User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 0.6885 seconds
56 querie(s) executed
Dialed In — Thursday, August 24, 2006Defense over the last Twenty Years - Part Three, NL OFTop Career Defensive Performances – National League Outfield After reviewing the infield defense of the National League, I thought I had a good handle on how the outfield would turn out. I didn’t. The oddest thing is how few players really spent a career in centerfield in the National League. Accumulating 5000 innings was rare. I was also surprised at how much closer in talent the centerfielders were. Please note, these ratings do not include OF assists. Center Field The favorite centerfielder of the last decade is Andruw Jones. In Bill James’ Win Shares, he was anointing Jones as the greatest defensive CF of all time. I have been a naysayer most of Andruw’s career with respect to his god-like qualities. So does Andruw come up as the best CF over the last 20 years? If I had written a book in 2003, he would have. His decline the last three seasons has been significant. He has fallen from the highest mark to the middle of the pack. YEAR POS NAME TEAM LG GP INN RSpt RS/150 1996 CF Andruw Jones Atl NL 12 71.0 0 0 1997 CF Andruw Jones Atl NL 57 415.3 3 10 1998 CF Andruw Jones Atl NL 159 1373.7 15 15 1999 CF Andruw Jones Atl NL 162 1447.3 11 10 2000 CF Andruw Jones Atl NL 161 1430.3 1 1 2001 CF Andruw Jones Atl NL 161 1435.3 4 4 2002 CF Andruw Jones Atl NL 154 1357.0 3 3 2003 CF Andruw Jones Atl NL 155 1329.0 -9 -9 2004 CF Andruw Jones Atl NL 154 1347.0 -8 -8 2005 CF Andruw Jones Atl NL 159 1366.3 -1 -1 10 yrs CF Andruw Jones Atl NL 1334 11572 20 2 Andruw still has been a good centerfielder, and he was outstanding his first two seasons. He also had a ton of assists those first few years. He also was on a path to be one of the greatest ever, but a few sandwiches seem to have gotten in the way. So who has saved the most runs over in his playing time? It was a pretty close race but Steve Finley won. For a count stat, it helps to play a really long time, and to not be terrible at what you are doing. Finley hasn’t been great at what he does, and has a low seasonal rate, but he’s been there a long time. YEAR POS NAME TEAM LG GP INN RSpt RS/150 1991 CF Steve Finley Hou NL 124 948.0 8 11 1992 CF Steve Finley Hou NL 160 1352.3 -2 -2 1993 CF Steve Finley Hou NL 140 1167.0 2 3 1994 CF Steve Finley Hou NL 92 792.7 4 6 1996 CF Steve Finley SD NL 160 1417.7 22 21 1997 CF Steve Finley SD NL 140 1179.0 5 6 1998 CF Steve Finley SD NL 157 1335.3 11 11 1999 CF Steve Finley Ari NL 155 1348.7 1 1 2000 CF Steve Finley Ari NL 148 1284.7 -2 -2 2001 CF Steve Finley Ari NL 131 1111.7 -5 -6 2002 CF Steve Finley Ari NL 144 1171.3 5 5 2003 CF Steve Finley Ari NL 140 1168.3 -9 -10 2004 CF Steve Finley Ari NL 103 896.3 -2 -2 2004 CF Steve Finley LA NL 55 485.7 1 2 13 yrs CF Steve Finley NL 1849 15659 39 3 Finley did have a great 1996, but is not a great centerfielder. He’s been solid, and above average work for 13 years is very valuable. Notice how Finley is just shy of 40 runs above average. I think it can be argued that centerfield has the closest talent level, and teams risk less defensively there than just about anywhere. Coming in second was everyone’s favorite bunter, Brett Butler. Butler was