User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 0.9827 seconds
59 querie(s) executed
Dialed In — Monday, October 30, 20062006 National League Gold Gloves - As I see itDefensive data has been and is being refined pretty well these days. With more and more play-by-play data making it to the mainstream, all of us are stretching the boundaries of what we require from black-box analysts. With the exception of some park factors, we are discovering that Zone Rating provides a pretty good picture of defense. Taking the zone rating and accounting for league averages, based on tens of thousands of defensive innings played, we can closely assess the number of runs saved by a defensive players as compared to his peers.
To be sure, even this data could be refined to account for parks better - Fenway’s Green Monster is a tremendous issue - and handedness of batters - NOT handedness of pitchers - to tune the picture a bit better, but the data you will read will be very close to any refined data. Very close. The basic methodology for this work is here. You can also read more on where we are headed with Park Factors by reading Rally’s latest work.
I have tweaked this for chances per inning from the original data, so the chances assumed here may be slightly higher/lower, but if you did the same work from the referenced article, you’d find your results would be within a run or two of what I post. And really, the most important thing I do here is provide you with the tools to evaluate defense on your own, without me doing the math. Please note, after this article, I will post some others’ work that even refines what I have done, with a comparison to what I have done. It should be exciting for you - it is for me. Most importantly, it broadens the network of individuals accurately creating the defensive evaluations, as well as allows for everyday updates. Yes, I said *every day*.
Now on with the show. Here are the leaders and trailers at every position for the National League, with some commentary where necessary. The American League results are here. In general I draw the Gold Glove qualification line at a significant number of innings - usually around 650. It would be unusual for someone playing only 650 innings to lead the league in anything, but I’m willing to give it a look.
Catcher First LAST TEAM GP INN RSpt RS/150 Yadier Molina StL 127 1037.3 8 10 Henry Blanco ChC 69 526.0 5 13 Miguel Olivo Fla 124 971.3 5 7 Ronny Paulino Pit 124 1047.0 4 6 Chris Snyder Ari 60 495.0 4 11 Yorvit Torrealba Col 63 530.0 4 10 David Ross Cin 75 621.7 3 7 Damian Miller Mil 98 840.0 3 5 Mike Lieberthal Phi 60 484.0 3 8 Russell Martin LA 117 1015.0 3 3 Jason LaRue Cin 63 512.3 2 6 Brian Schneider Was 123 990.3 2 3 Johnny Estrada Ari 108 925.7 2 3 Brad Ausmus Hou 138 1125.7 0 0 Eliezer Alfonzo SF 84 700.3 0 -1 Josh Bard SD 71 495.7 -2 -5 Brian McCann Atl 124 1016.3 -3 -4 Paul LoDuca NYM 118 1027.0 -4 -5 Michael Barrett ChC 102 852.0 -7 -11 Mike Piazza SD 99 718.0 -13 -24 Yadier Molina was a good defensive catcher, and amazingly, the good hitting catchers - McCann, LoDuca, Barrett and Piazza are all bringing up the rear. Maybe the old cliche rings true. Molina led in CS%, and will likely win the conventional GG award.
First Base First LastName TEAM GP INN RSpt RS/150 Scott Hatteberg Cin 131 1089.7 9 11 Adrian Gonzalez SD 155 1341.0 5 5 Nomar Garciprra LA 118 1017.0 3 5 Carlos Delgado NYM 141 1246.3 3 3 Adam LaRoche Atl 142 1153.3 2 3 Albert Pujols StL 143 1244.3 0 1 Conor Jackson Ari 129 1079.7 0 0 Mike Jacobs Fla 124 972.0 -1 -1 Nick Johnson Was 147 1252.3 -1 -1 Todd Helton Col 145 1272.3 -2 -2 Ryan Howard Phi 159 1412.0 -3 -3 Lance Berkman Hou 112 923.0 -4 -5 Prince Fielder Mil 152 1319.3 -9 -9 Scott Hatteberg must be able to “really pick it”. There’s very little variation here. Nine runs seperate #2 from #11. That says to me, skill-wise, that the difference could easily be in the chances. I don’t know who will win the real GG, but I would give it to Hatteberg. Yes, I know PUjols is a really good fielder - sure, but this season, he just didn’t make a bunch of plays above and beyond.
