Tango on Baseball Archives

UZR 2003 Previews (December 18, 2003)

MGL sez:

Based on the newly completed UZR's (I finished the 03 ones and updated previous years), here are the players who have cost or saved their teams the most runs over the last 4 years (00-03). It includes every position each player has played. A player's primary position is the position at which he had the most chances.

Name, primary position, UZR runs, runs per 162 "games"

("games" is that player's opportunities divided by the average number of opportunities per game at each position.)

Worst:

1. B. Williams, 8, -82, -25
2. D. Jeter, 6, -82, -26
3. P. Burrell, 7, -66, -20
4. D. Glanville, 8, -64, -22
5. S. Finley, 8, -63, -20
6. C. Guzman, 6, -60, -19
7. A. Ramirez, 5, -60, -17
8. J. Cruz Jr., 8, -57, -24
9. T. Fryman, 5, -53, -25
10. L. Rivas, 4, -52, -26

Dishonorable mention (primary position in parentheses):

Lawton (RF), S. Green (RF), R. Alomar (2B), G. Williams(CF), Sheffield (RF)

Best:

1. D. Erstad, 8, 128, 41
2. S. Rolen, 5, 94, 26
3. M. Cameron, 8, 90, 25
4. P. Polanco, 4, 84, 31
5. D. Bell, 5, 78, 29
6. G. Jenkins, 7, 77, 31
7. T. Helton, 3, 75, 18
8. R. Hildago, 8, 70, 22
9. A. Kennedy, 4, 70, 22
10. M. Kotsay, 8, 67, 23

Honorable mention:

Higginson (LF), A. Jones (CF), L. Gonzalez (LF), Beltre (3B), Damon (CF), Chavez (3B)

--posted by TangoTiger at 12:07 AM EDT

Posted 12:17 p.m., December 18, 2003 (#1) - FJM
I must say I find this very surprising. What do you make of the fact that not one SS made the Top 10 and only one made the Top 17? Don't they get more opps. per game than anyone else? And no catchers on either list?????
Can you post the Top 10/Bottom 10 at each position, or at least at the key spots (2, 4, 5 and 8)?

Posted 12:27 p.m., December 18, 2003 (#2) - tangotiger
I'm not surprised, since the baselines are different. The average SS is a much better fielder than the average LF. However, how much better can the top SS be from an already pretty good fielding "average" SS?

Posted 3:39 p.m., December 18, 2003 (#3) - MGL
Much apologies as I completely screwed up the above numbers (the best and worst). I double counted some years for some players. Please ignore them! They are all wrong.

I have asked Tango to put the new charts up. Hopefully that will be soon! Again, I apologize! That's what I get for working at 3 in the AM!

Posted 4:22 p.m., December 18, 2003 (#4) - tangotiger
Updated.

Posted 4:25 p.m., December 18, 2003 (#5) - MGL
Ditto Tango's sentiments. I don't include catchers in the UZR ratings. If I did, I suppose I could look at bunts, squibs, and popups, but alas I don't. In my Super-lwts which I will also publish, I have a defensive rating for catchers, which includes PB, SB/CS and errors. None of these are adjusted for the pool of pitchers a catcher catches, although they obviously play a role in those numbers.

Tango has a nice defensive metric for catchers which DOES control for pitchers, and which includes some other things as well. He and I have been having some discussion and some disagreement about the appropriate way to present and combine the individual values in his metric.

Speaking of combining, Tango pointed out to me - and it is worth stating here - that there is some potential confusion/misreprentation in combining a fielder's UZR's at different positions, as I did above. For example, a player, like Cruz Jr., may have very good UZR numbers in RF, and relatively poor ones in CF. Aside the random fluctuations in herent in any sample UZR rating, this is quite normal, as the amount of defnsive skill needed to play an average CF is neceassily much higher than the amount needed to play RF. In fact, according to Tango, there is about a 10 runs per year difference, which is a lot. IOW, if a player's UZR is 0 runs in CF (an average CF), his equivalent UZR in RF would be +10 (a well-above average CF'er). Therefore, every defensive position can and should be adjusted to fairly compare it to any other defensive position to get everyone on a "level playing field." To put it another way, one can "neutralize" every player's UZR by doing the appropriae adjustment, depending on their defensive position or positions. For example, and again, according to Tango, you can normalize everyone to an average CF by adding 10 runs per 162 to a SS or C's UZR, 5 runs for a 2B'man and 3B'man, and subtract 10 runs for 1B, LF, and RF. This is a rough guide.

Anyway I did not do any of that. I simply took each player's UZR's at all of the positions they happen to have played and added them up. Each player's UZR at each position is of course as compared to an average player at that position. Again, for example, Cruz Jr. appears to be an average or better RF'er, and an average or worse CF'er. If Cruz were on the lists above, his overall number would simply represent how he was in CF as compared to an average CF'er plus how he was in RF, comapred to an average RF'er. Tango doesn't seem to like adding these 2 numbers together, but I see no problem with that, as long as the above explanation is given (and I'm not sure that such a detailed explanation was even necessary).