known for using a glove that was larger than the regulations permitted. I assume that is like a hockey goalie’s pads and everyone sneaks an extra inch out there, but when the diminutive Butler waggled that leather peach basket around, you knew he had a one pushing the limits. YEAR POS NAME TEAM LG GP INN RSpt RS/150 1988 CF Brett Butler SF NL 156 1326.3 5 5 1989 CF Brett Butler SF NL 152 1293.3 4 4 1990 CF Brett Butler SF NL 159 1391.3 6 5 1991 CF Brett Butler LA NL 161 1409.0 10 10 1992 CF Brett Butler LA NL 155 1318.3 1 1 1993 CF Brett Butler LA NL 155 1382.7 13 13 1994 CF Brett Butler LA NL 111 944.7 -5 -7 1995 CF Brett Butler LA NL 39 332.0 -1 -2 1996 CF Brett Butler LA NL 34 279.0 6 28 1997 CF Brett Butler LA NL 49 408.3 -4 -14 10 yrs CF Brett Butler LA NL 1171 10085 36 5 The best rate (RS/150) for centerfielders belongs to a young player that hasn’t hit his decline phase yet. He’s young, fast, and frustrating at the plate. I don’t now if he’ll be the next Lou Brock, but Corey Patterson has been a very good centerfielder in the National League. YEAR POS NAME TEAM LG GP INN RSpt RS/150 2000 CF Corey Patterson ChC NL 11 86.7 0 5 2001 CF Corey Patterson ChC NL 45 245.7 4 24 2002 CF Corey Patterson ChC NL 147 1217.3 3 3 2003 CF Corey Patterson ChC NL 82 710.3 1 2 2004 CF Corey Patterson ChC NL 157 1368.7 16 15 2005 CF Corey Patterson ChC NL 122 987.7 6 9 6 yrs CF Corey Patterson ChC NL 564 4616 30 9
Left Field In left field, Barry Bonds has long had the reputation of being a good fielder, with a weak but accurate arm. Now that we have nearly his entire career evaluated, we can see if that was all bluster, or if he really is a good outfielder. Bonds was about average, maybe slightly above, to start his career, but struggled terribly when he moved to Candlestick. I haven’t seen much park effect for most fields, but when San Francisco moved from Candlestick to PacBell, Bonds’ defense improved significantly. It screams “Park Factor!” YEAR POS NAME TEAM LG GP INN RSpt RS/150 1987 LF Barry Bonds Pit NL 100 763.3 8 15 1988 LF Barry Bonds Pit NL 135 1134.0 0 0 1989 LF Barry Bonds Pit NL 156 1337.0 3 3 1990 LF Barry Bonds Pit NL 149 1275.0 2 2 1991 LF Barry Bonds Pit NL 150 1296.7 2 2 1992 LF Barry Bonds Pit NL 139 1241.7 -8 -9 1993 LF Barry Bonds SF NL 157 1370.0 -7 -7 1994 LF Barry Bonds SF NL 112 959.3 -3 -5 1995 LF Barry Bonds SF NL 143 1257.0 -4 -5 1996 LF Barry Bonds SF NL 149 1273.7 -9 -10 1997 LF Barry Bonds SF NL 159 1372.3 -2 -2 1998 LF Barry Bonds SF NL 155 1337.3 -9 -9 1999 LF Barry Bonds SF NL 96 794.3 -3 -6 2000 LF Barry Bonds SF NL 141 1152.7 7 9 2001 LF Barry Bonds SF NL 143 1232.7 9 9 2002 LF Barry Bonds SF NL 135 1115.0 6 8 2003 LF Barry Bonds SF NL 123 1044.0 2 3 2004 LF Barry Bonds SF NL 133 1131.7 -3 -4 2005 LF Barry Bonds SF NL 13 95.0 2 22 19 yrs LF Barry Bonds SF NL 2488 21183 -8 -1 So Bonds is about average over his career. In discussions of the greatest left fielder of all time, Bonds is generally given a huge edge for defense over Ted Williams, and I suspect that is not accurate. I suspect Williams wouldn’t have been worse than the worst of this era, so we probably aren’t talking about 200 runs on defense, but more like 50 runs on defense, and very possibly none. So Bonds was average over a very long career – who as good? The