Writer Attempts to Understand Fielding Statistics; Lobotomy Ensues

Paul Daugherty of the Cincinnati Enquirer is surprised by the Reds' recent stretch of reasonably good baseball. Who isn't? But this article is a slop-fest of statistical foolishness. Check it out:

[Note: this article dates to 5/18 - I simply hadn't gotten around to it till now]

Numbers Add Up to Better Defense

In baseball, defining good defense is like catching a butterfly with a frying pan.

That's why some of us are professional writers and some of us are bloggers. Similes, ladies and gentlemen: not just something your tenth-grade English teacher tested you on.

It's the team with the fewest errors, right? It's the team with the best fielding percentage. Fewer errors equals better defense. Of course it does.

This is what we call a "straw man" - Paul is setting up the old version of baseballthink and oversimplifying it. Then, he will refute it! Paul is smarter than conventional baseball wisdom. QED!

Not really. Reds center fielder Willy Taveras gets to flyballs that some major league outfielders couldn't reach in Danica Patrick's ride.

Pop culture references are not the exclusive property of Bill Simmons. Even hometown joes can use 'em!

What if Taveras gets to a ball in the gap and drops it? He gets an error. Does that make him a bad outfielder?

Can't be fielding percentage, then. Must be putouts. Has to be. An outfielder with a lot of putouts has to be good. He's catching more balls. Makes perfect sense. OK, seamhead, but what if his pitching staff includes more flyball pitchers than groundball guys?

I love the "OK, seamhead" part - as though Mr. Daugherty is conceivably addressing someone who had thought a lot about fielding, but hadn't thought of the last point (which really isn't that complex).

I hope someday I'm in an argument and someone says, "OK, seamhead, listen to THIS!" Then I will slink away like I did when I lost a sixth-grade cap war.

See what I mean?

Yes.

The Reds defense is better this year. Even as they've made more errors than 29 other major league teams.

Now we're getting interesting. They're last in the majors in errors. That's not a good sign.

I asked readers of my blog to tell me where to go. (They're very good at that.) Actually, I wanted Web sites that delivered cold, hard facts when it came to catching butterflies with frying pans. The posters delivered.

Wow, never mind. Daugherty is cool. He takes advice from his blog's commenters. I take back all the snide, backhanded insults I used earlier.

One offered this helpful tidbit: Compare "the statistics of fielding percentage, number of putouts and assists, along with doubles, triples and inside-the-park home runs allowed by the outfielders this year to the 2008 team after 32 games."

A helpful tidbit to be sure, but it's really hard to measure the stat of "doubles allowed by outfielders"... usually you measure the "doubles allowed by pitchers" stat. I hear Adam Dunn allowed 28375 doubles last year, which was only exceeded by this guy, who allowed 298329757 doubles last year.

Whuh?

I don't think this word is in the dictionary.

Who do I look like, Norman Einstein?

A veiled pop culture reference! TV commentator (and Notre Dame graduate) Joe Theismann once allegedly claimed that "A genuis is a guy like Norman Einstein".

Someone else suggested Batting Average, Balls In Play: BABIP.

BABIP sounds like the hero of a jungle movie. "Babip, come quickly! The lion is eating the little boy!"

To some people, this could be construed as vaguely offensive. To no people, this could be construed as funny. Also, most reasonable commenters who understand what BABIP is will recognize that it doesn't do a great job measuring defense. But hey! it's a funny acronym, and thus it has a place in this article.

A few offered UZR, which isn't a designer steroid

That was a joke! Did you catch it? You wouldn't have caught it if I hadn't separated it like this!

but something called Ultimate Zone Rating. I was directed to an author named John Dewan, who has published the Fielding Bibles, I and II. After the bosses said I couldn't expense the Bibles, I blew that one off,

Gosh, the newspaper industry sure has fallen on hard times when you can't spend thirty-three bucks on books you don't really intend to read because you already don't like stats.

blasphemously.

That was another joke! Get it? He blew off Dewan's book, a "Bible", so it was like committing blasphemy!

Baseballprospectus.com offers a Defensive Efficiency rating, "the rate at which balls put into play are converted into outs." The Reds rank fifth in the major leagues.