BTW, even though I do all the work, Tango has a much better handle than I do on how to interpret the UZR stuff. So any criticism should be directed at him, and any praise to me! :)

Here are the top and bottom 5 players (in total UZR runs and NOT UZR runs per 162 "games"), AT EACH POSITION, as requested:

First base:

Worst

F.Mcgriff -45
M. Vaughn -41
P. Konerko -30
J. Thome -25
A. Galarraga -25

Best

T. Helton 75
T. Martinez 45
T. Lee 40
D. MientkiwieczxCxCv 31
T. Zeile 28
J. Bagwell 28

Second base:

Worst

L. Rivas -51
R. Alomar -48
T. Walker -25
D. Easley -24
M. Young -24

Best

A. Kennedy 70
P. Reese 40
P. Polanco 36
J. Hairston 36
M. Grudzalvzbvczbvnvb 31

Shortstop:

Worst

D. Jeter -82
C. Guzman -60
T. Womack -40
D. Cruz -31
C. Gomez -24
J. Rollins -24

Best

R. Sanchez 47
A. Rodriguez 42
J. Valentin 41
D. Eckstein 41
M. Bordick 40

Third base:

Worst

A. Ramirez -60
T. Fryman -53
F. Tatis -35
M. Lowell -28
G. Norton -27

Best

S. Rolen 94
D. Bell 77
A. Beltre 50
E. Chavez 49
J. Cirillo 44
R. Ventura 44

Left field:

Worst

P. Burrell -59
C. Floyd -50
B. Grieve -42
D. Ward -40
G. Sheffield -38

Best

G. Jenkins 77
B. Higginson 57
L. Gonzalez 53
R. White 38
T. O'leary 31
D. Erstad 31

Center field:

Worst

B. Williams -82
D. Glanville -64
S. Finley -63
J. Cruz Jr. -58
M. Grissom -47

Best

D. Erstad 95
M. Cameron 90
A. Jones 61
M. Kotsay 53
R. Rivera 48

Right field:

Worst

S. Green -49
M. Alou -39
A. Bell -33
M. Ordonez -30
M. Stairs -29

Best

T. Nixon 44
J. Guillen 39
J. Dye 37
R. Hidalgo 28
V. Guerrero 28

It seems to me that if a player is more than x amount of standard deviations from average, either good or bad, they should be moved to another position. The following players from above would appear to excellent candidates to move either left or right down the defensive spectrum:

S. Green (RF)
Erstad and Cameron to SS? (CF)
B. Williams (CF)
G. Jenkins (LF)
S. Rolen (3B)
D. Bell (3B)
D. Jeter (SS)
A. Kennedy (2B)
T. Helton (1B)

Posted 5:47 p.m., December 18, 2003 (#6) - Guy
For newcomers, could you post link(s) to an explanation of UZRs and past results? Thanks.

Posted 5:59 p.m., December 18, 2003 (#7) - J Cross
MGL, I think that fielding as an OF and fielding as an infielder are somewhat unrelated skills correlated only in that they both rely on mobility.

I'd make the spectrums look like this:

CFLF/RF-->1bDH
or
SS2b3b1bDH
or
C-->1BDH

There is the rare middle infield or catcher to outfield route but I think that should be reserved for young players and Craig Biggio.

C'mon, wouldn't moving Cameron to SS be a terrible idea?

Of your suggestions:

-Shawn Green to first looks like it's going to happen.
-Erstad/Cameron should stay in center.
-B. Williams looks to move to DH or a corner OF spot.
-G. Jenkins does look like he warrants a shot in center.
-Rolen played short in the minors, right?
-David Bell as a second baseman?
-Jeter's an odd case in that I think he'd be equally hopeless at 2nd or 3rd. I'd try him in LF/RF and 1B buy maybe he's just an athletic DH.
-A. Kennedy could probably handle SS
-How much does it increase Helton's value if he can play a solid 3b?

Posted 6:00 p.m., December 18, 2003 (#8) - J Cross
damn, html messed up my formatting.

Posted 6:19 p.m., December 18, 2003 (#9) - Robert S
Interesting stuff, MGL.

Believe it or not, but the media and most fans in Arizona talk about Steve Finley like he's the second coming in CF.

Posted 6:27 p.m., December 18, 2003 (#10) - OCF
There's a very good reason why you couldn't move Erstad to SS - check out which hand he wears his glove on. There is talk in Anaheim, reported in the papers, about moving Erstad to 1B. That may not set any records for missing the point, but does cause the jaw to drop a notch or two.

Posted 6:33 p.m., December 18, 2003 (#11) - J Cross
Moving Erstad to 1b seems like the best way to remove all value he has as a baseball player.

Posted 6:39 p.m., December 18, 2003 (#12) - David Smyth
With all due respect, this idea of position changes based on UZRs is, for the most part, quite amateurish. Each position demands a different body-type and physical skill set. Just because a guy is a great CFer does not mean in the slightest that he could be a capable performer at SS. And even a good/great corner OFer does not likely possess the essential skills necessary for CF. Jenkins is a 29 yr old white guy who steals 3 bases per year. Yes, I know J Edmonds seems to do OK in CF, but when contemplating a position change for a player in mid-career, I think the evidence that he can sucessfully make the switch should be almost overwhelming. What to do with Jeter? He has the body-type and essential physical skills of a modern SS. If you move him to a lesser position, you will be wasting some of those skills and losing the advantage of his bat at SS. My instinct is that, as long as he can "handle" the SS position (on visual observation) he should probably stay there. Sometimes you simply have to take the good with the bad. I have a hard time imagining that Jeter would be more valuable, overall, at another position.

I am a bit surprised to see A Ramirez so bad at 3B. I have only seen Aramis in the last half of 2003 as the Cubs 3Bman. He seems to have a good initial reaction to the ball, good reflexes, and a strong arm. I am, of course, aware that he makes "too many" errors. I suppose that the data is not available, but it would be interesting to see his UZR data for just his Cubs stint. I have no problem with him at 3rd next year, hoping they can work with him to cut down his errors. He seems to be a talented hitter, certainly more talented than the typical 3Bman. I'll take him on the likelihood that he is entering his prime and might put it all together in a hurry.

