Batter's Box Interactive Magazine

... and unfortunately that brings out the worst in some writers.

It's usually not polite to fisk people, but in this case I literally could not help myself. This Griffin-esque awards column by Tom Verducci is just too much. You should read that article, or this won't make sense.

AL MVP

"Yes, there is an asterisk next to Ellsbury. This vote is not final. If Boston does not make the postseason, there is no sense in handing the MVP to a someone on the team that just staged the greatest September choke in the history of the sport."

I suppose reasonable folks can disagree about whether making the playoffs should be a requisite for winning the MVP award. I don't think it should be - it's not like games the Orioles play don't count, and there is no mention in the awards criteria of the winner having to be on a playoff team. Moreover, until some 50 years ago, no one cared about this. Still, I won't hammer on this too much, despite its wrongness, other than when the logic is internally inconsistent. But the idea that Jacoby Ellsbury, who has hit .373/.423/.695 during the Red Sox collapse, should be punished because his teammates sucked for a month seems ludicrous to me.

"That said, Ellsbury has been so phenomenal that Bautista could hit 10 more home runs and Ellsbury still would have more total bases than the Toronto outfielder. (All stats entering this week.)"

Yes, by this one particular arbitrary measure that you chose, Ellsbury has been waaaaay better than Jose Bautista. By 10 home runs! Wow! If only there was some other way to measure total bases, that was rated per plate appearance, that might account for Ellsbury being leadoff hitter, hrm. Like, slugging percentage say? What, Bautista is leading by 60 points? And Bautista has walked 80 times more than Ellsbury. So if you add walks to total bases, Bautista beats Ellsbury by 8 home runs now! So Bautista wins in my arbitrary stat! Game over.

Look, this is a Blue Jays site, and of course there is going to be some bias here. At this point I honestly don't know if I would vote for Ellsbury or Bautista, but the vote doesn't come down to hitting prowess, which Bautista wins in a landslide. It comes down to whether you think Ellsbury's positional, defensive and baserunning advantages outweigh Bautista's hitting advantage. I'm not entirely sure.

I'm okay with either Verlander or Cabrera taking the MVP if Boston completes its all-time collapse. Cabrera has reached base more times than anybody in the league, plays every day, leads all of MLB in batting with runners in scoring position, will win the batting title with an average near .340 and has the best adjusted OPS by anyone other than Bautista.

I'm not sure Verlander is the MVP, and for whatever you want to say about him having a great pitching season, the same is true for Bautista having a great hitting season. But that's apples and oranges. Miguel Cabrera has had a clearly inferior season hitting than Jose Bautista (which Verducci conveniently mentions and ignores), and plays an easier defensive position than Bautista. I'm not sure how much this should matter in awards voting, but you can point out that Cabrera out-BABIP Bautista by 40 points (although Bautista out HR/FB'd Cabrera by 4%.) Anyway, unless you are using stupid playoff logic, there's no rational reason to have Cabrera ahead of Bautista.

NL MVP

"Kemp has put up a monster season with MVP numbers, leading the league in WAR, runs, total bases, home runs and RBIs. But his team, the Dodgers, didn't play a meaningful game for the last two-thirds of the season. Los Angeles was nine games out by the middle of June."

Commence head banging into wall. So, Matt Kemp was really good, but because the Dodgers sucked, he can't be MVP. It's stupid, but at least it's stupid logical. Is it worth pointing out that Matt Kemp has 3 more home runs worth of total bases than Ryan Braun though?

And this business that Kemp had no help in the lineup? Baloney. Kemp batted with 87 more runners on base than did Braun. Kemp had 24 more plate appearances with runners in scoring position -- and Braun was the better hitter in those spots (.347-.327). The seasons of Kemp and Braun are too close not to give it to the guy who delivered the most value in terms of context.

