Comments on: The M’s Defense http://www.ussmariner.com/2009/09/29/the-ms-defense/ Seattle Mariners blog and general baseball discussion Thu, 09 Feb 2012 04:59:36 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: John D. http://www.ussmariner.com/2009/09/29/the-ms-defense/comment-page-1/#comment-352122 John D. Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:03:18 +0000 http://ussmariner.com/?p=9447#comment-352122 <em>Hey Dave can you set that guy over at Fangraphs strait? </em> That's pretty cold. No farther than the Stait of Juan de Fuca. O,K,? Hey Dave can you set that guy over at Fangraphs strait?

That’s pretty cold.
No farther than the Stait of Juan de Fuca.
O,K,?

]]> By: Mike Snow http://www.ussmariner.com/2009/09/29/the-ms-defense/comment-page-1/#comment-352096 Mike Snow Wed, 30 Sep 2009 04:38:47 +0000 http://ussmariner.com/?p=9447#comment-352096 It didn't last long, but it was incredibly traumatic for all concerned. It didn’t last long, but it was incredibly traumatic for all concerned.

]]> By: Colm http://www.ussmariner.com/2009/09/29/the-ms-defense/comment-page-1/#comment-352085 Colm Wed, 30 Sep 2009 04:09:39 +0000 http://ussmariner.com/?p=9447#comment-352085 I can't remember Russ in left field. Perhaps that's a good thing. I can’t remember Russ in left field. Perhaps that’s a good thing.

]]> By: Paul B http://www.ussmariner.com/2009/09/29/the-ms-defense/comment-page-1/#comment-352021 Paul B Tue, 29 Sep 2009 20:54:06 +0000 http://ussmariner.com/?p=9447#comment-352021 <blockquote>This reminds me of why Russ Davis in left field was an even worse idea than Russ Davis at third base.</blockquote> The glove with the hole in it statue will always be thought of as the Russ Davis monument by me. I suppose I should think of it as the result of an Edgar line drive. But I always think of Davis when I walk by it.

This reminds me of why Russ Davis in left field was an even worse idea than Russ Davis at third base.

The glove with the hole in it statue will always be thought of as the Russ Davis monument by me.

I suppose I should think of it as the result of an Edgar line drive. But I always think of Davis when I walk by it.

]]> By: Mike Snow http://www.ussmariner.com/2009/09/29/the-ms-defense/comment-page-1/#comment-352020 Mike Snow Tue, 29 Sep 2009 20:34:25 +0000 http://ussmariner.com/?p=9447#comment-352020 <em>What stats analysis has given us, however, is that a batted ball in the OF that isn’t fielded has the potential to do much greater damage than one that’s hit in the infield</em> This reminds me of why Russ Davis in left field was an even worse idea than Russ Davis at third base. What stats analysis has given us, however, is that a batted ball in the OF that isn’t fielded has the potential to do much greater damage than one that’s hit in the infield

This reminds me of why Russ Davis in left field was an even worse idea than Russ Davis at third base.

]]> By: joealb1 http://www.ussmariner.com/2009/09/29/the-ms-defense/comment-page-1/#comment-352019 joealb1 Tue, 29 Sep 2009 20:21:11 +0000 http://ussmariner.com/?p=9447#comment-352019 I see said the blind man! Thanks Dave, I went and took a closer look at the Dodgers individual UZR'a and sure enough, their outfield grades out pretty poorly with Manny and Ethier out there. Huzzah for Death to Flying Things!!!! I see said the blind man! Thanks Dave, I went and took a closer look at the Dodgers individual UZR’a and sure enough, their outfield grades out pretty poorly with Manny and Ethier out there. Huzzah for Death to Flying Things!!!!

]]> By: PositivePaul http://www.ussmariner.com/2009/09/29/the-ms-defense/comment-page-1/#comment-352016 PositivePaul Tue, 29 Sep 2009 20:09:32 +0000 http://ussmariner.com/?p=9447#comment-352016 One thing that amazes me is that I think we've tangibly discovered how incredibly important OF defense is at all three positions. Traditionally, you stick a big bat, weak glove in LF and call it good. If that bat is big enough, of course, the overall value is a net positive. Similarly, traditionally, the shortstop position is glove first then bat - and the hope is the bat doesn't counteract the glove enough to make the player a net negative. What stats analysis has given us, however, is that a batted ball in the OF that isn't fielded has the potential to do much greater damage than one that's hit in the infield*. I think we've seen in Seattle especially how much having a good OF defense can really help you in the run-prevention department. To go from one of the worst LF in the league to having some good-if-not-über-great defenders really has helped the team in the win/loss column. Make the same upgrade, or close to it, in CF, and you can really see a huge difference. Now the trick is improving the offense. <a href="http://ussmariner.com/2009/08/25/the-next-big-test/" rel="nofollow">As you said a month ago</a>, Dave, that's really the big test of Zduriencik... *Well, that is, if I'm making a correct assumption here, which may or may not be the case, but even if not 100% true, it's something that I've come to recognize. One thing that amazes me is that I think we’ve tangibly discovered how incredibly important OF defense is at all three positions.

