How Does Jacoby Ellsbury Fit Into This Offseason Puzzle?
Many observers of the Red Sox this offseason have pegged them as a team on the hunt for defense. This is not an outrageous claim—last year the Red Sox ranked 16th in the league defensively by UZR, with notable deficiencies at 3rd (second worst in the league), center field (worst in the league), and left field (6th worst in the league). Between the 3 main starters at these positions, the Red Sox gave up over 40 runs more than they would have by inserting replacement-level defenders at the position.
So far, though, one has to question just how well Theo and co. are doing at achieving their goals. The only major signing of the postseason so far has been Marco Scutaro. Talk all you want about consistency or stability at the position, but last year the revolving door of shortstops did combine to post a slightly positive UZR—better than Marco Scutaro has put up in 2 of his past 3 years.
Theo's most compelling move on this front has yet to even happen yet. By shipping Mike Lowell and his awful defense to Texas, the Sox are almost assuring themselves an improvement at 3rd base. If, as many expect, they were to sign Adrian Beltre, the improvement would be astronomical. Exchanging a whole year of Lowell at 3rd for a whole year of Beltre should be worth a net gain of over 20 defensive runs. Of course, the wisdom of signing Beltre lies largely in his offense, and how much they can avoid the Scott Boras overpay. But that's a story for another article.
The real question has to be the outfield. If rumors are to be believed, then Theo would be perfectly content to go into 2010 fielding the same starters as he did in 2009. Can a team that claims to be focused on defense really accept two fielders who aren't just not good, but in fact at the bottom of the barrel?
Now, left field in Fenway is always going to be something of an anomaly. If you're going to sacrifice defense for offense anywhere, it may as well be somewhere where the only fly ball going over the defenders head are either bouncing off the wall or going for 4 bases. This isn't to say that Jason Bay is a victim of the Monster—he was no great fielder in his last season-and-a-half in Pittsburgh either—just that any defensive considerations in left have to take a backseat to offense. No, the main concern is in center field.
For all the world, Jacoby Ellsbury looks like he's a defensive star. His diving grabs make regular appearances on top-10 lists, he has speed enough to cover the large territory in center, and he's not prone to careless drops or tragic misplays. And yet, advanced defensive metrics will tell you that he is in fact the single worst center fielder in the majors. Observing the young speedster in action will reveal that the reason behind this—as has been discussed so many times before—is that he gets bad breaks on balls, often having to completely reverse direction after the ball is in the air, costing him valuable time and wasting much of his speed and glove.
Perhaps Theo and the front office expect Ellsbury to improve his reads next year. Maybe they think he was just off in 2009, and that he'll be back strong in 2010. But if not, what are they doing? It's puzzling why the Sox would claim to focus on defense, and then ignore their single biggest defensive problem. Especially with viable options out there. The Detroit Tigers actually crafted a seemingly perfect solution for the Sox, offering them a 1-for-1 deal: Ellsbury for Curtis Granderson, who would have been a huge defensive improvement with similar offensive production (or superior if he rebounds, as his low BABIP would predict). Even now, Mike Cameron is an available free agent. A switch from Ellsbury to Cameron last year would have been worth more than 20 runs! And with two center field prospects in Reddick and Kalish projected to be ready within the next 2 years, Cameron's age would not be an issue. And, if the Granderson offer is any indication, Ellsbury still has plenty of trade value depending on the GM and their adherence to the new statistics.
I expect I'll get plenty of disagreement on this. Whether from the anti-UZR crowd, the steal-obsessed, or the legions of young girls who have proposed marriage to Jacoby—even if only by means of cardboard sign. But this is how our front office works. It puts importance on the stats that reflect poorly on Ellsbury, and consider things like steals to be relatively unimportant. Maybe they know something we don't, but if not, then their silence on this front is both very odd, and very worrying.
