Fish: Barrel: Fire away!

I'd like to suggest that such articles should probably start with ... wait for it ... range factor.

Yes, there are obvious issues with range factor but you can get into those as you talk about the more advanced methods. But if the idea is to persuade someone on this topic, why not start with this:

Derek Jeter made 3.7 plays per 9 innings last year while the average shortstop made 4.4 plays. Over a full season that is about 90 fewer plays made than the average SS.

Then, sure, did the Yanks give up fewer GB, fewer GB in the SS direction, were they harder to field than the typical for whatever random reason. But if you just start with "90 fewer plays", the average reader can get it and the burden of evidence shifts to those trying to show he's not that bad. (Note I didn't actually use the term range factor that nobody will have heard of ... potentially you use assists rather than plays.)

Smartly and rightly, the Cabrera MVP supporters didn't hesitate to start with RBI, OPS, triple crown ... as they should. "Boy, this guy sure looks like a much better hitter than Trout" is where the debate should start and it is then the Trout supporter's job to bring in park effects, defense and baserunning. Conversely, as was regularly pointed out by posters here, the pro-Trout case should have started with "Trout is an excellent hitter, an excellent defender and an excellent baserunner -- an outstanding all-around player having a great all-around season" ... then go to WAR.

90 fewer plays than average sounds wildly high, and should indeed be adjusted for chances/difficulty/etc even before one claims to be at a starting point.

Fish: Barrel: Fire away!

To change the subject completely ... where was this thread?

New York Post
"Numbnuts! Mets' Valdespin nailed by Verlander — then ripped by Collins for not wearing cup"
By MIKE PUMA
Last Updated: 9:33 AM, March 12, 2013

Jordany Valdespin could use a cup to runneth over.

The Mets utilityman exited [Monday's] exhibition game against the Tigers after he was hit in the genitals with a Justin Verlander 94-mph fastball, and left club officials shaking their heads by revealing he wasn’t wearing a protective cup.

“You would think if you are starting at second base, you would be smart enough to wear a cup,” manager Terry Collins fumed to The Post after the Mets’ 11-0 victory at Joker Marchant Stadium.

Valdespin, who homered leading off the game facing Verlander, was attempting a bunt in the fifth inning against the stud fireballer when he was struck, crumpling him to the ground in agony.

Asked where the pitch hit him, Valdespin replied, “in the d--k,” adding that everything is “fine” and he doesn’t expect to miss action.

“Everything is good, working good, normally, everything is great,” Valdespin said.

The flamboyant 25-year-old departed the ballpark before it was revealed to The Post he wasn’t wearing a cup. But it wasn’t that Valdespin got hit in the sensitive area without a cup that miffed Collins as much as the player showing a probable lapse in judgment by shunning the protection on a day he was playing second base. One former major league infielder said it’s “highly unusual” for a second baseman not to wear a cup.

“If you are playing the infield, it is part of the uniform,” the former infielder said.

Valdespin’s penchant for flying open early on bunt attempts leaves him vulnerable, said one Mets instructor.

Verlander, a former MVP and Cy Young Award winner, said it was the first time he had drilled a batter in that spot.

“He took a hack at the first pitch and the next one — he already hit one bomb — and the next one he totally squared [toward] me,” Verlander said. “And I’m like, ‘Oh God, this isn’t going to be good.’ Right out of the hand it’s like, ‘Oh, [bleep]! That is right at his [genitals].’?”

Collins has told Valdespin this spring to eliminate some of his antics, warning that he might become a target for pitchers. One such warning came two weeks ago after Valdespin faked a bunt leading off a game against Nationals ace Stephen Strasburg. In the same at-bat, Valdespin singled and received a glare from Strasburg as he ran to first base.

“We’re going to settle some of that stuff down,” Collins said. “[Valdespin] has been told a lot in the last couple of years about how to handle himself on the major league field, especially when you are a young player. He understands it, he’s adjusting to it and once in a while you always get caught up in the moment.

“When you’ve been doing some things your whole life sometimes you have a little difficulty making some adjustments, but he will make them. We’ve got some good veterans on this team. They will make him.”

Both Collins and Valdespin said they doubted Verlander was throwing at the player.

The cup controversy comes as Valdespin has emerged as the Mets’ hottest hitter in camp. He is batting .370 this spring with three homers and six RBIs, and appears to have solidified a spot on the team’s Opening Day roster. [Emphasis added]

http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/mets/plunked_in_the_junk_SGl8HCJWp9vQKWmHIfbmyN

I disagree, Ray. I think a lot of people view the advanced stats as doing a lot of hocus pocus behind the scenes. This argument starts with what actually happened, and then makes clear that the hocus pocus adjustments are needed to bring Jeter back toward respectability.