Second Base First LastName TEAM GP INN RSpt RS/150 Jose Valentin NYM 94 782.3 12 21 Jamey Carroll Col 109 895.7 11 17 Craig Biggio Hou 129 1062.0 5 6 Chase Utley Phi 156 1367.3 3 3 Brandon Phillips Cin 142 1216.3 2 2 Josh Barfield SD 147 1259.0 1 1 Aaron Miles StL 88 650.7 1 2 Ray Durham SF 133 1139.7 -2 -3 Orlando Hudson Ari 157 1349.0 -4 -4 Dan Uggla Fla 151 1304.3 -4 -4 Jose Vidro Was 107 902.7 -5 -8 Jeff Kent LA 108 888.7 -8 -12 Rickie Weeks Mil 92 794.0 -8 -14 Marcus Giles Atl 134 1150.7 -9 -11 Jose Castillo Pit 145 1235.0 -18 -20 I really hope Harvey shows up to tell us how much Weeks improved over the last couple of months. He was at -8 RSpt at teh ASB. He held his ground, so he may have turned a corner for next year. As for the GG, I am certainly wary of awarding it to someone with less than 800 innings, so I would probably go with Jamey Carroll - plus he has the Colorado BIP issue to deal with.
Third Base First LastName TEAM GP INN RSpt RS/150 Pedro Feliz SF 159 1372.3 11 11 Morgan Ensberg Hou 117 975.0 9 12 Scott Rolen StL 142 1216.7 5 6 Freddy Sanchez Pit 99 822.7 5 8 Ryan Zimmrmn Was 157 1368.3 1 1 David Bell Mil/Phi 143 1216.0 0 0 Chad Tracy Ari 147 1278.0 0 0 Aramis Ramirez ChC 156 1353.0 -4 -4 Chipper Jones Atl 105 888.3 -4 -6 Garrett Atkins Col 157 1381.3 -5 -5 Edwin Encarnc'n Cin 111 931.3 -10 -14 David Wright NYM 153 1365.3 -10 -10 Miguel Cabrera Fla 157 1334.0 -12 -12 Pero Feliz played as many innings as anyone else, and played them better than anyone else. He should win the GG. Given the history of the award, Rolen will win. Not on this list, but really good in 600 innings was Corey Koskie for Milwaukee. He was a +9 RSpt, and a +19 for RS/150.
Shortstop First LastName TEAM GP INN RSpt RS/150 Adam Everett Hou 149 1292.3 27 28 Omar Vizquel SF 152 1281.3 11 12 Jose Reyes NYM 149 1320.3 10 10 David Eckstein StL 120 1029.0 7 9 Khalil Greene SD 113 998.7 5 7 Craig Counsell Ari 88 737.7 4 8 Clint Barmes Col 125 1073.7 4 5 Ronny Cedeno ChC 134 1130.7 2 2 Jack Wilson Pit 131 1130.0 1 2 Bill Hall Mil 127 1090.3 -1 -1 Rafael Furcal LA 156 1371.0 -4 -4 Royce Clayton Cin/Was 129 1055.0 -5 -7 Edgar Renteria Atl 146 1265.3 -6 -6 Jimmy Rollins Phi 157 1378.0 -6 -5 Felipe Lopez Cin/Was 155 1337.0 -17 -17 Hanley Ramirez Fla 154 1323.3 -17 -18 If Ozzie Smith was as good as Adam Everett, he was incredible. Everett is on the verge of saving hte most runs on defense over the last 20 years. He’s truly incredible at outpacing his peers. Hanley Ramirez can be forgiven - hopefully he’ll learn and develop. There’s Eckstein, ugly arm and all, performing well. He did look very good in the NLCS, making several stops on balls I was sure would be hits.
