How Improved Will The Mets Defense Be In 2010?
by Sam Page on Mar 30, 2010 12:41 PM EDT
Email
PrintThis post from John Dewan about the best projected defenses has been making rounds, mostly for calling the Red Sox the most improved team, with 87 runs gained in fielding value. Since the Mets didn't crack the most improved list, but likely couldn't replicate last year's abominable performance if they wanted to, I estimated 2010's squad in runs above average.
Firstbase
2009 UZR: 5.4
2010 projection: 3
It's hard to see Daniel Murphy and company going too far over 5+ runs in 2010, especially if Mike Jacobs or Chris Carter makes the team.
Secondbase
2009 UZR: -12.2
2010 projection: -10
With Luis Castillo and Alex Cora both coming back, there's not much room for improvement here. Castillo is supposedly working to improve his range at camp, but I won't hold my breath.
Shortstop
2009 UZR: -8.4
2010 projection: 0
We need Jose. Depending on how he plays and how well he plays, this position could be a source of huge improvement. At least Ramon Martinez is gone either way, though.
Thirdbase
2009 UZR: -10
2010 projection: -4
Like with most of David Wright's 2010, we're left hoping 2009 was an anomaly. It probably is, to a degree, so at least a modest rebound can be expected.
Right Field
2009 UZR: -6.4
2010 UZR: 0
It's hard to optimistic when much of the positive value in RF last year came from Ryan Church and the negative from Jeff Francoeur. Still, I'll take the over here, not necessarily because of Francoeur, but because Fernando Martinez is waiting in reserve, where Jeremy Reed and Gary Sheffield were last year.
Centerfield
2009 UZR: -9.5
2010 UZR: -10
Angel Pagan with Gary Matthews Jr. as backup is worrisome and it is hard to know what to expect from Beltran when he returns. If Carlos returns quickly and plays well, this number will obviously be different, so let's hope for that.
Left Field
2009 UZR: -6.3
2010 UZR: -8
I didn't expect the Mets to find a more-established left-fielder who could replace injured-Gary Sheffield and be just as bad, but Jason Bay just might. Here, his playing time could prevent players like Angel Pagan from mitigating against some of his poor play, like they did for Sheffield last year.
Adding up totals, that is -47 last season, second worst in the majors, and a projected -29 this coming season. An improvement of 18 runs, but still a pretty bad defensive team.
74 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I find it hard to believe
That Murphy is really the best player the Mets have on defense.
It will be interesting to see how Reyes and Wright come back, each from different scenarios. Reyes has potential to have a 7.5 UZR (as seen in 2007), but coming off an injury and a 0 UZR the year before I can see how it would remain at 0. Wright’s entire season last year was odd. Before 2009 he was getting about 4ish UZR fairly consistently (2 years), so to slip to -10 was odd. I’m guessing he will bring it back up to a 0 at least.
I’m also pretty surprised with centerfield. Last year Pagan had a -0.3 UZR. So, if he is starting, why does the number lean toward GMJ’s -13.9 UZR? Also, I’m not 100% sure Beltran is still the speedy, gold glove centerfielder of old. I’m sure he can still catch any ball near him, but getting to the far ones might be a struggle.
Oh well
perhaps the team will upgrade certain positions if they feel they’re in contention further down the line.
President of the Ramses Barden Fan Club
Mike Piazza?
"He's definitely mixing it into his repertoire. That's French for 'repertoire' " - Keith Hernandez
by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Mar 30, 2010 2:06 PM EDT up reply actions
That was 13 years ago
Under Omar, the only “big moves” they have made mid-season are Ollie and Luis Castillo, and most wouldn’t consider those big moves.
Ollie was a reactionary/throw-in move, anyway.
"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Mar 30, 2010 4:12 PM EDT up reply actions
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1849525
Yeah, no, that’s incorrect.
by Jamesir Bensonmum on Mar 30, 2010 2:22 PM EDT up reply actions
GAAAAAAAAAAK!
No you di’in’t…
Oh, the butcher and the baker and the people on the street: wheredotheygo?!?!?
Don't forget
this move to acquire an impact player:
by SoCal Metfan on Mar 30, 2010 6:42 PM EDT up reply actions
Luis Castill..
wait nevermind
President of the Ramses Barden Fan Club
by Hoyadestroya85 on Mar 30, 2010 2:38 PM EDT up reply actions
And considering how our most recent big move has worked out
we should all thank God for that.
