Sox 2005 OF Even Better than thought

[beck72]

Listening to 'the Score' 670 around 12 pm today, Murphy had on John Dewan [sp?] of Baseball Info Solutions. He always has him on doing "The Stat of the Week". Today he talked about a category that calculated how many balls an OFer got to, that took into account exactly where the balls were hit on the field and how many outs the fielder got compared to other players at the same spot.

 

Anyway, he compared the sox and cubs OFers, and gave some of the best and worst in MLB at every spot. In LF, coco Crisp was first. Tied for 2nd were Pods and Carl Crawford with something like +27 [outs more than others players at the spot]. Manny Ramirez was last with something like a -37.

 

In CF, Rowand was first with +30. Last was Bernie Williams at -30 with Griffey Jr close behind. Patterson was like a +8 and Pierre was like a -2.

 

In RF, I think Dye was below average, with something like a -2 or -4. Burnitz got a few less outs than Dye did.

 

TIFWIW, but it sounds like this guy's formula is a more precise measure of fielding than typical range factors and the like. He was plugging a new book called "The Fielding Bible".

 

Interesting how well Pods and Rowand both did for this guy--even though a lot of us fans discount how good these guys are, based on typical measures and stuff like arm strength. I'm sure these guys fielding had a lot to do with the improvement in the sox pitching in 2005. I'm also sure the sox won't go backward and hurt their defense. Hopefully, Brian Anderson can be an above average CFer who can get close to what Rowand did last yr.

[SSH2005]

I heard this as well. According to their stats, Rowand was the #1 ranked defensive center fielder in the MLB. Podsednik was the #2 ranked defensive left fielder in the entire MLB, tied with Carl Crawford. Dye was just under the average MLB right fielder. This stat doesn't take into account throwing runners out though.

Edited January 17, 2006 by SSH2005

[beck72]

I heard this as well.  According to their stats, Rowand was the #1 ranked defensive center fielder in the MLB.  Podsednik was the #2 ranked defensive left fielder in the entire MLB, tied with Carl Crawford.  Dye was just under the average MLB right fielder.  This stat doesn't take into account throwing runners out though.

 

Thanks for the 'Cliff Notes' version

[spiderman]

Listening to 'the Score' 670 around 12 pm today, Murphy had on John Dewan [sp?] of Baseball Info Solutions. He always has him on doing "The Stat of the Week". Today he talked about a category that calculated how many balls an OFer got to, that took into account exactly where the balls were hit on the field and how many outs the fielder got compared to other players at the same spot.

 

Anyway, he compared the sox and cubs OFers, and gave some of the best and worst in MLB at every spot. In LF, coco Crisp was first. Tied for 2nd were Pods and Carl Crawford with something like +27 [outs more than others players at the spot]. Manny Ramirez was last with something like a -37.

 

In CF, Rowand was first with +30. Last was Bernie Williams at -30 with Griffey Jr close behind. Patterson was like a +8 and Pierre was like a -2.

 

In RF, I think Dye was below average, with something like a -2 or -4. Burnitz got a few less outs than Dye did.

 

TIFWIW, but it sounds like this guy's formula is a more precise measure of fielding than typical range factors and the like. He was plugging a new book called "The Fielding Bible".

 

Interesting how well Pods and Rowand both did for this guy--even though a lot of us fans discount how good these guys are, based on typical measures and stuff like arm strength. I'm sure these guys fielding had a lot to do with the improvement in the sox pitching in 2005. I'm also sure the sox won't go backward and hurt their defense. Hopefully, Brian Anderson can be an above average CFer who can get close to what Rowand did last yr.

 

Maybe somebody should let Terry Boers/Dan Bernstein know about Griffey's lack of range.

 

Last season when all the trade talk was going on about Griffey, those two constantly made fun of callers who suggested that Rowand was better defensively, and that Griffey was not the CF he was earlier in his career before injuries.

 

I remember one caller actually had numbers to attempt to support his argument about Griffey's diminished range, and they had said numbers can be anything you make of them...

 

Rant over.

[Kalapse]

Maybe somebody should let Terry Boers/Dan Bernstein know about Griffey's lack of range.

