The Braves had THREE HOF starting pitchers, too, and a ton of other good arms. Or were they only HOF pitchers because DER obfuscated their weaknesses?
I don't have any problem giving credit to defense (I love leather...), but unless you're engaging in serious hyperbole for the sake of advancing discussion on the topic, it seems to be your argument that the Ms could have increased their 2008 win total by 24 wins as well just by playing better defense. That the new makeup of the team has nothing to do with it, and Felix didn't change anything to help out - the ONLY variable was DER. Last to first = 24 wins. Terrible to top 3 = World Series for the Yankees. Rangers get better with the gloves and boom! Winning team.
The 2008 Yankees team allowed 727 runs (and scored 789).
The 2009 Yankees team allowed 753 runs (and scored 915):
The Yankees didn't win the title solely because of defense. And most of the defenders were the same - though Texeira replacing Giambi is obviously a huge increase. And having a better 1B should make the rest of the IF better, though the individual (poorly measured?) numbers don't bear that out. I still think the extra 126 runs scored helped more than Teix's defense at first. Call me crazy.
Texas, 2008: Scored 901, allowed 967
Texas 2009: Scored 784, allowed 740.
Man, if they'd scored what they had in 2008 they coulda gone all the way...but yes, shaving TWO HUNDRED AND THIRTY SEVEN runs-allowed off their 2008 figure made for a significant improvement. I didn't need DER to tell me that. Was that ALL defense? If it was then defense is the most volatile part of the game, because that swing can happen with most of the same contributors, in the same positions, with the same coaches. How do you break out which parts were defense, which were pitching, which were luck...?
Sabermetrics poo poos the measurability of chemistry, but defense would certainly seem to involve some "chemistry" and some "gelling" as well as hated luck and the intangibles of coaching that we can't put a finger on statistically. All we know is what happened, not WHY it happened. How can GMs try to add this defense thing that you claim is so under-rated if they don't know what makes it work in the first place?
Tampa Bay, 2008: Scored 774, allowed 671
Tampa Bay, 2009: Scored 803, allowed 754
So they improved their scoring by 29 and dropped 83 runs in the allowed column. 13 games seems like a harsh drop for that, but they also seemed to do it in "unlucky" spots. These things happen, and they should have dropped wins. It wasn't that they made a mistake choosing offense over defense, it's that they didn't add ENOUGH offense.
The Yankees gave up more runs this year than last year - they just scored a TON more. If the Rays had added 150 more runs instead of 30 they'd have made the playoffs just fine and we wouldn't be talking about their DER drop. The more likely answer to "why did they give up on defense?" is that they DIDN'T - 754 runs allowed isn't a lot. They just knew they were lucky last year to get as great a defensive performance as they did and tried to add offense to make up for the rebound back to their gauge of normal, and couldn't quite pull it off. Their GM is no longer stupid - if your decrease in runs allowed isn't maintainable then you'd better add a few more to the ledger in your favor.
Seattle, 2008: Scored 671, allowed 811
Seattle, 2009: Scored 640, allowed 692
So we improved our runs allowed by 119, but lost 31 on offense. That's a mighty big jump for that differential, but we won a lot of 1-run games and a decent number of low-scoring games. We had a year like that before, just a couple of years ago where we outperformed numbers, tho that time with lucky offense keeping it close with bad run prevention instead of the other way around.
Bavasi apparently knew it was a lucky year and knew it could cost him his job if it went the wrong way so he made a huge trade to bolster the pitching and try to maintain the run differential when his offense crashed. Guess what Jack did this year? Our 1-run record and "lucky D" might not be sustainable, so Jack bought the best pitcher he could find via trade to try to suppress runs and help his defensive numbers.
Will it work? We'll find out. I still think we're short on offense. Franklin Gutierrez comes back to earth in his defensive numbers and where does that put us? They say defense never takes a day off so it's more bankable than hitting, which is a streaky side of production...but I don't believe that. Not being able to properly measure defense does not eliminate it's potential streakiness.
*shrugs* But I can't tell what you're trying to tell me, Sandy. Defense doesn't get enough credit? Could be. The Ms could build a long-term contender around defense and pitching and "enough" offense? Again, they could - if they can sustain both the pitching and the defense, as the Braves did. A great D can made adequate pitcher look good, and may have contributed to the reputation of the pitching staff down in Atlanta unnecessarily. Do we know how to keep the defense great? We'll find out.
But beyond that, what do you want me to know? Run differential wins games, better defenses have a better shot in low-scoring games...but we still don't have any clue at what point a lot of defensive emphasis becomes too much which is what Doc's original comment was about. You seem to suggest that their is no point of diminishing returns, but I can't see how to prove it either way except in theory. Is defense an individual thing or a group effort where everyone's performance increases everyone else's? To what extent can a great defense calm down pitchers who know that their mistakes will be vaccumed up with no damage caused?
Defense is mostly theory. It's not that baseball WAS in the dark about defensive metrics - they ARE. WE are. You disagree when Doc puts a vague number on something that you yourself state you don't trust individual metrics on at all. And the group metrics will tell you what team had great defense, but not WHY, and not what moving parts can be safely sacrificed while maintaining defensive integrity.
GMs HAVE to theorize on those moving parts. They can't be paralyzed trying to maintain the defense and unable to upgrade the team for fear of messing up a part of the game that can't be quantified yet. Is the tendency to go with the known (hitting contributions) over the unknown (defensive ones)? It sort of has to be, doesn't it?
So what's the problem, and how do you fix it?
And man is this getting long, so I'm gonna shut up and have another glass of wine. :) Hopefully it'll all make sense in the morning - otherwise I apologize in advance.
~G
Add new comment
1