What Can Defense Do For You? Ask the Rays!
by Ben Buchanan on Jan 8, 2010 9:30 AM EST
in News
48 comments
Defense is a tricky thing. It's hard to grasp the value of, say, an Adrian Beltre at 3rd for a lot of fans. We understand that an elite defensive third baseman is better than a bad defensive third baseman, but a lot of the time it's hard to determine where the pitcher being good ends, and the defense being good begins. As much as UZR tries to turn defense into numbers, and then numbers into runs, defensive metrics are by far the least trusted of all baseball stats both by the pro-stat and anti-stat crowds alike.
There are some cases, though, which give us some more tangible results. To keep things simple, last year the Red Sox were a bad defensive team. This year, they're one of the best. In 2007, the Rays were a bad defensive team. In 2008, they were one of the best. And luckily enough, they kept their starting pitchers largely the same for us. Here's a few numbers after the jump.
| ERA (2007) | ERA (2008) | K/9 (2007) | K/9 (2008) | BB/9 (2007) | BB/9 (2008) | BABIP (2007) | BABIP (2008) | |
| Edwin Jackson | 5.76 | 4.42 | 7.16 | 5.30 | 4.92 | 3.78 | .351 | .301 |
| Scott Kazmir | 3.48 | 3.49 | 10.41 | 9.81 | 3.88 | 4.14 | .341 | .275 |
| James Shields | 3.85 | 3.56 | 7.70 | 6.70 | 1.51 | 1.67 | .292 | .292 |
| Andy Sonnanstine | 5.85 | 4.38 | 6.68 | 5.77 | 1.79 | 1.72 | .329 | .312 |
So that's something. Of the 4 main holdovers from the 2007 Rays rotation, only one of them had a worse ERA than in 2007. And that was by .01. Of those 4, 3 of them had noticeably worse peripherals. The difference may seem somewhat small, but for Andy Sonnanstine alone, that's 32 runs. And the kicker is that the Rays are the weird team that tends to underperform their defensive numbers, as compared to, say, the Reds, Mariners, Giants, or Tigers, who make up the rest of the top-5 UZR teams and tend to have the lowest BABIPs against and ERA-FIPs deep in the negatives. Here are the team stats for the Reds and Tigers, who made a similar transition last year:
| UZR | ERA | BABIP | ERA-FIP | |
| Reds (2008) | -42.3 | 4.55 | .321 | .01 |
| Reds (2009) | 52.6 | 4.18 | .288 | -.45 |
| UZR | ERA | BABIP | ERA-FIP | |
| Tigers (2008) | -39.1 | 4.91 | .307 | .12 |
| Tigers (2009) | 43.6 | 4.34 | .298 | -.18 |
If the Great American Ballpark isn't enough of a bandbox for you, how about Arlington?
| UZR | ERA | BABIP | ERA-FIP | |
| Rangers (2008) | -51.7 | 5.37 | .322 | .53 |
| Rangers (2009) | 32.5 | 4.38 | .294 | -.10 |
Just some food for thought.
0 recs |
48 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Another great piece, Ben.
One thing I think people forget is that defense is not a fixed skill – it’s subject to the same variation we see in hitting and pitching. Good defensive players will occasionally have awful years in the field. So even if we get the best available thirdbaseman and centerfielder, that doesn’t guarantee the D will improve (although I’d say it’s a strong likelihood). Injuries and poor performance could make the Sox a bad defensive team again.
"It's just a tiny little nick, but it hurts when I get champagne in there."
- Jason Bay, on getting spiked scoring the winning run in ALDS Game Four.
Chalk it up to the villainy of statistics
Wild fluctuations are always possible in the instantaneous observation—it’s only the long-term average that will be “correct.”
That said, the baseline average is definitely a lot higher for the 2010 squad versus the 2009 squad.
Same reason
why batters go through slumps. The daily grind can get to you, some days you don’t track the ball well, you get out of a rhythm. Say you develop a bad habit of shying one way or another. You change your conditioning program and it effects your speed. Anything humans do over and over again is prone to large variations for time to time.
That's not really an explanation
Not all human actions are prone to large variations. What is the source of that statement?
Variations in conditioning or “shying one way or another” doesn’t come close to explaining why UZR and other defensive stats ricochet around like a superball which is why the notion was invented.