top three were well ahead of the pack, and the top LF doubled up the fourth place fielder. Ron Gant came to the major leagues as a second baseman, and he was awful (-22 RSpt). He went back to the minors to play outfield, and returned to the majors as a left fielder, and played very well. He was someone who didn’t necessarily look good out there, and because he could hit, seemed to be regarded as a weak defender, but the data indicates otherwise. YEAR POS NAME TEAM LG GP INN RSpt RS/150 1989 LF Ron Gant Atl NL 2 7.0 0 34 1990 LF Ron Gant Atl NL 38 290.7 -5 -25 1992 LF Ron Gant Atl NL 138 1097.7 5 6 1993 LF Ron Gant Atl NL 155 1384.3 7 6 1995 LF Ron Gant Cin NL 117 930.3 8 11 1996 LF Ron Gant StL NL 116 992.7 5 6 1997 LF Ron Gant StL NL 128 1084.3 10 13 1998 LF Ron Gant StL NL 104 819.0 7 12 1999 LF Ron Gant Phi NL 133 1119.7 15 18 2000 LF Ron Gant Phi NL 84 726.3 3 5 2001 LF Ron Gant Col NL 51 388.0 -6 -20 2002 LF Ron Gant SD NL 78 598.7 4 9 12 yrs LF Ron Gant SD NL 1144 9438.7 52 7 Luis Gonzalez has been a really good player. His 2001 was richly rewarded. He has solid offense and defense numbers and it is no wonder why he’s a fan favorite. His 1998 season with Detroit was a –2 RSpt, but still the second best career over the last 20 years. YEAR POS NAME TEAM LG GP INN RSpt RS/150 1991 LF Luis Gonzalez Hou NL 133 1085.7 5 6 1992 LF Luis Gonzalez Hou NL 111 859.3 8 12 1993 LF Luis Gonzalez Hou NL 149 1248.0 3 3 1994 LF Luis Gonzalez Hou NL 111 928.7 -2 -3 1995 LF Luis Gonzalez Hou NL 55 464.0 4 11 1995 LF Luis Gonzalez ChC NL 74 602.0 -1 -3 1996 LF Luis Gonzalez ChC NL 139 1124.0 5 6 1997 LF Luis Gonzalez Hou NL 146 1258.7 -2 -2 1999 LF Luis Gonzalez Ari NL 148 1322.7 8 8 2000 LF Luis Gonzalez Ari NL 162 1431.7 9 9 2001 LF Luis Gonzalez Ari NL 161 1417.7 5 5 2002 LF Luis Gonzalez Ari NL 146 1246.3 10 11 2003 LF Luis Gonzalez Ari NL 154 1359.3 4 4 2004 LF Luis Gonzalez Ari NL 104 900.3 -3 -5 2005 LF Luis Gonzalez Ari NL 152 1318.3 7 7 15 yrs LF Luis Gonzalez Ari NL 1945 16566.7 59 5
YEAR POS NAME TEAM LG GP INN RSpt RS/150 1998 LF Geoff Jenkins Mil NL 81 593.7 6 13 1999 LF Geoff Jenkins Mil NL 128 1012.3 11 14 2000 LF Geoff Jenkins Mil NL 131 1126.3 18 22 2001 LF Geoff Jenkins Mil NL 104 897.3 9 14 2002 LF Geoff Jenkins Mil NL 66 570.3 5 12 2003 LF Geoff Jenkins Mil NL 123 1088.3 6 8 2004 LF Geoff Jenkins Mil NL 156 1362.0 10 10 2005 RF Geoff Jenkins Mil NL 144 1241.3 7 7 7 yrs LF Geoff Jenkins Mil NL 789 6650.3 65 13 8 yrs LF/RF Geoff Jenkins Mil NL 933 7891.7 72 12 Jenkins only has 8 years in and has a large advantage over his peers. In 2005, with the acquisition of Carlos Lee, Jenkins shifted to RF. Jenkins hasn’t missed a beat. His career will be underrated in the long run because he plays in Milwaukee, and because he adds tremendous value on defense. Jenkins also has the highest RS/150. He hasn’t hit his decline phase, but to already have posted that many runs above average is just incredible. Right Field If I asked you to name the best defensive right fielder in the NL over the last 20 years, I think you could guess. It is Tony Gwynn. YEAR POS NAME TEAM LG GP INN RSpt RS/150 1987 RF Tony Gwynn SD NL 157 1330.7 16 17 1988 RF Tony Gwynn SD NL 102 891.3 14 21 1989 RF Tony Gwynn SD NL 73 633.0 -3 -6 1990 RF Tony Gwynn SD NL 141 1266.7 15 16 1991 RF