Traditionally, you stick a big bat, weak glove in LF and call it good. If that bat is big enough, of course, the overall value is a net positive. Similarly, traditionally, the shortstop position is glove first then bat – and the hope is the bat doesn’t counteract the glove enough to make the player a net negative.

What stats analysis has given us, however, is that a batted ball in the OF that isn’t fielded has the potential to do much greater damage than one that’s hit in the infield*. I think we’ve seen in Seattle especially how much having a good OF defense can really help you in the run-prevention department. To go from one of the worst LF in the league to having some good-if-not-über-great defenders really has helped the team in the win/loss column. Make the same upgrade, or close to it, in CF, and you can really see a huge difference.

Now the trick is improving the offense. As you said a month ago, Dave, that’s really the big test of Zduriencik…

*Well, that is, if I’m making a correct assumption here, which may or may not be the case, but even if not 100% true, it’s something that I’ve come to recognize.

]]> By: b__rider http://www.ussmariner.com/2009/09/29/the-ms-defense/comment-page-1/#comment-352013 b__rider Tue, 29 Sep 2009 19:43:02 +0000 http://ussmariner.com/?p=9447#comment-352013 <blockquote>It treats all balls in play turned into outs as equals, when a play made in the OF is more valuable than a play made in the IF, and thus will underrate great outfield defenses.</blockquote> Sure, I understand. On the other hand, the 2001 Mariners outfield was pretty good. Cameron 2001 was probably one of the few who could come close to matching Gutierrez 2009.

It treats all balls in play turned into outs as equals, when a play made in the OF is more valuable than a play made in the IF, and thus will underrate great outfield defenses.

Sure, I understand. On the other hand, the 2001 Mariners outfield was pretty good. Cameron 2001 was probably one of the few who could come close to matching Gutierrez 2009.

]]> By: Dave http://www.ussmariner.com/2009/09/29/the-ms-defense/comment-page-1/#comment-352012 Dave Tue, 29 Sep 2009 19:35:58 +0000 http://ussmariner.com/?p=9447#comment-352012 Defensive efficiency is kind of like ERA - if you don't have anything else, its okay, but it's not great. It treats all balls in play turned into outs as equals, when a play made in the OF is more valuable than a play made in the IF, and thus will underrate great outfield defenses. The 2001 team was terrific defensively, no doubt. I'll see if MGL can scrounge up his team UZR total for the M's based on the Stats info and run a comparison. Defensive efficiency is kind of like ERA – if you don’t have anything else, its okay, but it’s not great. It treats all balls in play turned into outs as equals, when a play made in the OF is more valuable than a play made in the IF, and thus will underrate great outfield defenses.

The 2001 team was terrific defensively, no doubt. I’ll see if MGL can scrounge up his team UZR total for the M’s based on the Stats info and run a comparison.

]]> By: wabbles http://www.ussmariner.com/2009/09/29/the-ms-defense/comment-page-1/#comment-352011 wabbles Tue, 29 Sep 2009 19:25:31 +0000 http://ussmariner.com/?p=9447#comment-352011 I posted once that the 2003 team had a great defense because it committed only 65 errors all season. Someone replied that that team was sure-handed, meaning they didn't drop or bobble the ones they reached. Then the person referenced a more advanced statistic (can't remember what it was) that reinforced the point that 2003 was a great defensive team. THEN they showed that same stat for the 2001 team and it was phenomenal. I think that defense probably was better but WOW. Even with Beltre out, Yuni in and Lopez falling asleep at the wheel at times. Remember in January at the library when the front office told us that some days we would run out three centerfielders and we broke into applause. :-) I posted once that the 2003 team had a great defense because it committed only 65 errors all season. Someone replied that that team was sure-handed, meaning they didn’t drop or bobble the ones they reached.
Then the person referenced a more advanced statistic (can’t remember what it was) that reinforced the point that 2003 was a great defensive team.
THEN they showed that same stat for the 2001 team and it was phenomenal. I think that defense probably was better but WOW.
Even with Beltre out, Yuni in and Lopez falling asleep at the wheel at times.
Remember in January at the library when the front office told us that some days we would run out three centerfielders and we broke into applause. :-)

]]>