Hey! A stat! Maybe that's why the Reds are doing well at defense! Why don't you explain this, Mr. Daugherty? That would be a great way to support your claim that the Reds' defense is better this year.

There were a lot of other, very small numbers to look at, but I felt myself slipping into a coma, so I stopped reading them.

Why were the numbers smaller? I have a subscription to BP.com myself and I'm pretty sure all the numbers are the same size. Was there a font problem? Are you actually narcoleptic? [Note: the link is definitely worth the very short time you will invest in it].

Generally, I think baseball stats are like vegetables: An important part of a well-balanced diet and occasionally hard to swallow.

You just spent the whole time mocking pretty much all the statistics - from errors to fielding % to UZR to BABIP to defensive efficiency. Which stats do you like? Which stats, like spinach, are actually good for you, even though they look funny on paper and have weird acronyms? Food metaphors for everyone!

So where do we go with this?

Last year, the Reds were hurt by Ken Griffey Jr.'s diminished range in right field and Adam Dunn's general mismanagement in left.

Amen. I actually like the phrase "general mismanagement" - it aptly describes Mr. Dunn's fielding ability. These guys explain how it works. [Note: the video is worth your time if you've ever been an opposing fan in the left-field bleachers at Wrigley].

But how much better are they now, with Jay Bruce in right and the Chris Dickerson/Laynce Nix combo in left?

More importantly: What has Willy Taveras given them in center field?

What a good pair of questions to ask. Bravo, Mr. Daugherty!

For what it's worth, Nix's and Taveras' RF/9 is a bit above league average, and Dickerson's a bit below. In contrast, Dunn's and Griffey's RF/9 for 2008 are both significantly below league average. Since the Reds' staff is generally the same staff as last year, it seems that the Reds' defense has improved substantially since last year! You're right, Paul!

I asked Sam Grossman. Sam who?

The Reds Manager of Baseball Research and Analysis. Like most astute baseball people, Grossman has a degree in mathematics from Northwestern. He worked in insurance, decided he'd rather not, took a few minor league internships and was hired by the Reds in 2007. Grossman crunches the fielding numbers.

Shit. I should follow my dream like Sam Grossman.

He reads play-by-plays like they're the Dead Sea Scrolls.

More Bible allusions! Anyone who reads this post all the way through will be older than Jared!

They show where balls are hit - their "zone" - and what happened. From there, Grossman employs a double-secret formula similar to the one used by the UZR folks: How hard was the ball hit? Was it off a right-handed or left-handed pitcher? And so on. Then the numbers are compared to the league average.

I wonder how "double-secret" this formula is. I also like how he calls them "the UZR folks".

That's basically how the Reds concluded last winter that Taveras would be a great, um, catch

Another joke! Get it? It's a pun!

as a free-agent center fielder. "It was as simple as (Taveras) turning into outs a lot of balls hit to him," Grossman says. "He played in two big center fields, first in Houston, then in Colorado. He made plays most visiting center fielders wouldn't make." He still does.

He still has a .330 career OBP as a leadoff hitter. But that's not the point.

The UZR boys

Whatever happened to "UZR folks"? That sounds nicer. Either way, the "boys" and "folks" almost makes these dudes sound like rednecks. The good old UZR boys probably still live in their folks' basements anyways.

currently rank Taveras the second-best center fielder in the game. Jay Bruce - Jay Bruce! - is seen as the No. 1 right fielder. Overall, UZR says the Reds right now have the best outfield defense in baseball.

Excellent! Stats have proved Mr. Daugherty's point, even though he likes them about as much as he likes okra!

"Our formula rates our infield as average and our outfield a little above average," says Grossman, who adds helpfully, "Another guy uses what he calls 'probablistic model of range.' " We really don't want to go there.

I kind of want to go there. When you say "we" don't want to go there, Paul, don't include me in the royal "we". "You" and some other fans don't want to go there because it probably involves too much thinking. Baseball isn't about thinking. Baseball is about turning the double-play and executing bunts.

Grossman notes his work doesn't trump the eyeball work of scouts and general manager Walt Jocketty, but supplements and often confirms it. "A scout can tell you if a guy has good range," says Grossman. "This just quantifies it."

