Yahtzee!

Q. Is this just spring intel-gathering, or does the switch have legs?

A. Jose Lopez' remark Thursday, about Figgins having better range than Jose does, raised my eyebrows. These are the kinds of noises you hear when the in-house discussions are serious.

That's great with SSI, of course.

Q. How much stock do you put in "comfort zones" and "experience"? Are you risking errors, or losing D-positioning, or what?

A. If either of the two started having balls go off the heels of their mitts, they'd switch back. Errors aren't the issue.

At 3B, positioning isn't much of an issue, obviously -- any 3B in the league is going to play Joe Shlabotnik the same place.

At 2B, Figgins is going to need some help from the bench and from Jack Wilson. But that's the way MLB is played these days, with high-tech positioning coming from the skybox, as it were.

.............

Look, the guys on the field will tell you that "experience" doesn't mean much compared to Figgins' two extra steps. You're taking ground balls, wherever you are on the field. It's why Ackley could move to 2b from FIRST base.

We on the internet are fretting that experience is a big factor moving from 3B to 2B. It just isn't. They're all major-league infielders. Ask Wakamatsu if you don't believe Dr. D. :- )

Anyway, it's not like Lopez and Figgins haven't played those positions. They have. It's not like they're rookies. They're not.

Q. Aren't you giving away Figgins' great UZR's at 3b?

A. SSI is firmly dubious about the park-and-context on Lopez' and Figgins' numbers. Figgins is quicker than Lopez, bottom line. And there's no reason that Jose Lopez, a former SS, can't do everything Figgins did at 3B. Minus one step maybe, but plus the power arm.

I expect the M's with Figgins, 2B and Lopez, 3B to achieve a significantly higher DER (and lower team ERA) than otherwise. If you can lower your team ERA with the stroke of a pen, why not do it?

Q. What about the D-spectrum?

A. Doesn't matter w/r/t Figgins and Lopez; it's a defensive switch.

But w/r/t Ackley, Figgins et al, long term, it's important to note that 2B is much to the right of 3B on the D-spectrum.

Tango's guesstimate* reads that playing a harder position is worth this many runs:

.200/.300/.400 line at DH = 0 bonus runs
Same line at 1B = +5 runs more valuable
LF, RF = +10 runs more valuable than DH
2B, 3B, CF = +20 runs above DH**
SS = +25 runs over DH
C = +30 runs over DH

That is about right. But remember that Bill James devised this defensive spectrum not so that we could put all MLB players on one scale for WAR.

He devised it to point out that players at a rightward Yahtzee slot are more scarce -- that you have a harder time filling SS in an emergency than 1B.

The above chart makes it look as though it's as easy to find a 3B as it is to find a 2B. Not so!

............

It doesn't matter if Fangraphs calculates an average RLP for SS. That doesn't mean you have this player in your own organization, and it doesn't mean you can get him off the waiver wire.

Every team in the majors can replace its DH. And can do so with the very best hitter in their organization. Some teams can replace their center fielder, and some can't....

.............

Players get older, and move to easier positions. The free agent market offers lots of Bays and Hollidays, and few Jeters. Your talent tends to inexorably drift over to the easier spots.

As James rightly concluded, it is the job of all ML orgs to fight the drift of talent over to the LF/DH/1B side of the spectrum.

You can calculate that 2B's hit for -15 runs fewer than 1B's do. But that still doesn't capture the gap in value between "Dustin Ackley, 2B" and Dustin Ackley 1B. "Dustin Ackley, 2B" positions you to exploit options that otherwise wouldn't be available to you. It provides you a more dynamic and fluid 25-man roster.

=== 2010 ===

What is true in macro, is true in micro, in this case. Consider the 2010 baseball universe as its own entity.

If Jose Lopez moves out in a trade, it's going to be considerably easier to fill third base, than if Figgins were your set-in-stone, +13 UZR, can't-move-him 3B.

Lopez goes out in an AGone deal, boom. Tui or Hannahan goes in at 3B, and you've got Tui-Wilson-Figgins-Gonzalez. But what were you going to do if you had to fill second?

If you ever had to shed Lopez, much better to shed him from 3B than from 2B. That's true as a general principle, and especially true with this specific roster.

Cheers,

Dr D

Printer-friendly version

Add new comment

Filed Under

Sports

Jose Lopez

Chone Figgins

Replies

if you had to fill second?

