It's amusing, by the way, that just a week ago I looked back on a 2006 Baseball America projection on Adam Jones. It called Jones "a potential Gold Glover in center field" and I pointedly called that the only mistake Baseball America made in their report. :- )
.
=== Moider Da Bums, Dept. ===
Was Gutierrez robbed, cheated, jobbed, etc? This is a philosophical question.
When you've got five great players and you pick three, most fans will say the other two got "ripped off." The 26th and 27th** players on the All-Star Team (I know, I know) are always "ripped off." If you had 35 players go, then the 36th would be the one "ripped off."
I don't look at it that way. If I've got five excellent job applicants and I pick three, I don't see the other two as getting ripped off. I see them as living on planet Earth, where sometimes things go your way and sometimes they don't.
Now, if I picked a mediocre candidate over a great one, sure. The great one got "robbed." But not if the guy who was picked is a good choice, too.
It's a semantic argument, of course. But my semantics are NOT to say that Zack Greinke got ripped off, if Roy Halladay wins the Cy. My semantics are to say that Zack Greinke got ripped off, if A.J. Burnett wins the Cy. Most talk-show hosts like to stir stuff up, and any time they disagree with a Cy or ROY or MVP choice at all, it's automatically a travesty of justice.
In my view, our whole culture :- ) would be a lot better off if it learned to say, "That's not the choice I'd have made, but I see your logic."
..........
C.S. Lewis once noted that we unconsciously see bad things as "interruptions" to our "real lives." That's worth deep thought, Stuart.
Having something go against us, that's not an aberration. That's half of life... our senses of justice somehow see "not getting our way" as being "weird and subject to correction."
Five great candidates apply for jobs and only three are selected? It's completely natural for the other two to miss out. And it's completely natural that the selection process not be perfect. That's how it goes.
..........
Incidentally, it is not a given that Franklin Gutierrez would catch more balls, in the same circumstances, than Adam Jones would. That's the way the evidence trends. It's not a given.
It just seems like a given, because folks have been repeating the same assertion over and over ("Franklin Gutierrez is a Great center fielder"). The impression sets in that we wouldn't hear it so much, if it weren't true. That's the nature of propaganda: it wears you down through repetition.
Propaganda usually wins in the short term (and loses in the long term). Five or ten years from now, we'll know whether Franklin Gutierrez is a great defender, or simply an excellent one. Truth wins out over repetition in the long term.
Maybe Gutierrez actually is, neutral field, one of the 10 best center fielders who ever lived (and therefore the best active CF by a wide margin). I kind of doubt it, but it's possible. We'll see, years down the road.
..........
I'm not sure what the logic is, for calling Adam Jones the 3rd-best outfielder in the American League. I'd like to hear the case for, because I have no idea what it would be.
Cheers,
Dr D
Picking a candidate like Adam Jones...who is clearly and identifiably NOT a great defensive outfielder over Franklin Gutierrez...who is clearly and identifiably at the VERY least...a very VERY good defnesive outfielder...is not just "them's the breaks" territory...that *is* a travesty. The gold glove voting has been a complete and utter joke since its inception.
Make your case.
.............
And if you can, you'll still have to address the philosophy stated. :- )
Don't have access to all the data from the office. :) But yes...I'll say more later.
I have a growing hatred of UZR -- and am working on an article to explain why. That aside, I think what frustrates me with the Gut vs. AJ situation is you could put every advanced metric aside and STILL make a case that Gutz was a dirt simple GG selection.
1) Putouts -- 445 ... the #2 guy in the AL had 400, (Granderson). He outdid the next best guy in the RAW TOTAL by more than 10%. Jeter was #2 in hits (212). Ichiro would need 254 hits to beat him by 10%. Beating someone in HR total by 8 would be comparable. In RBI, it takes and extra 25 RBI than the #2 guy. In fact, the ONLY offensive stat where somebody beat the #2 countable by more than 10% was SBs, (Ellsbury 70 compared to Crawford's 60). Putting AJ on the GG team would be like giving Derek Jeter (30), the SB award. (Oh, and Gutz 445 POs came in 31 FEWER innings than Granderson's #2).
2) TEAM DER: Gutz played for the team with the best DER in all of baseball. This is VERY important. Having the best TEAM defense means ... *FEWER CHANCES*. If Beltre is gobbling up chances, those are chances that Gutierrez will never get. For a TEAM to lead in DER, it *MUST HAVE* multiple good fielders. There are 3 positions that gobble up outs - the up-the-middle positions, second, short and center. If you lead ALL OF BASEBALL in DER, then it stands to reason that somebody up the middle MUST be doing an exceptional job. Nobody was pushing for Lopez or Yubet to get a GG ... well that only leaves one other candidate.
