The M’s in Pinto’s defensive model

DMZ · November 16, 2006 at 10:15 pm · Filed Under Mariners 

“I’d like to patronize your store, and by that I mean I’d like to buy something.”
“I know what it means! Don’t patronize me.”

— Sam & Max: Culture Shock

We’ve talked a lot about defense here at USSM lately, particularly with regards to Sexson the Albatross, and it always generates a lot of discussion about how we can, or can’t, measure defense. It’s true that defensive tools aren’t nearly as fine as offensive tools are perceived to be, but as we’ve learned in the last few years, those aren’t quite as good as we thought. And, in general, I agree with what Dave’s been trying to say: that while none of the defensive systems people are working on is as good as we’d like, you can look at the good ones and immediately get a reasonable idea of a player’s contributions, and by looking at several, you can get more confident. And when there are contradictions, it’s worth thinking about how those can arise, and what they reveal about the systems and the players.

But if you look at some player and various defensive systems rate him at +5 runs, +10 runs, +12 runs, and +8 runs, you can be reasonably assured he’s good with the glove.

All of which is a long introduction to this: David Pinto’s been working on “Probabilistic Model of Range” and he’s published some cool stuff at Baseball Musings.

Here’s his team breakdown by air/ground stats.

The M’s are the fourth-best on ground balls. Woo-hoo! Go Betancourt/Beltre!
They’re in the middle of the pack in fly balls. Boo Ibanez! Yay Ichiro and Snelling!

(Okay, so I’m clearly introducing unsupported allegations there)

Overall, the team came out sixth overall in total rankings.

I wouldn’t put too much stock in this yet – from early comments it appears that the numbers Dewan’s going to put in the Hardball Times annual will be a lot different, and moreover, the whole baseball community is only really starting to figure out how to use the better data, particularly play-by-play data with hit location and speed. Pinto’s model is based on 2002-2006. The systems will get better.

Defense rocks.

Comments

17 Responses to “The M’s in Pinto’s defensive model”

  1. joealb on November 16th, 2006 10:25 pm

    From a guy whose all time favorite player is “The Wizard of OZ” I say BRAVO!!!! Defense does rock!

  2. Dave on November 16th, 2006 11:00 pm

    I like PMR, and its one of the stats I endorse looking at when taking the prism view of defensive statistics, but man, some of those numbers look weird. In general, I agree with the conclusions about the M’s defense – we were good at fielding groundballs but not so good at flyballs. I don’t think the M’s were the sixth best fielding team in baseball, though – I’d place them somewhere around the average mark.

    If the M’s can manage a full year of Ichiro in center, Ibanez DH’ing, and a real outfielder playing left in lieu of Raul, I think you’ll see a big improvement in the M’s defensive performance next year.

  3. Mat on November 16th, 2006 11:06 pm

    I like PMR, and its one of the stats I endorse looking at when taking the prism view of defensive statistics, but man, some of those numbers look weird.

    Like KC second in all of baseball? I’m certainly not buying that.

    I don’t think the M’s were the sixth best fielding team in baseball, though – I’d place them somewhere around the average mark.

    Is the park factor still not being accounted for properly? Something else?

  4. hub on November 17th, 2006 1:30 am

    If the team is gonna lose anyway, I’d rather watch a good defensive ‘losing’ team…

  5. terry on November 17th, 2006 4:24 am

    here’s a bit of a naive question thats related to the value equation..

    I know replacement level for offensive metrics is generally considered to be 85% of league average. What is the consensus for replacement level defensively?

    Also, has replacement level for runs created (or atleast league average RC) been summarized somewhere for each position. I know BP has positional batting stats. I’ve been doing some rough justice estimates but the # of AB for an average starter at each position is a potential source of error…

  6. Typical Idiot Fan on November 17th, 2006 4:37 am

    I know replacement level for offensive metrics is generally considered to be 85% of league average. What is the consensus for replacement level defensively?

    I would wager that would be nearly impossible to figure out. Since defense is one of the easier things a replacement level player CAN do. You can almost always find an all defense, no offense, scrub somewhere to fill a position. It’s finding the people who can hit at the RLP or above level that still manage to put forth good defense that is the trick.