Ackley, but it is all about timing, whether now, at the deadline, or 2011. Will he be ready for MLB, or are you willing to have him develop at the MLB level and not AA-AAA? If I could get AGone, I'd worry about the Ackley business later, just pull the trigger. In the short-term, you still have Tui/Hannahan for 2B also, but you get AGone when you can.

And the trade deadline last year was after Ackley was drafted

So that's what he DID do, move on AGone and worry about Ackley's position later... granted, no Figgins here yet, but if JLo was a part of the deal he'd have not hesitated we're sure...

Roster construction

Seems to me that the defensive spectrum is a roster construction principle. Once Lopez and Figgins are already on your roster, it becomes irrelevant. Or am I missing something?

Certainly, if you've got a talented guy you want to get to fulfill his potential, you don't say: "we're putting you at third because there's a greater chance you'll get traded or benched compared to Chone and we want to find your replacement more easily." (even if it's true)

Less relevant or irrelevant? :- )

As we all know, Zduriencik is about position 'versatility' and is maximizing that even after he has Figgins, Lopez, etc on the roster....

The reason being unforseen contingencies... he's stated the desire to know what Figgins' and Lopez' possibilities are; this allows him options later...

As you say, Spec, they certainly would not send Lopez this signal, even if it were true. This is our read, not their statement. The only signal they've seemed to have sent Lopez, is that they believe their team is (might be) better if they switch.

And am sure that Z is sincere about that: even if there were no moves, he thinks this might be a way to improve for the next 2+ years...

That's how I see it too.

This move IMO has less to do with Figgins and more to do with Lopez, the thinking being that he'll be a better fit at 3b as his career progresses. Maybe it's even something where Lopez splits time at 3b this season, then moves over there full time later.

I also buy Sandy's contention that a defensive focus improves the mental acuity of the team as a whole. And I think that having Lopez work on fielding 3rd will encourage concentration on his part, since it's a challenge and not as comfortable as 2b for him.

A few reasons I'm against

A few reasons I'm against this:

1) Its questionable whether they'd add any defensive runs in the switch. My guess is that Lopez gain 0-5 runs in the switch and Figgins loses 5-10 runs for net loss of roughly 0-5 runs.

2)Its a short-term fix. Figgins likely won't be at 2B for long with 3 near MLB ready 2B prospects and it hurts Lopez' trade value.

3) Offense. I don't want two guys spending so much time learning assimilating to new positions that it negatively affects their offensive production (due to less focus or wear).

4) Figgins' hamstrings. Hes had issues in the past with his durability and I absolutely wouldn't want him having extra wear-and-tear at 2B (both due to the nature of the position and the extra practice he'd take on the side lines). I don't want him breaking down or aging early right when we've signed him for the next 4-5 years.

Eminently reasonable

It is indeed *questionable* whether there's any team DER to be had there.

I think there is, and the M's apparently think there is, but it's very questionable.

The other three points weigh also. c-points

Versatility = LESS value?!?

Okay ... I get that we live in the time of clueless arrogance about actual defensive value. It's very much a guessing game with too many parts unaccounted for - and WAY too many to be betting large with any sense of certainty.

But, in what alternate reality would ADDING an additional position of competence REDUCE a player's value? Willie Bloomquist is a MLB player today based almost SOLELY off the fact he can play a bunch of defensive positions competently. In almost any fantasy game out there, having multi-position -- REGARDLESS of the positions in question, increases value. Obviously, players have the MOST value at the position-of-scarcity -- but a 2-position player DOUBLES the potential bodies to look at for acquisition in any situation.

If Lopez displays simple major league competence -- not excellence -- his value HAS TO INCREASE. Moving him to 3B cannot possibly lower his value. At the moment, he has X value as a 2B -- and ZERO value as a 3B. Even should he flop at third, he remains with zero value at 3B, and the same value he already had at 2B.

Honestly, one of the subtle, (unmentioned), facts from 2009 is that Seattle had an EXCEPTIONALLY low number of BIPs hit to 2B, (compared to norm). They also had a higher than normal traffic pattern toward 3B. Maybe this was related to the makeup of the rotation, but it's also likely that some of it was just blind luck. (Lopez had the DEAD LAST RF/9 among all qualifying 2Bs - while running a positive UZR).

Personally, I think a normal 2B distribution would likely land Lopez right back where he was in 2008, running a slightly negative UZR.

I think Doc is on the mark that PERCEPTION is that Lopez "looks" more like a 3B, so if he's competent, it will increase his value on the open market, because I think LOTS of teams are skeptical of the defensive metrics, and rely on the old eyeball as the final arbiter of defensive prowess.