Meanwhile, there were only two teams WORSE in DER than Baltimore, KC and Boston. Baltimore was DEAD LAST in runs allowed per game!!! What - if not for Jones Baltimore would've allowed 6 runs a game instead of 5.41?!?
3) Playing time: What absolutely kills me about Gold Gloves is how every OTHER award has some concept of PT included. What are the odds that a guy could win the MVP while playing only 110 games? ZERO. You could bat 1300, and the immediate response would be, "well, he just didn't play enough". Why in the world does this simple bit of logic not apply to the GG award? Jones played 116 games in CF, (1005 innings), and Hunter only played 977!!!
How in ANY sane world could a player missing 1/3 of a season be lauded as giving his team the greatest defensive boost?!? Josh Hamilton gets 25 HRs by the break - they DON'T hand him the MVP if he misses the second half. You *CANNOT SAVE RUNS* if you aren't playing, any more than you can produce them from the DL. (Well, I suppose Dunn might save runs by not playing defense - but I don't see how this is an argument for handing him the GG).
Doc made a good point -- if you have 5 deserving candidates, and you can only pick 3, that is life. But guys who only played 2/3 of the season are NOT deserving candidates. You miss 20 games, I hesitate. You miss 30, I shake my head no. You miss 40? Forget it. You're no longer in the conversation, UNLESS your raw countables remain in the vicinity of the leaders. Jones had 349 POs, so 'maybe' you consider him against Upton's 375, (in 1228 innings). But Hunter only had 308 POs. 308 to 445. That is the ACTUAL OUTS RECORDED comparison between Torii and Gutz. This is akin to awarding the HR title to the guy who belted 40, instead of the guy who hit 60. *HOW IS THIS EVEN A DISCUSSION?!?*
End of simple stats rant
===============
Begin Advanced stats rant:
4) But fine -- we've got this spate of nifty new uber-defensive stats. One of them at Fangraphs is "EXPECTED OUTS". This takes into account innings and pitcher Ks, and actual balls put into play in zones. Per this stat Gutz was expected to make 420. He made 445. That's +25 ... which doesn't mean much by itself, other than it seems to say he was above average.
What about the other two?
Adam Jones - Expected Outs = 341 -- actual = 349 ... +8
Torii Hunter - Expected Outs = 307 -- actual = 308 ... +1
While the expected outs methodology is a black box -- and maybe it's in error. But it ranks Gutz as three TIMES as effective than Jones, and 25 times better than Hunter.
============
Ultimately, it's not ignoring the advanced stats that is the problem -- it is ignoring the BASIC stats that makes the selection so unforgiveably awful. I'm not saying to hand the award to whoever makes the most POs. *IF IT IS CLOSE*, by all means, consider other factors, like actual balls in play, or OF assists, etc. But, only three AL OFs actually produced more than 357 outs ... Gutz (445), Granderson (400), and Upton (375). All three teams finished top 5 in team DER. And Upton got his in more than 100 fewer innings. So, he was beating the next guys back by 20 outs in 10 fewer games.
Now, some will argue that if a team has a bunch of flyball pitchers, this can skew results. I say -- absolutely. If a team produces 2000 strikeouts, and its fielders don't produce outs, then THEY WEREN'T THAT IMPORTANT. You do NOT hand out awards for plays NOT made.
Neither Hunter, nor Jones should have even been in the discussion for AL Gold Gloves. They didn't play enough or make enough outs to be legitimate contenders.
don't know where to start. Maybe with a pseudo-roundtable post, I guess.
Point #3 is a kick to the gut on my argument, and point #2 is fascinating, as well.
One of your best, amigo.
RZR had him at .921 and 91 OOZ plays, which is definetly good. Its not Franklin Gutierrez "are you kidding me" type good, but still very good. His career RF/9 in CF are as good as Ichiro's and Gutierrez's (which are pretty excellent). Plus/minus thinks hes averagish in CF. PMR also graded his 2008 at dead average. So far UZR is the only metric to give him a below-average defensive season, but last year they had him as a plus CF and overall hes slightly plus.
So we have two metrics who say Jones is plus with the glove, one that thinks he above-average, and two that think hes average.