Olney quotes Brett Mayne on this very subject today.
The other day somebody asked me a question I’d never heard before. The question was, does defense slump?
“Maybe discussing this might help someone. Heck yes, defense slumps. Geez, just ask Steve Sax, Mackey Sasser, Chuck Knoblauch, or anyone who’s ever had that throwing thing. That’s the most obvious kind of defensive slump. But even if it’s not that dramatic, we all go through defensive ups and downs.
“For us catchers, let’s take throwing out base stealers for example. Since success in this arena is so timing dependent (just like hitting) we’re all prone to hot and cold streaks. In addition, there’s so many variables that are out of our control (the baserunner’s jump, the pitcher’s delivery time, etc.) This might be similar to a hitter enduring a period where he’s centering the ball but constantly lining out.
“I considered myself as good a receiver, game-caller and blocker as anyone in my day, but I definitely had times when my thumb hurt because I was mis-catching the ball. There were also extended times when I had no idea what to call … every sign I put down got crushed. And most of the time I knew the ball wasn’t going to get by me, but there were streaks where I felt a step behind and doubted my ability to block the ball.
“So I say all of this to (hopefully) ease your mind. Yes, just like your offensive game, you will go through defensive highs and lows. Because the fact is, failure is built into every facet of baseball … ups and downs, ins and outs, hot streaks and cold. It’s just a matter of accepting this truth and figuring out a way to persevere and have fun. My advice is don’t get too giddy when you’re good or too low when you’re bad. Just remember, this too will change. What shouldn’t change is you’re zeal for the game.
“Maybe this quote from Dave ‘Hindu’ Henderson will help you understand: ’We’re ballplayers. We fail most of the time.’”
Manny ain't the only bad man.
So it comes full circle
OK, so then it is really about pitching again. Less bats on ball = better defense, even I get that. This is the real problem I have with the defensive metrics, as mentioned by 0157h7, is it is so dependent upon other factors – pitching, pitching, pitching, ball park, weather?, etc.
Hitting and pitching are “scheduled events”, a pitcher is going to face a minimum of batters and a batter is going to get up so many times and the venue is set, 60’6’’, etc. The stats work very well here, but I just don’t trust these defensive stats.
Don't misquote me.
I don’t have a problem with UZR. As far as I’m concerned, it’s the best publicly available defensive metric. Many things go into fielding a ball, but that doesn’t mean UZR isn’t a worthwhile tool.
Much of the grousing about UZR happens because we, as fans, have our own estimations of players’ fielding, and we refuse to acknowledge stats that disagree with our opinions. So if I say Ellsbury was not good in CF last year, as indicated by his negative UZR, many would disagree with that, citing his amazing catches.
"It's just a tiny little nick, but it hurts when I get champagne in there."
- Jason Bay, on getting spiked scoring the winning run in ALDS Game Four.
"Less bats on ball = better defense"
What are you talking about?
Fewer hits on equal bats on balls = better defense
Fewer runs on equal BABIP = better pitching.
USG
Bit OT, but still related to the Rays
BP released their Rays list today. Ooph, that’s a lot of good pitching in that system. Their future rotation scares me.
DFA Beckett
by South Coast Ghost on Jan 8, 2010 5:19 PM EST reply actions
Not as much as the Orioles.
Sigh The AL East is going to be more and more of a grind!
"That was a lot of fun… You just keep pounding balls into the gap. The one thing you don’t want to do is hit a home run. That’s a rally-killer." Jeff Francoeur
So true
Wade Davis & Hellickson vs. Matusz & Tillman.
DFA Beckett
by South Coast Ghost on Jan 8, 2010 6:27 PM EST up reply actions
Seriously, if this division turns out like it could, they might be forced to restructure.
There are 4 teams that could end up being 95 win teams in other divisions easily.
USG
Does UZR factor in positioning?
In other words, if a center fielder is shaded to right field, or is playing deep or “no doubles”, is that play graded differently than if a center fielder is playing straight up?
What about a wall scraper off the monster?
Since it might be an out in any other stadium, is it assumed that it should be an out in Fenway, by UZR standards?
I'm not sure about wall scrapers
but balls that go just into the stands above that wall (I assume you are talking about the LF foul wall) are out of play and are not recorded as a chance for the fielder. So they don’t technically count against him. However, in another park they would be easy outs and might thus count for him there. I doubt the net effect is that large.