Posted 7:10 p.m., December 18, 2003 (#13) - J Cross
this idea of position changes based on UZRs is, for the most part, quite amateurish.

...

Jenkins is a 29 yr old white guy who steals 3 bases per year

Denying position changes based on race, however, is apparently very professional.

Posted 7:15 p.m., December 18, 2003 (#14) - Michael Humphreys
MGL--thanks for the preview. Per David's point re: Aramis Ramirez's error rates, have you given any more thought to how the "errors" and "range" components of UZR work together? In one of the DRA threads, I think you mentioned that the "errors" factor led to some significant variances in shortstop ratings--Rey Ordonez in particular.

Tango's recent posting of Custom Linear Weights reminded me that errors are only .02 runs worse than allowing a single. Though there might be a non-linear impact to having atrocious error rates, the run-weight for errors suggest that, given two fielders with equal "range" (plays successfully made out of total BIP in his zones), someone would have to reach (and flub) 50 extra BIP to hurt his team by only 1 run. Or, to take a Mike Bordick type of example, a player who *effectively* has league-average plays made given zone opportunities by *avoiding* making the 25 or so errors typically made by an average shortstop would be only .5 runs better than the guy with average pure range and surehandedness.

Have you thought of generating range-only infielder ratings to see how they might look? Aramis might come out OK.

Regarding moving around fielders: since Biggio just doesn't have the range to handle CF, has anyone thought of moving him back to catcher, where he began his career?

Posted 7:18 p.m., December 18, 2003 (#15) - J Cross
If the difference between replacement shortstops and replacemnt DHs is ~15 runs/year wouldn't anyone who will liklely be 15 defensive runs below replacement at shortstop be more valuable as a DH? Jeter fits into this category easily. Of course, you can only have one DH.

Posted 7:18 p.m., December 18, 2003 (#16) - David Smyth
Well, if you haven't noticed, most CFers are black. And most sprinters are black. And most wide receivers are black. And on and on. Without having personal knowledge of the speed of Jenkins, I have to form a guess based on what I do know. If you think that is somehow "racist" (meaning that I don't like blacks or some such), then you are an a*shole who needs to take a reality pill.

Posted 7:22 p.m., December 18, 2003 (#17) - J Cross
David,

I don't think it's racist. I would have used the word stupid. If you think that race is a better indicator of whether someone can play centerfield than UZR's in leftfield are then you're an idiot. If the best information you have about Jenkins speed is his race then you're not a very knowledgeable baseball fan. Why don't you act stupid then huffy somewhere else.

Posted 7:23 p.m., December 18, 2003 (#18) - tangotiger
As per Primer policy, I can (and have) removed posts that don't move the discussion forward. I try not to, and I would ask that you police yourselves. Trying to clean up a mess is a waste of time, compared to generating interesting discussion.

I had a thread on race/athletics. I'll bring that one forward, and you can discuss that particular issue there.

Posted 7:48 p.m., December 18, 2003 (#19) - David Smyth
Tango, you are the voice of maturity. I will divorce myself from this escalation, assuming that it is reciprocated, (even tho a good back and forth can be fun to those of us who are still somewhat immature). But instead of bringing some old thread forward, why don't you simply comment on whether you think that my original comment, that knowing that a player is white, 29 years old, and stealing 3 bases per year, is or is not statistically meaningful in guesstimating whether he is a likely candidate to sucessfully man CF. And I even mentioned Edmonds, to show that I understand that there are exceptions. Erstad is another example. But he, even though white, has better speed indicators than does Edmonds or Jenkins.

Posted 7:58 p.m., December 18, 2003 (#20) - tangotiger
Bill James' study was incredibly eye openiing to me. I would love to redo that study, if I ever get my hands on them. Based on the James study, race does have an impact. Whether that is because blacks are faster, or whether blacks are chosen more for their speed than comparable whites (selective sampling) I don't know.

Tom Timmerman, I believe, had a great study on this issue as well.

Posted 8:23 p.m., December 18, 2003 (#21) - David Smyth
---"If you think that race is a better indicator of whether someone can play centerfield than UZR's in leftfield are then you're an idiot."

Well, it is entirely possible/probable that, in the corner OF positions, raw speed is much less important than certain other skills. It is not necessarily a continuous scale, with speed and other skills needed in the same proportion. And a look at the speed/skills ratio of the players who actually man these positions suggests that the speed/skills ratio is different in CF . So, after a player has manned CF for a certain amount of time, I am happy to ignore race, age, and other "extranneous" factors in favor of his actual UZRs. But before the fact, I want to know whether a player is a good corner OFer primarily because of speed, or because of other skills. In the case of Jenkins, an admittedly cursory evaluation suggests that his success in LF is not speed-based. As J Cross mentions, I am not particularly knowledgable about him, and I am quite willing to be corrected if he is, in fact, a speed guy who simply chooses not to steal, and was shuffled off to LF along the way by his minor league teams, perhaps for no other reason than that he is white and has power.

Posted 8:57 p.m., December 18, 2003 (#22) - David Smyth
---"As per Primer policy, I can (and have) removed posts that don't move the discussion forward. I try not to, and I would ask that you police yourselves."

Tango, you go ahead and do whatever you think is consistent with "Primer policy". But I will respond to someone's post as I see fit, without regard for whether it is consistent with Primer policy. As you have seen by my last post, I chose to address the "substance" of J Cross's post, after a momentary flash of anger in my prior response. We are capable of "policing" ourselves, and do not really need or want you to do it for us. You have better things to do....