"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'
it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.
Can't defense this, though...
Ollie feeding the gopher in PSL — 3 HR surrendered and a 5-1 deficit.
Oh, the butcher and the baker and the people on the street: wheredotheygo?!?!?
spring training stats
may mean nothing, but the msm is gonna be in full Mets headed-for-disaster headlines with the springs their starting pitchers have had, and even here we might feel impending doom. At least with Ollie it feels like normalcy, but Pelfrey’s spring gopheritis seems like, hey, he’s working on a new pitch, or Warthen made him move to the other side of the rubber. oops, that’s Figgy.
I am sticking with spring numbers are meaningless. Ollie sucks full time.
Maybe this is naive
but would there be a way to translate some of our defensive data into something like this:
“Last year, Beltran caught X% of fly balls that fell within Y feet of his point of departure, as compared to this other guy who caught only Z%”
it wouldn’t give proper credit for correct defensive positioning but it would give us a much more intuitive way to compare range. Almost like evaluating field goal kickers.
Hmm, it would also be imperfect because some fly balls take a more forgiving high arc than others, but that would shake out roughly the same for every fielder and the data would still be nice to know, right?
Infielders would be tougher.
*Better would be
“that fell outside of Y feet from his point of departure”
by Pack Bringley on Mar 30, 2010 2:28 PM EDT up reply actions
I had an idea like this last year and I was all into getting it done
All you need is time it takes to reach fielder and position and you can make a 3D map of range. There are two problems wind and positioning. The third problem that I soon realized is that Field/Fx stat is being mad so they can track every players movement on every play and then I lost all hope.
I think there is something like this.
The SAFE model from Ben Baumer (and two other people)‘s defensive presentation. Its a good overview of the past, current, and little bit of the future defensive systems. Here is the link, and I think it’s been posted here before.
What's a UZR?
"Never throw a slider to The Glider."
- Ed Charles, No. 5
That is a good article
but the graphic clearly shows 192 zones: (8 * (B to Y)).
I knew the sabremetrician pencil-necks were making it all up!
Posted this in a couple places but haven't gotten a good conversation out of it yet:
Just looking at Jose’s UZR/150 between 2007 and 2008 and I’m really starting to question the validity of UZR/150, at least how much weight we put on it.
In both seasons, Jose had almost exactly the same amount of chances. He actually played slightly less innings in 2008 and had as many chances.
The factors that go into UZR are outfield arm outs (doesn’t count here), double players above average, range above average, and error rate above average.
Here are the numbers from 2007 and 2008:
2007: 0.8, 1.8, 4.8 = 7.5 UZR
2008: 1.5, 1.8, -3.2 = 0 UZR
Now, as you can see, his double play rate actually went UP in 2008 and his range stayed the same. The difference was the error rate and in reality he only made FIVE more errors which really isn’t all that much over the course of a season. However, those five errors took him from 7.5 UZR to 0. Do those five errors REALLY make that much of a difference to turn him from a well above average shortstop to a league average shortstop?
UZR really doesn’t make sense to me.
Interesting
Perhaps a difference in average errors from 2007 to 2008?
by James Kannengieser on Mar 30, 2010 4:14 PM EDT up reply actions
I think
TotalZone helps explain the story. I was gonna post what TZ said, but I accidentally erased it. But here’s the link I found that should help us out.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/reyesjo01-field.shtml
I did this really quickly so it might not make sense
Errors by NL shortstops in:
2007: 300
2008: 276
This is not an insignificant decrease. Not committing errors was more valuable in 2007 than it was in 2008 — an error in 2008 was worse than an error in 2007, put another way. Jose’s errors went from 12 to 17, but we can’t just look at the increase of 5 errors as compared to a decrease in error runs of 8.0. The performance of an average shortstop has to also be considered because that is the UZR baseline.
by James Kannengieser on Mar 30, 2010 4:28 PM EDT up reply actions
Do you think
that the number of balls fielded(545 in 2007 compared to 525 in 2008) had a major effect in his UZR and TotalZone ratings?