If a scout watches a guy play one game, how can he tell the extent of the player's range in all directions? The UZR, which "watches" every game a player plays, seems to be able to define a player's range a lot more accurately than a scout watching just a few games...

While stats are certainly not the end-all of baseball analysis, you gotta imagine that it stings a little bit for Grossman when he has to say shit like this.

To me, defense is judged best through daily watching. There ought to be a Web site: Watchthedamnedgame.com.

Paul, how are the Reds supposed to watch every game of every player they might want to trade for/sign/draft? It's just not plausible. Also, there is a web site like that: it's called www.mlb.tv and it's pretty great. I've subscribed the last five summers and there's no money better spent. I say, Paul, there ought to be a web site: www.firejournalistswhowritestupidthings.com.

"That's how I do it," Jocketty says. "We use (Grossman's) information as a baseline. I use input from scouts, and add my own. It all works together." But unless you're a genetic mutant or Bill James, you can't watch enough baseball to be an expert on every team's defense.

Wait, Bill James actually watches baseball? I thought played Strat-o-matic baseball in his garage every day. Huh.

Jocketty mentioned David Eckstein, the current San Diego Padres infielder who played shortstop on the St. Louis team that won the 2006 World Series. Eckstein's defense had to be seen daily to be believed. "Below average arm strength, OK range," Jocketty says. "But he always seemed to be able to position himself and get a throw off."

YES! Eckstein! It's like an unholy rule! Whenever any journalist wants to mention the "stats are stupid and some things in baseball are just unquantifiable", they have to cite the ECKSTEIN law. Seriously: as any discussion of statistical relevance in baseball grows, the probability of a comparison involving Eckstein approaches 1. It's a law.

Let me repeat one of the most ridiculous statments I've read recently:

"Eckstein's defense had to be seen daily to be believed".

Actually, nothing Eckstein does has to be seen to be believed. I've probably seen the guy play only three or four times in my whole life, and I can believe everything the guy does: play slightly-below average baseball.

Grossman says quantifying defensive ability "was the hardest thing to nail down, in the past. We're getting there."

Hooray for stat-guys!

The past? What's harder to judge now?

"The effect of team chemistry," he says. "The manager effect."

I can't wait until we come up with stats for these ones. The acronyms will be ridiculous!

The manager? That's an easy one. Just ask the fans what they think.

What? I thought this article was about defense?

A Very, Angry, Stupid, Boring, Statistical, Analytical, Don't-Even-Readal, Skip-Over-This-To-Other-More-Interesting-Thingsal Quickie

Richard Justice wrote an article explaining why the Yankees are still the third best team in the AL East (probably true). But I can't quite let things like this slide.....

Tampa Bay's outfield of Carl Crawford, B.J. Upton and Joyce might just be the best in baseball.

That is just plain fucking batshit crazy. I mean, defensively, sure. But plain ol' best?

The Yankees? How does an outfield of Xavier Nady, Brett Gardner and Johnny Damon ring your chime?

Not impressed? Didn't think so. Boston's is also better: Jason Bay, Jacoby Ellsbury, J.D. Drew.

You couldn't even go two paragraphs without naming a better outfield. But go ahead, you can keep Carl Crawford and his .318 OBP from last season (he's VERRRRRRRRRY overrated, folks!). And we don't have a clue what the fuck Matt Joyce is yet, but he's already part of the best outfield in baseball? Do you hear yourself talk?

It's also awesome to say things like this when guys like Adam Dunn, Pat Burrell, and Manny Ramirez haven't even been placed on teams yet.

Yet we've learned the last few years that chemistry and grit are as important as pure talent.

This is why it's been so hard to keep the Pittsburgh Pirates down.

This is why grit superstars Pat Burrell and Ryan Howard can with the World Series while chemistry stud Jimmy Rollins single-handedly denounces the entire phucking Philadelphia phan base.