Posted 9:58 p.m., December 18, 2003 (#23) - MGL
I have read many of both DS's and J. Cross' posts, and they are both big contributors to this site as well as thoughtful and intelligent analysts. I think emotion got the better of both. I've been there before. FWIW, I don't think DS meant anything "racial" with that comment. In fact, I didn't even notice it as such.

A lot of good points (and a lot of overstated points) about UZR and changing positions and changing positions in general.

BTW, I was kidding about moving Cameron or Erstad to SS although I did indeed forget about Erstad being LH. Perhaps he would have been an IF'er if not for that.

Now don't forget that Tango's UZR conversions or adjustments are based on players who have played different positions. He did not just make them up or make some assumptions about what happens when you move a player across the "defensive spectrum." That is an important point because that means that yes, we can make some pretty good assumptions, on the average, about what will happen when we move a player from, say CF to RF, or SS to 3B.

Of course, that doesn't mean that these "conversion factors" hold true for every player, by any stretch of the imagination. Common sense alone tells us that certain players are more suited to certain positions than others and that certain players may do particularly well at one posiotion and particularly poorly at another position, regardless of what the UZR conversions try to tell us.

I would be careful, however, about making assumptions about players, like "Jeter sucks at SS (which we all pretty much agree), but that he would not be any better at 2B or 3B. I've seen him as much as anybody I suppose and I can't think of any compelling reasons why that may or may not be true. I think you have to assume that if you moved him to 2B or 3B (or even CF), that he would pick up the usual "conversion" points in UZR runs. Maybe not of course.

Same for Genkins. Although he is a white guy with few steals, he must be doing something to make him a great left fielder and that something has to be something to do with speed, quickness or "jumps." Again, there is no reason why any great LF'er cannot be a very good CF'er. Unless Jenkins' high UZR in left is, or substantially is, a statistical fluke, which is always possible, he must be "fast" in the outfield (I put fast in quotes to mean and/or quick and/or gets good jumps), which means he potentially has the skills to be a good CF'er.

I agree that there may not be that much correlation between IF and OF skills, however there is SOME, as certainly speed, quickness, and agility are requisites for the entire OF, as well as SS and 2B, and sure helps at third and first as well. I would think that all CF'ers combined are going to do a lot better at SS than all LF'ers and RF'er combined.

As far as actually moving a player from one posiiton to another, by definition, you [almost] HAVE to move a player if he is that far from average at his regular position, notwithstanding politics. The only legitimate reason NOT to move him, other than politics and the fact that you temporarily might not have someone to replace him, is if he is particularly suited to that position OR unsuited to other positions. If in fact Jeter would not pick up 5 or 10 runs by moving him to another position, then yes, there is no point in moving him, other than to DH, which you can't do for politicial reasons, at least for another 5-10 years.

The bottom line (as the person who mentioned the 15 runs and SS and DH suggests) is if you are a team, you have to do all the permuations and calculations such that you put players in optimal positions, given their probable defensive value at each position and their offensive value. You have to keep in mind that a run saved does NOT equal a run earned - the former is slightly more valuable, and of course, politics (keeping players and fans happy) is always a consideration.

MH, I have no idea what you are talking about with errors. As you say, an error is indeed worth around what a missed ball (a hit) is worth. In fact, I think STATS ZR lumps errors and hits together, which is perfectly proper. I don't for mostly accounting reasons. The only difference is that: one or the other may have a different luck/skill ratio and one may have a greater sample error due to the methodology (i.e., more or less regression when converting observed values to estimates of true values or projections).

UZR does keep errors (hands) and range separate and I usuallly just combione the two. One reason is that almost all of the variation among fielders at a position is range and not errors. There are occasionally some exceptions, like a lot of Bordick's year in and year out value is in "hands" (errors), and as I did state one time, R. Ordonez fluctuated wildly in errors for a few years for some or for no reason at all.

Interestingly (again, another anecdotal example of how bad observation is), A. Ramirez was -5 total UZR runs (-14 per 162) with the Cubs and +2/+3 with Pittsburgh (the difference is probably not enought to "see" - in fact, I would venture to say that we don't ever "see" the differences in player's UZR's. We only "see" differences in "technique" which may or may not correlate well with a player's true defensive talent. And of course, unfortunately, we see and mentally note "great" plays and "bonehead" plays, both of which probably have little to do with a player's overall defense, as measured by UZR.

A. Ramirez, as we can surpmise from looking at his error numbers or his fielding %, was one of those rare players who had decent range and atrocious error numbers. His UZR total range in 2003 was +4 runs while his total error UZR was =8 runs! In 02, it was -23 and -3, and in 01 it was -21 and -1, and in 00, in limited time, iot was -5 and -4. It appears as if Aramis is a geninely atrocious third baseman, both in range and in hands, although it is possible that his range is getting better and is evidenced by his 03 range UZR. Honestly, I have no idea what the proper weights are for combining a player's historical UZR's in order to project their future UZR, although I suspect it is something like OPS, or 5/4/3 plus regression...

Posted 10:01 p.m., December 18, 2003 (#24) - tangotiger
I was more talking about the other post I deleted, though calling one person stupid is close to a line.

and do not really need or want you to do it for us. You have better things to do....

I'll do it for myself, because I enjoy coming here reading intelligent, articulate, inquisitive, funny, silly posts. I have no desire to let this place be a free-for-all. Everyone here is a guest, and this place is supposed to be a place that people want to come to. Think of me as the Cheers bouncer who'll throw anyone out who needs to sober up. If I have to waste my time doing this, I'll get another job. This issue is not up for discussion, so let's please drop it.