I would think that would be balanced out by the 20 or so less innings. When it comes down to it, his range was exactly the same and his double plays actually went up. Yet the effect of those five extra errors brought him down seven points in UZR. That just seems like it’s overly weighted.
by Lunkwill Fook on Mar 30, 2010 4:48 PM EDT up reply actions
What do you think of my comment above?
About error runs being calculated based on the average NL shortstop in that season (and only that season). Gina’s comment below comparing it to offensive stats is a good parallel. Albert Pujols had a 190 OPS+ and 1.114 OPS in 2008. Ty Cobb had an identical OPS+ in 1914 but just a .979 OPS. Why? Because OPS+ is calculated based on league average performance, which was much lower in 1914 as compared to 2008. The same thing applies for UZR.
by James Kannengieser on Mar 30, 2010 4:59 PM EDT up reply actions
No, I buy that
And I understand the “relative” concept. It just still seems to me that 5 errors over the course of a season even given the average error rate of shortstops seems overly weighted in UZR calculation. I mean, isn’t the most important thing about UZR the idea of factoring in range as the most important quality of a shortstop?
There’s lots of UZR that doesn’t seem right to me. Before, I was just concerned how it was weighted in with WAR. It feels overly weighted there as well. It just seems to me that a few extra errors should compute as greatly in the calculations compared to, say, getting to a few extra balls or, in Jose’s case, completing more double plays.
by Lunkwill Fook on Mar 30, 2010 5:06 PM EDT up reply actions
If those errors actually cost those 7.5 runs, it's right though.
And as someone said above, that why you use multiple years. 5 more errors is a pretty big increase from 12, like 40%.
Yeah, a lot of it is over my head
And I imagine almost everyone’s too. I have no problem with how defense is weighted in WAR, conceptually. The problem is that UZR isn’t as reliable as wOBA in calculating runs above/below average. Hopefully there’ll be a more reliable metric in the future. I remember some NY Times article about the future of defensive stats that sounded pretty high-tech.
by James Kannengieser on Mar 30, 2010 5:28 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Hanley Ramirez test case
Like Reyes, he had almost identical innings, chances, etc. from 2007 to 2008. Hanley’s errors decreased from 24 to 22 between the two seasons. His UZR breakdown:
2007: 1.5, -13.1, -7.6
2008: 0.6, 2.4, -3.7
This jibes with the value of errors thing I wrote above. His errors decreased by just 2 but his error runs increased by +3.9.
I could be way off on this but it’s my initial thought.
by James Kannengieser on Mar 30, 2010 4:41 PM EDT up reply actions
That’s the kind of thing that’s killing me here in my understanding of UZR. Does it REALLY make sense that 2 errors over the course of a 162 game season makes that much of a difference? Or, in Jose’s case, 5? Does that really turn an above average shortstop into a mediocre one?
by Lunkwill Fook on Mar 30, 2010 4:47 PM EDT up reply actions
well that's also probably why
you’re not supposed to use one year worth of data to judge a players defense. I think you’re supposed to look at 2.5-3 seasons worth. And it’s not that Jose became mediocre it’s that he’s being judged vs short stops as a whole, so he became relatively worse compared to his peers. I mean it’s not that different from offensive stats, if a batter opsed. 800 one year and the avg batter opsed. 750 and he opsed .800 the next year but the avg batter .oposed 1.000 obviously he’d be less valuable the second year.
"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'
it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.
The difference is
People DO look at stats over the course of a year to make their judgments. If you look at Jose’s stats as a whole, he’s an above average shortstop. Ask around, people will tell you differently and part of it is numbers like UZR that have given him the shaft in the past year plus two months.
by Lunkwill Fook on Mar 30, 2010 4:54 PM EDT up reply actions
That's like judging a hitter on a third of a season.
No one (with a brain) would do that. People have to learn to adjust to defensive stats. Also, players’ offensive stats change drastically from year to year. David Wright is a good example. Are wOBA, OPS, and HRs “bad stats”? No, there is there a change in skill level and random fluctuation.
fangraphs
calculates WAR in part with UZR. People do “use” the seasonal stats even if they fluctuate and need larger sample sizes.
Actually, I am hoping Franklin Gutierrez bats .220 next year so no matter his UZR I won’t have to read about him so much.
yeah but WAR isn't a predictive stat
it just describes that particular season. He was a below average short stop for that year and his WAR reflects that. That doesn’t mean people should expect his WAR or UZR to be the same the following year.