Left Field First LastName TEAM GP INN RSpt RS/150 Dave Roberts SD 116 970.0 14 19 Ryan Langrhns Atl 104 706.0 11 20 Matt Murton ChC 133 1049.0 6 8 Matt Diaz Atl 95 587.3 6 14 Alfonso Soriano Was 158 1374.7 5 5 Matt Holliday Col 153 1334.3 3 3 Andre Ethier LA 109 896.7 2 4 Luis Gonzalez Ari 150 1315.0 2 2 Cliff Floyd NYM 92 768.3 1 1 Barry Bonds SF 116 875.0 0 0 Pat Burrell Phi 126 988.7 0 0 Carlos Lee Mil 98 835.3 -3 -5 Jason Bay Pit 157 1373.0 -6 -5 Adam Dunn Cin 156 1321.0 -12 -12 Josh Willinghm Fla 132 1070.7 -15 -19 Preston Wilson Hou/StL 102 873.0 -20 -31 Dave Roberts? I didn’t see that coming. He is a CF playing LF, so I can buy it. We’re expecting a park factor for Wilson in Houston, and tehre is some effect in Florida, but Willingham is a catcher, so he probably isn’t very good. Then Adam Dunn…
Center Field First LastName TEAM GP INN RSpt RS/150 Juan Pierre ChC 162 1426.0 16 15 Carlos Beltran NYM 136 1184.0 9 10 Eric Byrnes Ari 123 1051.0 8 11 Mike Cameron SD 141 1244.0 8 9 Chris Duffy Pit 77 672.7 6 12 Jim Edmonds StL 99 792.3 6 9 Willy Taveras Hou 138 1117.7 5 6 Steve Finley SF 130 973.3 3 5 Cory Sullivan Col 114 841.0 -1 -2 Kenny Lofton LA 120 961.0 -2 -3 Brady Clark Mil 114 911.7 -3 -4 Aaron Rowand Phi 107 901.7 -3 -5 Andruw Jones Atl 153 1317.3 -9 -9 Ken GriffeyJr Cin 100 870.3 -11 -18 Juan Pierre? That’s a good-sized lead as well. Beltran, with this defense, is the best selection for MVP. Griffey hasn’t played well in CF for a few years, and while not as bad as last year, he still isn’t good. I’d play him in LF. And if BIS still has Andruw as the top CF, they should re-consider their algorithms.
Right Field First LastName TEAM GP INN RSpt RS/150 Brian Giles SD 158 1399.7 12 11 Juan Encrncion StL 125 983.3 9 13 J.D. Drew LA 135 1118.0 5 6 Austin Kearns Cin/Was 144 1229.7 5 6 Jeremy Hermida Fla 85 684.7 4 8 Jacque Jones ChC 143 1205.0 4 4 Randy Winn SF 89 653.7 2 4 Bobby Abreu Phi 97 846.0 1 1 Xavier Nady NYM/Pit 99 855.7 0 1 Jeff Francoeur Atl 162 1422.7 -1 -1 Geoff Jenkins Mil 133 1101.0 -2 -2 Shawn Green NYM/Ari 131 1121.3 -5 -6 Moises Alou SF 81 647.7 -6 -12 Jason Lane Hou 89 679.3 -8 -16 Brad Hawpe Col 145 1198.7 -9 -10 Jeromy Burnitz Pit 84 643.0 -12 -25 Brian Giles was a good CF a few years back. With an OF of Cameron, Roberts and Giles, I am not surprised the Padres OF defense is this good. Jeromy Burnitz should retire.
I have to talk about Endy Chavez. His defense this year was incredible, and most people got to see it in Game 7 of the NLCS. Fortunately you are going to see that play a few million times over the rest of your life. He played incredibly all season, and in all three outfield positions. He totaled 264.3 innings in CF at +5 RSpt, 239.3 innings at +6 in LF, and +5 RSpt in 312.6 innings in right field. That’s +16 in 816.3 innings. His RS/150 is upwards of 25 runs. He deserves the Gold Glove over Dave Roberts. |
BookmarksYou must be logged in to view your Bookmarks. Hot TopicsSteve Austin is not a Baseball Player
(159 - 12:27am, Jul 07) Last: Infinite Yost (Voxter) Defensive Replacement Level Defined (41 - 1:20pm, Mar 14) Last: Foghorn Leghorn Reconciliation - Getting Defensive Stats and Statheads Back Together (30 - 1:42pm, Apr 28) Last: GuyM Handicapping the NL East (77 - 2:02pm, Oct 15) Last: The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Landing Buerhle a Great Move (79 - 8:43am, Feb 04) Last: Foghorn Leghorn Weekly DRS Update (Defensive Stats Thru July 19, 2010) (3 - 2:47pm, Sep 27) Last: Home Run Teal & Black Black Black Gone! You Have Got To Be Kidding Me (8 - 3:52am, May 01) Last: Harris Weekly DRS Update (Defensive Stats Thru July 4, 2010) (2 - 4:05pm, Jul 11) Last: NewGrass Weekly DRS Update (Defensive Stats Thru Jun 29, 2010) (5 - 12:47pm, Jul 04) Last: Harveys Wallbangers Weekly DRS Update (Defensive Stats Thru Jun 13, 2010) (15 - 1:51am, Jun 16) Last: Chris Dial Weekly DRS Update (Defensive Stats through games of June 6, 2010) (17 - 7:08pm, Jun 14) Last: Foghorn Leghorn Daily Dose of Defense (41 - 8:31pm, Jun 04) Last: Tango 2009 NL OPD (Offense Plus Defense) (37 - 11:22pm, Feb 17) Last: Foghorn Leghorn NOT authorized by Major League Baseball or its Member Teams (40 - 7:32pm, Feb 16) Last: GregQ 2009 AL OPD (Offense Plus Defense) (35 - 9:05pm, Jan 05) Last: Foghorn Leghorn Syndicate |
|||||||
|
About Baseball Think Factory | Write for Us | Copyright © 1996-2021 Baseball Think Factory
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
| | ||||||
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.