Posted 10:03 p.m., December 18, 2003 (#25) - MGL
Last paragraph, =8 should be -8.

Posted 11:26 p.m., December 18, 2003 (#26) - J Cross
David,

I'm sorry, I do think I got ticked and let that get the best of me. I didn't mean to imply racism or anything like that with my first post quoting you. It was meant as a gentle proding but also to point out how you discarded what seems to me to be good evidence of CF ability (LF UZR's) with the use of what I believe to be poor evidence (race) and untested evidence (SB's). If there's some evidence that race is a predictor of CF success (I saw the reference to the James study but I've never seen the study) then I stand corrected to some degree. Anyway, I just got ticked after the "reality pill" comment. End of a long day of work, I guess.

Anyway, the tragedy of it all is that this dispute detracted from good research and an interesting thread.

some thoughts:

This may come from my own bias as an infielder who never had much interest in shagging flies but I would guess that outfield ability is more highly correlated than infield ability. I think of OF play as 1) see the ball well off the bat, 2) speed and, to a lesser degree, 3) throwing arm. Ofcourse, I think of infield play as much more involved. Basically, I'd be surprised if an excellent leftfield ability didn't convert to centerfield and vice-versa. I have to admit that I haven't seen much of Geoff Jenkins myself. My feelings here probably aren't too interesting. The point is - can we test this (or did you)? Is there enough data to know how well defense in one position correlates to defense in another for each position swap?

MGL - thanks for the plug. (hijack b/c I don't know where to post this) I was looking for the data on platoon splits I believe you posted a few days ago. My idea is that if it's safe to assume that a player has the same platoon splits as everyone else we could adjust his season line based on the composition of pitchers he faced. If a lefty was platooned and faced 90% righties instead of the normal 70% (?) maybe his numbers should be adjusted down to reflect his true ability. Everbody loves a new stat adjustment. Not sure if this adjustment would be big enough to matter but it might be larger than the "quality of opposition" adjustment.

Posted 11:58 p.m., December 18, 2003 (#27) - MGL
If a lefty was platooned and faced 90% righties instead of the normal 70% (?) maybe his numbers should be adjusted down to reflect his true ability.

Yes, yes, of course it should. For my payer projections and my offensive ratings in SUper-lwts, I adjust for quuality and handedness of opponent pitchers. For most players, especially ful-time ones, it is no big deal. But of course if a player is being platooned, then yes, his overall abilty (versus all handedness pitchers) is going to be quite different that his sample stats would suggest.

Everbody loves a new stat adjustment.

Uh, I don't know about that, unless you define "everybody" as "nobody."

For projection purposes and estimating ability or context-neutral value (all basically the same thing), yes, one should take a player's complete sample stats and do all the adjustments (park, opponents, age etc.) and come out with a neutral, normalized stats, be it OPS, lwts or individual components, which represents that player's value or projection if they played on a league average team in a league average park, versus the league average %'s of left and righty pitchers. From there you can do anything you want. If you want to project how that player would do in a platoon role, you do exactly the same thing (you DON'T look at their sample splits!) - come up with am overall projection - and then adjust that projection using league a average platoon ratio if the player is a RHB, or a unique paltoon tatio for that player if the player is a LHB. And that unique platoon ratio for LHB's must be computed by taking that players multi-year sample platoon ratio and heavily (like 75% or more, depending upon sample size) regressin git towards a leage average platoon ratio for LHB's. You might even be better off just using a league average platoon ratio for all LHB's, as you would for RHB's. It would be like DIPS for platoon ratios. It is definitely BETTER to use a league average ratio for LHB's than to use that batter's actual sample platoon ratio, if those are your only choices (for some reason you can't or don't want to do a regression).

The big mistake that almost everyone does, even some astute analysts and so-called sabermetricians is to quote or use a player's sample platoon ratio or sample splits to discuss, analyze or justify a platoon situation. If a playe has sample splits that are around league average anyway, then that is fine of ocurse, But if a player has an extreme split one way or another, that is a huge mistake!

For example, let's say a RHB had an overall OPS of .763 in around 600 PA's over the last 2 or 3 years - pretty average. Let's also say that his OPS versus lefties was .864 in around half of those PA's and .666 versus RHP. He is obviously being platooned a lot.

It is a mistake to look at his .864 versus LHP and to say that he is likely to hit around that in the future versus lefties, as if the .666 tells you nothing about his overall batting ability! Basically since this payer is a RHB, we assume that he has a league average true platoon ratio, which means that our best estimate of how he will hit versus lefites in the future is simply .763 times 1.09 (league aveage OPS ratio platoon ratio for RHB), or .832, a far cry from his sample OPS versus lefties of .864 since half of his sample PA's were against lefties and half versus righties. I am not including regressions in these projections or age adjustments or anything like that.

BTW, this exact player is Tony Graffanino who is the poster boy for a RHB who should be platooned. What I am saying is that he should not be platooned any more or less than any other RHB with an overall OPS of .763 (adjusted for the number of RHP and LHP he faced). IOW, a player's sample splits (at least for RHB's) should have NO BEARING on whether they should be platooned or not! The only thing that should be considered is their overall OPS projection. If it is low enough and he has other good qualities, like defense and baserunning, the you might want to consider platooning him, if it is cost effective to tie up 2 players for one slot in the BO...

Posted 12:02 a.m., December 19, 2003 (#28) - MGL
BTW, this exact player is Tony Graffanino who is the poster boy for a RHB who should be platooned

What I meant was he is used a poster boy by those uninformed (about how actual platoon ratios work) people I was talking about...