I'm not sure what this is referring to specifically, but it seems awfully straw-mannish. But Braun was the superior hitter with runners in scoring position? It's decided then that he's more valuable, on account of a different arbitrary measure now used to choose the MVP because it's convenient! Wait a second, hitting is more than batting average, right? I'm pretty sure that people are aware of that now - OPS has been on TV broadcasts for, like, at least five years. Hrm, let's see. Ryan Braun is hitting .351/.421/.628 with RISP. That's pretty good! Matt Kemp sucks though, he's only hitting .331/.448./.636. Wait a second... that's actually better. Should we adjust for the fact that the other five NL Central teams are in the bottom half of the NL in ERA, while three of the other four NL West teams are in the top half in ERA (I'll let you guess which one isn't), and that Kemp plays half of his games in a massive pitchers park?

Also, "most value in terms of context" is nonsensical. Value is absolute. Kemp was slightly worse as a hitter than Braun, but made up for it by playing a more difficult defensive position while likely being the better defender (who really knows with UZR, but Kemp has been a little better over the last couple of years in both that and DRS; both seem to agree that Kemp had an awful season last year but that Braun is generally not very good.)

Prince Fielder also comes in third, and Albert Pujols 4th. Not to beat this dead horse into the ground, but for example Troy Tulowitzki and Justin Upton were plus defenders at premium defensive positions who hit slightly worse than both of those guys, making them much more valuable. And Upton was even on a playoff team!

So, two main objections in the MVP'ing. If you just want to give it to guys on playoff teams, do that. I don't agree, but at least it's stupidly consistent. But don't make up post-facto explanations to give it to your guy, especially ones that aren't consistent. If you want to give it to Jacoby Ellsbury over Jose Bautista that's fine. The center fielder beats the right fielder on defensive and positional value, that's perfectly reasonable. BUT DON'T TURN AROUND AND DO THE EXACT OPPOSITE THING IN THE OTHER LEAGUE. Seriously, there's no rational explanation other than playoffs to give it to Ellsbury over Bautista in one league and Braun over Kemp in the other. The situations are almost perfectly analogous, except Bautista was better than Braun and Kemp was better than Ellsbury (I know fWAR doesn't necessarily agree here, but given the park difference and sample size problems with UZR I'm reasonably confident in this.)

AL Cy Young

"No intrigue here, folks. Verlander will win unanimously."

Well, he might not, but he probably does deserve it. The ordering here is pretty lame though, with Weaver second, James Shields third and CC Sabathia 4th. There's a pretty decent stats case for Sabathia at least being in the same ballpark as Verlander, and certainly ahead of those other two guys. Sabathia has the best GB% of the four, and is a notch behind Verlander in K/BB but ahead of the other two guys. He also gives up the fewest home runs, pitches in division with the best hitting by far (though he doesn't face the Yankees) and pitches in the best hitters park by far (though Comerica played a slight tick above neutral this year, the Trop and Angel Stadium were severe pitchers parks.) The inclusion of Shields is a bit of a joke, as Shields was fine but not superlative, even without account for the Rays phenomenal defense and hitters park.

NL Cy Young

"This one is so difficult. Halladay and Kershaw both deserve to win. The margin between the two of them in virtually every area is too small to be meaningful -- with one exception. Halladay threw with much better control. He led the league with the best walk rate (1.3 per nine innings; Kershaw was not even in the top 10 at 2.1) and the best strikeout to walk rate (6.29; Kershaw ranked a distant third at 4.59). It's the only area with a significant difference between the two, so the edge goes to Halladay."

Well, I don't especially disagree. I'm not sure why you wouldn't mention Cliff Lee, who basically has identical stats to Halladay and Kershaw, by name (he does have him 3rd). Citizen's Bank park is a better hitter's park than Dodger Stadium, though it seems like the two Divisions were roughly comparable in terms of hitting.

AL ROTY

"Hellickson put up a 2.90 ERA in almost 200 innings in the AL East. Now that's impressive. Hosmer is going to be a huge star and deserves many first-place votes himself. Nova tied a modern record with 12 straight wins as a rookie, leaving Mark Trumbo, Jordan Walden, Jemile Weeks, Michael Pineda, Dustin Ackley and others with no room on the ballot."

