I thought it was too early in the build-up/tear down process to consider Kinsler's defense when evaluating him. That seems like something which would be addressed in the second-half of 2009 and then used to support the argument that he's the most overrated player in the AL in 2010.

Anyway, he is really bad at 2B.

Anyway, he is really bad at 2B.

Could he be their long term answer at 3rd? With Young, Kinsler and Hamilton up the middle, it seems the Rangers defense is holding them back this year. Would it make sense to move Young to second and Kinsler to 3rd going forward?

The Rangers' defense is holding them back this year. Starting (and ending) with the 1 position.

I can't imagine Young moving back to 2B at this stage of his career. MAYBE he'll be amenable to a 3B move, but I find that doubtful as well. Kinsler is probably at 2B for the forseeable future. He's not Maz out there or anything, but it appears that the fielding metrics underrate his defense.

However, until they fix that hole on the hill, the Rangers could trot out Brooks Robinson, Ozzie Smith, Mazeroski, and Keith Hernandez in their primes in the infield (and the DiMaggio brothers in the OF) and it won't matter.

I don't know, I bet you that would make a sizable difference.

Eh, just call me a disillusioned Ranger fan. I'm sure it would help quite a bit, but...I'm tired of watching this offense get dragged down repeatedly by the pitching staff.

That being said, players who excel at offense AND defense are not easy to come by. While plugging in (for example) Everett at SS and shifting Young to 2B and Kinsler to 3B would undoubtedly improve the team defense, the lineup suddenly has Everett in it instead of Blalock or Davis. Similarly, adding a Joey Gathright-type to CF would undoubtedly improve the OF defense, but Gathright instead of Murphy/Byrd/Boggs in the lineup? Not such a big fan...

The obvious solution would be to find someone with legit defensive skills at 2B/SS/3B and play them at each position once a week (depending on who's on the mound), sliding Kinsler/Young/Blalock to DH that game. Bradley could play RF those three games a week, and in the games that Bradley doesn't play RF, move Hamilton there and play Byrd (who appears to be at least average defensively) in CF. Even better if this mythical player provided an OBP somewhere in the vicinity of league-average, even if his power is Tyner-like.

One point of WPA/LI over a season equals one win? Just checking to see if I got Cameron's formula right.

Just wondering. Does that up the middle defense have anything to do with the hole on the hill?

Just wondering. Does that up the middle defense have anything to do with the hole on the hill?

This would be my question, too. Factoring defense seems to be the hard part in evaluating a team anymore. It just seems the teams that have made the biggest, unexpected jumps in recent years are teams that improved their defense--White Sox, Rays and so on. I'm also thinking of Oakland which, recently, has seemingly used an excellent defense to prop up pitchers who aren't all that good in another context. I'm not saying I have the answer to this--I do not--it's just an interesting question to me in a chicken and egg sort of way.

Does that up the middle defense have anything to do with the hole on the hill?

Very likely. Dewan's Plus/Minus, nearly as I can tell, doesn't take into account how hard the balls are hit.

-- MWE

What's the difference between is +/- and the data in the Fielding Bible? I'm pretty sure the numbers in the FB do take how hard a ball was struck into account.

Just wondering. Does that up the middle defense have anything to do with the hole on the hill?

The Rangers' pitching staff is next to last in walks, next to last in strikeouts, and near the bottom in home runs allowed. The team is also dead last in defensive efficiency, although you can't say for sure how much of the blame for that is on the pitchers versus the defense. I'd call it an all around disaster, with both the pitchers and the defense sharing responsibility.

Let’s start with the offense, using WPA/LI as the metric of choice.

What is the point of reading after that? WPA has become the junk stat of choice.

Pass.

Good lord, the Rangers' defense is horrible. I knew Hamilton was bad, but I didn't realize that Kinsler and Young are both among the worst gloves in baseball at their positions.

BPro's defensive efficiency ratings has the Rangers 29th, with only the Pirates behind them. As far as I can tell, the Pirates' horrible defense is mostly because of Nate McLouth, who may be the worst defensive player in baseball relative to his position. (When McLouth bulked up and started hitting bombs, his defense, once averageish in CF, crashed and burned.) Bay, Nady, Wilson, and Sanchez are all basically average defenders. Jose Bautista is below average and Adam LaRoche is bad.

Still, though, I'm surprised the Pirates grade out as worse than the Rangers. McLouth is really awful, but Hamilton is bad too, and the Pirates don't have any other defenders nearly as bad as Kinsler and Young.

For the record, the five center fielders who have taken the most value off the table with their defense in 2008:

5. Josh Hamilton (-9)
4. Lastings Milledge (-10)
3. Vernon Wells (-12)
2. Jim Edmonds (-16)
1. Nate McLouth (-23)

Just for an added idea of how bad McLouth is.

I have them as
Kinsler +26.6
Bradley +25.0
Hamilton +19.0

I ma not penalizing Bradley as much as one might.

What is the point of reading after that? WPA has become the junk stat of choice.

Pass.

Well I happen to like WPA, thank you very much. But as Tango says WPA/LI should not be confused, at all, with WPA. The entire problem with WPA, the leveraged aspect of it, is undone with WPA/LI.

What is the point of reading after that? WPA has become the junk stat of choice.

Do you really not understand the difference between WPA and WPA/LI?

Kameron Loe is not the Rangers MVP, and they spelled his name wrong anyway.

GGC: thanks for reminding people of that.

For people who don't understand:
- WPA count some PA as 10, some as 5, some as 1, some as 0.5, some as 0.01, depending on the game state; so a bases loaded down by 1 in the bottom of the 9th counts far far more than the same situation but up by 25

- WPA/LI counts every single PA as exactly 1.00, regardless of the game state; furthermore, it is "smart" in that it understands that a K with runner on 3B and less than 2 outs is more costly than a K with 2 outs and runner on 3B... but as I said, it prevents the "runaway" numbers by forcing every PA to be weighted as 1.00

I don't blame anyone for not realizing the difference at first, since the "WPA" in the name would throw most people for a loop. But, before throwing it away, understand what WPA/LI does and does not.

As far as I can tell, the Pirates' horrible defense is mostly because of Nate McLouth, who may be the worst defensive player in baseball relative to his position. (When McLouth bulked up and started hitting bombs, his defense, once averageish in CF, crashed and burned.)

I've seen this information elsewhere also and I'm still surprised by it. I watch nearly every game and his range seems average-ish on TV... I guess I'm just bummed that my eyes have deceived me so.

For those who have an opinion on WPA, pro or con, you can read
my blog entry on the subject. Also check the comments, especially post 7.

If you have no opinion on WPA at all, you can ignore the above.

Has Texas ever had a good defense? Especially since the move to the Ballpark (or whatever the hell they're calling it now)?

I wonder if there's some sort of park factor there? Does the field (the actual ground) play differently because of the sun and the heat? Are the infielders really that terrible or is it just that they're playing on a pool table surface?

Pirates and defense:

The team doesn't have any one real standout defender (with Jack at short being closest). Bautista is a big minus, and the two months of Rivas playing semi-regularly were brutal.

Nate's not great in CF, but I also think that the outfielders' zones of responsibility may not be being apportioned correctly, since the team's LF and CF have seemed to grade out worse than my "eyeball number" for a few years now, while RF grades out more charitably than I'd expect.