Daniel Murphy: Defensive Stud
The statistic Ultimate Zone Rating (UZR) measures three components of outfield defense: range, arm, and error, and assigns a run value to each component. The sum of the parts gives a cumulative run value, or UZR. For instance, outfielder X could be very sure handed, with an ErrorUZR of 10; have a very strong arm, with an ArmUZR of 8; but not cover a lot of ground, with a RangeUZR of -20. So, in total, he has a UZR of -2, which means his fielding cost his team about 2/10 of a win with the glove.
The hardest of these three parts to observe is range. When a player drops a ball, it's an issue of ErrorUZR, and everyone notices. When Juan Pierre throws home, but the ball doesn't make it into the infield, it's an issue of ArmUZR, and everyone notices. Raul Ibanez not getting to a ball 10 feet to his left that Carl Crawford gets to every time, however, is virtually impossible to notice, because we don't see the field as a GPS map with grid lines.
In other words, everyone and their mom notices when Daniel Murphy drops a ball that costs the Mets the Marlins game. But when he glides to a deep ball without sliding, no one says, "wow 8 yards from his original position in just 3.1 seconds of hangtime."
Besides the rotation, Daniel Murphy's fielding has been often identified as one of the weakness of the Mets in the early going. It's understandable: he's dropped two easy flyballs and has had to throw to the cutoff man from the edge of the infield. Every observable, fundamental aspect of his defense has looked bad. Thus, the excuse of "he's just learning" is convenient and probably does explain some of his trouble so far. Checking UZR, however, Murphy has been a defensive asset for the Mets so far. In fact, according to UZR, he's the rangiest left fielder in the majors, narrowly edging out a little-known Seattle fielder named Endy Chavez:
It's funny that Murphy, whose defense is now associated with one terrible non-catch, is ahead the guy who made the most iconic catch in Mets history. Granted, he probably won't lead Endy for much longer.
Still, all the players below Murphy (except maybe Holliday) are your prototypical speedsters, which suggests either Murphy's much faster than we thought or a very good route runner. Although he ranks last among the group in both ErrorUZR and Arm, he leads the majors in Range. His UZR/150, or UZR extrapolated over 150 games, is 26.6. That figure, roughly +2.7 wins, would probably make him the most valuable defensive player on the team. While it's too early to make that conclusion based on the small sample size, it's a far cry from how many in the media regard his defense.
While his arm probably won't suddenly improve, his ErrorUZR certainly could, given some better fundamental play. While many rightfully think "firstbaseman of the future" is a stretch for Murphy, maybe "centerfielder of the future" should be considered.
0 recs |
34 comments
|
Comments
Yeah, people need to chillax about his defense.
"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw
by squid92 on Apr 27, 2009 8:30 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Well
Actually UZR, as far as I can tell, has Endy at 33.8 runs/150 games, way ahead of Murphy, who’s still second.
I do agree that it’s too small of a sample to draw anything like a substantial conclusion about. Raul Ibanez, who you maligned earlier, is at +12.2 runs per 150 defensive innings and has accumulated as many runs (in more innings) as Endy Chavez. Just as Murphy’s bad looks early on don’t mean that he’s necessarily a bad fielder, his good stats early on don’t mean he’s a good one, either. In sample sizes of 120 innings or so, I do believe your eyes can tell you more about a player’s true ability in the field than the numbers do. Neither tell you a whole lot. What the numbers do tell us is that the run-value of Murphy’s defensive lapses hasn’t been as significant as they appear.
Of course as that sample size expands, your numbers will mean more and more; the eyes won’t.
In short, it’s just too early to say.
by Alex Nelson on Apr 27, 2009 9:03 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree and disagree
It’s too early to make a judgment one way or another, and I’ve often used this data to illustrate that point to people.