***
This is ridiculous. The BIS system, for its faults, is better than Zone Rating, simply. Maybe Stats should reconsider there algorithms. Only scratch that maybe.
***
Fearless prediction: Carlos Quentin will be at least 10 runs over 160 games better than Shawn Green in 2006. And he'll outhit Green to boot. Who cares about Evan MacLane...
Wright is -10 at 3B. thats ugly ugly, esp given his age.
Mike Jacobs wasn't great shakes this year... and even if Delgado indeed was awful last year (didn't check, just looked at his number for this year and assumed he was somewhere in that ballpark last year as well), a sucky 1B doesn't hurt you nearly as much as crappy 2b, ss and 3b... and the downgrade defensively for the Marlins at those three positions has been indisputable.
David Wright is a first baseman waiting to happen. Ditto for Miguel Cabrera.
As for Wright and Cabrera, well, I sincerely hope both are playing for the Mets sometime soon.
ZR loves him. Fielding Bible hates him. Nobody saw him at the parade today because he's still down in the right field corner searching for that ball Russ Branyan hit in the LDS.
I don't if there is anyway to see ZR by month. I think he stopped playing shallow CF sometime around the ASB. I think he still plays shallow when Smoltz/Hudson pitch, and fairly deep for James/assorted junk. I also remember Andruw gettng to more balls in the second half...
Do you have a breakdown of Randy Winn by position? What was he in CF and what was he in RF?
I don't agree with this. Delgado was a lot better than expected. He's not a good fielder by any stretch of the imagination but he's not a problem at first.
Stache is really that good at second.
And the Mets got above average defense at 6 postions. Someone should get Glavine this information.
Wright was -11 at the all-star break and +1 the rest of the way, good sign?
By last year, I actually meant 2005. Guess that's two years ago now.
He played particularly badly against the Mets in 2005. Maybe that's why I was pleasantly surprised with his play in 2006.
My observations on Delgado: Above average in terms of scooping balls. Has the range of a statue - left, right, or up. I remember one line drive hit right at him, above head level. Barely got his glove up to deflect the ball.
Stache is really that good at second.
Stache is great - I also love how well he pivots on the DP. He also is pretty good at going back for pop-ups.
From some of the comments I had read in the Primer threads, I thought Durham was terrible. But this isn't so bad.
Stache/Durham platoon for 2007.
Jeff Francoeur Atl 162 1422.7 -1 -1
I'm stunned by this. In a Hillary Clinton above Julia Roberts in a beauty rankings kind of way.
One thing that might be interesting is if Durham would mind playing some in RF as well as 2b. I'm not sure he'd be up to it or if he'd even be willing to do so, but it is a thought.
This is another bit of evidence that Arizona needs to sell high on Byrnes and Hudson this offseason. Hudson, in particular, is nowhere near one of the better 2B in the game any way you want to slice it, and is about to cost someone serious money. Byrnes is just a complete waste to Arizona in left field.
Does Wright look like that much of a butcher at third? I mean for him to be that much worse than Chad Tracy . . . wow.
I'd love to see Quentin and Drew's numbers if they're handy. :)
I guess Sori is pretty decent out there... i'm sure OFF is intrigued.
Drew -3/-9 (150)
Quentin +0/+1 (150)
Chris doesn't include arm in his rankings. With it he was a +15.
Wright's defense this year was bad. He allowed a lot of balls get passed by him down the thirdbase line. That was a problem in 2005 as well. What was surprising was the fact that he show diminished range towards the hole as well, something he actually did quite well in 2005. He does have the tools to be a good 3b but he's bad right now.
Hillary is hot. I'd hit that.
Hmm, if the Mets can't afford Sori or Lee, this package might make sense.
Hudson's vs. Lefty splits - 2006: .338/.398/.514
2005: .227/.286/.320
2004: .262/.326/.467
2003: .160/.222/.190 (!)
How about Maine or Heilman + Niese for Byrnes and Hudson?