Tony Gwynn SD NL 134 1176.7 9 10 1992 RF Tony Gwynn SD NL 127 1128.7 13 15 1993 RF Tony Gwynn SD NL 121 1012.3 8 10 1994 RF Tony Gwynn SD NL 105 900.7 1 1 1995 RF Tony Gwynn SD NL 133 1127.7 8 9 1996 RF Tony Gwynn SD NL 111 960.0 15 21 1997 RF Tony Gwynn SD NL 143 1203.3 1 1 1998 RF Tony Gwynn SD NL 116 902.7 -7 -10 1999 RF Tony Gwynn SD NL 104 806.3 -2 -3 2000 RF Tony Gwynn SD NL 26 202.7 2 13 2001 RF Tony Gwynn SD NL 17 103.0 -1 -12 15 yrs RF Tony Gwynn SD NL 1610 13645.7 90 9 Gwynn was a great rightfielder and spent half of 1989 in center, where he played about average. Coming up behind Gwynn for regulars are: YEAR POS NAME TEAM LG GP INN RSpt RS/150 TOT RF Brian Jordan Atl NL 900 7447.3 50 9 TOT RF Raul Mondesi Atl NL 862 7424.7 45 8 Mondesi was a big favorite of the Defensive Average work. This data agrees. Of interest (to me) in the right fielders is two younger players that have set high paces of RS/150. JD Drew YEAR POS NAME TEAM LG GP INN RSpt RS/150 1998 RF J.D. Drew StL NL 5 37.0 0 4 2000 RF J.D. Drew StL NL 98 697.3 8 16 2001 RF J.D. Drew StL NL 97 780.3 7 12 2002 RF J.D. Drew StL NL 119 932.7 6 9 2003 RF J.D. Drew StL NL 53 391.0 -3 -12 2004 RF J.D. Drew Atl NL 138 1193.0 8 9 2005 RF J.D. Drew LA NL 44 382.0 6 22 7 yrs RF J.D. Drew LA NL 554 4413.3 32 10 Drew has missed too much time – he’s already 30 to think about getting too much better. His performance to date has been very strong, and he has 1700 innings at the other two positions that he’s performed above average. He’s underrated, in that I don’t know of anyone that thinks of Drew when considering good defensive right fielders. Austin Kearns YEAR POS NAME TEAM LG GP INN RSpt RS/150 2002 RF Austin Kearns Cin NL 95 775.7 16 28 2003 RF Austin Kearns Cin NL 51 367.7 4 14 2004 RF Austin Kearns Cin NL 60 508.3 7 19 2005 RF Austin Kearns Cin NL 107 890.0 7 11 4 yrs RF Austin Kearns Cin NL 313 2541.7 34 18 Kearns is one of my favorite players. His 2002 defensive season neared perfection. It is about the best defensive season I can recall. His RS/150 rate is off the charts. So there you have the top defensive players in the NL over the last 20 years. Amazingly, Grace’s total RSpt compared favorably to the other positions. YEAR POS NAME TEAM LG GP INN RSpt RS/150 TOT 1B Mark Grace ChC NL 2162 18590 68 5 TOT 2B Jose Oquendo StL NL 630 4865 79 22 TOT 3B Scott Rolen StL NL 1247 10863 124 15 TOT SS Ozzie Smith StL NL 1206 10383 130 17 TOT LF Geoff Jenkins Mil NL 789 6650.3 65 13 TOT CF Steve Finley Ari NL 1849 15658.7 39 3 TOT RF Tony Gwynn SD NL 1610 13645.7 90 9 This synopsis says that center field has the closest talent set. Third base seems to have the widest talent set, but the other positions seem to have varying opinions on who can play a given position. There are two Hall of Famers already on this list, and Rolen is certainly headed in that direction. That’s a nice show. Yes, in count stats, that would seem to be obvious – more innings, more RSpt. However, RSpt has a good deal of negative, so playing long doesn’t get you on this list. You have to at least good for a long time, or great for a short time.
|
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.
Thanks for your patience.
He could barely move or run, but he kept hitting, so he stayed in.
2006 - he's not looked so good.