Verlander, a former MVP and Cy Young Award winner, said it was the first time he had drilled a batter in that spot.

WTF, this isn't a WBC game where everything counts! Did he do this on purpose? I was told no one ever gets drilled nor slides into bases during these spring season games...what the heck is going on? I want answers dammit!

-18 on D doesn't sound all that bad to me for a 38 year old SS with his offense. Not to mention potential measurement issues that tend to overstate how bad he is.

This just in, Jeter not great at defense? I thought that most people basically knew that at this point, am I just wearing BTF colored glasses? I guess I thought even folks that thought he was good in his 20s decided that he'd lost a step and didn't get to ground balls well anymore.

Wait, Valdespin was hit in the dark?

Insta primey for #9

Article in #4 deserves its own thread. Surviving a 94 MPH HBP to the groin contradicts BBTF conventional wisdom.

Limited range but soft hands and a rifle for an arm.

Put him behind the plate.

90 fewer plays than average sounds wildly high, and should indeed be adjusted for chances/difficulty/etc even before one claims to be at a starting point.

Why should it be adjusted? Does anyone suggest that someone who batted .330 should have their ba adjusted because they got a lot of meatball pitches to hit that season? What about someone hitting 50 HRs? Does anyone adjust that for seasonal weather conditions? or games that were already out of reach?

I'm sure any/all of these could be adjusted, but it just seems in the case of fielding, its even less likely that the fielder is benefitting from some sort of inherent bias as opposed to the pitches the batter is seeing. There's basically a seasons worth of balls being hit to the SS area, it would be hard to imagine that they are anything other than a random distribution.

In the case of shifts, and "discretional chances" I get that these may skew fielding range. I think once sabermetrics correct for these, fielding range should be even more accurate barometer.

His return brings stability to the position...

Wouldn't the Yankees prefer he bring mo-bility...?

Surviving a 94 MPH HBP to the groin contradicts BBTF conventional wisdom.

He says it hit his d--k. Not his n--s.

I'm sure any/all of these could be adjusted, but it just seems in the case of fielding, its even less likely that the fielder is benefitting from some sort of inherent bias as opposed to the pitches the batter is seeing.

Unless I'm missing some point you're making here, no. The bias is inherent because while Jeter, on average, hits against the same pitchers as everyone else over the course of the season, he doesn't field behind the same pitchers as every other SS. And the strikeout/flyball/groundball tendencies of those pitchers can have a big effect on the number of balls hit to him.

Anyway, while you would think everyone knows Jeter's defense is bad at this point, I'm not sure most mainstream folks do. And the guy won Gold Glove awards with defensive numbers that were comparable to last season's.

And the strikeout/flyball/groundball tendencies of those pitchers can have a big effect on the number of balls hit to him.

Well how big is the effect? I havent followed it closely in recent years, but I dont recall seeing anything that was real convincing years ago when I would read about this.

One former major league infielder said it’s “highly unusual” for a second baseman not to wear a cup. “If you are playing the infield, it is part of the uniform,” the former infielder said.

The only appropriate response to this from the "flamboyant 25-year-old Valdespin" is that

I couldn't find one to fit. Also, {adding that} everything is “fine” and {i} don’t expect to miss action. ANY action. Including {former infielder's} mom, last night

Anyway, I noticed a difference in my (through high school) 2B performance when wearing a cup. Wasn't huge, but somewhere between half a step and a step. If I was a fringe prospect, I'd definitely take the risk.

Valdespin should tell everyone he wasn't able to fit the cup on because his junk was still swollen from spending the night with Verlander's Mom.

Agree with Walt. That's something Tango used to do a lot. You could also start with a basic version of WOWY.

Collins has told Valdespin this spring to eliminate some of his antics, warning that he might become a target for pitchers. One such warning came two weeks ago after Valdespin faked a bunt leading off a game against Nationals ace Stephen Strasburg. In the same at-bat, Valdespin singled and received a glare from Strasburg as he ran to first base.

I don't get it, what is wrong with squaring around to fake a bunt? That is about the dumbest thing for anyone to "glare" at someone over. I think Strasburg is the one who needs to grow up.