 

Last season when all the trade talk was going on about Griffey, those two constantly made fun of callers who suggested that Rowand was better defensively, and that Griffey was not the CF he was earlier in his career before injuries.

 

I remember one caller actually had numbers to attempt to support his argument about Griffey's diminished range, and they had said numbers can be anything you make of them...

 

Rant over.

Anyone who thinks Griffey is still a top flight defensive centerfielder either 1.) Hasn't seen Grif play D in about 5 years or 2.) Doesn't know s*** about defense and baseball in general.

 

Griffey hasn't been himself for quite awhile now and anyone who has seen a Reds game knows this. Somehow it doesn't surprise me that those two would say something like this and then dismiss all that oppose.

[SSH2005]

Griffey either needs to move to RF or get traded to an A.L. team to be a DH.

[beck72]

Maybe somebody should let Terry Boers/Dan Bernstein know about Griffey's lack of range.

 

Last season when all the trade talk was going on about Griffey, those two constantly made fun of callers who suggested that Rowand was better defensively, and that Griffey was not the CF he was earlier in his career before injuries.

 

I remember one caller actually had numbers to attempt to support his argument about Griffey's diminished range, and they had said numbers can be anything you make of them...

 

Rant over.

 

Looking a little at the guy John Dewan, and his staff, with Bill James on board, his stats seem interesting and worth further looks. Though stats alone aren't the 'be all end all', along with solid scouting, stats like these could really help a team improve without spending $200 million.

 

IIRC, most of the argument was to get Griffey for DH--not CF. Few people advocated for Griffey to play CF.

[AddisonStSox]

I'll still maintain Podsednik gets horrible reads out in LF. If you've ever watched him closely in person--and I gather many of you have--you can attest to his poor reads. I'm sure it helps that he is one of the faster players in baseball, but, I don't really know if we can call it "make-up" speed.

 

He seemed average last year. I'm hoping he'll improve, but, if we get the 2005 version of Podsednik in LF again, we should still be in good shape. He's more than adequate.

[SSH2005]

I'll still maintain Podsednik gets horrible reads out in LF.  If you've ever watched him closely in person--and I gather many of you have--you can attest to his poor reads.  I'm sure it helps that he is one of the faster players in baseball, but, I don't really know if we can call it "make-up" speed.

 

He seemed average last year.  I'm hoping he'll improve, but, if we get the 2005 version of Podsednik in LF again, we should still be in good shape.  He's more than adequate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yep, even with his bad jumps his speed was so good that he could make the plays anyways. But bad jumps, even with his great speed, would be a disaster in CF. I still can't believe he played CF for the Brewers. These stats don't rate their arms though. I'm sure Podsednik's arm would be among the worst in the MLB.

[YASNY]

I'll still maintain Podsednik gets horrible reads out in LF.  If you've ever watched him closely in person--and I gather many of you have--you can attest to his poor reads.  I'm sure it helps that he is one of the faster players in baseball, but, I don't really know if we can call it "make-up" speed.

 

He seemed average last year.  I'm hoping he'll improve, but, if we get the 2005 version of Podsednik in LF again, we should still be in good shape.  He's more than adequate.

 

I believe it would only be fair to let Pods open '06 in LF without any carry-over notions about his defensive reads. Pods had been a career CF and anyone who's play around the OF could tell you that the reads off the bat are infinitely different. Let's give the benefit of the doubt that he spent '05 learning how to read the ball off the bat in LF.

[AddisonStSox]

I believe it would only be fair to let Pods open '06 in LF without any carry-over notions about his defensive reads.  Pods had been a career CF and anyone who's play around the OF could tell you that the reads off the bat are infinitely different. Let's give the benefit of the doubt that he spent '05 learning how to read the ball off the bat in LF.

 

Absolutely. I'm with you. Having watched Carlos make some pretty drastic improvements in LF, I'm pretty confident Scott will be a better fielder in 2006. Obviously, his transition didn't hurt the club any, but, any improvement at this point would just be gravy.

 

I'll absolutely give him a clean slate in 2006 and make any futher judgement at a much later point in time.

[That funky motion]

I'll still maintain Podsednik gets horrible reads out in LF.  If you've ever watched him closely in person--and I gather many of you have--you can attest to his poor reads.  I'm sure it helps that he is one of the faster players in baseball, but, I don't really know if we can call it "make-up" speed.

