Add new comment

Sorry to re-use one of my old article titles - but this is exactly the kind of disconnect that has me routinely shaking my head at UZR results. (The problem being - I think there is some legitimate 'truth' that UZR is shining light on - but I have believed from day one that the "eyes-on" foundation for ZR ends up getting skewed by location. (The people scoring games in Chicago or Seattle start grading harder or easier based on subtle underlying psychological pulls, and over a full season, skew the final tallies).
I see the same basic argument of -- "Well, sure he only hit .200 -- but that was just because his BABIP was so bad. He was unlucky. He's REALLY a .270 hitter."
In truth 4th in DER, 7th in UZR isn't a big skew - and might be illuminating - but I've seen some much more severe - (2nd in one, 13th in the other) examples to rely on UZR except in cases where there isn't any other choice.
Y'know - in thinking about it, the #1 DER fell to #4 - and it's been my contention that ENGAGEMENT is critical to DER. So, maybe the lower UZR is actually not really measuring talent or result - but is actually capturing engagement to some degree. Just a random ponder.