Wright ended up with a VORP of 54.3
even though Dials numbers are based off of value over average positional rather than absolute across positional value, wouldn't it be fair to say that Reyes was better than Wright this year?
also, if that's true, who the #### expected that? or even could have predicted that?
also also, Jeter had a VORP of 80.5
with a 15 run swing there, Reyes ends up roughly 5 runs behind Jeter. Jeter's an excellent baserunner, but Reyes certainly might pick up a run or two there. so the argument could be made that Reyes is the best SS in NY. who could have expected that, either?
I'm pretty sure this is the only (full) year either have been in the negative.
He wasn't willing to play CF back when Oakland traded for him. Don't know whether that has changed in the intervening time, though.
Jeter: ~75
Reyes: ~70
Cano: ~50
Wright: ~45
For me that raises two main points: (a) I vastly, vastly underestimated Reyes and Cano's capacity to mature as young players and (b) did anyone have Wright finishing last in the ever exciting NY infielder debate?
A black box? Does anyone really know what BIS uses to define plays made? Vectors is a nice answer, but I haven't seen a good explanation. Some people think it "must be better" without knowing exactly how it works (and this isn't a plane, it's baseball), so that's not good enough for me.
Encarnacion was pretty bad in CF if that helps at all. He was -5 in only about 200 Inn.
Rowand isn't a discrepancy yet, he was a great fielder by ZR when he was with the White Sox. We don't have his Fielding Bible 2006 stats yet.
I don't think a Fielding Bible II is coming out, but the data will be in the Bill James handbook, which should be out this week. I don't know if we get all players or just a leaderboard.
Julio Franco's still adequate. Less recently, Honus held up nicely. Besides, I'm not convinced that Bonds is an average fielder (is that your standard for decent?).
Does anyone not like Brian Downing? He was one of my favorite players when I was growing up...
They divide the field into small zones based on direction and distance, then calculate the probability of the ball being turned into an out by each player. If the play is made, the other fielders are not debited. Then they add up the numbers, and center them at zero. The end. There are two main problems with the Fielding Bible numbers: The zones ("vectors") are too small in some places, and players should be debited for not making a play on a groundball, even if the play is made, which was the problem identified in MGL's original UZR by Michael Humphreys, which MGL corrected for part two of his series.
Anyone know the detail of how we get Dewan's data this year?
I'm not sure, but I believe there will only be some data in the BJ Handbook, and I think the THT Annual will have something as well.
ML average is decent, in my book. Wouldn't it be good enough for anybody?
I'm saying (and said) he wasn't "the best CF". He could be better than ZR rates him.
How small? Do you have a chart? Are they the same as ZR? Smaller? Larger?
players should be debited for not making a play on a groundball, even if the play is made, which was the problem identified in MGL's original UZR by Michael Humphreys, which MGL corrected for part two of his series.
That's a wrong way to do it. If the play is made, no one should be debited.
Wrong. Let's try a little example. Our shortstop, DJ, is a terrible fielder, especially going to his right (third-base side). Because of this, our third baseman, SB, has to play towards the shortstop hole. Now DJ is average on balls hit right at him or to his left, and because SB makes the plays DJ doesn't towards the third-base side, DJ ends up looking like an average fielder. But in reality, because SB has to play closer to the shortstop hole, he can't make a lot of plays down the third base line. The team suffers, but if we listen to you, DJ does not.
Also, this creates a mathematical problem in that the individual ratings will not add up to the team rating. That's something you want to avoid unless absolutely necessary.
How small? Do you have a chart? Are they the same as ZR? Smaller? Larger?
It says in the Fielding Bible. I think they said the zones were 3x3 feet -- much smaller than ZR. Or maybe it was 3x3 in the outfield, and 1x1 in the infield, I don't remember.
If the play is made, no one should be debited.
I can definitely see why someone might be debited on a made play. Not that it would necessarily come up all that much, but if the CF <u>has</u> to make a play well in another OF's zone...
If that were the case, why did SB have such great ZR with the Yankees?
Since a coaching staff has so much impact on positioning, I don't see the sense in penalizing a player just because his team may decide to go with a slightly abnormal defensive alignment, much like the Yankees do.
By all means. The Mets even get cost certainty with the pair. Arizona could use Heilman, and they have plenty of internal alternatives to stick at second and in left, both short and long-term.
Then you agree with me.
I absolutely disagree with this. If teams choose to position their defense in such a way as to allow a particular fielder to make plays in a particular area of the field that another fielder might cover on another team, because it helps them get more outs in their specific context, why would you penalize the other fielder for a play that was an out, just because some other fielder at that position on some other team would have gotten the out instead?