"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'
it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.
I don't
But even as a measure of what has happened I don’t believe UZR to be a perfect judge of fielding. It’s atool and useful, but you need context.
It needs large sample sizes because you need a lot of examples before you can say someone should have converted so many balls into outs. In any given season it might say Reyes was negative 10 or what have you when actually he got to just as many balls as he would have in a year where he was positive 10. Cos, like, the exact same grounders ain’t hit to him every year. :)
I don't think
anyone believes UZR is a perfect judge of fielding. Just one set of data.
Personally, I like Dewan’s plus/minus, but it’s a lot less accessible, so I don’t reference it often.
by SoCal Metfan on Mar 30, 2010 6:47 PM EDT up reply actions
Not a fan of Franklin Gutierrez?
"He's definitely mixing it into his repertoire. That's French for 'repertoire' " - Keith Hernandez
by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Mar 30, 2010 5:20 PM EDT up reply actions
he's a great fielder
I just think the fielding and jack Z. love-fest goes a bit overboard. If he went back to his hovering around .300 wOBA of 2008 I wouldn’t shed a tear. I should say that i am an Indians fan when it comes to the A.L. It still hurts.
I don't think the Jack Z love fest is just because of Guitterez though
there’s also turning so-so prospects into Cliff Lee, the awesome draft they had this year, Betancourt for a legit prospect and the fact that even if Guitterez goes back to a .300 wOBA he’ll still be an above average player they basically got for nothing. And the fact he basically completely fixed the hot hot mess Bavasi left in a few months, which no one was expecting to happen. Even if they don’t win 90 games this year there’s still WAY better off than where they were when he started. He got rid of almost all the awful contracts and restocked the farm system depleted by short sighted trades in a little less than a years time.
"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'
it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.
And the Gutierrez love isn't just stats.
That scouts, including Jack Z., loved him and the stats backed it up.
oh, for sure
Like I said, he is a great fielder. Death to Flying Things.
He's been great
no doubt, and bavasi was one of the worst. Amaro got fleeced on Cliff Lee. T
here just seems to be an aspect of overkill. But it is a great division to watch right now with all of those teams promising.
I would think so
James has only been with the Sox how long?
Jack Z. also has the traditional scouting background as well. Combo dude. renaissance man.
and Beane
Has been doing his thing for awhile, and guys who worked for him too. Actually, he’s taken the cheap D too a high level too.
There’s no doubt in my mind that sabermetrics work. The Twins, for example, have been very successful on a low budget for a fairly long stretch, and I am sure they use it, but they haven’t been identified as that type of front office.
Admittedly, Jack Z. has engineered a fast turnaround, and he is the new guy, the new story. The results matched the process rather quickly, but it doesn’t always work quite that way.
Actually I'm pretty certain the twins are one of
the few teams without an official stats department. They just scout like hell.
"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'
it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.
well
they are successful as well, so I guess there are lots of ways to skin a cat. Beane gets a book and Jack Z. is the alternasphere darling. The Twins don’t have a sales hook. Good but old school.
Yeah but few teams scout like they doi
I’d say probably no other team even comes close to them when it comes to scouting. To the point that they’ve admitted they focus so much on scouting their own guys they don’t have nearly as much information on other teams players, to the point that they pretty much only look at players outside their organization if they’re under team control (and can be non-tendered if after 1-2 years of scouting them they don’t like what they see ), or signed to deals for 2 or less years. because they’re almost literally flying blind with them.
Also they consult stats too, when the stats and scouts don’t disagree they find the scout and make him back up his claim and explain why he thinks the numbers don’t agree rather than just following scouting blindley.
"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'
it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.
But no one points to the Twins
and says their long stretch of success validates scouting. People do say that about Jack Z. and sabermetrics, even if it is only a year at .500 (admittedly a vast advancement).
I don’t believe sabermetrics really needs validating, although I get the desire from that part of the fan community.
Jack Z. of course also was excellent in leading the Brewers scouting (plus he has the Mets connection).
