BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: Joura: How should we view Daniel Murphy’s defense?

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Saturday, May 19, 2012

Joura: How should we view Daniel Murphy’s defense?

Use the View-Master Model GEE-WHIZ!

So, while our eyes tell us that Murphy is getting the job done in the field, the numbers tell us the exact opposite thing. Which one should we believe?

Sometimes the eyes show us what we want to see and believe. That is why it is important to have non-biased numbers to fall back on. Perhaps being a Murphy fan has caused me to minimize his defensive shortcomings and exaggerate his achievements in the field. David Wright seems to be doing a great job at the plate and the numbers back this up. Murphy seems to be doing fine in the field but the numbers tell us he has been terrible.

The one saving grace is that defensive numbers take longer than offensive numbers to stabilize. So, while Murphy grades out as a rotten fielder after 36 games, it will not be a huge surprise to see the numbers tell a different story by the All-Star break.

...My heart and my head tell me two different things about Murphy’s defense in 2012, leaving me ambivalent about his play. But with the Mets holding a winning record and Collins firmly in his corner, there seems little doubt that Murphy will continue to play second base. Hopefully he will continue to make highlight-reel plays like he did Thursday while also improving his range and getting to more balls than he has the first seven weeks of the season.

Repoz Posted: May 19, 2012 at 06:08 AM | 30 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
Tags: mets, sabermetrics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

1. The District Attorney Posted: May 19, 2012 at 12:20 PM (#4135740)

2B is a flashy, athletic, highlight-film-prone position. If you've been watching a guy all year and the description you come up with is "getting the job done", then he probably is pretty bad.

2. Elvis Posted: May 19, 2012 at 01:48 PM (#4135771)

So, if we watched the Web Gems for a week, and counted all of the plays made by each position, there would be more highlights from 2B than 3B or SS?

3. The District Attorney Posted: May 19, 2012 at 01:53 PM (#4135775)

No, I think those would be the other two positions where there would be a major correlation. Even in CF, I could see "looks like he gets the job done" as a more plausible description of a good fielder (e.g. a guy like Beltran who doesn't make many diving catches, but just "always seems to be there.")

I don't think it'd be impossible to be a good 2B and appear workmanlike, but it's one of the positions where it's less likely to be the case, I think.

4. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: May 19, 2012 at 01:57 PM (#4135778)

our eyes tell us that Murphy is getting the job done in the field

Says who? Serious question, BTW. I haven't seen much of Murphy. Is there really a consensus that he looks OK at 2B?

Also, am I the only one who's sick and tired of these eyes/numbers dichotomy articles? Aren't there times when the eyes and the stats agree? And cases where the player looks like he's stretched, but the numbers say he's getting the job done? And isn't it possible that knowing the numbers can bias the eyes?

5. Elvis Posted: May 19, 2012 at 02:11 PM (#4135787)

I think there are plenty of times when the eyes and numbers agree. Just at 2B, Dan Uggla always looks to be a poor fielder and the numbers agree. On the flip side, Mark Ellis always looks good in the field to me and he generally has good numbers.

As for looks stretched but numbers say he gets the job done, I'd put Kelly Johnson in that category, although I haven't seen much of him yet this year. Omar Infante, too.

6. Downtown Bookie

Posted: May 19, 2012 at 03:35 PM (#4135822)

Also, am I the only one who's sick and tired of these eyes/numbers dichotomy articles?

I wouldn't say that I'm tired of it; but I do find it to be misleading, especially when one considers how much human observation goes into creating many of the leading defensive metrics in use today.

DB

7. Walt Davis Posted: May 19, 2012 at 04:10 PM (#4135845)

The numbers aren't good but not historically awful. Chone has him at -4 and fangraphs at -7 ... which is a terrible pace but we'd project that to regress some towards the mean. He's probably projecting to -10 to -15. Most importantly, Chone puts him at above-average overall while fangraphs has him at about average.

An interesting question is what they will do if they have to send down or DL the struggling Ike Davis. Murphy has been a good-fielding 1B and, while maybe not ideal, his low-power 113 career OPS+ will play at 1B. But if you want Murphy to be a longer-term answer at 2B, you keep him there. (I also have no idea what options the Mets have in the minors.)