Not necessarily. Houston's LF, like Fenway's, is overly shortened (by the Crawford boxes), and for that reason Wilson is being penalized for not making plays on balls on which he had absolutely no chance to make a play.
-- MWE
No. You're assuming it's just to cover a weakness, which I don't agree with. How can you expect DJ to make outs on balls that are hit right to SB because of an abnormal defensive alignment? It makes absolutely no sense.
If DJ's and SB's team allows fewer balls to be hit down the 3B line than the typical team, then there's little advantage to having SB play on the line, and tremendous advantage to having SB cheat toward the hole. And if you look at the BIP distribution for DJ's and SB's team, that's exactly what you see - fewer balls hit down the 3B line.
Positioning is a tradeoff - because seven fielders can't cover the entire field, you have to position them in a way as to cut off as many balls as possible. The Yankees - because they tended to allow fewer GBs to be hit down the line, and because they had a right-side skew on defense - chose to position SB and DJ more toward the center of the diamond. They traded off the balls hit right down the line - of which they had fewer than average - for the chance to make easier plays on balls hit toward the left-side hole, and toward the middle of the diamond. And it's hard to argue with the results of that positioning - during the years that SB and DJ were together on the left side of the diamond, the Yankees had one of the top defenses in the AL.
-- MWE
Except that's bunk, and doesn't happen. The gaps between fielders positioning is such that there is always a hole between them. If the team decides they want balls up the middle fielded instead of balsl down the line, that's not DJ's fault.
You are really missing out on the fundamentals of playing baseball. debiting fielders when the play is made is the wrong way to do it.
Way to disagree without addressing the problems addressed in my post at all. First of all, this is a difficult question. There is no right answer, there is a better answer and worse. Mathematically correct appeals to me more, especially given that I think it gives better results than what you're suggesting. Also, if the player is abnormally positioned, he should get to more balls to his left. If he's only average there, then yes, he is negative overall, even if he's *actually* negative to his left, and our numbers show him being negative to the right.
No. You're assuming it's just to cover a weakness, which I don't agree with. How can you expect DJ to make outs on balls that are hit right to SB because of an abnormal defensive alignment? It makes absolutely no sense.
He should be getting to more balls to the right if he's not aligned to get the balls to the left. If he's only average to his right after that, he IS a negative fielder.
Really, then why did Jeter get 13 runs worse after MGL changed his method?
I completely disagree that a player should be debited on any play when an out was recorded. If a 3B cuts off a grounder before the ball can reach shortstop and an out is made, how on earth can you give the SS negative credit? You have no way of knowing if he would have made the play or not.
No, but you know he didn't make the play.
Again, no one is addressing my questions, except for Dial's "that doesn't happen." If that's the best reply, well then I think I'm right by default.
When did this happen?
My understanding of Jeter's UZR is that he was horrendous a few years ago, but the last 3 years somewhere between -5 and -15. But I might have missed a revision somewhere.
Is anybody arguing that Jeter's a good fielder?
That's what happens when you count plays that are unfieldable for that player against him.
Look at UZR part one and part two. In part one, with fielders not debited if the play is made, Jeter is -13 in unadjusted UZR. In part two, with fielder's debited whether or not the play is made, Jeter is -26 in unadjusted UZR.
If the 3B cuts off the play then its not a shortstop opportunity. He has no more chance to make this play than on a warning track fly to center field.
If the 3B is playing that far to his left AND you debit SS for outs the 3B makes, then you are rating the shortstop poorly not for anything objective that he does, but for the subjective opinion of his manager, who doesn't think his shortstop is any good.
We're rating him for what happens on the field. If a pitching coach screws up a pitcher, we don't say that pitcher should win the Cy Young because he'd be great if not for his pitching coach.
And that's 19 posts since mine without addressing the problem I raised.
Robert, you are so full of it. Why not throw in Brandon Webb while you're at it?
Oh, and who is Niese?! Another can't miss centerfielder of the future in the Milledge mold?
There are lots of things of MGL's that you should want to emulate. His people skills are not one of them.
Awesome.
First of all, this is a difficult question. There is no right answer, there is a better answer and worse. Mathematically correct appeals to me more, especially given that I think it gives better results than what you're suggesting.
Yes, mathematically correct is more appealing. If there is a BIP turned into an out, it should not be counted as "not turned into an out" - which is what you want to do, and that's just wrong. You are assuming facts not in evidence. The subtleties of infield positioning just isn't as simple as you seem to think.