He has done a good job, but there has been some luck involved. He was lucky to a degree Branyan held up as long as he did given his back history. He was lucky with Aardsma to a degree (his xfip was much higher, and that is with his control substantially improving). Both good risk reward choices by him. Same with Gutierrez who was valuable as you said even without hitting, but his hitting really bounced back, especially considering he was moving to Petco (and I have to say his minor league batting numbers are a little better than I realized).
These 3 players all reinforce things sabermetric-oriented people like to point out, correctly: relievers are mercurial and their results fluctuate, plus they aren’t as important as some folks may think (Aardsma/Putz); batting average isn’t as important as some people think (Branyan); great fielding saves runs (Gutierrez). Of course, lots of “old school” baseball fans realize a lot of this as well.
The mariners process was excellent and the results. If the results had not worked out so well, he at least cleared the brush. Yet I still think a bit too much is made of this as a point in an argument about stats.
This year, the Ms signed garko and now look set to release him, to keep Mike Sweeney. Only a $500k hit. They got Kotchman to play first. I’d like to see Kotchman live up to some of his old clippings, actually. They made a nice moving signing Figgins I think, and an interesting one flipping positions with Figgins and Lopez. Figgins likely has more range at second, although that position is tougher on player’s health.
I think the problem is
you don’t think stats need validating. Obviously here they don’t but we make up like <5% of mets fans, go to mets blog or a mainstream sports blog and you’ll see the VAST majority of fans, and most of the media, believe stats are bullocks and follow scouting blindly. No one points to the twins to validate scouting because the validity of true scouting has never been questioned by about 90% of the sports population. Even here true scouting hasn’t been questioned, we almost always defer to scouting for prospects, what’s questioned is “scouting” like the mets do where they assume Bay is a good fielder because 3 years ago he played centerfield before his knees exploded. Which isn’t a scouting vs stats argument, it’s a crappy excuse scouting by the mets do that’s questioned. The twins model would NEVER allow that type of thinking to influence them to sign a player to a 5 year deal. If their scouts haven’t seen the player a crapton of times in recent history and can’t accurate and convincingly make his argument based on a large of amount of recent"data" they either won’t touch the player or they’ll only go for him at an extremely low cost for a <2 year deal.
"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'
it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.
Fan scouts can see that Bay isn't a good fielder.
The Mets’ Bay scouting is completely contradictory to the stats. Scouting is often subjective, which stats aren’t. I think scouting is great for the smaller details. Even basic stats can tell whether a player is good or bad. Scouting can tell things like more finely predict how a player will perform in the future, or something like why a player had a down year.
yeah but the media refuses to admit
the Sox use stats, same with the Yankees, they’re convinced they build rosters based entirely on heart and grit and rbiz.
"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'
it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.
James is right,
the error rate against the rest of the NL probably lead to this drastic change in UZR. UZR is not really that good of a metric for infielders anyway because it only takes ground balls into account.
At least thats what I read on Fangraphs.
I would think total zone would be worse
just because it’s not as granular and treats all gb/fbs/lds equally, or I believe it does. I imagine +/- is probably more reliable for infielders.
"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'
it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.
MGL has posts on his blog describing basically all of his reasoning for what he does with UZR.
There is a reason he doesn’t include line drives and pop flies. It just added too much noise and not enough information.
A Bad Defensive Team....
…. as well as a shaky offensive team, and very shaky pitching. Basically, the Mets are bad this year. The Omar & Jerry Super Sunshine Show will be ending this year. The Mets missed their window of opportunity. I hope for the sake of Wright & Reyes there can be one more window, either with the Mets or some other team.
I’m calling for another 90+ losses this year. Jerry doesn’t make it through the season, and Omar will be fired at the end of the season, at the latest.
"We praise or blame as one or the other affords more opportunity for exhibiting our power of judgment." Friedrich Nietzsche, "Human,All Too Human" (1878)
Ramon Martinez
A living, breathing defensive statistical anomaly.
John Olerud, Hall of Famer. Got a nice ring to it.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Amazin' Avenue
Related FanShots on Amazin' Avenue
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Will Smith shows why making your big league debut at Yankee Stadium is less than ideal
- Steinbrenners selling the Yankees? Family denies New York Daily News report
- The Juice: Brandon Phillips flip sets up Todd Frazier walkoff for Reds
- Josh Hamilton makes great catch, destroys part of fence at Safeco Field
- Something’s amiss at the Big 12 championship
