1
Good to see ya back Doc.
How About 9 Endy Chavezes?
I know that Wak said “If the season started today … Endy would play left.” ... I also see it as an indication that the club is SERIOUS about defensive effort. A key point here is that everyone, (including Wlad, I’m sure), knows that Endy is an empty spot in the batting order. The *ONLY* reason he’d be queueing up in front of Wlad for PT is because the club is actually serious about upgrading the defense.
Ya Sandy... let's hope that it's aimed at Wlad.
... they are indeed serious about DER, but how serious do you want to get? You want to play a SS/2B at first base? oh, wait... :- )
Personally I'm bemused at the whole idea that you could, in theory, put nine TERRIFIC defensive players out there, all hitting for Chavez' 69 OPS+, and that you'd win. ... as though everybody in the history of baseball missed this idea.
.
=== REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM Dept. ===
"Reductio ad absurdum" being the logical device of taking a principle to its furthest point -- so as to make it easier to see the implications involved.
If putting Endy Chavez / Charlton Jimerson / Jason Ellison / Carl Lewis in left field were a net gain to the ballclub IN LEFT FIELD, then by extension the principle would apply for all nine positions as a group.
There isn't any debating this point. To the neo-sabermetrician who sees baseball as a John Benson RAR/$ exercise, Endy Chavez simply pencils out as providing more net at his position than (say) Adam Dunn, Ken Griffey Jr. and/or Raul Ibanez.
.....................
Endy Chavez is a 3.2 runs per game hitter.
So what happens if you put nine 3.2 RC/27 hitters out there, in the American League 2009, and these nine guys are all among the top three defenders at their positions? What happens then?
..........................
You take 11 pitchers who would otherwise run ERA's of 4.60, and you put nine great defenders behind them, and if the DER goes from .700 to (absurdly) .740 ... their ERA is going to drop to 4.00 - 4.25.
Now, Matty, grab your Pythag calculator. What happens when a ballclub scores 3.2 runs a game, and gives up 4.0? Does it contend?
Or supposing that the nine best gloves in the game cut your ERA, impossibly, to 3.50. If you score 3.2 and give up 3.5, do you win ninety games?
(The 2001 Mariners had a DER that was miiiiilllllllles better than #2, possibly the widest DER gap in history. Their ERA was 3.54 -- WITH a terrific pitching staff including Moyer, Garcia, Sasaki, Nelson, Rhodes, and a K/BB/HR result that was scary good. The tremendous defense *might* have shaved 0.3 runs off the ERA.)
...........................
Nine Mark Belangers, Endy Chavezes and Jason Ellisons are going to score 3.2 runs a game, and there just isn't any way that a .740 DER is going to turn 3.2 runs and 11 average pitchers into a winning club.
Nine Mark Belangers and Endy Chavezes are going to lose to nine Ted Williamses and Mike Piazzas, and they're going to lose by average scores of 4-9. The best-fielding 69 OPS+ hitters in baseball are going to go 30-132 against the worst-fielding 140 OPS+ All-Stars in the game.
......................
This simple understanding, which has been agreed on by EVERY great manager since Connie Mack, has now become completely opaque to the neo-sabermetrician -- who no longer can decide whether Bobby Abreu or Endy Chavez is the better choice to start in left field. We have reached the point, in our zeal for defense, where we literally no longer can decide whether a HALL OF FAME BASEBALL PLAYER IS BETTER THAN A BENCH PLAYER.
Paralysis by analysis. :- ) Bill James was always very careful to run all of his ideas through the chuckle-meter. That's why you never saw him write anything like "Endy Chavez may be as valuable as Bobby Abreu."
......................
If baseball were as simple as putting Pokey Reese at 2B and backup CF's in the corners, then Charles O. Finley would have won pennants for $8M. He didn't, because he knew that it wouldn't work.
And since you can see that it does not work with a team full of Endy Chavezes, you ought to be able to see that it does not work, in real life, when you are talking about the LF position in isolation.
........................
I'm not trying to be snotty. This idea, coming from terrific analysts, that maybe the 31-year-old Endy Chavez is a starting left fielder to be preferred over Raul Ibanez or Bobby Abreu, is simply the most amazing thing I've ever read in baseball literature. I mean it good-naturedly, but I have NEVER seen such a mass hallucination.
Nine Endy Chavezes can't be right, and therefore Endy Chavez, LF cannot be right.
Gimme nine Rauls against your nine Endys, at 2:1 odds to you. How much equity do you have in your house? :- )
Cheers,
Dr D
Comments
2
Doc we have seen eye-to-eye on the questionable nature of defensive metrics, but I think you are getting a little silly here. True you don't want 9 Endy Chavez's, but are you sure that 9 Endy Chavez's would loose to 9 Manny Ramirez's? Endy could beat out a lot of infield hits with Mike Piazza playing shortstop. Both extremes are obsurd.