    Rey Ordonez is all well and good with the glove, but can he hit anymore? Would you want to measure a ‘replacement level’ defense based on simply a defensive-oriented sub / bench player or on a mean of a 0 runs created 0 runs taken away measurement?

  7. terry on November 17th, 2006 4:55 am

    I’ve been just assuming zero defensive runs for replacement mostly for the reason you pointed out. But really, replacement level defense might actually be a little better than league average because the league has compromises like F. Lopez at short (playing there mostly because his bat yeilds the runs advantage). While a guy replacement level guy like J. Castro is almost strictly valued for his defensive reputation.

  8. Typical Idiot Fan on November 17th, 2006 5:00 am

    I’m not sure you should worry about replacement level defense, to be honest. Everybody can be replaced defensively… except the DH.

  9. David* on November 17th, 2006 5:19 am

    I wonder if Glenallen Hill would have a negative range

  10. CCW on November 17th, 2006 5:27 am

    Interesting to me is that, even once we are able to measure individual defensive performance, there will still be the matter of predicting individual defensive performance going forward… And my suspicion (groundless, speculative, and from my bottom) is that defensive performance will have a very different curve than offensive performance. In fact, I bet guys peak defensively very young – 25 maybe – and continue a downward slope thereafter.

  11. Dave on November 17th, 2006 6:19 am

    I know replacement level for offensive metrics is generally considered to be 85% of league average. What is the consensus for replacement level defensively?

    The average defensive value of a replacement level player is just about the same as the defensive value of any other player. In other words, there is a massive pool of players who can play league average ML defense, but only part of that pool can also hit. The guys who can hit make it to the majors, and the guys who can’t hang out in Triple-A.

    At some positions (notably first base), the average replacement level player is actually slightly better than average fielder.

    This is why, when we’re doing player comparisons, we use an offensive metric that is runs above replacement and a defensive metric that is runs above average.

    If we really wanted to, we could try to calculate defensive replacement level as the point a team is no longer willing to put up with a player and moves him to an easier position. I’m guessing, in most cases, this point is around -20 runs. But some teams (like the Reds) keep running out -20 defenders and not even blinking, so, it would really be different for each club.

    And my suspicion (groundless, speculative, and from my bottom) is that defensive performance will have a very different curve than offensive performance. In fact, I bet guys peak defensively very young – 25 maybe – and continue a downward slope thereafter.

    Yea. Tango and MGL have done a bunch of work on player aging patterns, and generally, defense peaks at age 24. MGL has found that a player generally loses about one run defensively per year after 24 through his early 30s. So, if Yuniesky Betancourt follows a normal decline, he’ll cease to be an elite defender in about five years. It’s one of the reasons why I’ve argued that this is probably about as valuable as he’s ever going to be.

  12. Mike Snow on November 17th, 2006 8:39 am

    So, if Yuniesky Betancourt follows a normal decline, he’ll cease to be an elite defender in about five years.

    Coincidentally, that’s exactly how long it will take before he starts winning Gold Gloves that he will then no longer deserve.

  13. marc w on November 17th, 2006 9:45 am

    Re: Betancourt
    So he’ll start to decline precisely when the new defensive metrics like UZR have enough data to start recognizing that he doesn’t actually, you know, suck.

  14. patl on November 17th, 2006 10:10 am

    David writes:

    I wonder if Glenallen Hill would have a negative range

    I continue buying Baseball Prospectus hoping that somebody will top the description of his defense one year:

    “akin to watching a gaffed haddock surface for air.”

    Wait, Wikipedia credits Brian Price with that quote. Whoever did it, that’s classic.

  15. The Ancient Mariner on November 17th, 2006 10:22 am

    Yeah, watching Glenallen Hill go after a fly ball was like watching a squirrel trying to cross an eight-lane freeway.

  16. DMZ on November 17th, 2006 10:27 am

    I think the classy thing to say is “I’m glad the Cardinals say enough to give me a chance, and I’m happy I’ve been able to reward them for that.” Or something similar.

    There’s no reason to give the franchise he was so awful for the finger, as if it’s the M’s fault he was abjectly horrible while he was here. His performance already did that. Let it be.

  17. msb on November 17th, 2006 12:14 pm

    but they/we didn’t appreciate and love him while he was so horrible! He should have been nurtured!

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.