If DJ's and SB's team allows fewer balls to be hit down the 3B line than the typical team, then there's little advantage to having SB play on the line, and tremendous advantage to having SB cheat toward the hole. And if you look at the BIP distribution for DJ's and SB's team, that's exactly what you see - fewer balls hit down the 3B line.
Bingo. Some people look at the numbers more than they actually score the games - not watch the games, score the games.
I'd address this if I understood your problem. SB shifts over -- does DJ shift over? Is DJ now having fewer opportunities to make plays or is he shifting over as well and now making more up-the-middle plays and leaving the to-his-right plays to SB?
For instance, suppose we have a league-average shortstop and a league average third baseman stand in their normal positions. We should expect them both to have league-average ZR.
But if the third baseman stands further off the line than normal while the shortstop stays in his original position, then he will get to some of the balls in the shortstop's assigned zone - and in fact most of the extra balls he will get to would have been hits (through the 5-and-a-half hole). So this new alignment will cause our shortstop to have an above-average zone rating - even though we know that he is a league-average shortstop standing in normal positioning. This is a bad result.
However, DSG's solution is not a particularly good one either. Debiting the shortstop on plays that the third baseman makes is going to overcorrect, as people have pointed out above.
So you're all wrong! :)
I think the solution is to have more finely denoted zones. The way ZR works is that if the play is made 50% of the time, it's in zone, if it's less than 50% of the time, it's out of zone. If it were broken down into 10%, 20%, 30% etc then this would be much less of an issue.
One foot by one foot? That's smaller than the fielder. That is some sophisticated software right there.
Take a play with a Bonds shift. There's a ball hit to the right of second. The SS picks it up and throws to first. The 2B is standing in short right. This play is debited to the 2B. That's just not right.
But if the third baseman stands further off the line than normal while the shortstop stays in his original position, then he will get to some of the balls in the shortstop's assigned zone - and in fact most of the extra balls he will get to would have been hits (through the 5-and-a-half hole). So this new alignment will cause our shortstop to have an above-average zone rating - even though we know that he is a league-average shortstop standing in normal positioning. This is a bad result.
Actually, in general, no the 3B will NOT get to balls assigned to the SS. This is the most common misunderstanding of defense I see. The 5.5 hole ISN"T the SS area. Those balls would be hits anyway. There is a gap between fielders - those are the plays the shifted fielders make - not plays that make up for a "normal" position.
So, the bad result simply doesn't occur.
I don't think there's much value in bunching players towards the 5-6 hole, you are opening up bigger holes by closing that one.
Well, you might change their zone ratings, due to the treatment of balls in zone and balls out of zone. A UZR type system should rate the players the same, assuming they are getting the same number (just different location) of balls that they were before the switch. And that is without debiting fielders when a teammate makes the play.
No, it wouldn't, because the 3B doesn't make plays in the SS zone. He makes them in the "no man's land". Sheesh.
But what if the shortstop shifted as well? Then all you've done is change the location of the hole. If the hit distribution is spread evenly, then you haven't changed a thing as far as fielder ratings or team success.
True - but if the 3B shifts, what happens to the balls down the line? Suddenly he can't make those plays. Fielders have limited range - they have been standing in the same spots for about 130 years- they are pretty close to optimized.
Its probably not a big problem, what you say is true for most ground balls, but on some slow hit grounders the 3B absolutely ranges into the shortstop zone. Its not that common a play but I've seen it.
Come to think of it though, on plays like that it probably doesn't matter too much where the 3B starts from relative to short. It usually happens when the 3B is playing shallow and the SS is playing deep.
That is correct.
Now, I will state again for the record that I think the Brewers still need to consider moving him OFF second base. NOT because he will be a liability defensively. But because of his body type AND the nature of second base (increased chance of injury) makes Weeks a casualty in waiting.
I fear that he will spend more time on the injury list simply because his physical attributes are not conducive to long-term health at the position. Meaning he has the physical SKILLS to play the position but not the body TYPE.
That probably makes no sense. But having watched so many guys try to play this game I see Weeks and I see owie after owie somewhat akin to Rickey Henderson. Rickey could mostly stay in the lineup playing left field. Weeks couldn't do the same if at second base.
So, the bad result simply doesn't occur.
I was almost convinced, then I looked back at the grid. The 5-6 hole is only zone G, as 3B covers c-f and SS h-m. At the baselines that's only 8 feet wide, at the edge of the grass I'm guessing maybe 12 feet.
So if 3B can occasionally get grounders in the hole, then a shift that the average fan might not even notice could put them at the edges of the shortstop zone.