0 recs |
84 comments
|
Comments
I am for letting Jacoby have another shot
to show what he is worth as a CF. He had a truly awful year in the field, not just by UZR but also by other metrics too. Further, while people talk about his “bad reads” as being a BS explanation for retroactively justifying UZR, you can easily find statements to that effect even in 08 (see http://fragilefreddy.blogspot.com/2008/02/jacoby-ellsbury-not-future-star.html). It seems you can’t blame CF in Fenway for his poor UZR (as Tommy wants to ;)) but on the other hand it is only one year of data. Furthermore Jacoby was one of the very best offensive CFs in the game last year. He also was a 3+ WAR player with bad offense in 08. If he can combine his 08 fielding and his 09 hitting, he can be a very valuable player. I would not have traded him for Granderson, who is starting to have his own defensive issues, is far more expensive and is older. I would just sit tight, at least to see how it plays out in the larger sample.
by Buzzy on Dec 11, 2009 5:18 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
The first thing that needs to be said is you can’t use one years worth of defensive data to make a basis on this. Like you said Buzzy he was great last year. Most saberticians say you need 3 full years of data to equal the degree of confidence of one full year hitting.
Lets look at Coco Crisp, a player for the most part everyone agrees is a good defensive CF. In his 2006-2008 time at Fenway’s CF he got 1.3, 22.4, and -15.4 UZR/150 respectively. That is some serious fluctuation mostly due to Fenway’s outfield dimensions.
This is Jacoby’s first full year in CF. Obviously he does need to work on it but he has the speed and glove work to be a great CF. I would give him atleast one more year.
by drabidea on Dec 11, 2009 5:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Fenway wreaks havoc on UZR.
Read this.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
by tommy.otm on Dec 11, 2009 6:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
issues with park and UZR
are well known. That is not really the point. The point is that Ellsbury rated below average on the full spectrum of metrics, including ones that distinguish home and road (although to be fair in some cases, like Fielding Runs (which I don’t much like) he was not awful on the road). Further, there are players (Drew) who have been consistently good at Fenway by UZR, or (Manny/Bay) consistently bad. We have seen good years in CF at Fenway (Crisp in 07), so we can’t say that Fenway must cause huge fluctuations (Drew as an OF example) or cause bad numbers in general (LF). These things taken together simply suggest Ellsbury was not good.
That said, we all do know that these metrics are not (yet?) what they should be. We can assume that the Sox have better interal ones than we can see, ones that do adjust better for park. However, if they seriously considered moving him to LF, you can bet that he probably was pretty bad. My point is just that we can’t tell how bad from just things like UZR and from just one year. I for one would like to see a bigger sample (and maybe just some improvement) because I think he can be a very valuable CF.
BTW the link you posted is interesting. He posts some interesting stuff,but some questionable stuff too-like ascribing meaning to differences in correlation coefficients that are less than 0.05 and ascribing meaning (perhaps) to random fluctuations.
by Buzzy on Dec 11, 2009 9:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Show me
Show me the across the board Ells-is-bad-in-CF stats. I’ll believe it if you show me.
Manny improved vastly upon leaving the Fens.
Show me.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
by tommy.otm on Dec 12, 2009 3:46 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Manny didn't play in Center.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Dec 12, 2009 4:12 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And for kicks, in 2009
UZR: 18.6
RZR: .894 (16th of 18 qualified CF)
+/ : -14
RF/9: 2.49 (vs. 2.73 League average)
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Dec 12, 2009 4:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
UZR is, of course, -18.6. Not positive.
This post is being problematic for some reason.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Dec 12, 2009 4:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
incorrect.
Tommy-that is just wrong. Manny was -15.4 UZR/150 last year. That is just in line with his Fenway numbers. You can’t take the small sample of his 2 months in 08 to make the claim. In fac’t his Dodger sample is still small, but please look at the numbers this year (over more innings).
And the issues usually discussed anyway with Fenway are LF not CF for obvious reasons.
by Buzzy on Dec 12, 2009 7:53 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Okay
Small sample size. It was late, I was drunk.
But CF has the same wall-ball effect as LF, plus the bermuda triangle. Until UZR park-adjusts, it’s terribly skewed.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
by tommy.otm on Dec 12, 2009 11:29 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This is a 100% acceptable excuse.
It was late, I was drunk.