On CF, there was an interesting "chart" I saw in an HOM discussion looking at OPS+ by position throughout history. CF used to be a high offense position (very similar to LF and RF) but in the last 30+ years, has moved basically to dead average (right with 3B). On the one hand, defense first made sense in the big astroturf parks of the 70s and 80s but (1) there were some mighty big parks in the old days as well and (2) with those spacious astroturf parks a thing of the past, you'd think things might swing back more to offense but that doesn't seem to have happened. Maybe in the current game, with more hitters with uppercut, power swings, CF defense is still as important as 20 years ago.
Not sure how that impacts on the variability among CFs but does suggest it's still considered a "defense first" position I suppose.
I think a return to left field in 2007 would be a positive for all involved.
So, before you get assailed by Cardinals fans what of Mr. Edmonds?
Did Van Slyke just not play enough or was he not as good as advertised?
Any Astros fans care to ponder "what if?" if the team had held onto Finley and Gonzalez?
UZR was changed from Project Scoresheet to ZR zones last year. My numbers match MGL's much better now.
Basically, there are two main reasons: Andruw catches a different subset of balls (or did before). And he takes *ALL* discretionary plays. That matters a lot. Most often, if a SS and a CF can get to it, the SS (field captain) takes most of them. For the Braves, Andruw uber alles. That inflates his BPro and DSG numbers.
Andruw noticeably put on weight and was noticeably slower the last couple of seasons. And it has shown up in the Braves winning pct and his fielding stats.
Walker's data suffers considerably from Coors Field. However, he wasn't particularly good with the Expos, so I'm not sure it's all Coors.
Walker, as best as I can remember, was mostly noted for his arm. He was a good enough RF to play some CF, but his arm earned him his defensive status (as is usually the case).
That is certainly an argument and that went through my mind when I ran the data. Had he not moved from Candlestick the same season, I'd think that may have been the case.
Just range. Scoops, from the season I tracked, didn't amount to anything, but catching high/wide throws could.
I don't recall there being any good evidence that the other infielders throwing errors went down. This is something I was hoping to do with the THT book, but I haven't gotten to it.
Interestingly, I looked at that in 1999 in rsb. His ZR chances went up dramatically. For whatever reason, the FBs allowed by the Braves mostly went to CF. I know it sounds crazy, but it happens - see how Chipper didn't get the "expected" GBs at third.
I have always been amused that my findings on Chipper and the importance of BIP are easily accepted, while those for Andruw are outrageously wrong. (I don't mean you Kyle).
BIP distribution is a tricky thing.
And I don't thinkk you are wrongly questioning my methodology - if you ahve several evaluations that say he's great and CW says he's great, a method saying he isn't should have a reason why the others would be wrong. I think that's a fair position.
He's part of "The Misunderstood" article. I'm pretty sure half of you are going to be surprised, while the other half says "I told you so".
Did Van Slyke just not play enough or was he not as good as advertised?
Not even close. Bonds probably should have played CF.
Hmm...win shares rated him and A, so I don't think that's all there is to it. It didn't give every gunner a high grade; far from it. Not saying WS is the end-all, just that it may not be this simple.
a) The method is not very good, because it is not park adjusted
or
b) Your value as a fielder is park dependent
or
c) Both of the above
Regarding Edmonds, understood.
Regarding Van Slyke, good to hear. Since your work jibes with my hicktastic opinion(s), I congratulate you for your clearly correct results. Ha, ha.
No matter what the actual outcomes, the effort is greatly appreciated. I find this series to be extremely interesting.
Thank you.
a) The method is not very good, because it is not park adjusted
trust me, Russ, I was alarmed when I saw the change in Bonds.
The answer doesn't have to be either a) or b) (possibly j)).
I'll have to look at it more closely. Please note that Bonds last season in Pittsburgh is the same as his Candlestick numbers.
It probably means that some adjustment is necessary. That's just too coincidental for me. Then again, maybe it is the steroids. I'll review the other players around him to see what I find.
Candlestick was notorious for its winds. That may have simply had more effect on Bonds than others. So I don't know that it's the biggest problem ever. I do think it requires more investigation.
joearthur at fanhome/scout.com has some interesting work with the Fenway park effect that suggests Manny is not a bad fielder *at all*.
I don't think MGL has UZR data far enough back to look at the park factor for Candlestick.
