How can anyone say range factor is "subjective?"?

Question

I won't call him out by name, but some Yankees fan was explaining that Jeter's poor range factor is due to injuries or this or that and that it is subjective.
Let's see--you watch a couple of highlight films and decide if a player has good range or not.
Or you look at number which compare him to others at his position.
Sure, the ratio of groundballs and such will vary, but it means it's not a perfect fielding stat.
But subjective? How uninformed are some people here, anyway.

(Not YOU, of course!)

Answer 1

Range factor is not subjective, it is objective. You can watch just a few games and come the the objective conclusion that Jose Reyes has more range, and can get to more ground balls than Jeter. Those players with greater range will likely make more errors simply because they will reach more balls. I am a Jeter fan and I think he is a smart and great player but his defensive skills are not close to Omar Vizquel, Reyes and others in MLB. I will make one more statement that will get me some down thumbs but I believe A-Rod was a better defensive shortstop than Jeter when they were both playing shortstop.

Answer 2

The worse thing that can be said bout Range Factor and Zone Rating is that it doesn't take into account the player from a career perspective, but is VERY good at looking at that player from a seasonal perspective.

Now, your person in question is, in my opinion, quite knowledgable, however, the more you watch a single team, the more you are convinced that those players have fewer faults than they see if you don't have fan eyes on.

Answer 3

A-Rod may have been a better ss than Jeter, but not so much better that he deserved to take position away from Jeter. Also, would you really want a ss that is afraid to field pop-ups? It would have made the end of last night's game even more nerve racking.