Monday, November 22, 2004
Part 1 Redux: more thoughts on defense...
I got a few questions on my comments page after Part 1 that I wanted to address and add my own comments about. First...
Q: Why no defensive Win-Shares?
A: Truthfully, I never understood them or cared for them much until recently when I came across an article at Baseball Think Factory on the subject and gained a little understanding. So, for completeness, here are the Phillies 2004 Defensive Win Shares...
Thome: 1.4
Abreu: 3.8
Bell: 4.4
Burrell: 2.6
Rollins: 4.8
Polanco: 5.9
Lieberthal: 3.6
Byrd: 2.5
Bench:
Michaels: 2.4
Glanville: 1.8
Utley: 2.0
Ledee: 1.0
Pratt: 1.3
Perez: 1.3
Howard: 0.1
Wooten: 0.2
Hinch: 0.2
What wasn't a surprise? That Byrd did so poorly: he got just 2.5 to Michaels 2.4, despite logging twice as many innings in center than Michaels. Byrd was a total failure in 2004: a disaster at the plate and mediocre in the outfield. It is worth noting that Hardball Times has his total Win Shares Above Average for '04 at -4.
No surprise that Rollins was so critical to the Phillies defense, or that Polanco rates so highly as he does, but what's interesting to me is Bell's 4.4 share. His 4.4 ranks higher than Chipper Jones, Sean Burroughs or Ryan Freel. Bell is fifth in the NL amongst third basemen. I never really thought of Bell as a defensive wiz or even a critical cog in the Phillies infield, but I suppose Bell would have to play well if the Phillies were to have a good defensive infield despite Thome: the Phillies overall infield ranked fourth in fielding percentage (.985) and fifth in Zone Rating (.824). Not bad.
Q: How is ZR tabulated?
A: ZR is done by STATS, Inc. They have a system which divides the field into "quadrents" and keeps track of how a player does getting to the ball. It is a subjective stat because the scorers at STATS, Inc., award points if the player "should" or "should not" have gotten to the ball and made a play. ZR is the latest attempt to deal with the difficulty of scoring defensive abilities. (Bill James dismissed fielding percentage and the error as flawed stats in his 1977 baseball abstract and developed "Range Factor" as an alternative.)
There is a competing stat called UZR which might be a little more accurate. (Click here for an article on it at Baseball Think Factory.)
Q: Isn't the decline in Lieberthal's ability to throw out base-stealers due to the Phillies pitchers slow deliveries?
A: Good point. This is a factor that is part of the hidden game of baseball. When I criticized Lieberthal and Pratt for allowing so many successful base-stealers I hadn't given the idea that it was the pitchers fault much thought. Whoops. There is no good way of figuring this one out, although "steal attempts" might be interesting here: teams with strong-armed catchers have a deterrent effect on would-be base-stealers. As I said, Paul Lo Duca had the most base-steal attempts in the NL, perhaps a factor in DePodesta's decision to deal him to the Fish. I admit this isn't the best logic (maybe you play 19 games against station-to-station Moneyball teams), but it's a start.
A little more later.
Q: Why no defensive Win-Shares?
A: Truthfully, I never understood them or cared for them much until recently when I came across an article at Baseball Think Factory on the subject and gained a little understanding. So, for completeness, here are the Phillies 2004 Defensive Win Shares...
Thome: 1.4
Abreu: 3.8
Bell: 4.4
Burrell: 2.6
Rollins: 4.8
Polanco: 5.9
Lieberthal: 3.6
Byrd: 2.5
Bench:
Michaels: 2.4
Glanville: 1.8
Utley: 2.0
Ledee: 1.0
Pratt: 1.3
Perez: 1.3
Howard: 0.1
Wooten: 0.2
Hinch: 0.2
What wasn't a surprise? That Byrd did so poorly: he got just 2.5 to Michaels 2.4, despite logging twice as many innings in center than Michaels. Byrd was a total failure in 2004: a disaster at the plate and mediocre in the outfield. It is worth noting that Hardball Times has his total Win Shares Above Average for '04 at -4.
No surprise that Rollins was so critical to the Phillies defense, or that Polanco rates so highly as he does, but what's interesting to me is Bell's 4.4 share. His 4.4 ranks higher than Chipper Jones, Sean Burroughs or Ryan Freel. Bell is fifth in the NL amongst third basemen. I never really thought of Bell as a defensive wiz or even a critical cog in the Phillies infield, but I suppose Bell would have to play well if the Phillies were to have a good defensive infield despite Thome: the Phillies overall infield ranked fourth in fielding percentage (.985) and fifth in Zone Rating (.824). Not bad.
Q: How is ZR tabulated?
A: ZR is done by STATS, Inc. They have a system which divides the field into "quadrents" and keeps track of how a player does getting to the ball. It is a subjective stat because the scorers at STATS, Inc., award points if the player "should" or "should not" have gotten to the ball and made a play. ZR is the latest attempt to deal with the difficulty of scoring defensive abilities. (Bill James dismissed fielding percentage and the error as flawed stats in his 1977 baseball abstract and developed "Range Factor" as an alternative.)
There is a competing stat called UZR which might be a little more accurate. (Click here for an article on it at Baseball Think Factory.)
Q: Isn't the decline in Lieberthal's ability to throw out base-stealers due to the Phillies pitchers slow deliveries?
A: Good point. This is a factor that is part of the hidden game of baseball. When I criticized Lieberthal and Pratt for allowing so many successful base-stealers I hadn't given the idea that it was the pitchers fault much thought. Whoops. There is no good way of figuring this one out, although "steal attempts" might be interesting here: teams with strong-armed catchers have a deterrent effect on would-be base-stealers. As I said, Paul Lo Duca had the most base-steal attempts in the NL, perhaps a factor in DePodesta's decision to deal him to the Fish. I admit this isn't the best logic (maybe you play 19 games against station-to-station Moneyball teams), but it's a start.
A little more later.
Comments:
Post a Comment