This is why the White Sox edged out the Twins, because of gritty performances by key grit guys like Paul Konerko, Ken Griffey Jr, and Jim Thome. The supreme talent of Minnesota's Nick Punto, Carlos Gomez, and Alexei Casilla was no match for good ol' fashioned "grit", a word that as far as I can tell just means "trying his or her hardest", which 97% of the league does. Shut the fuck up, Richard Justice.

The Rays and Red Sox have a clubhouse chemistry that is impossible to overestimate.

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you, for the first time in the history of the universe.....THE IMPOSSIBLE!

They've got managers — Maddon and Terry Francona — brilliant at making the pieces fit and keeping the club headed in the right direction.

Talent, of course, is important, too, but in this era of parity, it's tougher and tougher to buy a championship.

Right, talent is important, too. You know, kind of like an afterthought.

The Yankees have spent more on payroll than any other team for several years. They haven't gotten out of the first round of the playoffs since 2004, haven't been to the World Series since 2003, haven't won a championship since 2000.

They tried buying a championship with Jason Giambi, Jaret Wright, Carl Pavano, etc. Never mind that chemistry and toughness were a huge part of how they won four World Series under Joe Torre.

Look guys, now we're trying to show chemistry's triumph over talent by using Jaret Wright as an example of "talent"!

Oh yeah, and that Carl Pavano......he totally played baseball the entire time he was on the team! And he played it every 5th day, with the highest level of talent. But he was no match for the chemistry of the opposing (Carl Pavano never got injured) hitters!

Jaret Wright sucks.

We Get It, Santana Makes the Mets Better

But that's no excuse for this rare puff piece by John Donovan.

Johan Santana's impending trade to the Mets will be, when and if it's consummated later this week with a contract extension, the rarest of baseball swaps, one that completely and immediately transforms a team and the balance of power in the league.

It's a huge upgrade, no question. Santana seems to hover around 10 wins above replacement per season. I tend to think you're exaggerating a little bit about the balance of power shifting, because the Mets were getting 4 wins out of Glavine and about 3.5 from Sosa/Pelfrey. Whichever slot in the rotation you're displacing with Santana, it's like a 6-7 win upgrade. Very significant, but not "team-transformingly" insane, especially considering we don't know how much Pedro Martinez will pitch. Anyway, nothing really offensive there. I just like hearing myself type.

Let's compare and contrast the Mets with and without Santana!

Let's face it: The Mets, without Santana, are just another NL East schlub.

Mets with Santana: Not a "schlub", for whatever that's worth.

They are a bunch of chuckers without an ace

Mets with Santana: A bunch of chuckers with an ace. Johan Santana does not make the other starters better. Chuckers before trade, chuckers after trade.

a collection of hitters who cease to hit at the most inopportune times

Mets with Santana: Supposedly a more clutch hitting team? Will Johan Santana's bat at the plate be fixing this problem, John? Because even the most moronic of Mariottis can understand that a new pitcher that throws once every five days has absofuckinglutely nothing to do with the timing of the hitters' base hits

all marched around by a sometimes stone-mugged manager who presided last year over one of the most embarrassing nosedives in baseball history.

Mets with Santana: Managed by a happy, animated, enthusiastic-mugged manager whose near-perfect in-game tactics are surpassed only by his ability to vomit sunshine. Make a note, Donovan, Santana does not make anyone else on the New York Mets better. Period.

Without Santana or someone a lot like him, the Mets are non-factors. And in New York, that's almost worse than being terrible.

That's a pretty bold claim, considering that it took one of the most monumental collapses in baseball history for them to lose the division last year. Now you're saying they weren't even a factor?

What general manager Omar Minaya has pulled off here, in this stunning series of fortunate events, is to make the Mets mean something again.

In that case, that's one thing that the Mets and that sentence do not have in common.

When Santana pressured the Twins to trade him before the start of spring training or not trade him at all -- Santana has full veto power over any trade -- new Minnesota GM Bill Smith was stuck. He went for the prospect-heavy package that the Mets offered; outfielder Carlos Gomez and pitchers Phil Humber, Deolis Guerra and Kevin Mulvey.

And the Mets, out of nowhere, are players again. Real players.

Give me a break, Donovan. Even you had to feel stupid tying that sentence. At least give me a story. Like, maybe that there was a sweet episode of The Wire on TV or something in the background, so your brain checked out and your fingers just kept going.