In theory, the configuration of LF in Fenway should allow the fielder to cheat in a bit, and thus still be responsible for a normal size zone – he should just be taking away more singles just beyond the range of short. If he can’t, he’s a bad fielder.
I do like their "Manny Rule"
I’ve read that UZR just attributes a general park adjustment, so it would seem +/- is better in that regard.
DFA Beckett
by South Coast Ghost on Jan 8, 2010 7:03 PM EST up reply actions
I'm talking about the Green Monster, in fair territory
If a fly ball goes off the wall for a double, does that hurt a left fielder’s UZR because he “should” have made the play on a 320 foot fly ball?
In theory, the configuration of LF in Fenway should allow the fielder to cheat in a bit, and thus still be responsible for a normal size zone.
That goes along with my original question. If UZR doesn’t account for positioning, it seems like he is responsible for the same zone that a LF in Dodger Stadium is, which doesn’t really make sense to me.
I'm not sure
There are park factors in UZR. Here’s a simple explanation of UZR (there are links to more in depth information about UZR).
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Jan 8, 2010 8:30 PM EST up reply actions
Of course, there's some other things to be considered:
If there’s no reason to play deep in left field, you can play shallow while still covering all the way back to the wall. Then you can presumably get to more shallow balls, which are considered to be even more out of a LFer’s zone and therefore give big bonuses to UZR. It doesn’t balance perfectly, but it should be somewhat…mitigating.
USG
If there is clearly a human aspect involved, as someone needs to look at each individual play and input which zone each ball lands, why can’t the fielder’s “starting zone” be taken into account? Doesn’t this seem logical? A player shouldn’t be expected to cover the same zone on each play. I understand the whole “it all evens out in the end” argument, but what if a LFer is constantly shading towards the line because he plays with a stud CFer? Also, one more thing: does UZR take into account doubles and triples? Or is it just “out” or “hit”? If this is the case, it would seem to favor players who take chances to get the “big bonus” plays, but sometimes play singles into doubles/triples.
I think you're making way too much of this
First, OFs rarely over-shift the way IFs do. For example, a CF may play a step or two to LF or RF against a pull hitter (or a corner OF a step or two toward or away from the line). But you won’t see two fielders in LF or RF. When a shift is employed by IF it’s because the scouting report says a player like JD Drew or David Ortiz tend to pull the ball on the ground. Such shifts tend to work, which doesn’t hurt the defenders’ UZR. Also, defenses often play to the way they are pitching particular hitters.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Jan 8, 2010 10:13 PM EST up reply actions
Fair enough
Maybe I am making too much of this, but for now I’m taking UZR with a grain of salt. It’s not a bad system, but there are certainly plenty of problems with it. I feel like it’s something you can support an argument with, but can’t use it to base your argument with. In other words, a player isn’t a bad fielder because he has a bad UZR. There are too many factors that come into play that UZR doesn’t account for. When Mark Teixeira, Carlos Pena, and Todd Helton have negative UZRs, you know something’s wrong.
UZR doesn't work for 1B
Generally because there is more to that positions than just range. Most people who use the stat don’t look at the 1B numbers.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Jan 8, 2010 10:47 PM EST up reply actions
I assumed UZR would assess 1Bs better than any other position since there is no throwing involved. When it comes to fielding, 1B is all about range. No?
What does a first baseman do most?
Catch balls thrown from 2nd, 3rd, and short.
Their ability to dig balls out of the dirt/pick them out of the air is a big part of their defense.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Jan 8, 2010 11:43 PM EST up reply actions
Sure, and if you wanted to find out about fielding batted balls, UZR isn't too far off.
But it’s not nearly the full picture. Not even close.
USG
MGL had to provide a defense at one point
due to the near constant criticism of its rating of 1B. Can you imagine the formula grafted on to compensate for balls that are hit while the runner is being held?
1B also has to consider not only whether a ball can be fielded, but whether he can return to field the throw, whether the 2B can field the ball better, and/or whether the pitcher can field the ball or cover 1st.
That formula is top secret!
Just a guess
but when a 1B is holding a guy on, he’s about five feet to the right from his normal set position and thus can’t get to those balls in the hole. Likewise, when he’s in his normal set position, he can’t pick that ball down the line.