What I get from that is that we probably need more data before we can figure this one out, but its likely that Jones is anywhere from +0-10 runs defensively in CF. Thats a wide margin, but its hard to tell anything beyond that.
My guess is that Jones is plus in CF, but not the rediculously elite fielder that Gutierrez is.
Just to follow up a bit. Every metric out there grade Gut out not only as a 'good' fielder, but historically good. ALL of the metrics absolutely love him not only for his work in Seattle, but in Cleveland as well. RZR, UZR, and plus/minus in particular grade him out as the top fielder in all of baseball (regardless of CF).
Adam Jones over Gutierrez is kind of like picking Ryan Howard over Albert Pujols for the Silver Slugger. Its not that Adam Jones isn't a good fielder, he just wasn't the best. He wasn't the best by a pretty wide margin.
And I agree with every word.
I love this rant. :-)
Taro is wise to go and look at as many competing defensive stats as possible to get a read on Jones, (as is reasonable for all defenders).
It is important, however, to remember the context of each defender, also. Baltimore had the fewest Ks in AL, (933), meaning more balls in play, meaning more chances. The team with the fewest strikeouts is going to ALWAYS end up with a higher aggregate RF scores than high K teams. RF measures outs per game -- and if your pitchers aren't making outs, then the fielders have to be.
Moreover, the goal of defensive analysis is to try and identify runs (and hits) PREVENTED. Baltimore not only allowed the most hits in baseball (1633) ... they did so by a WIDE margin, (Cleveland was next at 1570). They allowed 10.3 hits per game, (compared to the league average 9.2 -- the Indians' next worst 9.9.)
So, you've got bad pitching and bad team defense leading to the most hits allowed in all of baseball. OF COURSE this is going to inflate the stats of whomever your better defenders happen to be. Jones probably is a plus CF ... but when you're surrendering an extra hit per game, you're going to have tons of potential baserunners to throw out. OF assists for Baltimore - Markakis 13; Jones 9; Reimold 7 (in only 88 games).
The Baltimore defense faced 6359 batters on the season, (most in the AL), in 12 fewer innings than average. Yes, they managed to bring 114 extra players to the plate in a game and a third LESS than the norm. (In case you're wondering, the walk total allowed was almost on top of the league average). How? BY ALLOWING MORE HITS THAN EVERYBODY!
Jones might be a plus CF. But to reach that conclusion, you HAVE to accept that the rest of the Baltimore defense was not only below average, but that they were really bad. Maybe they were. To conclude that Jones was among the top 3 OFs in baseball, you'd have to conclude that the whole of the Baltimore defense was catastrophically miserable. I don't recall the Orioles playing Adam Dunn at Short and Giambi at second. So, you look at his defensive context ... Jones would have to have startlingly good numbers, (he didn't ... because he didn't play 1/3 of the season), to be a legitimate contender. If he HAD played all season, and had managed 400 Putouts ... sure, include him in the convesation. But, playing for the worst defense in baseball should count against a player.
Making the most outs, (by far), at your position, while playing for the BEST defense in baseball? To me, that is a no-brainer slam-dunk decision. I don't care about park effects, or zone rating, or expected outs. You bludgeon the competition in raw totals for the best defense -- you're the best defender. PERIOD.
I have been banging the drum for the need for top-down team-driven defensive analysis since 2003 while practically the whole of sabermetrics has veered away from James' WS-style efforts into the zone metrics. It is among my greatest frustrations with the field. The bottom line is that defense is a team sport and the players on the field all work together. When you're a major cog in a TERRIBLE team defense...there's just nothing under the sun that's going to convince me you were a particularly amazing fielder.
The Orioles' defense this year did consist of at least 5 identifiably terrible members:
Nolan Reimold was an ABYSMAL left fielder. Every time I watched him play, he did something spectacularly ugly. Melvin Mora has been an ineffective third baseman since about 2006. Cesar Izturis, despite the hype, hasn't been an elite fielder since 2004. Aubrey Huff is a TERRIBLE first baseman. Matt Weiters is a lousy catcher too. And it's not like Brian Roberts is known for his glove out there anymore...he's getting older and his defensive gifts are fading.
Oh yeah, I agree.
In addition to being a team that allow hits, few Ks, team flyball%, playing time, ALL these things can also skew RF. Its just one of the many problems with using RF. I just listed RF as one data point of many.
Your other point about team context makes sense too, but I wouldn't use it to evaluate an individual fielder. It does 'suggest' that the said player is making a positive impact on the field though.