8. Banta Posted: May 19, 2012 at 04:19 PM (#4135848)

I think Murphy looks alright to the eye. He can definitely cover some ground, his arm and reactions are adequate, but he looks pretty bad on the double play and taking certain angles to the ball (which impacts his range). I would not be surprised if he ended up as below-average but respectable (-5 to -10 range). Maybe not this year, but the point is, the things that he's bad at I think will improve with more experience and the things that he's good at he should be able to maintain. Really, as long as he doesn't kill himself, I think the Mets have a pretty good solution at second for a few years. It should be noted though that there's a larger than average chance that he really does kill himself.

9. Dan Posted: May 19, 2012 at 04:31 PM (#4135861)

If they send Davis down, moving Duda from RF to 1B probably improves the defense more than moving Murphy from 2B anyway.

10. Bob Evans Posted: May 19, 2012 at 06:14 PM (#4135998)

we'd project that to regress some towards the mean

If by "the mean" you mean "0 runs", serious question: why? I would expect him to regress to HIS mean, but what is that number?

11. PreservedFish Posted: May 19, 2012 at 06:44 PM (#4136010)

The numbers aren't good but not historically awful. Chone has him at -4 and fangraphs at -7 ... which is a terrible pace but we'd project that to regress some towards the mean. He's probably projecting to -10 to -15.

Does he really project like that? I thought defensive statistics were well nigh useless in such small samples.

According to my eyes: clearly below average, but better than I thought he'd be. The range is OK, probably a bit below average, while his fluidity and instincts are really bad.

12. Bruce Markusen Posted: May 19, 2012 at 07:11 PM (#4136028)

Yes, I am sick of these articles. If I watch a game and see a second baseman make three spectacular plays, I don't need to go running to some defensive statistic to confirm what I'm seeing. Sometimes seeing is believing.

13. formerly dp Posted: May 19, 2012 at 07:45 PM (#4136041)

(I also have no idea what options the Mets have in the minors.)

Havens is finally back healthy, but sucking so far at AA. Sort of OT, but Flores has been moved to 3B this year; he and Marte have both started hitting again. Marte's at .323/.388/.444 in Binghamton, and still young at 21. Wilmer's only 20, and having a nice .315/.350/.490 season at St. Lucie. Odd that they haven't moved one or the other either to 1B or the OF, if they're going to try and keep Wright.

14. Gonna break my Rusty Kuntz and run . . . Arbitol Posted: May 19, 2012 at 07:55 PM (#4136042)

If they send Davis down, moving Duda from RF to 1B probably improves the defense more than moving Murphy from 2B anyway.

And hey, it would assure PT for Jason Bay.

15. Gonna break my Rusty Kuntz and run . . . Arbitol Posted: May 19, 2012 at 07:58 PM (#4136043)

By the way, Fartinez's .309/.365/.507 line for Oklahoma City in the PCL isn't as nifty as it looks, right?

16. Walt Davis Posted: May 20, 2012 at 04:01 AM (#4136216)

If by "the mean" you mean "0 runs", serious question: why? I would expect him to regress to HIS mean, but what is that number?

Right, we don't know what his mean is. But right now he's on pace for something in the range of -16 to -25 which, I'm guessing, would make him one of the worst 2B of all-time. The worst season since 1990 is -26 and, on average, there's only one 2B a year to get to -15.* So while it's possible that Murphy is on his way to one of the worst seasons ever and/or is an historically awful 2B, our best guess is that he is not.

When I say we expect him to regress towards zero, I don't mean from his current -4 to 0 by the end of the year or even necessarily holding steady at -4. Just that he's on pace to be historically awful and he probably isn't historically awful.

*that's Chone defensive runs there, fangraphs might be different ... also I realize that most guys who might be true -15 to -25 defensive 2B never get the playing time to prove it one way or the other.

17. Infinite Joost (Voxter)

Posted: May 20, 2012 at 04:16 AM (#4136217)

Fartinez

This is a guaranteed laugh every time for me. I know that makes me a child, but I don't care. I also like Wang jokes.

18. Bob Evans Posted: May 20, 2012 at 08:09 AM (#4136234)

Thank you, Walt.

19. Lassus Posted: May 20, 2012 at 09:10 AM (#4136242)

Defensive metrics really make me feel old in my resistance; but they also simply don't work that well at all, so the whole thing is utterly annoying in conflicting reactions to my own reactions.