Given the chance involved in where he happens to be positioned when the ball is hit, his UZR will be entirely arbitrary.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
I'll buy that
I’m sure the time will come when UZR will take “starting zone” into account. At least I’m hoping that time will come.
The point is
Defenses play to scouting reports and the way hitters are going to be pitched. MLB isn’t little league. You don’t shift one player over a step or two to cover for weak fierlders at other positions.
Explain how IF shifts hurt defensive UZR? How many opposite field singles to Ortiz or Drew have? I’m not talking about line drives. I mean IF grounders that went against a shift. More often than not, the IF shift robs a player of a hit. You see that all the time, which is why managers use a shift against a particular hitter.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Jan 9, 2010 2:27 PM EST up reply actions
Look at the Mariners
They scored 31 fewer runs in 2009 than in 2008…and won 24 more games. They outdid their Pyhtagorean by a few wins on ‘09…but even then…holy cow. That’s a massive difference. Just ask Jarrod Washburn.
Nobody can compete with the Yankees on dollars…so the Sox need to jump on the “undervalued asset” bandwagon, which it seems like they are doing. Cameron provides as much overall value (in terms of WAR) as Bay…but at a fraction of the price.
Plus he looks like Skeletor. Bonus!
When he came to Boston
I saw some of the pictures. Never saw a decent headshot from his time with the Pirates. And I kept thinking that there’s no way he’s not an alien.
Well Technically...
The only teams at this moment that can compete or move far ahead of the Sox’s payroll are the MFY and the Mets. Every team that has had bigger payrolls or similar to the Sox in the past years, besides the Mets and the MFY had to drastically cut back, with the Tigers and the Cubs the clearest examples. Even the Mariners probably can’t sustain their payroll and commitments in the long run. The only team that I can see that can match the Sox payroll in the AL besides the MFY, are the Angels. The MFA have low debt, a rich owner, and they can expand their market, if need be, by taking winning over frustrated Dodger and Padre Fans, even Diamondback fans.
Basically as much as the MFY overinflate the players’ market by paying top dollar for the premier players, the Red Sox are just as culpable in paying top dollar, and making teams in smaller markets like Tampa Bay and Minnesota struggle even more. (two teams that I feel are trying to do the best with the resources they have, even though the Rays had some great draft picks for years because they were so awful)
In regards to the Angel's fan base.
I have an Aunt who has lived all over California, from LA, to San Fran, to San Diego. She’s lived there for years and I go to visit her for weeks at a time. But never once in all that time that I’ve spent in California have I ever met an Angels fan.
They are a myth, like the Loch Ness Monster and Bigfoot, they do not exist.
+.75
I live in Los Angeles (not of Anaheim), and there are definitely some Angels fans. However, they’ll always be the No. 2 baseball franchise in LA. Unless the Halos win the World Series, LA is a Dodgers town.
Rock me, sexy Jesus...
by nuthinboutnuthin on Jan 9, 2010 3:57 PM EST up reply actions
California is a big state.
It took me 10-11 freakin hours to drive from Southern California to the Siskyou Pass in Southern Oregon and another 7-8 hours to Seattle when I visited or went back in Southern California, (I actually grew up near where Mike Scioscia lives/lived in Thousand Oaks on the LA County/Ventura county border) the Bay Area is close to 400 miles away from LA. the Oregon/California Border is still 5-6 hours from the Bay Area. (I don’t recommend anyone doing the drive straight from LA to Seattle, but I done it numerous times, because I knew every frickin curve north of Redding, CA. This is compare to 35-40d miles of I-95 through New Hampshire.
There are plenty of Angels fans in Southern California, and their attendance is getting up there with the Dodgers. There will probably be more Angel fans than Dodger Fans if the McCourts drive the Dodger Franchise into the ground as they appear they have some serious financial problems, even before their announced divorce…
The Dodgers are a huge LA institution. Dodger Stadium is a fun place to watch a game, even though I haven’t been there for years, and rather schlep 60-70 miles to Anaheim in I-5 traffic to watch when the Sox are in town.
California is bit bigger than New Hampshire, I think LA County is as big as Connecticut.
A flaw with your proposal...
We’d actually have to talk to the Rays. DO NOT WANT.
Rock me, sexy Jesus...
by nuthinboutnuthin on Jan 9, 2010 3:54 PM EST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Over the Monster
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