This is pretty reasonable. I don't know how much one should weight peripherals in this kind of thing, and Hellickson massively outperformed his, plus the aforementioned defense and park. But it is the AL East.

NL ROTY

He goes with Kimbrel here, Kimbrel had an all-time season, even as a reliever. Eh.

So, that's that. My outrage is over, at least until Jon Heyman publishes an awards ballot.

Posted by Anders on Tuesday, September 27 2011 @ 02:50 PM EDT.

It's Awards Time... | 51 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.

uglyone - Tuesday, September 27 2011 @ 06:37 PM EDT (#244877) #

It's funny, maybe I'm a hypocrite, but as much as I'm a fan of sabtermetrics and "new" statistical analysis, I'm still hesitent to give too much credit to defensive stats.

If Jose doesn't make it because of the "playoff team" factor (which I don't really agree with but don't totally disagree with), then I sure hope it's Cabrera who wins this award. He's the only guy close to Joey in terms of hitting this year (and he actually is legitimately close), and without him the Tigers simply wouldn't have made the playoffs.

Anders - Tuesday, September 27 2011 @ 07:20 PM EDT (#244882) #

and without him the Tigers simply wouldn't have made the playoffs.

The Tigers are leading the division by 13 games. I'm pretty sure Daniel Cabrera could play first base and they still would have made it.

bball12 - Tuesday, September 27 2011 @ 07:23 PM EDT (#244883) #

I know this is going to sound biased - but I have to go with Bautista.

The bottom line for me - when you look at the handful of guys contending for the award:

Who is the last person you would want to face with the game on the line?

For me - Its Bautista.

hypobole - Wednesday, September 28 2011 @ 12:34 PM EDT (#244910) #

FWIW, KLaw has Bautista as his AL MVP

Also, an intersting bit from a Sickels Q and A at minorleagueball today

Q; Off the top of your head what are the top 3 farm systems in baseball?

A: I don't even try to rate things like that until I start working on my book. I think you'd have to look at the Blue Jays at the top of the list.

Glevin - Wednesday, September 28 2011 @ 01:49 PM EDT (#244914) #

"Miguel Cabrera has had a clearly inferior season hitting than Jose Bautista"

Not by all that much. Baseball reference has their OPS+ at 184 and 180 respectively. Bautista has been underwhelming in the second half so where he was once running away as best player in the AL, there are now quite a few players that are quite close.

Also, I'm sorry, the case for Sabathia as CY Young is ridiculous. GB%, BABIP, etc... might be good indicators for future performance but don't matter for this year's awards. Sabathia had the fifth best ERA in the AL East and he never had to face the Yankees. He's nowhere near Verlander.

"I don't agree, but at least it's stupidly consistent."

Look, a lot of people on here believe MVP means best player and that is a perfectly valid way of looking at it. However, I find this "anyone who disagrees is an idiot" stuff pointlessly elitist and offensive. Many many voters have always viewed MVP in terms of a team being competitive. (And no, this is not like advances in stats, this is an award and has always been and will always be subjective.) You can say "I believe the MVP should be awarded according to X" and make your case and people will listen, but as soon as you say "anybody who disagrees is stupid" and the argument is over.

I think the ROY are clear and AL CY Young is obvious but the AL MVP is maybe the most open race I have ever seen. If the Red Sox get in, Ellsbury will get it because voters love guys who hit in playoff races. NL Cy Young is basically a toss-up between three guys. Kershaw will get it I think. NL MVP might be Kemp because Fielder and Braun might split votes (which would be absurd because Braun has been a better hitter and Fielder is a worse defender than just about anyone.)

Ishai - Wednesday, September 28 2011 @ 02:06 PM EDT (#244919) #

Interestingly, Cabrera is second to only Bautista in WPA, my favorite stat. Though it has little predictive value, it does the best job of illustrating how a player has changed his team's chance to win.