20. Ron J Posted: May 20, 2012 at 11:26 AM (#4136278)

#15 Not so much useless in small samples, in that a really good fielder is quite unlikely to have bad numbers (provided he's healthy of course) and the opposite is true for the really bad fielders.

They're generally accurate to very broad categories even in small samples. The idea that they can be meaningfully expressed in runs is absurd (never mind that they're occasionally presented to tenths)

As for Murphy seeming adequate to many fan's eyes, I suspect that there's an aspect of his exceeding the very low expectations that most fans had.

21. JJ1986 Posted: May 20, 2012 at 11:26 AM (#4136279)

The worst season since 1990 is -26

Offerman?

22. McCoy Wilfong for Money Posted: May 20, 2012 at 01:13 PM (#4136312)

Hey Mets fans how are promenade seats behind homeplate? I got tickets to Saturday's game and they are in the first row of section 511 and I wondering if they are any good.

23. Why Bloody Valdespin? Posted: May 20, 2012 at 03:21 PM (#4136370)

re 22: They're good as far as upper deck seats go. You can see the game pretty well from everywhere, so if your seats are first row right behind the plate, you should have a nice view of everything.. A few years ago I had partial season tickets the section next to where you're sitting, and it was always fun.

Only downside is you have to watch the Mets play the Padres..

24. McCoy Wilfong for Money Posted: May 20, 2012 at 05:01 PM (#4136420)

But it is Rusty Staub bobble head night!

25. Walt Davis Posted: May 21, 2012 at 03:41 AM (#4136638)

But it is Rusty Staub bobble head night!

An orange on a spring?

Offerman?

I hate to inform you (and him!) but our good friend Mr. Chone considers Offerman to have been perfectly adequate at 2B (-15 runs total in about 3.5 full seasons). I know -- could there be stronger evidence that defensive stats are nuts! :-)

The -26 was owned by Tony Womack but that was a fluke (or he was learning the position maybe). Soriano pops up a couple times but Ray Durham is the -15 king with 3 seasons on the list (95, 97, 99). Over the first 5 years of his career, Durham was -75 by Rfield.

So maybe Murphy is the next Durham -- bet Mets fans would have taken that if I'd offered it at the beginning of the season. (You should probably still take it as he was 9.3 WAR over those 5 years then became a decent fielder and added heaps of WAR.)

26. Infinite Joost (Voxter)

Posted: May 21, 2012 at 03:50 PM (#4137009)

Defensive metrics really make me feel old in my resistance; but they also simply don't work that well at all, so the whole thing is utterly annoying in conflicting reactions to my own reactions.

This sums up almost exactly how I feel about the matter.

27. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: May 21, 2012 at 06:01 PM (#4137117)

By the way, Fartinez's .309/.365/.507 line for Oklahoma City in the PCL isn't as nifty as it looks, right?

No, it's not, it's 49th in the PCL, behind (in OPS) to such luminaries as Todd Linden and Ryan Langerhans and Michael Taylor and Mike Hessman and...

Ruben Gotay (remember him?) is 58th with a nifty .365/.459/.397 line...

FWIW Pascucci is hitting .280/.365/.540 in Buffalo, good for 16th in the IL, FMart's remaining upside looks to be having Pascucci's career...

28. Lassus Posted: May 21, 2012 at 07:08 PM (#4137179)

Ruben Gotay (remember him?) is 58th with a nifty .365/.459/.397 line...

I loved Ruben. I'm glad he's still getting paid.

29. Gonna break my Rusty Kuntz and run . . . Arbitol Posted: May 21, 2012 at 07:36 PM (#4137211)

Yeah, Pascucci has struck out a shocking 56 times in 40 AAA games this season. It's fun to dream, be he'd never make it in the big leagues.

30. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: May 21, 2012 at 07:56 PM (#4137243)

Defensive metrics really make me feel old in my resistance; but they also simply don't work that well at all, so the whole thing is utterly annoying in conflicting reactions to my own reactions.

Thirded. Defensive metrics and my eyes disagree on James Loney to such an extent I just can't buy in.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Saturday, May 19, 2012

Joura: How should we view Daniel Murphy’s defense?

Reader Comments and Retorts

BBTF Sponsor

Support BBTF

Bookmarks

Hot Topics