Add new comment

They're hesitating now that the numbers are unappealing.
I couldn't agree more Thirteen with the idea that UZR should be used judiciously -- there's a long history of discussion here about that.  Bill James rule:  MOST stats (much less the elusive UZR stat) you want more than 1 season's volume on it, if you can get it.
That said, when we say NO predictive value in a year's worth of stats, we've said a bit too much.  If you take the UZR leaders at, say, shortstop from 2012, the table is going to show SOME correlation with reality.  The Brendan Ryans of the game are going to cluster above the midpoint, even within a single season.  Brendan Ryan's own UZR is VERY likely to be positive this year, and that is an indication that there is SOME value even in "small samples" of baseball stats.  
If Justin Smoak hits .122 in April, or .475 in April, we're going to put some weight on that.
The fact that Guti's numbers were as bad as they were, that doesn't prove anything, but it's a piece of data that counts in the discussion.
...............
After Guti posted his first +20 or +30 or whatever UZR season, SSI was saying that is wayyyy overoptimistic and I don't remember ANYbody -- on other blogs -- buying into the caution flags.  The 3-year caution flag is raised now that Guti's numbers are off.
I'd always have paid Guti for +10, +15 runs per season, which is where his career numbers are settling in at.  That said, I think it's an interesting question whether he remains a solidly above-average center fielder with the glove.
He's probably still a good defensive CF.  I didn't ever think he was great.