Still, I don’t agree with the sentiment that your eyes are better through a certain sample size. Half the point of this post is that one’s observations are never reliable, because the things that influence that perception only tell part of the story. I also don’t understand this:
What the numbers do tell us is that the run-value of Murphy’s defensive lapses hasn’t been as significant as they appear.What the numbers tell us is that his ability to get to other balls has more than made up for his occasional drop, not that the drops were less harmful that they appear
King of the bling come to lay down the evidence//Not George Bush, L-Millz be da president
by Sam Page on Apr 27, 2009 9:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sure I'm convinced by UZR
I do think people WAY overrate his defensive struggles but I’d at least like to see +/- numbers on him before I believe he he was as good as Endy. Plus it is a really small sample size I know last year for like the first few months of the season Hanley was by far the best defensive short stop in the league and then he ended like right at average.
by Gina on Apr 27, 2009 9:15 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Your bizarre obsession with Hanley and +/- continues.
It’s just UZR with fewer parameters.
King of the bling come to lay down the evidence//Not George Bush, L-Millz be da president
by Sam Page on Apr 27, 2009 9:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hanley just happens to be the only specific name I remember starting off awesome and ending average.
I figured just saying “some players” wouldn’t hold as much weight as giving a specific example. And I’m not sure how I have a bizzarre obsession with +/-. I prefer to look at multiple stats, which are supposed to measure the same thing, to try and come to a conclusion about an aspect of a player. Why just look at one and take it’s word for it when multiple are available?
by Gina on Apr 27, 2009 9:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm just messing with you
There’s no plus/minus data published yet for this season.
King of the bling come to lay down the evidence//Not George Bush, L-Millz be da president
by Sam Page on Apr 27, 2009 9:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Incredibly small sample size aside
Based on your argument because his arm won’t improve much, yet his defense will. I would suggest 1B or 2B of the future. FMart is shaping up to be the left fielder of the future and Beltran isn’t going anywhere. By my eye, Murphy is not making the most efficient routes to the balls in front to to behind him and seems to panic at balls hit right at him. Consequently, I suspect Murphy’s quickness and lateral instincts is the cause for his high range factor. If that translates to the infield (where he grew up playing), then he could develop into a Keith Hernandez or Edgardo Alfonso type player (sacrilegious I know), but more likely than center field.
by djbutler73 on Apr 27, 2009 11:33 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Well we don't really know about Church long-term
So theres right field but his arm could be more of a problem there too, or possibly f-mart could play rf i don’t know anything about his arm.. And there’s a chance Havens could be ml ready before F-mart is ready to be an everyday player and I assume he would be at second base.
by Gina on Apr 27, 2009 11:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Second base of the future would probably be ideal.
King of the bling come to lay down the evidence//Not George Bush, L-Millz be da president
by Sam Page on Apr 27, 2009 12:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I heart Reese Havens.
But seriously, 2B and LF are the most realistic good options remaining.
But knowing the Mets, he’ll be a 1B. Why can’t we have a GOOD GM?
"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw
by squid92 on Apr 27, 2009 3:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He'll never hit enough to play at 1b
His upside is Frank Catalanato. Nice hitter but nowhere near enough pop to be an every first baseman.
by Straw that stirs the drink on Apr 29, 2009 3:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i just wish there was some statistically savy presense in the front office/coaching ranks
to point this out to Murphy so he doesn’t get too hard on himself.
wouldn’t hurt if they also showed it to Manuel so he didn’t decide to keep trotting Sheffield out there either.
by MordecaiBrown3 on Apr 27, 2009 12:38 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Baumer??!?!?!?
King of the bling come to lay down the evidence//Not George Bush, L-Millz be da president
by Sam Page on Apr 27, 2009 12:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It seems like there are stat savy presenses in the front office
They’re just not the guys pulling the trigger.
by Gina on Apr 27, 2009 1:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I dunno about this...
My first thought was: small sample.
Second thought: If UZR tells me that Daniel Murphy is a better defender than Endy Chavez, then I have no use for UZR any longer.
by SQUAD on Apr 27, 2009 1:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm not making any claims yet, just an observation
1. yes, way small
2. It doesn’t. Endy already has a higher UZR and the gap will be much bigger by season’s end.
King of the bling come to lay down the evidence//Not George Bush, L-Millz be da president
by Sam Page on Apr 27, 2009 2:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well said
And I concur. Stats can be made to show/prove any point you wish, so generally speaking they are useless. If they were not, we would all do better on the SWAG contests. I could cite examples….