I disagree, Ray. I think a lot of people view the advanced stats as doing a lot of hocus pocus behind the scenes. This argument starts with what actually happened, and then makes clear that the hocus pocus adjustments are needed to bring Jeter back toward respectability.

Agree, you start with the big number, and agree to whittle it down for the conversation. The problem with the advanced numbers is that they put it into usually a run score or win context and that involves a lot of behind the scenes adjustment. They are of course more accurate, but for the sake of debating with people who are not fans of numbers, it's best to argue from actual results, not theoretical models. 90 fewer plays is tangible and a result of what actually happened. Saying 23.3 runs worse than an (theoretical)average player is not so tangible(it's understandable, but it's relying multiple levels of methodology that is hard to keep up with)

Why should it be adjusted? Does anyone suggest that someone who batted .330 should have their ba adjusted because they got a lot of meatball pitches to hit that season? What about someone hitting 50 HRs? Does anyone adjust that for seasonal weather conditions? or games that were already out of reach?

Because we do mental adjustments all the time. .330 average in 30 games is not as impressive as .330 in 150 games. The point of doing the adjustments is a process of the debate. You start out with 90 fewer plays than average. Then when someone says "there is no way he's that bad" you acknowledge that it's possible that the numbers don't account for everything(at this point in time, you are now using methods used to develop advanced stats, and getting the buy in of the person you are debating) You point out that you could adjust those numbers by whether his staff is a strikeout staff. Adjust again for ground ball/flyball tendency, and again by side of the diamond the balls are hit to, and now you have a number that is still probably pretty high, but at this point the person is seeing how you are coming up with these numbers.

There's basically a seasons worth of balls being hit to the SS area, it would be hard to imagine that they are anything other than a random distribution.

For fielders the difference is more likely greater, as pointed out in post 16. Some teams like a ground ball staff, others prefer the strikeout. There are some teams that have 0, 1, 2 left handed starters. Those are going to affect where the ball goes, and how it gets there. On top of that, if your team allows fewer runs, your number of opportunities is going to be reduced strictly because fewer batters are coming up per game(yes you still get the same number of outs of course, but a staff that allows 9.0 hits per 9 versus a staff allowing 8.0 hits per 9, is going to have roughly 162 more chances in the course of a season, that works out to(without any adjustments, just going by strictly randomness) roughly 18 chances per player(obviously location of hit balls isn't purely random, but hopefully you get the point) A staff that has a k/9 of 7.0 versus one of 8.0 is going to have (roughly)162 fewer chances over the course of the season.

Edit:Note I hate the k/9 stat, but for this purpose it works to illustrate what I'm trying to say, much more clearer than k% would.

There's basically a seasons worth of balls being hit to the SS area, it would be hard to imagine that they are anything other than a random distribution.

Try harder. Pitchers have a strong effect on batted ball distributions and Jeter plays for the same ~15 for the entire year.

Why should it be adjusted? Does anyone suggest that someone who batted .330 should have their ba adjusted because they got a lot of meatball pitches to hit that season?

? I absolutely look at how many PAs a hitter has. As does everyone.

Minor boo-boo ... Jeter's RF/9 was 3.8 not 3.7 (his RF/G) so that brings it down to more like 80 plays.

Looking a little deeper, it would probably be better to look at assists. For example last year, Aybar had about a league average RF/9 and also had nearly exactly the same number of innings as Jeter. (Amazing, first guy I looked at is exactly what I wanted to find). Jeter made 95 fewer plays than Aybar but 60 of those 100 were extra putouts. That's probably got very little to do with SS ability. (I'll admit that I'm surprised such a large percentage of SS chances are putouts.)

35 fewer assists is a lot more reasonable, that's 1 every 4 games or so.

When A-Rod went to the Yankees, I thought Jeter should have been moved to CF. Jeter has a bad first step and poor instincts, but he has great make-up speed. Think of the dive into the 3rd base stands. Those sound like CF skills. Of course, it's too late now.

As far as Jeter's fielding reputation, he has Gold Gloves so the casual fan think he's a great fielder. Heck, most talking heads still say he's a great fielder. The New York Daily News did post the headline "Fools's Gold" when he won the Gold Glove in 2010.

There's basically a seasons worth of balls being hit to the SS area, it would be hard to imagine that they are anything other than a random distribution.

This is not true, based on the tendencies of the staff. If its a staff full of flyball pitchers, the SS is going to have less chances to deal with.
I think the classic case is the Atlanta 3B position through the Leo Mazzone era. It was always pitch outside...outside..outside.
So the number of chances the 3B encountered was significantly less than other 3Bs in the league, thus affecting their defensive ratings.