Regarding the direct comparison of Endy and Raul [all analysis performed with fangraphs data]. Endy has averaged 4 RC per 27 outs in his career and Raul 5.8 RC per 27 outs. I give each of them the same number of outs that Raul made last year and Endy creates 66 runs and Raul creates 96. Raul is up 30 runs and the quest becomes how much better is Endy with the glove than Raul? Using career averages for Raul and Endy based on UZR, Endy is plus 16 and Raul is -7. This seems reasonable to me. Raul misses a play a fortnight compared to averge and Endy makes an extra play. So with the glove Endy reasonable makes up two thirds of the difference, and potentially makes up all thirty runs or more if you buy the optimistic Endy is +20 for a corner outfielder and the pessimistic Raul is loosing the ability to field and is probably -15. I don't buy that argument, but I do buy the argument that Raul is only about 10 runs better than Endy, which is certainly not worth tying up $30M over the next three years with a performance that is most likely to decline.
The problem is that Raul is not great a hitter. Good yes, but nothing great, which makes him league average in LF. He's also a worse than average LF with the glove, say bottom 1/3 in the league. That is just not an asset. The problem isn't with your assessment of Endy (though you do underestimate his hitting ability by most of a run), but rather with Raul. Now for a great hitter, or at least a very good one, they cannot be so much of a butcher with the glove that it matters. Take Manny Ramirez. For his career, he's been a 9.3 RC per 27 out hitter. Using Raul's outs, Manny would create 155 runs. No banjo hitting gazelle can make-up that big of a difference.
3
First, let me state that I *never* suggested that I would start Endy over Abreu. I was against going out to add Abreu to the roster for a host of reasons beyond simple production.
But, I do have to take exception to your contention that the the 2001 Mariners were "loaded" with pitching talent, or that their HR/BB/K lines were "scary good".
The 2001 Ms staff finished 5th in Ks, 3rd in Walks, and 5th HRs. They had ZERO pitchers who are going to sniff the Hall of Fame, (unless Moyer pitches until he's 60). Considering the park, the 5th in HRs is hardly worth bragging about, and the 5th in Ks -- this isn't "scary good". This is ho-hum solid. (In fairness, they won 116 because they finished 1st in BOTH runs scored and runs allowed).
You need go no further than Tampa in 2008 (4th in Ks, 8th in BB, 9th in HRs), to actually see how much DER *OVERWHELMS* the HR/BB/K lines when looking at final performance.
If there is an issue that has gotten by the sabremetric backstop it is that DIPs stats are good because they are more RELIABLE -- *NOT* because they are more important. This is amusing, because the whole reason for DIPs ERA conversions is BECAUSE the BIP results are so drastically unpredictable that regular ERA becomes very troublesome to use when attempting to compare pitchers.
One could easily flip the argument and put Jason Giambi at all 8 defensive spots, and argue that the team is going to surrender 15 runs a game compared to the 8 he'll generate. This really doesn't get us anywhere, because you're never going to fill a lineup with nothing but Jason Giambis OR Endy Chavez.
Ultimately, DER is not simply important -- it is VASTLY more important than pitcher strikeouts, (and if you don't believe that, explain Tampa's ERA turnaround from 2007 to 2008). The problem here is that the number crunchers don't KNOW how to predict DER just yet. But, illusive, confusing or baffling does not equate to "unimportant".
In point of fact, I have come to believe that DER is the MOST important aspect to turning a franchise around. In EVERY worst-to-first surprise I can find in baseball history, a MAJOR positive swing in DER was a part of the change. Not the only part -- sometimes bats woke up. Sometimes, pitching stats improved, (though the quick trend actually seems to show pitching stats "regressing" slightly - in terms of Ks - when big DER jumps occur). So, I'm not saying a DER jump *alone* will turn Seattle into a winner overnight. But, based on history, I see scant evidence that they can hope for a "quick" turnaround without it.
The drum I've been beating is not that Endy is "better" (production wise) than an Abreu. My focus is on the culture of the clubhouse. It is NOT enough to simply say that defense is important. If the club says defense is important and then goes out and picks up Jason Giambi to play 1B, *EVERYONE* gets the picture that the defensive blather is just that - posturing.
Now, I do believe that once you have established that everyone needs to give 100% defensively every day - *THEN* you can go out and acquire a big bat -- (so long as THEY understand that they cannot coast defensively).