I think you should always be allowed an Internet take-back in these cases…
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
by Bloggy on Dec 13, 2009 10:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
One point I disagree with
Sure, Coco posted a good year at Fenway (2007), but to me, in 2008, he looked as good in the field and by UZR posted an atrocious year. This, to me, makes it practically useless
by wolf9309 on Dec 12, 2009 11:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
you miss the proof of principle here
Coco’s numbers prove that you CAN have a very large +UZR in CF in Fenway. If what Tommy is saying is true, you would always (or almost always see) – numbers as we see in LF. However, as I posted above, Manny’s LF numbers in Fenway are the same as they were last year in LA, and Bay’s numbers in LF are the same as his post knee injury numbers in Pittsburgh. Perhaps even the LF effect is overblown and they are just bad fielders.
What the large fluctuations in Coco’s #s illustrate is that you can’t put too much stock in one year’s numbers. That was the whole point of my post. On the otherhand, as I said, all metrics as well as obvious scouting strongly suggest that Ells is a bad fielder. I want to see how he grades out this year.
by Buzzy on Dec 12, 2009 11:46 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh ok
I misunderstodd your point. I’m hungover and trying hard to get sox tickets while i surf the web so that’s my excuse.
Ells really does need to improve his reads, I just (from watching him and a lot of others) don’t buy that he’s THAT bad. Also, if he can figure that out, he can easily be one of the best defensive CFs in the game, so potential, potential.
by wolf9309 on Dec 12, 2009 11:57 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
another shot?
seriously?
Jacoby Ellsbury is going to be an All-Star CF. The guy is a pure athlete with exceptional skill. People really need to give this kid a break.
The stats might not make Jacoby out to be a stud in CF, but Francona knows that this kid is a winner and he will stick with him, like Pedroia.
Ellsbury will eventually become a 20HR, 80RBI, 50 SB guy who is an important part of another championship. Will he leadoff? I dont know, but I would bet a lot of money he is the CF for the Sox for the next 3-5 years.
How you guys stand by Buchholz through piss poor outings and obvious times of fear and incomprehension on the mound but are so willing to throw one of the best young players in baseball under the bus just baffles me…a similar conversation took place in early 2009 with many people getting on Jacoby’s plate discipline
As I have said before stats do not tell everything about players. Athletes play sports not fantasy owners.
by SoxAcumen on Dec 12, 2009 12:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Nice to see some Ellsbury love
I don’t see why everybody hates on him so much. Yes he had a down year in terms of UZR, but the guy is 26. He’s about to enter his prime in a year or two, and has time to improve his reads on defense.
by Schulz on Dec 12, 2009 1:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
yeah
everyone hates on him. I don’t understand. I could see moving him to Left if we had a great CF coming in, but Ellsbury isn’t leaving the team anytime remotely soon. He hasn’t wasted chances or anything. He’s young, cheap, and great. I’m sure he’s heard plenty about the reads, if he works this offseason principally on that, he could be one of the best CFs in the game in 2010
by wolf9309 on Dec 12, 2009 11:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Who hates on him?
this is a discussion about team defense and how Ellsbury fits in to that. The fact that even the Sox have discussed moving him to LF mean they also feel he has had defensive trouble. No one is hating on him. If he can get his defense in line with his obvious physical talents, I doubt anyone would not think he is an extremely valuable player.
by Buzzy on Dec 12, 2009 11:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
not necessarily here
but during the season I felt like everything shifted between how terrible his OBP was (not bad at all, right in line with average CF) and how bad his defense was.
The fact that they’ve talked about moving him into left is a sign that Cameron might be the only decent offenseive+defensive option they have for 2010, and he doesn’t want to move to left.