Ultimately, if Lopez can display competence at 3B, potential suitors increase from those needing a 2B to include those in search of a 3B. And his value REALLY climbs for any team in search of both.

Sandy, you seem to be against

Sandy, you seem to be against all the defensive metrics, but the correlation of UZR isn't too far off from the correlation of OPS.

If UZR is completely garbage, than OPS is a total garbage stat as well.

Its like calling ERA garbage and then using FIP (the correlations isn't that different).

Using SEVERAL defensive stats will give you much better picture of a player's defensive value than OPS will give you of a player's offensive value.

UZR vs. BA?

I don't know what the relative correlations are for every stat. I know I've read some articles that state uncategorically that UZR has *LESS* correlation than offensive stats.

But, what I do know is that if I look at TEAM rankings by UZR and team rankings by DER -- the DER rankings come up WAY better (eye-balling) than UZR.

As a rule, stats do not get MORE accurate the smaller the samples -- so I begin looking for how stats behave on the largest samples, (team level). DER kicks UZRs butt.

In 2009, UZR had the Dodgers ranked 14th and Cubs ranked 20th in UZR. DER had them at 1st and 5th. The Dodgers wer #1 in ALL OF BASEBALL, allowing only 611 runs. In fairness, they had great pitching, too. But 134 extra strikeouts should NOT result in 160 fewer hits. We know that roughly 70% of BIPs turn into outs -- so 134 Ks should prevent (roughly) 40 outs. The Dodger DEFENSE prevented 120 more hits than the average team - yet UZR has the TEAM at dead average.

The Cubs, with identical Ks, allowed 64 more hits than the Dodgers, but that's still 96 hits under average (for the NL). Adjusting for Ks -- we still end up with 56 fewer hits than average allowed - and the Cubbies end up 20th in the majors in UZR?!?

I'm more concerned about the accuracy of what is being measured during a specific year BEFORE I concern myself with looking at how it does over multiple years.

What UZR measures "may be" useful info - with reasonable correlation. My position is it at best only peripherally measures actual run prevention. Of course, one of the biggest headaches with defensive stats is that while the number of hits, walks, (and all offensive stats) are variable each year -- the number of OUTS is a relative constant -- which means that it would be EASILY possible for any defensive stat created to have extreme high correlation - and yet have zero analytical value at all. (not saying that this is definitely the case with UZR -- just that UZR being useless has ZERO bearing on whether OPS or BA is useful.

UZR is still really fuzzy,

UZR is still really fuzzy, but DER is prone fluctuation as well since its very BABIP impacted. Think of UZR as OBP. OBP is going to be prone to fluctuation year to year, won't give 100% accurate reading of a team's offense, but at the same time still gives you a snap shot of a guy's defensive performance taht season.

I absolutely agree that group stats are more accurate if you're looking at stat on a team level (though they don't consider XBHs), but UZR has it uses along with Dewan's plus/minus, PMR RZR, OOZ, etc. I like Dewan's stats the best since they skill base defense so you get a better picture of a defender strengths and weaknesses.

Correlation mean predictive, (perhaps)

The thing I want to make clear is that I appreciate that high correlation from year-to-year opens the door to a "predictive" stat. But, that does not mean that it is a particularly useful stat.

I suspect there is hardly a stat out there (on a team level) with as much correlation from year to year as "total outs", (not looking at whether they are defense or pitcher responsibility - just all outs). Year over year, total outs is going to be REAL constant. But, that isn't helpful in any way at all. Every team is going to get roughly 4300 outs per year -- every year. Highly predictive, yet useless.

Well, it means the stat is

Well, it means the stat is more consistent year-to-year than you'd think, and is more accurate the higher the sample size.

It doesn't neccesarilly mean that the stat accurately projects defensive ability (it means its relatively consistent in what it is measuring). UZR is less predictive than a stat like OBP or SLG, and neither of those stats are as predictable year-to-year as you'd think.

I'm a big believer in using several defensive stats+scouting to evaluate defenders. It gets rid of some of the outliers you have year-to-year when you're relying on a single stat.

If SABRMatt would make PCA public, that would help a lot in the discussion as well. Currently there aren't any metrics that evaluate individual defenders on a team basis (as oppossed to zone rating).

This is kind of a fascinating puzzle

If UZR is completely garbage, than OPS is a total garbage stat as well.

It is indeed interesting that the year-to-year fluctuation in OPS isn't much smaller than that of individual defenders' UZR ratings...

And UZR defenders (present company excepted) pound this point constantly...