More Baseball!

Baseball is my favorite sport. I seem to be writing less these days because there aren't as many baseball articles. All that is being written under "baseball" on websites is about Clemens and Congress and some guy named George Mitchell who I've never heard of before yesterday (seriously though, anyone else getting sick of the Clemens saga?). None of those things have anything to do with VORP or SNLVAR, so my one-track sabermetric brain is too stupid to write anything meaningful about them (unless Howard Bryant (SMACK!) plays the race card). I have yet to decide whether this paragraph is primarily serious or sarcastic.

Anyway, Glaus and Rolen are swapping teams, that's pretty interesting huh? Jerry Crasnick said that it's good for both parties. I agree with him! But just for fun, let's see what bogus reasons he can spew at us in an attempt to write an article long enough for publishing, shall we?

Toronto manager John Gibbons had a couple of highly-publicized blowouts with Shea Hillenbrand and Ted Lilly two years ago. But if you talk to people around the team, they'll tell you Gibbons is a "player's manager" who creates a comfortable environment for his guys.

If you cut to the core of this paragraph, you get the meaning: "Except for dealing with problematic personalities, John Gibbons is excellent at dealing with people!" Wow, sounds like a super dude. Also, what moronic player is going to tell an ESPN reporter that the manager is doing anything BUT creating a comfortable environment for the team? You think they're just going to make waves and tell the public if there really is a problem? Most-to-all players will publicly say that they like their manager. Maybe you're right, Crasnick, and maybe Gibbons is pretty good at that, but ask any of LaRussa's boys over in St. Louis the same question, and you won't hear a different answer (except for maybe Mr. Rolen). This paragraph basically says nothing about the quality of John Gibbons as a manager, when you think about it.

That's a good thing for Scott Rolen -- the Blue Jays acquired the third baseman in exchange for Troy Glaus on Saturday -- because Toronto's newest addition doesn't have a particularly good track record with authoritarian types.

Let's try a syllogism based on these first two paragraphs!

Premise 1: John Gibbons has a history of having personal problems with players with confrontational personalities.

Premise 2: Scott Rolen has a confrontational personality.

Reasonable Proposition: Scott Rolen is likely to have a personal problem with John Gibbons!

Rolen's former St. Louis buddy, David Eckstein, recently signed a one-year deal to play shortstop for Toronto, so the Jays won't have to spend much time building synergy on the left side in spring training.

AAAAHHHHHH-CCCCHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

With extreme apologies to the writers of I, Robot, I must confess, Jerry, I'm allergic to bullshit. "Synergy on the left side?" Is that an important thing? Are Joe Crede and Juan Uribe best buddies (do they even speak the same language?)? How about Julio Lugo and Mike Lowell? A-Rod and Derek Jeter get to the playoffs every year.....because they work so well together, right? Is THAT how these teams are doing it?

No seriously Jerry, exactly how many defensive plays per year involve both the shortstop and the third baseman? It's a stretch to say something like this about the shortstop and the 2nd basemen, much less 2 people who rarely throw the ball to each other.

And although the three years and $33 million left on Rolen's contract scared off some clubs, the commitment fits right in with Toronto general manager J.P. Ricciardi's timetable. The Blue Jays are built to win over the next three seasons, with Vernon Wells, Roy Halladay, Alex Rios, Lyle Overbay and B.J. Ryan all tied up contractually through 2010 or beyond, and now the team won't have to fill a potentially gaping hole at third base.

So these are the components of a "built to win" team.

1) An overrated CF who collapsed last year and has turned in 2 notably above-average offensive seasons in his last 6
2) A legitimate ace (with a good amount of injury history)
3) An above-average corner OF
4) A pretty mediocre starting MLB 1B
5) A very good closer with significant injury problems.

Well, I'm sold. Watch out, Red Sox and Yankees. This sounds completely different than the Blue Jays who have been mired in slightly-better-than-average-itude for the past several years.

I'm truly disappointed, Crasnick. You should take this as a compliment, because I refuse to write this about mostly anyone else I scribble about, but you can do better.