It’s not necessarily hate, but all the comments about him are always negative, and nobody seems to see that he has the makeup of a great ballplayer who is very unlike anyone else the Sox usually field and therefore, more useful.
by wolf9309 on Dec 12, 2009 12:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The OBP discussions were legitimate for a leadoff man
And tended to be focused around the first 2 months of the season, when his OBP hovered around .330.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Dec 12, 2009 2:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah he struggled for about a month and a half
But he gets little to no credit for what he did after those games. From game 41 to the end of the season he hit .302/.363/.432. A OPS of 800 from what many people think is a typical light hitting CF is quite good.
by Gnick on Dec 12, 2009 3:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think so
I think people know that, despite having a substandard OBP for a lead-off hitter, he had a very good year offensively. His wOBA put him behind only Hunter and Span (and tied with Victorino) for all CFs. He would be much more effective as a lead-off hitter if his OBP was higher, but as a CF, there is no question his offense is strong.
by Buzzy on Dec 12, 2009 3:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
with you in some ways (you may be shocked). If he can put up significantly better defense with even his 09 offense he is an all-star level CF. My comment about second chance was a second chance to see if his poor CF defense was a fluke or he is just a bad CF. He will not hit 20 HRs though. He has never shown any power in the majors or minors and he is getting to the age where he would at least have to put up double digits to make that claim. He does not have to anyway.
by Buzzy on Dec 12, 2009 7:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
because, you know,
this post was about…defense ;).
by Buzzy on Dec 12, 2009 7:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
yeah 20 HRs is a little ridiculous
in fact, I wish he’d stop trying to hit homers at all. He is a great hitter when he isn’t trying to slam the ball.
by wolf9309 on Dec 12, 2009 11:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah... I like Ellesbury...
but 20 home runs?
by jcorye1 on Dec 12, 2009 4:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Holliday & Beltre
With Holliday you upgrade in LF all-around, while Beltre at third gives you a far better defensive player than Lowell. A part of me thinks that Beltre could be really, really good with this team on both sides of the ball. I’m all for saving the prospects. Now is not the time to abandon the philosophy and become the Yanks.
BTW, I don’t want Kotchman to even be talked about (with Youk at third).
"Why not us?"
by reversecursing on Dec 11, 2009 5:19 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I agree on Holliday.
I just don’t think it’s quite so urgent an issue, really. I expect his UZR will hit the negatives if he comes here next year because, quite frankly, the Monster DOES hurt the left fielders quite a bit, and naturally limits the effect of any defensive improvements. This is exactly why I hate the idea of moving Jacoby to left field.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Dec 11, 2009 5:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I just like Holliday more
To me at least, he’s more of a complete hitter than Bay. I think Holliday will age better as well. Bay doesn’t even want to be here.
"Why not us?"
by reversecursing on Dec 11, 2009 5:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The question is:
Can the Sox afford both Beltre and Holliday (+$20 million for Lugo/Lowell/Wagner/Gonzo)? If not, which player is a higher priority?
As for Kotchman, in his last full season with one team (the last two he has split time), he had a .362 wOBA (.840 OPS) with good defense.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Dec 12, 2009 10:17 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Wagner/Gonzo cost us money this year?
Manny ain't the only bad man.
by tommy.otm on Dec 12, 2009 11:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
in the sense that
we have to buy out their 2010 options, so they cost a bit- I think $1 mill for Wagner and 500k for Gonzo, but that’s just off the top of my head so probably wrong
by wolf9309 on Dec 12, 2009 11:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That’s correct
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Dec 12, 2009 1:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
if we're talking holliday or Bay
Holliday will be more expensive, but there’s few suitors, he won’t be significantly more expensive than Bay. At least not significantly enough to make a difference of whether we can afford him or not. Pretty much we can either afford one of the two or we can’t, I really don’t think the difference in price between the two will be ridiculous- the fact is the Cardinals and Sox (and maybe yankees) are the only ones really in the market for Holliday
by wolf9309 on Dec 12, 2009 11:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think it is $20 million..
Close to $20 million, but the Card pick up Lugo before clearing waivers, so they are paying more than the MLB minimum for Lugo. The Sox are probably paying $6-8 million for Lowell in 2010. So my guesstimate is that the Cards are probably picking up $2-4 million for Lugo’s contract. If Lugo cleared waivers, then the Cards wouldn’t had gotten him, and a team like the gNats would had gotten him for the MLB minimum. There were other teams ahead of the Cards as well, including the Cubs. Who would had picked up Lugo to make sure he wouldn’t go to the Cardinals.