by zmanmetfan on Apr 28, 2009 5:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's not the right conclusion to draw
Nothing wrong with statistics, as long as the people using them and reading them understand what they mean. Using the UZR/150 after 20 games is like extrapolating a season’s home run total from a 20-game sample. If we did a HR/150, David Wright’s number would be 7.5, Brandon Inge’s would be 53.5. Does anybody believe Inge is a better power hitter than Wright?
by Straw that stirs the drink on Apr 29, 2009 4:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good post
I think it definitely reinforces what’s actually going on: Murphy has plenty of talent, but he’s lacking fundamental skills right now, which is as much as you can ask for from a guy whose still learning a new position at the highest level.
by Mark Himmelstein on Apr 27, 2009 3:12 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Something bugging me about UZR
It’s got Wright as being a slightly below-average 3rd baseman this year, which I’m having a hard time believing looking at him. He’s made 2 throwing errors, but has gotten to every ball hit close to him and made several marvelous plays.
The possible explanations are that Wright is in reality rather slow to the ball and his highlights would be routine plays for a good 3rd baseman (otherwise, his profile would be that of an average 3rd-baseman who makes average plays), or that he is positioning himself poorly, or being positioned poorly, or that he is getting a lot of balls hit too hard just out of his reach, distorting UZR, or that UZR isn’t evaluating him correctly, for whatever reason.
I will not allow the denigration of the life essence
by GenJackRipper on Apr 27, 2009 4:08 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah UZR has issues with balls way out of a players zone's
Like Utley’s +/- is insane because he gets to so many balls that aren’t in his range that Ryan Howard doesn’t, but his UZR isn’t as impressive because UZR doesn’t account for it.
by Gina on Apr 27, 2009 5:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes it does.
King of the bling come to lay down the evidence//Not George Bush, L-Millz be da president
by Sam Page on Apr 27, 2009 5:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Utley's URZ is off the charts
Not sure what you’re talking about. UJtley’s UZR has been over 20 in each of the past two years. Way better than Brandon Phillips (the reigning NL Gold Glove winner). Better than any regular big league second baseman.
by Straw that stirs the drink on Apr 29, 2009 4:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah he's been over 40 according to +/-
He was like +47 last year.
by Gina on Apr 29, 2009 10:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
"most iconic catch in Mets history"?
Errr, what about those that catch Tommie Agee made in Game 3 of the 1969 World Series. Or that other catch Tommie Agee made in Game 3 of the 1969 World Series. A game and a series the Mets won, by the way.
A lot of folks on this site need to realize Mets history didn’t begin with Mike Piazza.
by MuhammadCohen on Apr 28, 2009 3:10 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
That's kind of an arrogant thing to say, don't you think?
Honestly, do you really disagree, or are you just disagreeing for the sake of it? Do you really think it wasn’t the most iconic? If so, that’s fine, you’re entitled to your opinion. But I’ve seen all of those catches, and that one was the most impressive and memorable to me. It gave me the biggest rush out of all of them.
But don’t say that we think that when we have THAT opinion, which we’re entitled to.
Alright? Cool. Glad we had this talk.
"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw
by squid92 on Apr 28, 2009 1:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hell
one could almost argue that a dramatic catch like Endy’s, coming in a heartbreaking loss, is more representative of this Mets franchise than catches that came in winning games. If I had the time or, let’s face it, the desire, I might just do that. However, I don’t particularly care. People are entitled to their opinions.
'Oh yes, I know all about that duty-of-a-citizen stuff. It doesn't go. There are exceptions to every rule, and this was one of them. When a man risks his liberty to come and root at a ball-game, you've got to hand it to him. He isn't a crook. He's a fan.'
by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Apr 28, 2009 9:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How quickly they forget
And thanks for the reminder. Those two catches Agee made and the one Shamsky made are the best ever in Mets history. Hands down.
by zmanmetfan on Apr 28, 2009 5:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Forget what?
I was -22 in 1969.
King of the bling come to lay down the evidence//Not George Bush, L-Millz be da president
by Sam Page on Apr 28, 2009 10:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
My mistake
I didn’t let the B-Ref page fully load. I thought the Mets started at 1998.
King of the bling come to lay down the evidence//Not George Bush, L-Millz be da president
by Sam Page on Apr 28, 2009 10:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 