More b) than a), with a healthy dose of c) your value as a fielder is pitching staff dependent (and which might very well be more important than either of the first two).
-- MWE
my criticism of Andruw has gnerally been the same as my criticism of Ozzie:
he's good; not some god that is the greatest ever.
The data bears out that Andruw was good, while the data supports that Ozzie was much better than I thought. Had Andruw produced the numbers Geoff Jenkins has, I'd have been dead wrong.
Geoff Jenkins, pre-pelvis injury, had good speed, good instincts, and was/is willing to challenge any wall. A lot of left fielders really are NOT "good" outfielders and tend to play rather deep. Jenkins never did that. He trusted his ability to go back and so cut off more then his share of bloops over the shortstop while still running down balls in the gap.
Jenkins also racked up assists NOT because his arm is that good but because he is positioned well, got a good break on a ball, and HURLED himself into each throw.
The biggest appeal about Geoff Jenkins is that he busts his *ss out there. He will do his share of trotting to first on a ground ball to second but when he is in the outfield Geoff was always on the move. He never took a play off and NEVER gave up on a ball.
It's a gross oversimplication, but I do believe that just like run defense in football playing defense is a LOT about honest hustle. The difference between good and great is about talent. But the difference between good and average in most cases is just plain hustle. Is the player willing to expend the energy to make the play?
It's why in September you will see some guys make plays that previously didn't happen. And folks will talk about the player "stepping up" or some such nonsense. Nah, the SOB didn't make that play in May because he didn't want to bother.
Geoff Jenkins BOTHERED.
That's the difference.........
If both can get to it, the center fielder has priority. Its easier to make catches coming in on a ball than going back on it. I can't crtiticze him for this.
Perhaps he plays so shallow that he's in position to take plays away from SS more often, and gives up too many hits over his head. That would be a valid critique.
It always seemed weird to me that Jenkins did not have a great arm.
If I was a baserunner, I'd take one look at him, hold my base, and say "No way I'm trying to run on Favre".
Link
You are quite welcome.
And FWIW, despite serious speed the reasons I list are why Podsednik isn't anywhere near the outfielder folks THINK he should. Scott doesn't have very good instincts and takes poor routes to balls. I also observed a lack of legit regular hustle in Milwaukee during his last season. I believe Ozzie has voiced similar concerns this year.
Check RF in Camden Yards, too.
-- MWE
Oh, I'm aware. However, if the SS can camp, the CF usually doesn't bother. Instead you have Andruw charging in and calling off a stationary Furcal to make the catch. I have no problem criticizing that.
If I remember correctly, though, zones are defined by distances "from home plate". But outfielders, from what I can see, tend to position themselves using distance "off the wall", not "from home plate". For example, I normally see about the same amount of space "behind" the LFs at Durham as I do at Five County, even though the LF wall in Durham is about 20-25 feet closer to the plate.
-- MWE
You remember correctly, but that's all that you need.
The correct position of an OF is as far away from the wall as you can stand and still get back to the wall on a FB. You *should* see the same differences. Obviously faster OFs can play a little further from teh wall, or what have you.
So the only *real* reason for their to be a ZR impact (negatively) is if the wall encroaches on the defiend ZR distances. I don't think that is true for Houston, nor Camden. It is definitely true for teh Green Monster (thus the ZR impact). Since ZR zones are distance from home plate, Coors should be minimally affected. Well, somewhat affected because to get back to the wall, the Coors OF have to play a few steps deeper - how much deeper is the LF fence in Coors vs. Shea?
As Dudek noted in his first THT piece, Time of Flight is a critical parameter to catching balls, and I suspect that is the Coors effect on ZR - More line drives that are always caught at a lower rate into ZR zones.
Once you've got your numbers, add 15 runs * (player innings/1458) back to Fenway left fielders. To even things out, you should probably subtract 1 run per 1458 from all the other AL left fielders.
If you use Chris's method innings and chances are proportional, so figuring this out per estimated ball in zone is not needed. With mine, it should be close enough anyway.
We actually just need to go through a couple of seasons to count the balls low off the wall.
joearthur, and I hope he drops by, is pulling the day-to-day zr data, and has some interesting stuff. His numbers come up to closer to 20 runs, I think. I'd have to review teh differences at home with my spreadsheets.