 

He seemed average last year.  I'm hoping he'll improve, but, if we get the 2005 version of Podsednik in LF again, we should still be in good shape.  He's more than adequate.

I agree! I had ticket in left and complained about this all year. However I do believe he got a lot better as the year went on.

[witesoxfan]

I have a question about Pods defensively.

 

Obviously, I'm not able to see Sox games consistently...but those that did, did it seem like Podsednik was getting better as the year went on defensively in LF? I think I've heard people say that, but I can't seem to recall it exactly.

[Balta1701]

I have a question about Pods defensively.

 

Obviously, I'm not able to see Sox games consistently...but those that did, did it seem like Podsednik was getting better as the year went on defensively in LF?  I think I've heard people say that, but I can't seem to recall it exactly.

Hard to judge because of his injuries, which would have made him slow down even if his jumps were improving.

[chitownsportsfan]

It's great that the sabermetric community is making a big push to delve deeper into defensive ratings and metrics. It's even better that these techniques proved what many of us suspected about the Sox's defense in 2005: that it was the best in baseball.

 

What did Bill James say about hitters? Something about the difference between a .275 hitter and a .300 hitter is one hit every couple of weeks. Well, I think the same ignorance applies to watching fielders, was Pods that good, or was Ozzie some sort of positioning wizard where he put Pods in position to make plays before the ball was even hit?

 

Imagine when that data becomes available how much more we'll be able to determine about individual fielders.

 

I still contend that the best (and very simple) measure of a team's defense is their defensive efficiency. That is, the number of hit balls they turn into outs. By this metric, the Sox were number 2 in all of baseball behind only the A's by a couple of hundreths of a percent.

[Steve9347]

Anyone who thinks Griffey is still a top flight defensive centerfielder either 1.) Hasn't seen Grif play D in about 5 years or 2.) Doesn't know s*** about defense and baseball in general.

 

Griffey hasn't been himself for quite awhile now and anyone who has seen a Reds game knows this. Somehow it doesn't surprise me that those two would say something like this and then dismiss all that oppose.

 

I believe that they openly admitted that Rowand was the better centerfielder, but they wanted the White Sox to take the chance and lessen their defense in the outfield to help the anemic offense. However, in hindsight, I think things worked out all right.

[Kalapse]

I believe that they openly admitted that Rowand was the better centerfielder, but they wanted the White Sox to take the chance and lessen their defense in the outfield to help the anemic offense.  However, in hindsight, I think things worked out all right.

The true way to spark a s*** lineup would have been to keep the steller defense in CF and replace crazy Carl with Grif. I don't think there's much of a case for replacing Rowand with Griffey in CF half way through last year.

[SSH2005]

I believe that they openly admitted that Rowand was the better centerfielder, but they wanted the White Sox to take the chance and lessen their defense in the outfield to help the anemic offense.  However, in hindsight, I think things worked out all right.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm pretty sure the idea was to acquire Griffey and use him as the full-time DH and #3 hitter. Rowand would have stayed in center field and Everett would have been used as a fourth outfielder. I seem to remember that Everett was hitting like crap at the time and that was a big reason we were pining for a #3 hitter.

Edited January 17, 2006 by SSH2005

[Balta1701]

I still contend that the best (and very simple) measure of a team's defense is their defensive efficiency.  That is, the number of hit balls they turn into outs.  By this metric, the Sox were number 2 in all of baseball behind only the A's by a couple of hundreths of a percent.

That metric does have the advantage of being simple, but to say it's the best overall...I disagree, because there are several things that can affect that metric other than the quality of the fielders. Most notably, the pitching comes to mind - a bunch of ground-ball pitchers will have different results from a bunch of fly ball pitchers or a bunch of strikeout pitchers.

 

Furthermore, the field is going to play a role...size of the foul territory or the way the grass is cut...larger foul territory = more easy foul outs, different grass turns different balls into outs or infield hits, etc.

 

Who you play would have an effect as well. Power, speed, etc.

 

It's probably a pretty good statistic, but on its own it's still not perfect.