So with the option buyouts, and Lowell and Lugo’s contract probably around $15-$16 million maximum, $12-14 minimum. Still a big chunk of money that is paying for dead air.
by superferret on Dec 12, 2009 2:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
if i recall
we traded lugo+all of his contract-the minimum for chris duncan, I’m pretty sure we’re still on the hook for around the $9 million. If Lowell is costing us about $9 mill to ship, then $20 mill isn’t far off (eesh that’s about the Marlins 2008 payroll)
by wolf9309 on Dec 12, 2009 2:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The Sox aren't going to pay for all of Lugo's contract..
and take on another team’s headcase. The Sox FO would take Duncan if the Cards offered some salary relief for Lugo’s contract. Duncan’s salary was $825k for 2009. Lugo wasn’t worth his contract, but he was worth something and more than Duncan. The Duncan/Lugo trade would be more of a drain for the Sox. if the Cards took Lugo for the MLB minimum, and the Sox took on Duncan’s contract.
For the Cards to get Lugo before he cleared waivers, send Duncan to the Sox, they had to give a little sweetner, mainly salary relief. I highly doubt the Cards offered much of a salary relief, but enough for the Sox to pick up Duncan.
by superferret on Dec 12, 2009 2:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Boy, it's really saying something when you rank 16th among 14 teams!
This is not an outrageous claim—last year the Red Sox ranked 16th in the league defensively by UZR…
by RSNexile on Dec 11, 2009 5:21 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I will forever refuse to call the MLB an "association" or "organization".
I think it takes priority as a league over the American or National. A pet peeve of mine in baseball writing.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Dec 11, 2009 5:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
keep Ells.
He’s cheap, he’s fast and he will only get better. As long as he has his speed, he is a commodity. He hits well against lefties.. his OBP should go up, (he need to get his strikeout down) if he a more little patience at the plate, he can get his OBP better, instead of swinging at the slider in the dirt.
Yeah he has some problems, and I am concern about his vision, but if he gets better pick up a read of a ball while in the field, his defense should improve.
Technically if he improves his defense, it will help the other UZR for the corner fielders.
As long as he learns from his fielding, and improves, I will judge him after the 2010 season, I am more concern right now about other issues, like Papi, Wake and the new look of the bullpen.
by superferret on Dec 11, 2009 6:04 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
????????
Ellsbury needs to get his strikeouts down? He was one of the toughest in the AL to strikeout especially with the amount of AB’s he had. He needs to get his weak dribblers to 2nd down. I think defensively if he can work on arm strength and of course getting better reads on the ball off the bat, and also taking more walks, he could be potentially one of the best all-around players in baseball. His upside is crazy, and he has the potential to have a power swing too but is being constrained by tito and magadan. If we went back to 7th in the order, I think we might have something. Need a true leadoff man though. I’m not agains t giving JD another try at leadoff, if he can remain patient and slap singles around the park.
by David Harnden on Dec 11, 2009 6:56 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
you are right about the Ells Ks, I was wrong..
I was thinking of ways about getting his OBP up. I can understand why he doesn’t have many walks, because of his speed on the basepath.
I don’t think Els is a bad table setter, however if the Sox need to score runs, they need Els to have a higher OBP so he can get more runs after stealing to get into scoring position.
by superferret on Dec 11, 2009 7:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
I dont get it either.
Jacoby isnt perfect, but the kid is a stud. Giving up on him is just insane, especially when you consider most on this board would give up their first born child to keep Buchholz in a Red Sox uni….crazy talk.
by SoxAcumen on Dec 12, 2009 12:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry, but I don't get it.
Does Ellsbury have a poor UZR rating because he’s getting a bad break on balls and they’re subsequently dropping? Regardless of whether the plays are made spectacularly or easily, they’re still made. It’s really hard for me to believe his defense was worth 20 runs (negatively) over the course of the season. He doesn’t seem to be a defensive liability in CF, though his arm leaves something to be desired to my eye.