I found the UZR parts 1 and 2. Its data from the 2002 season. The change with Jeter is not whether MGL debits or not. The difference is all the other adjustments - parks, handedness of batter/pitcher, runners on base, speed of batted ball, etc.
If debiting him on plays made by others is in there, I missed it. But it most certainly is not the only reason Jeter went from -13 to -26.
Which is exactly what the Yankees see. Everyone do themselves a favor and just listen to Mike Emiegh. He has forgoten more about defensive metrics than most of us will ever know.
You expect me to swallow this tripe?
Fielding metrics alone may tell you how well a player DID. But I think there is a boatload of other contextual factors that make up how good a player IS. That's why I think it is off base to use these metrics to debate who the "best is".
Suppose that you, an average fielder at SS, see 40 balls: 10 to the left side of the zone, 20 to the middle, and 10 to the right side. Suppose that you, as an average fielder, convert seven balls on the left side, 18 in the middle, and seven on the right side into outs. You've gotten 32 of 40 balls (.800).
Now suppose that you shift the fielders so that SB covers the left side of the zone. SB gets eight of the ten balls hit there, instead of seven, and you, even though you are shifted right, still get only 7 of 10 balls to your right and 18 of 20 in the middle. Because the two balls that SB didn't get are charged against you, not SB (they're in your zone, after all), you are now credited with 25 plays out of 32 balls (.781) - even though as a team you've gotten one more out on those 40 balls, you look like a worse fielder (and in fact, you are, because moving to the right you should have been able to get more than 7/10 of balls to your right). But if you are also penalized for the eight plays that SB did make, you're now at 25/40 (.625) - and you look like the worst fielder of all time even though your team made one more out on those forty balls.
Now change it: suppose you made 8 of 10 plays to your right and still made 18 of 20 plays in the middle of the zone. You still get penalized for the two balls that SB missed, so now you're 26/32 (.813) - which makes you look better than average, which you might very well be, considering that you were still able to make all of the middle-zone plays. If you are penalized for the 8 plays that SB made, though, you're 26/40 (.650) - and again you look terrible.
I'm exaggerating the effect; the real effects are almost certainly *much* smaller than this. But the penalty is still very real - even though the overall defense is helped, the net effect of transferring plays from one fielder to another is to make the fielder from whom plays are transferred look worse than he really is if he's penalized for every play transferred to the other fielder.
-- MWE
Suppose the net effect of moving SB and DJ to the right is to allow SB to convert two plays in DJ's zone, at the expense of DJ making two fewer plays there. Remember the original concept was 7/10 for DJ left, 18/20 middle, 7/10 right. We've transferred two plays to SB, so the net result now is that SB is 2/2 there, DJ 5/8 (he still gets penalized for the balls that get through). DJ still goes 18/20 middle, 7/10 right. DJ overall is 30/38 (.789) instead of 32/40 (.800). If DJ is penalized for not making the two plays that SB made, DJ is 30/40, or .750. Note that this would be true even if DJ were an average SS that didn't move at all, and SB just happened to make two plays on balls that DJ might otherwise have fielded and converted to outs.
The problem we have in zone-based ratings is *accurately* assigning penalities for plays not made when no error is awarded. Right now, what we do is assign those penalities based upon an assertion that "the average fielder in this position makes on out on this ball *x* percent of the time". That probably works well enough if the BIP distribution and the ballpark dimensions are more or less normal, but in a number of cases (the Yankees of the late '90s and early '00s being a prime example), they are not.
-- MWE
You might be opening up a bigger hole - but if it's one that teams are less able to use to their advantage, you might still wind up ahead of the game.
Why do teams use infield shifts against Barry Bonds, Carlos Delgado, Jim Thome, et. al.? Infield shifts open up bigger holes (AKA the whole left side of the infield), but teams do it because the risk of doing that is smaller than the likely cost of a normal defense against those hitters. You'd much rather see one of those guys bump a single to left.
-- MWE
the net cost of the shortstop's lack of range would, according to me, be the balls hit in the third baseman's zone, between him and the line, that he would have turned into outs had he played at the normal 3B position. So, even if it would be very difficult to apply in practice, wouldn't it be better, in theory, to add these balls to the shortstop's "responsibility", instead of the balls that were actually fielded by the third baseman in the shortstop's zone?
So if 3B can occasionally get grounders in the hole, then a shift that the average fan might not even notice could put them at the edges of the shortstop zone.
So we're suggesting the system is wrong for three plays a year for one 3B? That's not sensible. The system works, because in the vast majority (>99%), infielders do not rob chances from other IF.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main