Posted 4:55 a.m., December 19, 2003 (#29) - Dave
MGL, do you think Gary Sheffield or Bernie Williams would make the better defensive right fielder. It seems odd to me that the Yankees are considering making Bernie Williams a designated hitter when Gary Sheffield is a very bad right fielder. Do you think that it is possible (or even likely) that Williams would become an average or above right fielder if put in that position.

Posted 7:53 a.m., December 19, 2003 (#30) - tangotiger
Is there enough data to know how well defense in one position correlates to defense in another for each position swap?

See the "UZR multiple positions" thread that I brought forward yesterday. It's this week's "Required Reading".

Posted 11:04 a.m., December 19, 2003 (#31) - Rally Monkey
"Moving Erstad to 1b seems like the best way to remove all value he has as a baseball player."

I pretty much agree. The reason they are considering this, though, is because of his injuries which may prevent him from being able to play the OF anymore. If he's able to run I'm sure he'll be in CF.

Posted 12:00 p.m., December 19, 2003 (#32) - tangotiger
Rally, can you point us to an article that discusses his injury in particular?

Posted 2:17 p.m., December 19, 2003 (#33) - MGL
Do you think that it is possible (or even likely) that Williams would become an average or above right fielder if put in that position.

It's possible, but no it is extrememly unlikely. Given that Bernie should pick up a few (5-10) runs in UZR in right, yes, it is true that Sheffield may not be much better, if at all, than Bernie.

The problem with Bernie playing RF is that his arm is atrocious for a CF. I don't think that a manager would dare put him in right...

Posted 2:46 p.m., December 19, 2003 (#34) - Michael Humphreys
MGL, I think I got the range/errors point down after re-reading your articles this past spring. Basically, you treat each ROE as a play made in the zone when calculating the number of plays made above or below the league average rate in the zone. Then you calculate the ROE above or below the league average rate given the number of BIP chances taken. Since ROE have virtually the same weight as hits allowed (at least in the infield), the total runs should come out to almost exactly the same as plays made given total BIP chances in the zone. But it's probably worth disaggregating if the data is available anyway. Not sure what the "denominator" is for non-ROE errors, but they're so small that it probably doesn't matter much.

Have you ever thought about the idea of Biggio moving back to catcher, now that his range is too poor for CF and 2B? His making the move from catcher to 2B was extraordinary; how much more extraordinary would it be for him to move back? Is there a precedent for somebody moving back to catcher? Maybe Biggio's arm is too weak now anyway . . . .

Posted 6:23 p.m., December 19, 2003 (#35) - David Smyth
First of all, sorry J Cross and Tango. I am normally the most laid-back guy you will meet, but all of my "jerk" posts have come after I have scarfed a couple large glasses of wine. That doesn't mean that I think my points were wrong in essense, just in delivery.

But as far as the assertion by mgl that the corner OF positions are essentially the same as CF, but just to a lesser degree--I don't see why this should be assumed. The CF coverage area might be twice as large as the LF area (just making up these ratios and numbers for emphasis). But the LF balls may have more curvature or whatever. So maybe CF is 90% speed/10% skills, while LF is 50% speed/50% skills. There is no reason to assume that a Jenkins, who "might" (according to general speed indicators) be a "skills" LFer, would translate to CF in the real world as well as his UZRs might suggest. That is the only reason I mentioned his race (as well as his age and SB totals)--to get a general idea of whether he is likely a good LFer because he is very fast, or because he has other skills which will not translate as well to CF.

Also, I think MGL said that when a player is way above avg at his def position, that he should (in theory) be transferred to a more difficult position. When you do that, say with Jenkins, you are making a tradeoff--lowering his relative defensive value, while raising his relative offensive value relative. I am not sure why this should be assumed to be a net gain. Unless (in Jenkins case) an avg (O+D) LFer is significantly easier to find than an avg (O+D) CFer, to cover the position he is not at. I am not aware that such is the case. And even if it were the case to a small degree, the practical detriments to changing a player's position will likely be a much larger factor...

Posted 7:21 p.m., December 19, 2003 (#36) - MGL
But as far as the assertion by mgl that the corner OF positions are essentially the same as CF, but just to a lesser degree--I don't see why this should be assumed.

Nowhere did I make or imply such an assertion. Everything else you said in that paragraph is true. Didn't I also say or imply that there are obviously some "skills" unique to certain positions?

All I said is that absent some knowledge about a partiuclar player's skills at a particualr position, we can assume that when a player moves from CF to LF or RF that he will automatically pick up x amount of runs! That is true, that is true, that is true! What exaclty is it that YOU want to assume, given that in this hypothetical, we know NOTHING about the player? The reason we can ASSUME that our hypothetical CF'er, that we know nothing about, will pick up 5 or 10 runs, theoretcially, or on the average, when he moves to RF or LF is because we GOT THAT ADJUSTMENT by studyong all player that have played multiple positions. When we find something out about ALL players (assuming that it is large enough to not worry too much about sample error), then it is safe to assume - in fact, you HAVE TO assume - that that something applies to eny given player in that sub-group, if we know nothing else about that player! That's all I said about Jenkins or any other CF'er. If you know or you think you know something about Jenkins that would make him different from the average player who has played both LF and CF, then fine - I have no quarrel with that. Obviosuly, within that sub-group there are going to be all kinds of "exceptions". Maybe Jenkins would not lose only 10 runs in talent by moving to CF. Maybe he would go from a great LF'er to a below average LF'er because he has some skills that are particularly suited to LF and not to CF. I have no idea. IF you do, then fine. That's not what I was talking about, was it - that I KNOW that Jenkins is just like the average OF who has played both LF and RF? I don't know that! Since I don't know anyhting about Jenkins, the absolute best estimate of his UZR in CF is going to be his LF UZR projection minus 5 or 10 runs, or whatever Tango says the adjustment is, based on hsitoricla reuslts from all players who have played both LF and CF! Sheesh!

