess that's accurate?

 

More likely than watching a few games, not watching every single game, not writing down what every player did on every play, yes, they are very likely to be more accurate than someone's random recollection of a handful of plays, yes.

[jimmer]

 

Even smaller sample size........eye tests. I think if people are going to say "in the games I've seen, he's looked good", it is reasonable to point out that, looking at what HAS happened using defensive stats, not using them to predict things, is a reasonable counter argument.

not only that, but also looking at everyone else who plays the same position and comparing them.

[twinsnorth49]

 

More likely than watching a few games, not watching every single game, not writing down what every player did on every play, yes, they are very likely to be more accurate than someone's random recollection of a handful of plays, yes.

Yes more accurate than the eye test, and without inherent bias. Still not sure how precise they are though.

[Mike Sixel]

I've never argued they are precise. That's a whole different discussion.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

shouldn't you be telling that to thosE citing 2015 DRS?

Sure, if they are citing them in complete isolation or in contradiction of past results over a much larger sample.  I don't know that anybody is doing that, however.

[USAFChief]

Sure, if they are citing them in complete isolation or in contradiction of past results over a much larger sample. I don't know that anybody is doing that, however.

so if I understand correctly, don't use small sample sizes because they are innacurate. But if we add up a whole bunch of innacurate data sets, we get an accurate one.

 

I'm still skeptical.

 

And by the way, people are doing exactly that in this tbread.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

so if I understand correctly, don't use small sample sizes because they are innacurate. But if we add up a whole bunch of innacurate data sets, we get an accurate one.

I'm still skeptical.

I'm going to bow out now.  We had a whole thread on this before, which I thought was mildly productive for all sides, and I'm a little surprised you're going back to these canards now.

[jimmer]

 

Sure, if they are citing them in complete isolation or in contradiction of past results over a much larger sample.  I don't know that anybody is doing that, however.

exactly. no one is doing that.

 

If the results were completely off from what a player had done the last couple years, it'd be odd to use, but if it's just a continuation of the trend the player has had the last year or two, it's a lot harder to throw it out as irrelevant.

 

 

[The Wise One]

 

yeah he has. again, this is why the eye test stinks,.  different people seeing different things.

Eyes do see different things. Inside edge and the people who come up with DRS and the other statistics use stringers. When they can't even agree on how many balls were in play or played by a player in any given year, how valid are the statistics?

[Mike Sixel]

 

Eyes do see different things. Inside edge and the people who come up with DRS and the other statistics use stringers. When they can't even agree on how many balls were in play or played by a player in any given year, how valid are the statistics?

 

More valid than any other option.......accuracy, not precision.

[Gene Larkin Fan Club]

So...anywho...seems like perhaps the Hunter signing may not bring about the apocalypse.  I think we can all agree he's not great in the field, but has been very solid at the plate.  And although I can't find an equation to quantify accuracy, there does seem to be a more focused energy.  He's having fun and the rest of the team seems to be having fun.  Winning some games certainly helps that.  It's almost as if he's brought some intangible leadership qualities that have positively impacted the team...or something like that.

 

*It's kind of fun to go back and read the first few pages.  Chicken Little would be proud.

[Mike Sixel]

I agree, he's been better with the bat than I thought (though this was in the realm of possibility in my mind for sure, just not likely). And, as a 1 year thing, not the end of the world. I had hoped for a more long term answer, like a 3 year deal for someone.

 

I don't see how this is chicken little though........projections aren't guarantees, they are theories about the future. Being wrong doesn't invalidate the process, it just shows that the world is not 100% guaranteed (which is one of the few things remaining that I like about sports).