.

Again splicing general baseball strategic insight ---> against --- > current tactical situations:

.

I was wondering if players' offensive or defensive values are mutually reinforcing enough with their teammates to change their relative values for different teams, or is value value? Ok, that doesn't make a lot of sense, so let me try an example...if a good fielding / mediocre hitting team and an all-bat, no-glove team are both looking for a shortstop, should they value the available players differently? Should the first team look to improve their strength or mitigate their weakness? Should the second team just give up on defense and get the best hitter available? Or is the best available shortstop just the best available shortstop?

Asked by: Zeke**

Answered: 12/15/2012

Well. . .I don't know if this is the RIGHT answer, but then, neither does anybody else.    I would consider the other things at the margin.   If you have a slow left fielder and a slow right fielder, you probably need a fast center fielder.   If you have a bad defensive third baseman, you probably need a good shortstop.  

 

I think there's a rational basis for that, which is this.   While we tend to think of plays as "belonging" to one fielder or another (and we tend to measure defense in that way, and we tend to model the game that way in simulations and table games). ..while we think of the issue in those terms, it is easily observable that there are many plays in the field which can be made by either of two fielders (and sometimes more than two.)   It stands to reason, then, that when one player's range contracts, his neighbor can cover that to some extent.. .whereas if two neighboring fielders both have poor range, there is probably an interactive effect.   

 

There is a second reason to avoid stacking up liabilities in the field, which is the curvature of the lines.    If you increase hits by 10%, you increase runs by 20%.   If you increase runs by 20%, you increase losses by 44%.   When you stack up parallel liabilities in the field, there may be a more-than-proportional cost because of the curvature of the lines.   

.

I do believe this to be true, though it hasn't been published yet as a study on Hardball Times, at least as far as I know.  That's okay; we believe millions of things we don't have conclusive proof for.

Dr. D has talked several times about redundancy in chess and in game theory.  You don't want four units of energy doing the same thing; you want them diversifying their possibilities.  In chess the concept is "mobility," and it increases one's options.  In basketball, you wouldn't want three players standing next to each other on the low post.

In baseball, it's easy to imagine that if you put Adrian Beltre next to Brendan Ryan, that Beltre would actually take away from Ryan's ability to affect a game.  ASSUMING THAT YOU ALREADY HAD ADRIAN BELTRE, you would be LESS motivated to ADD Brendan Ryan to your team.  Ryan wouldn't get you as many defensive runs as he'd get somebody else, right?

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

It's an old-timey baseball truism that you need a couple of great defenders out there somewhere.  Every, and we mean every, manager wants a great center fielder.  But, oddly, there isn't the same universal clamor for three great outfielders.  Rather, they think in terms of a Norm Cash "covering for" a Ted Williams in left.

Supposing you were to add Nick Swisher in right field, ALONGSIDE Michael Bourn in center field, you would exploit this principle.  The fact that defense is not a part of Swisher's 4.0 WAR would actually enhance Michael Bourn's defensive 2.0 WAR, perhaps raising it to 2.2 or 2.3 WAR.

Bourn isn't my idea of a 5.0 WAR player, exactly, but it's interesting to reflect that if some team were to purchase them as a pair, they might wind up with an impact outfield.

From an offensive standpoint, it might work the other way:  Bourn gets his stolen base for that series, and then Swisher coming up behind him draws a walk.  The SB is wasted in that event, and you still risked the CS.  Better to hit Swisher #5, perhaps, or Bourn #9.

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

There's a beauty and elegance to this kind of ballclub construction, having a great defensive player at second base standing out there next to a thumper playing shortstop.  And a true greyhound in center field does allow you the luxury of putting WWF wrestlers in the corners.

.