And, yes, there is certain number (x amount of runs or x amount of SD's of runs), plus or minus, at which a team MUST consider moving a player to another position. Whether they do or not, or another team dies or not, depends on their other personnel AND if they think or know that this player is particularly suited to their persent positon. such that the standard adjustments from position to position do not apply to him.

Yes, of course, it is going to affect that player's offensive value above replacement or above average at that position, but that doesn't really matter.

David, don't look at it as a player "moving to another position." That is what is screwing up your thinking. Look at it as, when the season starts, every player can potentially play multiple positions. Then look at it like we can estimate their defensive value at all thsoe positons, based on their past UZR's at the positions they have played AND the average adjustments for the other positions. So now you have Jeter, who is projected at say -40 at SS (that's not true, but say it is), -30 at 2B and -20 at 3B. The question is where do you play him, not whether you move him from SS to another position (politics aside). You wouldn't even think of putting him at SS any more than you woulkd think of putting a bad third base defender at SS, because a terrible SS is the exacxt same entity as a bad 3B'man (again, not considering players' unique skills at certain positions)!

So yes, as soon as you realize that a player is way above or way below the average defender at a certain position, you MUST consider moving him to another position, and if you determine that he doesn't have any skills that are particualarly suited to one position over (as compared to an average defender), then you MUST move him.

The players I pointed out are clearly over that threshold whatever that threshold is, which I have no idea. That means that yes, their teams must consider moving them, notwithstanding their other personnel and politics. For example, if it is determined that Jenkins does not have particular skills that make him especially suited for LF as opposed to CF (again, as compared to other players who have played both positions), i.e, that he is not going to lose more than say 10 or 15 runs in CF, then yes, they SHOULD move him and get another LF'er!

Tango can probably better explain why you HAVE to consider moving a player if he is way better or worse than the average defender. BTW, if a player is way worse than the average defender at a certain position AND his offense is really bad, the you may have to consider moving him to the bench or to the unemployment lines, such as when Bernie's offense goes in the tank. IOW, if a player is way too good defensively at a certain position, then not only MUST you consider moving him to a more demanding defensive position, but if his offense is good enough for the original position, like with Jenkins, then his offense is obviously going to be OK at the new, more demanding, position. OTOH, for the player who's defense is terrible at one position, yo have to either move him to a less demanding defensive position, or if his offense is not good enough at that position (less than replacemtn or so), then yo have to bench him or release him (or get some sucker to take him in a trade). And you know what B. Beane said. "There's a sucker GM born every minute!"

Posted 7:29 p.m., December 19, 2003 (#37) - Black Hawk Waterloo
The Tantotiger queries: Rally, can you point us to an article that discusses [Erstad's] injury in particular?

I'll step in with an answer. It's not that it's one particular injury preventing Erstad from playing in CF. It's that the Angels feel his style of play (running into walls and getting a concussion, diving all over the place) leads to wear and tear on his body that detract from his offensive performance.

Over his career, Erstad has put up a 826 OPS and stolen 84 bases at a 77% success rate in 567 games before the All Star break. Post-Break: 694 OPS, 59 SB, 73.75%, 435 G. (Apologies for the crudity of using OPS, but more advanced metrics are unavailable in split form. ;)

It is a pretty regular trend. In 2002 his OPS dropped from 761 to 635. 2001: from 753 to 617. It's a pretty definite trend, at least since he's moved to CF full-time.

The Angels ascribe this to his style of play, and it seems like they might be right. It seems like a more reasonable solution may be to move him to LF and put Garret Anderson in CF, where he would be competent. Erstad would still be chasing flies, and would not be wasted on the corner of the diamond.

My personal opinion is that Erstad should remain in CF. MGL's numbers show that he is a very valuable player there, and he may very well be worth the money at that position. Perhaps his offense is a casualty; so be it.

Posted 8:02 p.m., December 19, 2003 (#38) - David Smyth
MGL, I think I understand all you are saying, and I simply don't agree--or, more properly, I weight each factor in the equation differently.

---"Since I don't know anyhting about Jenkins, the absolute best estimate of his UZR in CF is going to be his LF UZR projection minus 5 or 10 runs, or whatever Tango says the adjustment is, based on hsitoricla reuslts from all players who have played both LF and CF! Sheesh!"

Fine. I was addressing the specfic example of Jenkins, not the generic example of LF to RF. Based on that, I have reason to suspect that Jenkins would not benefit from the avg adjustment to CF. I *do* know something about Jenkins.

Look at it like this. When you switch a player to a more difficult position, we can pretty much assume that his offense will transfer without a hitch. (Of course, there is the common suggestion that a player's offense might suffer a bit if his concentration is distracted by a more difficult position, but let's assume that this is false.) But his defwnse is (IMO) more likely to suffer (relatively) than it is to prosper (relatively). If Jenkins hits .350/.500, we can assume he will do so whether he is in left or center. But because of the different blends of skills which lead to performance at each position, we should not make the same assumption, even if we know nothing in particular about the player. The best estimate *might* be an equal transfer, but the chances of a "collapse" are greater than the chances of a "breakout", IMO, to use the Pecota terminology. And that is simply because we should assume that, in real baseball, players are put at certain defensive positions based to a large degree on their position-specific abilities and physical attributes, rather than some abstract evaluation of their ability at an "average" defensive position.