Asked where the pitch hit him, Valdespin replied, “in the d--k,” adding that everything is “fine” and he doesn’t expect to miss action.

I wonder what kind of action Valdespin is referring to here.

Cano's always much closer to league average in assists than Jeter, as are other Yankee SSs. There really isn't any evidence that Jeter is systematically deprived of potential assists, or facing more difficult chances.

Unless I'm missing some point you're making here, no. The bias is inherent because while Jeter, on average, hits against the same pitchers as everyone else over the course of the season, he doesn't field behind the same pitchers as every other SS. And the strikeout/flyball/groundball tendencies of those pitchers can have a big effect on the number of balls hit to him.

I thought Sunday Silence was objecting to the way Ray made his case. Ray's No. 2 seems to work from the assumption that the 90 is too high, and thus an adjustment must be made to get to a starting point.

Walt's argument is that the 90 is the starting point (at least in terms of putting the onus on the Jeter's not so bad defenders). Now, there may very well be reasons to adjust that number downward (staff tendencies, specific chances in a given year, etc.) once further investigation is done, but that shouldn't be the default assumption. It could get adjusted upward once those things are done. But you don't work from the idea that the 90 is wildly high.

But you don't work from the idea that the 90 is wildly high.

I kind of disagree with this. It's regression to the mean. Whenever you see a huge outleir (such as a .390 BABIP, 55 homers, etc.) you're default assumption should be that there were some mitigating factors (such as luck, Coors, etc.).

But you don't work from the idea that the 90 is wildly high.

I kind of disagree with this. It's regression to the mean. Whenever you see a huge outleir (such as a .390 BABIP, 55 homers, etc.) you're default assumption should be that there were some mitigating factors (such as luck, Coors, etc.).

True, but several seasons worth of data suggest that 2012 is no outlier for Jeter's fielding. RF/9 for 2009-12: 3.90, 3.78, 3.61, 3.76. League RF/9 has ranged from 4.36 to 4.43.

True, but several seasons worth of data suggest that 2012 is no outlier for Jeter's fielding. RF/9 for 2009-12: 3.90, 3.78, 3.61, 3.76. League RF/9 has ranged from 4.36 to 4.43.

Right, in a large sample size you can eliminate luck as a factor, and you can partially eliminate biases. But I'm guessing there are still some holdovers from earlier years. Have the Yankees had a complete turnover in pitching staff?

I kind of disagree with this. It's regression to the mean. Whenever you see a huge outleir (such as a .390 BABIP, 55 homers, etc.) you're default assumption should be that there were some mitigating factors (such as luck, Coors, etc.).

It may be fair to guess that's where the adjustments will take you, but I don't think you work from the idea that the 90 is too high and that the starting point should be lower. That seems to be introducing unnecessary biases.

But you don't work from the idea that the 90 is wildly high.

I kind of disagree with this. It's regression to the mean. Whenever you see a huge outleir (such as a .390 BABIP, 55 homers, etc.) you're default assumption should be that there were some mitigating factors (such as luck, Coors, etc.).

True, but several seasons worth of data suggest that 2012 is no outlier for Jeter's fielding. RF/9 for 2009-12: 3.90, 3.78, 3.61, 3.76. League RF/9 has ranged from 4.36 to 4.43.

It is truly amazing that Jeter is 3rd in starts at Shortstop. The top 20 list is comprised of good to excellent defensive players and Jeter. Is there any other bad defensive player that had a long career at a important defensive position? He's historic.

Hornsby, the almost-consensus best 2Bman ever.

okay, career not quite as long, but you get my point. And you shouldn't hold his time at shortstop (fewr career G at 2B) as a factor against him if discussing career length.

It is truly amazing that Jeter is 3rd in starts at Shortstop. The top 20 list is comprised of good to excellent defensive players and Jeter. Is there any other bad defensive player that had a long career at a important defensive position? He's historic.

Ted Simmons as a catcher. Has 1771 games played at catcher, which puts him top 15 of all time. And if you believe the press, Piazza at 1630 isn't too far off.