Dean Smith and Coach K have thrived for years while telling each next hotshot game-changing offensive wunderkind that he's going to continue riding the pine until he learns to play defense effectively. And without a doubt, they have cost themselves offensive production, (in the short term), while doing so. But, they also established ground rules for EVERY player that were ultimately FAR more beneficial in the long run than whatever gains they might have enjoyed from having that extra offensive production in the short.
Yes, comping baseball to basketball is a reach. But, this is part and parcel with preventing the entitlement attitude to permeate a clubhouse (or locker room). Given the recent history of the Ms, my personal belief is that to build a foundation for the future, you HAVE to take steps to remove that aura of entitlement. And, yes, you may have to sacrifice production in some areas in the short term to accomplish that.
But, the banker CEO who preaches a new "austerity" program to his employees better not show up the next day driving a new Ferrari.
4
...no, I know you didn't, Sandy. Was talking about elsewhere on the 'net.
.....................
Kelly, you miss the point. I'm not talking about guys out of position.
The question here is, the nine most extreme glove players AT their positions, vs. the nine most extreme bat-first players AT their positions.
........................
Endy Chavez in LF, somebody like Gutierrez in CF with an 80 OPS+, some backup CF like Chavez playing RF, Pokey Reese at 2b, .... etc...
vs Manny in LF, Junior in CF, Abreu in RF, Dunn at 1B, etc.
Add the numbers up there. You'll see that the kludgy bat guys average 7-9 runs per game and, if they give up -20 defensive runs per year EACH, give up -160 runs/year as a group (-1 a game).
Then Pythag out what happens when a team of Mannys averages 8.5 runs and gives up 5.5.
Capiche?
........................
The article asks, why not the nine best defensive players in the game, even if they have a team OPS+ of 70 or 80?
Got it now?
5
Okay - why not 9 Endy Chavez? Because nobody BELIEVES it will work -- and frankly, some of the best defensive guys at their position are, in fact, ALSO, the best offensive guys at their position.
But, the leap to the conclusion that the defensive extreme lineup is going to lose doesn't bear close scrutiny.
I could start with the '91 Braves, who jumped from 26 to 4th in DER, and went from worst to the Series in a year. Terry Pendleton had a career OPS+ under 100, yet became the MVP that season. By *NO* measure would Pendleton have been pegged as a "big bat" prior to the '91 season. But, the 104 team OPS+ and 112 ERA+ don't really refute the assumption very well.
But, the 1995 Braves -- the ones who actually WON the World Series, had a team OPS+ of 96 -- and a team ERA+ of 124. The only hitter on the team with an OPS+ over 120 that season was Klesko, (who only got 329 ABs).
The 2001 D-Backs had one star hitter, (Luis Gonzo), and a team OPS+ of 101, but an ERA+ of 120.
The 2005 Astros had a team OPS+ of 95 and an ERA+ of 120. While they didn't have 9 Endy Chavez, they did have Ausmus, Everett, Burke, Taveras, ALL posting 80 and under OPS+ figures.
The truth is, we don't really know how far down a team FULL of defensive elite CAN drive an ERA. We know that the Braves allowed only 540 runs in that 1995 season. (And before you start lauding the pitchers too much, that 2001 D-back team finished only 2nd in Ks and 10th in HRs -- and the Astros were only 3rd in Ks and 8th in HRs. BOTH were #1 in fewest hits allowed.
6
One failure...the 2001 Mariners did not have a terrific pitching staff. They had a league average pitching staff...below average rotation, well above bullpen.
This doesn't undercut Doc's point that Endy Chavez is not an impact player just because he can field...jsut thought that was important to clarify. The 2001 Mariner pitching staff ran a team DNRA of 101. That's normal, not terrific.
7
If you can find me a single analyst who's claiming that Endy Chavez is any sort of elite talent I'll eat my shoe.
The claim is that Endy Chavez is a serviceable player who's replacement level with the bat, but whose glove makes him an above replacement level but below average player. On a roster that has impact players, Chavez is a guy who won't kill your team's playoff chances.
Given the way WAR is calculated, a lineup with 9 guys with Endy's weak bat and plus defense in a roster where every other player was league average would win about 75 games. The "Endy Chavez is an impact player" argument you're responding to is a strawman.
Would the team be smart to jump at a better player for LF? Of course. Will Balentien be given an opportunity to show whether or not he's a potential upgrade? Most certainly. Chavez is there to plug in if Balentien fails to become a legitimate option. Last year Balentien was exposed and overmatched in the majors, and hit substantially worse than Chavez. Obviously nobody disagrees about who has more upside, but if Balentien never makes the necessary improvements to become a good major league hitter, Chavez is there to bridge the gap to Saunders, Halman, or someone not currently in the organization brought in to take over the everyday LF job.