"You know you're having a bad day when the fifth inning rolls around and they drag the warning track." - Mike Flanagan, Baltimore Orioles pitcher, 1992.
by SoxDevil on Dec 12, 2009 12:23 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Does Ellsbury have a poor UZR rating because he’s getting a bad break on balls and they’re subsequently dropping?
Yes
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Dec 12, 2009 1:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No.
He has a bad UZR because UZR considers balls bouncing off the left-center monster to be within his range.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
by tommy.otm on Dec 12, 2009 3:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Then why is his UZR worse than Jason Bay
Who is accountable for ALL balls that bounce off the monster?
Hint: It’s because he gets bad reads on balls, and they fall in for hits.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Dec 12, 2009 4:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Also
Why isn’t his UZR helped by the large right-center at Fenway? Catching balls hit outside your zone is a bonus.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Dec 12, 2009 10:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The triangle in CF.
Fenway is huge. If somewhere hits a 420 foot line drive off the base of the CF wall, it reflects negatively against him.
I’m not saying Ellsbury is teh best CF evah, but he’s not as bad as one season’s worth of questionable stats portray him.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
by tommy.otm on Dec 12, 2009 11:39 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No it doesn't.
Because UZR compensates for harder plays. It looks at balls hit into the triangle and acknowledges that those balls are very hard to make a play on for centerfielders. As a result, when he doesn’t make a play on one of them, he takes a tiny hit to UZR and when he DOES make a play on it he gets a big bump to it. That’s a big part of what makes UZR a good system. The thing where it gets hung up is where there’s a ball to that tiny portion of left-center that’s considered not-too-difficult to get to but is, in fact, 10 feet up the wall. However, again, that is only a small portion of Ellsbury’s plays, and has a small impact on his UZR, especially compared to Jason Bay’s.
Maybe Ellsbury isn’t a -20 run defender because of the oddities of Fenway, but the difference is minimal. I’ll give you -17, or -15 at best for last year. But man, those are bad numbers.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Dec 12, 2009 2:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Here’s MGL describing his stat, UZR.
So a good or great UZR doesn’t mean ANYTHING other than a good or great UZR. And the next year, when the same player, even with the same talent, has a bad UZR, guess what? That doesn’t mean anything either. It doesn’t mean he had a great defensive year and then a bad one. It doesn’t mean that he was a great defensive player in one year and a poor one in the other year. It doesn’t mean anything. It just means that he had a good or great UZR in one year and a poor one in another year. Nothing more and nothing less.
All Ells’ 2009 UZR means is that he didn’t get to X amount of balls that other CFs have (or would have) gotten to (and for the Fenway anchronisms, UZR uses a multi-season park adjustment, so Ells would suffer in comparison to Coco, yes?). It doesn’t mean he is a bad fielder, or “in fact the single worst center fielder in the majors.” It means he had a bad season, by UZR.
We can all agree that Ells is no Coco Crisp with the leather. But I think this year is an an outlier, and that we will see some regression to the mean.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
by tommy.otm on Dec 12, 2009 4:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I hope so
what worries me is that when I watch him I see why he does not get to those balls.
Very “quietly” in this year’s playoffs you could see it. In a tied game 2 in the 7th, Aybar hit a triple over his head that bounced several feet in front of the warning track to straight away CF. That ruined Beckett’s outing and lost the game. In game 3 with 2 outs in the top of the 9th protecting a 1 run lead he broke back on Vlad’s weak flair to CF that led to the winning run. I don’t understand how the press only quietly points these things out. These are season-changing plays that some other CFs, with better positioning, better reads and better instincts make.
by Buzzy on Dec 12, 2009 5:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He can improve.