(Note:Simmons is my favorite player of all time, so I don't personally buy into the bad defense rep, and Piazza's rep is solely about his arm, he's excellent at all other aspects of the job of catcher)

Willie McCovey(2045 games at first, career -78rfield) probably fits the bill among first baseman. By Rfield, Eddie Yost(2004 games at third, -111 rfield) wasn't that good of a third baseman. Bernie Williams(1856 games at cf, -139rfield) is probably hurt by his decline phase and them not moving off of the position. Ray Durham (1843 games at second, career rfield -102)

Just looking at 2012, the average AL team had 12.04 ground balls hit against them and the Yankees had 11.83(per Baseball Reference's splits). On average, about 30.4% of ground balls go to shortstop. Pitcher and opposing batter handedness is another factor, but ignoring that for now that means in theory Yankee shortstops had 3.6 chances per game compared to a league average of 3.66. I'm assuming that RF/9 includes line drives which is why this is lower.

So it's hard to say that the Yankees' ground ball percentage in 2012 was a significant reason for Jeter's range factor to look so poor. FWIW, Eduardo Nunez(4.19) and Jayson Nix(3.90) were both better than Jeter(3.76) as well, although they only combined for about 250 innings.

So it's hard to say that the Yankees' ground ball percentage in 2012 was a significant reason for Jeter's range factor to look so poor.

Nobody is saying that though.

As Walt indicates later, range factor is a pretty crude measure. Much better to look at assists, or even better is all plays made on groundballs. And by those measures it is clear that Jeter has over his career routinely made 35-40 fewer plays per season than an average SS. Now, opportunities certainly can vary a lot from year to year. So, seven or eight years ago it was still vaguely plausible that this reflected fewer opportunities than average for Jeter. But this is no longer plausible. Over his career, NYY pitchers have allowed an average number of groundballs and faced a typical distribution of hitters (as tends to happen over huge samples). The only possibility left is that Jeter is responsible for the large majority of this shortfall in plays made.

True, but several seasons worth of data suggest that 2012 is no outlier for Jeter's fielding. RF/9 for 2009-12: 3.90, 3.78, 3.61, 3.76. League RF/9 has ranged from 4.36 to 4.43.

There could still be a systematic problem with the distribution of chances Jeter gets from his pitchers, or with what the 3B is doing, etc.

More RHP should mean more LH batters which should mean more ground balls to the right side.

But this is no longer plausible. Over his career, NYY pitchers have allowed an average number of groundballs and faced a typical distribution of hitters (as tends to happen over huge samples). The only possibility left is that Jeter is responsible for the large majority of this shortfall in plays made.

This. Its not like Jeter's had the same pitching staff the whole time he's been in the big leagues.

This. Its not like Jeter's had the same pitching staff the whole time he's been in the big leagues.

But he _has_ had only two managers. (*) Do managers help plan where infielders should position themselves; who should take which plays; etc.?

(*) Now someone will nitpick that he had Showalter or Zimmer for two weeks.

But he _has_ had only two managers.

I don't think Joe Torre is so stupid as to have been playing his SS in the wrong place for 12 years. Girardi? Maybe.

Maybe Jeter's pitchers channeled Jack Morris, but instead of pitching to the score, pitched to the fielders to keep the batted balls away from him.

The thought of Zimmer brought back the memory of the surreal situation in which he charged Pedro and ended up on the ground, with everyone in an outrage over Pedro, faced with an impossible no-win situation given that Zimmer was 70 years old, lightly defending himself against a man who was rushing him.

In fairness, just about everyone backed off their outrage pretty quickly when giving the whole thing a second look, especially with Zim himself admitting he was completely in the wrong.

I don't think Joe Torre is so stupid as to have been playing his SS in the wrong place for 12 years. Girardi? Maybe.

Actually, if you look at UZR, Jeter's numbers improved dramatically when Torre left. Jeter averaged -13 p.a. in '05-'07.

In Girardi's first year ('08) he jumped to average (-0.4) and then was +8 in '09, and has declined from there (as you'd expect at his age).

B-Ref shows the same pattern. Jeter ~-20 in '05-'07, improves to -10 in '08, and +3 in '09, and then declines.

I think there's at least some circumstantial evidence that Torre and his staff were making Jeter look worse than he was.

? I absolutely look at how many PAs a hitter has. As does everyone.

Thats not what I am saying. WHen I used the term "Meatball" I am specifically referring to the quality of a pitch that the batter faced. Or more technically, the distribution of those pitches over the course of a season , or a career or whatever. the distribution namely being how good those pitches were, speed/location that sort of thing.

The first pt. I made was that no one challenges that stuff in terms of batters. They dont. They simply assume that over the course of a season it will average out; or that it doesnt really matter; or they dont care, or something else.