I don't have the sense god gave a turnip, but what he is doing is what needs to be done every ngith fo all players and all teams (and I think you could do it!). It's what Woolner does for his stats. He has a dedicated computer/server for that too.
If I knew how I would.
Chris, would it be easy to get aging curves from your data? I think I remember MGL saying that defense (excpet at first base) peaks in the early 20's and players (especially SS, 2B, CF) were in decline thereafter. I'm wondering if you coem to the same conclusion and how steep this age decline is.
It will be. I have to get ages in there.
I agree that's what they do. And the result is that LFs in Fenway and Houston are playing 20 feet closer to home plate than they do in normal parks - which means the back boundary for the LF zone for those parks should also be 20 feet closer to home plate, assuming normal range. The front zone boundary may, or may not, need to be moved forward, too - since any plays that the LF's make there are out-of-zone and they'll get credited with them, anyway, if they make them, it's probably not as big a deal. The point is that there are likely balls that are defined as being in-zone that a typical LF won't be able to make a play on because the park makes him play 20 feet closer to home plate (IOW, he doesn't have a choice).
What we need to see is how the in-zone plays in LF that are not being made at Fenway are distributed. My guess is that there will be a disproportionate number of said plays toward the back of the zone (perhaps skewed toward the corners, as well).
-- MWE
The plays not being made at Fenway are balls that hit off the Monster.
The zone doesn't need to move because otehr than the Monster, I am not sure anything results in "20 feet closer".
It's an aging pattern...good for a while, gets older, gets worse, then takes steoids, gets good again.
Like that.
Like that.
Right, and bulking up would hinder one's fielding ability.
Candlestick was notorious for its winds. That may have simply had more effect on Bonds than others.
Prevailing winds went toward RF, LF would lose more fly balls to CF than he would gain from foul territory. And of course you can't just shift everyone too far over since the wind primarily affects high flies and you don't want to give up more liners into the corner. If there was multi-year data for some other SF LF (Mike Felder, Kevin Mitchell?) to see whether their Candlestick years matched this pattern. Felder would have had the same CF (Darren Lewis) as Bonds started with.
Certainly a possibilty.
None of which has anything to do with the topic at hand, I just didn't have anywhere to mention it. Dial's work here is much appreciated, and I have little to add to it.
I'm working on it. That is the sort of thing MGL is likely to sort out, and assumably does. That will be some of the difference between my data and his. What I think we'll see is that the boundaries that ZR has drawn, while defined as "zones where 50% of plays are made" actually show a large gradient dropoff, rather than a gradual one. Say, going from 60% to 45% in a 10 ft gap.
10,471 matched innings. -11 to ZR runs.
The were -19 in Camden, -8 in other right fields.
It would be a good thing to look at this for every OF position, but I don't have the time. Maybe an offseason project.
Chris - Your system is the only system I've seen that comes to that conclusion about Bonds. Winshares, FRAA, and other metrics show Bonds to be tremendous defensively in pittsburgh, good with the g-nats in his early years, and below average after 1998 ( with the exception of 2003). Dewan even mentions this in his fielding bible book. While his system has Bonds at above average, he mentions that bonds defensive ability has declined over the years.
However, he does believe Andruw is still in the running for best ever. Jones has the best prime ever of all centerfielders.
Sum of left fielders before Bonds:
1987 -31
1988 -5
1989 -4
1990 -20
1991 -6
1992 -6
Can't be - balls off the wall (in any park) wouldn't show up as being in zone.
-- MWE
The ZR for Manny and opposing left fielders is around .200 at Fenway compared to road games. That's over twice as many balls falling in given the same number of balls in zone.
They aren't supposed to count balls off the monster as in the zone - but it seems to me that they are, and probably have been for a while.
If its not balls off the wall then I wonder where all these extra hits are falling.
Why do you say that? I strongly disagree. I have to look at the distances.
are you using my data or you calculation?
did I send you my data or did you calc it yourself? I guess I should send it to you and SG.
All other metrics use "assumed flyballs". Mine uses percentage of flyballs. Have you looked at Defensive Average/Defensive Runs? I have that database somewhere and I'll check. Dewan doesn't have Fielding Bible data prior to about three years ago - he'd be using the ZR data for any commentary prior.