He’s got good tools. Instinct, positioning and reads will improve with experience.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
by tommy.otm on Dec 12, 2009 6:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
UZR
Why don’t all you sabremetric freaks just skip the game on the field and go directly to your laptops or play stations and play video game baseball? UZR is a pile of dung. Who are you gonna believe, your eyes or some faux statistic invented by a sweaty band of geeks in an airless room some place. Those who never laced on a pair of cleats or even known how to put on a jock strap shouldn’t be dictating the standards for a game they are trying to suck all the blood from. Bosh. The day Bill James can catch a pop up hit direrctly over his numbers-bloated dome he might gain some credibility. Between demands for instant reply for every foul ball that dribbles down the third base line and the exaltation of made up statistical benchmarks (you can call them metrics – I won’t) the game is being turned into something abstract and devoid of life. I suppose when you can’t play the game, you over analyze it and try to turn it into something tedious and dull. I don’t buy UZR for a minute. It is trying to base a system on what should/might happen, not what does. Ellsbury is better than 100 percent of the sabremetric parasites who have fastened themselves to the greatest game ever played. You can bat ,300, steal 70 bases, and make eye-popping catches and some laoptop hugging, greasy-nosed dorks pronounce you below average. A fastball up around their eyes would have them wetting their pants.
by 14 the claw on Dec 12, 2009 11:49 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
my eyes tell me
Ellsbury is a bad fielder. You probably don’t watch the games. Next time, get your head out of your ass and watch how long it takes him to react to the ball. But I guess you know more than the Sox management who have discuss moving him and his read troubles.
And, sure you can bat 300 with only a 355 onbase percentage and still make more outs per plate app. than Nick Swisher who hits. 250. Any rational person can understand that. Wake up to the fact that this is the 21st century and that man, as a rational being, can evenually use rational means to realize the world is not flat, that the sun does not orbit the Earth, and that you have no idea what you are talking about.
by Buzzy on Dec 12, 2009 11:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Bad, maybe.
Needs to work on developing, definitely. The worst? Ne freaking way. Still a newbie? Yes. He has the time and the tools to develop and to even think of moving him is crazy at this point.
While I agree statistics are an interesting way to look at patterns and development of the past, I don’t think you can make accurate predictions on the future entirely based on that. Especially with new players. There are so many variables and things to consider in this game, including Ells’ own personal goals and work ethic. These are things you cannot factor into the numbers until they happen next year.
I’m fascinated by the stats, but to predict how a player is going to do in the next year based on them is a crapshoot either way.
by BHeebs on Dec 12, 2009 12:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
UZR
is flawed, and you can never use a year of data in baseball (for any metric) to tell you something going forward, especially for a young player. That actually was the main point of the first post of this thread. However, I really don’t understand why people think, at this stage, that Ellsbury is a good fielder. Do they actually watch him? He has always looksed off balance to me. And that is not just in the field. He stumbles often running the bases 9even on his steal of home), and he is always off balance after he swings. Probably to contributes to his high number of DPs (he is fast and hits LH-so he has a head start to 1st, yet his still hit into 13 DPs last year, to Figgins’ 8, Span’s 7, etc.). He has raw pysical ability and seems to be a good athelete. For those reasons, because he is young, and because one year’s data do not tell a nearly complete story, I am not too concerned about it, but I would not be surprised if he always rated poorly moving forward on defense.
by Buzzy on Dec 12, 2009 12:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
yeah
it always looks to me in the field like he is very stressed out when the ball is coming towards him, which is not a good thing, but seems like the sort of thing that he can easily get over with more experience- it WAS his first full MLB year in CF. I don’t think he looks like a great fielder but like he has potential to be one of the best.
I haven’t particularly noticed that at all on the basepaths, but then I’m no scout. Works for him running bases in any case- 70 SB at 85% is pretty damn good.
The GIDPs is interesting. I’ll have to watch him more carefully when he takes off from the plate- I suspect it was more of flukey than anything else (though his 9 from 2008 still isn’t fantastic for someone with his abilities)
by wolf9309 on Dec 12, 2009 12:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
and the 9 in 08
were in only 609 total PAs (he had 691 this year. Figgins had 729 Span had 676…)…
by Buzzy on Dec 12, 2009 1:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If you judge fielding by watching "Web Gems" on Baseball Tonight
then Ellsbury is a baseball god, in the same category as baseball centerfielder god Torii Hunter. If Ellsbury isn’t picking up reads off the bat, which screws up his patrolling range, it is going to effect his and the other outfielders range as well.
by superferret on Dec 12, 2009 2:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Totally agree ... with Buzzy
All you have to is watch Ellsbury to see that he often gets bad breaks on balls. 14 the claw should stop watching ESPN highlights instead of games.