Posted 10:23 p.m., December 19, 2003 (#39) - tangotiger
One of the interesting things about the 10 run swing between a CF and LF is that it's different based on what the primary position is.

For example, if a +15 LF moves to CF, he might be +0 at CF. If a +0 CF moves to LF, he might only be +5 in LF. (Numbers for illustration only.)

So, not only is their a "degree of difficulty" adjustment, but there's also a "familiarity/experience" adjustment.

Once MGL finishes the 2003 UZR, I'll update all of my other UZR articles (I'll have 5 years worth of data, which should be substantial).

Posted 10:39 p.m., December 19, 2003 (#40) - MGL
I am just putting the finishing touches on the 2003 UZR's. Actually I already have the UZR's done. I am just adding the arms for OF'ers and the gdp's for IF'ers, so that we can get the complete defensive picture (more or less).

Posted 12:18 p.m., December 20, 2003 (#41) - David Smyth
---"Tango can probably better explain why you HAVE to consider moving a player if he is way better or worse than the average defender."

Well, I hope he does so. I can certainly see why you would move a guy who is way worse than an avg defender. But I don't see why the same thinking applies to a guy who is way better than avg. I mean sure, if you have Ozzie Smith at 1b, you would want to move him to better "leverage" his defensive ability. But in the ordinary case, of which Jenkins might be an example, exactly what do you gain by moving a guy who is a good hitter and good fielder (relative to position) to a position where he is an avg fielder and excellent hitter (relative to position)? Where is the net run gain to the team? Of course, if you have a hot prospect ready to take over for him in LF, that might be a different story....

Posted 4:32 p.m., December 20, 2003 (#42) - MGL
The 2003 (and updated 2000-2002) defensive lwts (UZR, GDP for IF'ers and ARMS for OF'ers) are done!

Tango, will post it somewhere!

2003 Gold Gloves (highest total UZR runs plus GDP runs for IF'ers and ARM runs for OF'ers, min 90 games):

First base
NL T. Helton
AL T. Lee

Second base
NL Polanco (in only 90 games, he had the most def. runs!
AL M. Ellis

Thid base
NL A. Beltran
Al E. Chavez

SS
NL A. Everett
AL J. Valentin

OF
NL M Kotsay, R. Hidalgo, E. Chavez
AL M. Cameron, Ichiro, R. Winn

Posted 5:09 p.m., December 20, 2003 (#43) - David Smyth
In Chicago, they've been trying to get rid of Valentin and his errors at short for several years. Nobody seems to see that he is in fact good, they think he is only acceptable at SS because of his bat. This attitude seems to include not only the sportswriters and common fans, but also his teammates and managers, none of whom seem to ever defend his defense.

Posted 5:56 p.m., December 20, 2003 (#44) - MGL
Here are Jose's year by year range and error lwts:

Year, range, error, games
99 3, -7, 81
00 17, -10, 144
01 5, -3, 38
02 8, -2, 73
03 27, -1, 123

That is a total of +60 runs in range and -23 in errors in 457 games, which is +21/-8 per 162.

It is not surpring that they don't like his error rate. It is not good (around 10 extra errors per season). However, it would appear as if his range more than makes up for his bad hands.

He would be a good candidate for being undervalued overall. It is also not surprising that a team would put more emphasis on errors than on range, as #1, it is easly measured, and #2, it is the traditional measure of an infielder's defense.

I took a quick look at his 2000-2002 Super-lwts. This guy appears to be a sleeper. His numbers are near superstar levels for a SS. His baserunning and offensive linear weights are terrific, and as discussed above he is likely a well-above average defender.

His 5 mil a year salary is a bargain. I would think that he is worth, or at least he was (he is a little old at 31), around 7 or 8 mil a year...

Posted 1:09 a.m., December 23, 2003 (#45) - Neil(e-mail) (homepage)
MGL said: "His 5 mil a year salary is a bargain. I would think that he is worth, or at least he was (he is a little old at 31), around 7 or 8 mil a year..."

Do you really think so? He's actually 34, seven years past his "prime," and although sabermetrically he can be included in the top tier of shortstops, you have to take a look at the market. Valentin would have been paid by most GMs 3-4 million dollars a year. I wouldn't call him a bargain in either respect (by both the "traditional" ideology and the new "sabermetric" ideology).

Traditional GMs look at Valentin and see a low-average, crappy defensive player who's getting old.

The new-age GMs see Valentin and see a good offensive and above-average defensive player, but someone who's 31 who has a better chance of a "collapse" than an "improve" (to use those damn PECOTA terms again - when are they going to be up for 2004?). Regardless, I doubt any of them would want to spend 5 million dollars on a high risk player like Valentin.

Plus, his declining OBP rate worries me. I'm afraid it'll be below .300 this year. Wait, no, I'm a Royals fan, I want that.

Also, his players most similar to him who played demanding positions suffered massive declines at age 34. Cheaper, equitable options at SS include Berroa, Rollins, both Gonzalezes (well, the Cubs' Gonzalez was signed way above past or current market value... I think that assertion is only exacerbated by the fact that the Cubs couldn't unload him because of his ridiculous salary), Cabrera, and Furcal. I would not call him a bargain or a sleeper, he's put up the similar but declining numbers for the past four years.

Oh, and if you have time, this is sort of relevant to the Graffanino platoon argument. Look at Valentin's splits: over the last three years he had a .491 OPS against lefties and .859 against righties. I'm curious if any other switch-hitters have had this sort of split. And I also wonder why he's still batting right-handed...

And I wanted to say thanks also for all the work you've done. I'm still trying to digest what everything means and why you did everything you did, but it's coming better. ;D