Comments on: M’s Defense And The Fielding Bible

By: msb

msb — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 19:40:32 +0000

So, what does Zduriencik really think about the 2008 team's defense? Was it as good as Dewan says? This is important because the team has based a lot of its off-season strategy on upgrading an aspect of the team that -- if Dewan is correct -- might have needed the least amount of tinkering. "I didn't see it, but from everything I've been hearing, there were holes, no question about it,'' Zduriencik said.

By: qwerty

qwerty — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 18:26:02 +0000

your reasoning made 1.73 more sense than theirs.

By: coasty141

coasty141 — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 16:41:34 +0000

I think its kind of interesting that Utley/Howard is being discussed so much in this post. Why aren’t we talking about Beltre/Betancourt? It seems as though the relationship between those two fielders is more pertinent to the topic of discussion.

By: studes

studes — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 12:07:55 +0000

Plus, he doesn’t use the defensive misplays to calculate runs saved per team. That’s an entirely different system.

I humbly suggest that you post a correction to this post.

By: Breadbaker

Breadbaker — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 12:06:18 +0000

This Utley-Howard thing reminds me of the Phillie-related debate James described in an earlier abstract, where he debunked Larry Bowa’s fielding prowess. People were saying things like “well, look at all the balls Mike Schmidt fields which Bowa might have gotten to” and James basically said “if there are two players who can get to the ball, then one of them ought to move over.”

This is, effectively, the flipside of it. Utley is getting balls that someone else ought to get but isn’t. So how do you properly credit him with them (after all, he really does field them)? More importantly, how do you rate him when he’s essentially playing a different position from all the other second basemen?

By: studes

studes — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 12:02:27 +0000

Dave, I haven’t red the entire thread, but what you’re saying isn’t true. Dewan’s system isn’t based on outs saved, it’s based on bases saved. Outfielders save more bases per out saved, so the value per base is less than then value per out (comparing outfield to infield).

By: Osfan

Osfan — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 11:18:16 +0000

But even a team of pitchers is going to score some runs.

Especially if they were all Felix's.

By: anchorjim

anchorjim — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 08:53:21 +0000

Dave,

After seeing tangotiger’s explanation of Dewan’s 0.77 for infield plays vs. outfield plays, do you still feel that Dewan’s numbers are demonstrably wrong?

By: Sidi

Sidi — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 07:38:21 +0000

IMHO, you cannot win any baseball game by a score of 0-0: great defense only gets you so far – boasting the leagueâ€™s best UZR doesnâ€™t push runs across the plate.

But even a team of pitchers is going to score some runs. Hell, you could throw nine/ten of me into the game, and I think I would have better than even odds of scoring a run in 162 games. Especially considering that, for even $400k, I would be diving into pitches like crazy.

The whole “0-0″ crap misses a huge point, the difference between a “good” hitter and “terrible” hitter in MLB really isn’t as large as people think. You get a hit 1/3 of the time, you’re good, but a hit 1/4 of the time you suck. You get on base 40% of the time, you’re amazing, but at 30% you’re worse than Willie Boom Boom.

By: Kunkoh

Kunkoh — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 01:26:42 +0000

I’m confused, why is a 31yr old expected to age worse than a 36/7 yr old?

I think the upgrades at defense LF, CF, and even 1b should be a nice improvement compared to last year. I’m more excited about this year than I’ve been in years. No, we may not be a great team, but we are a heck of a lot better than last year and that should make things a lot more interesting.