[daa84]

of all sabremetrics, their defensive ratings are the most valuable and the best. Aarons D in center will certainly be missed. What people need to realize is just how important range in the OF is. If a shortstop makes an error its 1 base. If an OF doesnt get to a ball, its 2 maybe 3 bases, not to mention runners scoring. its one of the reasons why fielding percentage is a terrible stat by itself. i sat down a figured it out one time, using zone ratings that the difefrence between the best shortstop fldg% wise and the worst was something like 22 errors, so 22 unconverted outs. Range wise the diff between the top and bottom was something like 37 unconverted outs. its essentially the reason why beane said jose valentin wasnt half as bad an infielder as most thought

[Pants Rowland]

It is too bad all this data was not made available to the guys handing out a gold glove to Torii Hunter. Was there any mention of how Hunter projected out on this scale over the course of a season?

 

By the way, if statistics aren't enough to tell you the White Sox had the best defense in MLB last year, the looks on the faces of the Astros could have told you as well. Chris Burke was in such denial after Uribe's catch in game four that he stayed at the plate hitting the bill of his helmet with his bat. It was as if his at-bat wasn't over yet.

[chitownsportsfan]

Those are fair enough points Balta, and I agree with all of them. It seems likely that someone could compile the percentages of the team away from the Cell and at the Cell, to see if the Cell is an "easier" ballpark to field at.

[RME JICO]

of all sabremetrics, their defensive ratings are the most valuable and the best. Aarons D in center will certainly be missed. What people need to realize is just how important range in the OF is. If a shortstop makes an error its 1 base. If an OF doesnt get to a ball, its 2 maybe 3 bases, not to mention runners scoring. its one of the reasons why fielding percentage is a terrible stat by itself. i sat down a figured it out one time, using zone ratings that the difefrence between the best shortstop fldg% wise and the worst was something like 22 errors, so 22 unconverted outs. Range wise the diff between the top and bottom was something like 37 unconverted outs. its essentially the reason why beane said jose valentin wasnt half as bad an infielder as most thought

So if 37 is between top and bottom, you can safely say the middle would be somewhere around 18. So 18 unconverted outs for an entire season. Now out of those 18 unconverted outs, how many will actually result in a score? I would say less than half, maybe 7. So an average fielder to best fielder yields a difference of 7 runs a year. Now if those are spread over an entire season, how many games are lost due to those runs? 2 or 3 at the most. So even though fielding is an important, the difference between great and average does not affect the game as much as hitting or pitching does.

[chitownsportsfan]

So 18 unconverted outs for an entire season. Now out of those 18 unconverted outs, how many will actually result in a score? I would say less than half, maybe 7.

 

I don't know. That seems like a pretty sizable difference to me. That is per position correct? So having 9 average defenders will leave something like 150 outs less than a team full of excellent defenders? A + - of 150 outs has pretty dramatic effects, over the course of season I would guess.

 

On a side note, I just found this Balta about the issues we were discussing and THBT's attempts to mitigage it:

 

In discussing the increasing popularity of DER (Defensive Efficiency Rating) he notes that though this stat has its considerable advantages, it also has holes in it. The park can affect DER. The amount of line drives the pitchers give up affects it, etc. This is where the BIS information comes in. Using the BIS breakdowns of batted ball results discussed in his first article in this section, and the park effects information in the second one, he's constructed a chart that rates the defenses for all teams. It rates the Indians as possessors of the best D in the game, and the Royals as having the worst.

 

That full article, a review of the THBT's 2005 annual, can be found here:

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/...ll_annual_2006/

 

It's a pretty good read in the dead middle of winter.

Edited January 18, 2006 by chitownsportsfan

[witesoxfan]

The true way to spark a s*** lineup would have been to keep the steller defense in CF and replace crazy Carl with Grif. I don't think there's much of a case for replacing Rowand with Griffey in CF half way through last year.

 

Post-ASB numbers...

 

Carl Everett - .228 10 34 .305/.386/.691

Aaron Rowand - .264 8 35 .326/.431/.757

 

So yeah if anyone was ever considering replacing Rowand with Griffey instead of Everett with Griffey, you would be making a huge mistake. I can almost guarantee you KW was trading for KGII the DH not KGII the CFer.