That explains the Oriole RF data as well. (Next up - the baggy in Minnesota). I don't know what's going on in Houston, as I got an even worse park adjustment for LF than Fenway. There really aren't more balls hit off the wall there than most other parks, according to Fielding Bible.
I wasn't happy with my sample size, but I got a -20 adjustment there not counting 2006. In 2006, Preston Wilson has been around -20, while previously he had been just a little below avg in center. I would have expected him to be at least avg in left. I'll be interested in how his ZR turns out in St Louis.
Look at the grid and my article about what is ZR for how far it has to go.
So without checking the distance of the scoreboard, if its over 340 line drives off it may not count but flyballs will. Why would that not be the same issue?
I must have something incomplete there. I'm really sure the Zone only goes to the warning track. Could I have made an error (gasp!)?
If the zone only goes to the warning track, then why are they counting wallballs in Fenway?
That's poor design on their part. Boston LFs are being penalized for balls that no outfielder can possibly catch.
OF zones should be park-specific, and built from the wall "in", not from home plate "out". If you do that, you at least make an effort to account for the effect of the walls on fielder positioning.
-- MWE
I'm actually in a meeting with a Customer (just three people even). And still posting. Quality time!
I don't disagree, and I've excluded them largely historically.
Looking at the park pictures, the RCF marker looks to be somewhere around 30-40 feet to the CF side of the scoreboard. I can't find how long the scoreboard is.
If I had to guess, I'd say that 2/3 of the scoreboard is within 340 feet of the plate.
-- MWE
anyhow, about the houston LF problem
- well, there IS that stupid scoreboard, but also the LF is supposed to take care of the area around the corner by the visitors bullpen and when you play shallow enuf to get balls offn the wall, pretty hard to get over to the bullpen. i think. but you gotta remember who been playing left there - craig biggio who, um, is NOT any good in the OF, chris burke, who did bettern biggio, but no cigar, and preston wilson, who looked just freaking awful - he very very slow and he slow reading the ball offn the bat too and he was just as bad after we shut the roof.
are visiting LF just as bad?
This thread has convinced me that is the right way to go, especially in the OF - if one league has a higher avg ZR at a position than the other its quite possibly ballpark differences instead of a better group of fielders.
Would that be because NL 3Bmen get lots of easy chances that should hardly count (cf. post #54)? Just trying to understand.
Well, not exactly. The majority of SH are fielded by the pitchers and catchers.
-- MWE
I just completed a lengthy research project analyzing the best defensive CFers of all time, but of course to compare older to modern guys some modern metrics (UZR, ec) are not available for all.
At any rate, merely using a combo of Baseball Prospectus' methods and Win Shares, Willie Mays and Tris Speaker are the top career defenders (I know, gee, what a surprise), and others who graded out with a very high peak/prime are Flood, Dom (!) Dimaggio, and ... Andruw Jones.
Send me an email if anyone wants the article (published in SABR) Han60Man@aol.com
And so I get home and look. The STATS old zones in CF went to the warning track. When they revamped after the 1999, they *did* push the OF zones to the wall.
What that means that any FB that stays in the park counts. So all wallballs in every park count. That means we have some work to do - Watch every Sox/Astro/Oriole game and count the wallballs for about three years. And.....go.
Tell me what you get. So seasons where Manny is off in his OF work, his pitchers are getting hit harder.
Actually, I was wrong.
2003-2005 SH fielded by:
Pitchers 2466
1B 981
3B 874
C 640
2B 16
So pitchers field about half of sac bunts, 3B a little less than 20%.
3Bs do tend to field a fair number of bunts that are "not" sacs, though.
-- MWE
4/30/2003: Endy Chavez bunt double.
6/10/2003: Chavez bunt single.
7/20/2004: Juan Pierre bunt double.
-- MWE
Um, how were you wrong? Pitchers and catchers field 3100 out of 5000. That meets: "The majority of SH are fielded by the pitchers and catchers." where I'm from.
It's a scoring notation issue.
So seasons where Manny is off in his OF work, his pitchers are getting hit harder.
Or not as hard ... maybe turning HRs into balls off the wall.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main