I can only shake my head in wonder at people who denigrate the more modern stats. 14 the claw cited Ellsbury’s AVG. Isn’t that a stat? And, who cares whether Bill James (or Theo Epstein for that matter) can catch a pop up. The fact that someone like Joe Morgan played baseball far better than Bill James doesn’t make him smarter about the game. The modern stats tell you far more about a player and, when used properly, they are far more predictive of a player’s future performance. Far from ruining the game, these stats enhance the game.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Dec 12, 2009 2:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I almost feel like 14 was baiting.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
by tommy.otm on Dec 12, 2009 2:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Wow... someone's got a bug up their ass.
by jcorye1 on Dec 12, 2009 4:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think UZR is a good tool..
it just doesn’t tell the entire picture all the time.. but it is a good indicator of difficulty of certain parks, and it compliments or can tell problems with team’s performance. Pitching stats and fielding stats can show some cracks are located.
I am curious what Ellsbury is vision, I know he wears contact lens, because he ran into a couple fences and pop them out, and had to have a delay of game to put them back in. He could have a near sighted problem, if he is having problems reading the ball off the bat.
by superferret on Dec 12, 2009 2:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
perhaps we'll have
another Lasik spokesman soon besides Jim Rice
by wolf9309 on Dec 12, 2009 2:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ooh, that would actually be a very interesting answer.
Kind of like Papi’s eyedrops?
Anyways, like I said, if Theo and co. have some idea Ellsbury will legitimately improve over the offseason for some reason—whether it’s new contact lenses, or if they’ve talked to him about spending all winter shagging fly balls in Florida or something and think this is something he can still develop—then OK. No complaint from me. Ellsbury IS a dynamic offensive player who can get even better. But if he is as bad as everything would suggest in Center, then he’s a liability.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Dec 12, 2009 2:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He has speed...
He just need brains…. mmm.. brains…. brains!
Oh sorry, lost my train of thought, but he probably need some more experience, relax a bit if he possible in the field. If he can react to the ball better, then we shall see, his speed is a very big asset.
He is also the boss in the outfield. He has to show leadership. Tell JD Drew that he is bitch now… stuff like that..
Kidding aside, I would be curious if Drew and Els switch positions, what Drew UZR would be in centerfield.
by superferret on Dec 12, 2009 2:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Good tool. You are a tool!!!
What do you know about this? Obviously nothing.
by Tweeter on Dec 12, 2009 10:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh man, I haven't seen one of these diatribes in a while. They're always fun.
Especially since all the front-offices worth their salt in the league pay attention to numbers like this. It was Theo’s adherence to OBP and defense that brought us our first World Series in 86 years.
Man, though, this reads like something straight out of a high school cafeteria.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Dec 12, 2009 2:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ellsbury...is one of the best centerfielders in mlb
I do not know why anyone is looking at a UZR for range or number of outs made per game, but correct me if I am wrong that it would be up to the pitcher and where the ball is hit to. I do know that Ellsbury gets to balls that most other centerfielders can’t even get to in their dreams. This stat is totally useless and means absolutely nothing. It infuriates me reading Ellsbury this or Ellsbury that…and let’s give him another chance. Absurd. He is a fine defender and athlete. This stat would probably say that Freddy Lynn and Dwight Evans sucked too.
by Tweeter on Dec 12, 2009 10:23 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
You demonstrate a clear lack of understanding of how UZR is compiled.
Otherwise you would know that UZR considers where the ball is hit to and gives significant statistical rewards to those who make plays so far away that “most other centerfielders can’t even get to [them] in their dreams”
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Dec 12, 2009 11:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
really?
just watching Ellsbury shows he gets to far fewer balls than he should. As I mentioned above a rational case can be made that we lost games 2 and 3 of the ALDS because of this. Stop looking at webgems and focus on how long it takes for Ells to react and how frequently he get the wrong read…
by Buzzy on Dec 13, 2009 6:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

by 




