.........................

However, we now know that there is a huge luck factor in hitting (BABIP, HR/F* etc) that is not present* in fielding, so for that (and other) reasons, the "range of coefficient" argument is a tad misleading...

No hitter is going to run OPS's that are as mind-numbingly consistent as Roy Halladay's BB rate. But it doesn't *quite* mean that OPS is a junk stat. Albert Pujols is not going to run an 100 OPS+ this year no matter to whom he is traded, but it is quite possible that Chone Figgins could run a negative UZR at 3B playing for some team or other.

..........................

Like you say Taro, you composite the stats and if they and the scouts agree, you've got something.

I think it's pretty clear that Chone Figgins, once Scioscia got him to bear down, was a real good fielder for the Angels.

I don't mean that OPS is

I don't mean that OPS is actual garbage, it was just sort of framing the argument..

I'm just pointing out that while there are serious problems with over-relying on UZR alone to evaluate D (as Sandy states - and I completely agree), it still one useful set of data in the same sense that ERA is a useful set of data.

One point vs. omniscience

Taro,

Well said. I agree that UZR is not an unreasonable single defensive point to touch on when attempting to get a feel for good/bad defenders. My objection to UZR is that I typically see it being wielded as an exact, unquestioned, single-stat trump card in many player discussions. (Not necessarily that you are one of these less reasonable people).

But, UZR, (IMHO), has gotten to the point, not only is it being routinely utilized to judge this defender as good/bad or better/worse than another -- but (and this is the part I feel is actually making analysis WORSE) -- that the specific runs saved numbers are being espoused as gospel.

Per UZR Beltre saved 15 (ish) runs per year, (except 2007, when he cost 3). So, people start using that 15-ish runs saved as if it is a reasonable expectation of how many runs he'll save every season, in any park. ERA measures what happened, so does OPS. UZR is a mixed stat, partly what happened, partly what might happen in a perfect world.

My reservations with UZR are largely due to the blind reliance on the "expected out". In 2009, Figgins and Felix made 314 and 312 assists, (109/110 POs), in 1339 and 1342 innings. In the same games, they made nearly identical plays in almost every way imaginable. Raw stats - equal. RF/9 - equal. FP - equal. But UZR pegs Figgins at 16.7 runs saved, while Felix is at 5.3. Why? Because according to UZR, Figgins had 249 expected outs, while Felix had 305.

Ibanez in 2007 gets 224 POs for Seattle - in 2009, 213 for the Phillies, (nearly identical outs in nearly identical innings). In Seattle, he gets a -20.5 UZR - costing the Ms 20 runs, in Philly he saved 8. Why? Because, in Seattle his expected outs were 248, while only 202 in Philly.

Can I swear that Felix didn't actually wave an extra 50 grounders by -- or know with certainty that Ibanez really did let an extra 50 balls drop in Safeco, (a park notorious for holding balls up)? No. Which is my point. I don't know the reality in that regard. I also don't know how to divide credit between pitcher/defender. But I do know fielders make 20 outs and pitchers generate 7 in modern baseball. I do know that with a perfectly average defense, pitchers are responsible for 100% of runs saved/lost. I know that with a perfectly average pitching staff, that defenders are 100% responsible for all runs saved/lost.

I personally believe that the actual "runs prevented" assumptions for UZR are wrong - and that the reality is that each hit prevented (beyond the norm) is roughly equal to 1 run prevented, (though I'd settle for 0.8 to avoid the need to shove exponents into the equation).

With all the publicity

With all the publicity Seattle is getting for their defense, I could see other teams looking at their decision to move Lopez to 3B as "Seattle doesn't think Lopez can handle second base." If teams see it like that, I can't imagine Lopez's value going up much if at all. Suddenly he is perceived as a guy who is learning 3B and shouldn't be trusted at second.

Of course, smart teams will have their own defensive evaluation systems and may not put much stock in Seattle's decision, but I have a feeling that teams more likely to covet a .300 OBP guy would see him as a 3B only because he can't hack it at 2B with Seattle, and LOOKS like a 3B anyway.

Exactly

It *would* be easy to construe Zduriencik as being dubious about Lopez' ability to play 2B, since he is in fact dubious about it :- )

But mega-MLB machines do have their own evaluations and opinions, as you note... where they differ from another org on that org's own ballplayer, let's hope they see that as an opportunity...

We know that roles reversed, if (say) the Nationals didn't value Langerhans, Zduriencik would start drooling more, not less... hope it works that way in JLo's case...