There is a tendency to dismiss anything that has to do with a player being "clutch," which is fair if you are trying to predict future performance. But end of year awards are about what a player did in the past year, not what they are going to do next year. And clutch hits are more valuable than not clutch hits. I think the Most Valuable Player award should go to the player who contributed the most to his team's chance of winning games (I'm not going to deal with the unfortunate distinction between the "meaningful" games played by the Red Sox and Yankees and the games played by non-contenders where thousands of rubes go and sit in the seats under the illusion that they're seeing something of value).

I would just give it to the player with the highest WPA every year, and this year that player is Bautista.

Anders - Wednesday, September 28 2011 @ 03:26 PM EDT (#244924) #

Look, a lot of people on here believe MVP means best player and that is a perfectly valid way of looking at it. However, I find this "anyone who disagrees is an idiot" stuff pointlessly elitist and offensive. Many many voters have always viewed MVP in terms of a team being competitive. (And no, this is not like advances in stats, this is an award and has always been and will always be subjective.) You can say "I believe the MVP should be awarded according to X" and make your case and people will listen, but as soon as you say "anybody who disagrees is stupid" and the argument is over.

Without being too sarcastic, you may notice that my point was: if you want to just give it to the guy who was the best player on a playoff team, do that. I don't agree, and I think you're using a criteria that does not exist, but that is semi-legitimate. My chief objection is people who want to do that and pretend they're not. Jacoby Ellsbury wasn't a better hitter than Jose Bautista this year, so don't pretend that because he had more total bases he was. Ryan Braun wasn't a better player than Matt Kemp because he hit better with RISP (which he actually didn't.) My main complaint is with inconsistent logic used to rationalize decisions. Just be upfront about it.

And Miguel Cabrera had a worse hitting season than Jose Bautista. It's not a landslide, but it is definite. If you make any sort of positional adjustment the divide in overall value widens rapidly. I think it's stupid to change your MVP vote because the Red Sox might lose game 163 with Bruce Chen pitching that has nothing to do with Jacoby Ellsbury's play, which has been phenomenal - I would give it to him for what it's worth. And I don't think Sabathia should win the Cy Young, but if you make any sort of ballpark adjustment his underlying numbers are comparable to Verlander's.

Paul D - Wednesday, September 28 2011 @ 03:29 PM EDT (#244926) #

I think it's legit to use BABIP in your Cy Young discussion because it helps give you an idea of how much someone was helped by his defence.

dan gordon - Wednesday, September 28 2011 @ 04:28 PM EDT (#244928) #

The Cy Young is for best pitcher, not most "valuable" pitcher. I think they should do the same for the other award, just make it for the best position player, not the most "valuable". The concept of "valuable" is subject to so much debate that it makes the award questionable. How can you have a meaningful award when people can't even agree on what is being measured? I never pay much attention to the MVP award because of all of that debate. The idea that a player should be favoured over another because his team did better is nonsense in my view. One award for best pitcher, one award for best position player. Simple. I like the Silver Slugger awards. Best hitter at each position. None of this "valuable" stuff.

Alex Obal - Wednesday, September 28 2011 @ 04:36 PM EDT (#244929) #

I would just give it to the player with the highest WPA every year, and this year that player is Bautista.

Maybe with a mental adjustment for position and defense. You help your team with clutch fielding too... Anyway, I agree with the sentiment. If Paul Janish had somehow hit .205/.250/.270 with 5.20 WPA and 75th-percentile shortstop defense, he would likely receive my NL Merit MVP vote over Kemp's 5.95, Votto's 6.45 and Fielder's 6.85.

MVP bar fights would be much more substantive and fun if we could just (1) divorce Merit MVP from Player of the Year MVP and (2) decree that Merit MVP is 15 times more important for Hall of Fame candidacy.

smcs - Wednesday, September 28 2011 @ 05:16 PM EDT (#244933) #

I think they should do the same for the other award, just make it for the best position player, not the most "valuable".

If that happened, there would be hundreds of articles a year trying to parse the meaning of "best."

TamRa - Wednesday, September 28 2011 @ 05:16 PM EDT (#244934) #

Eh. If i were queen we'd re-name the dang thing the Babe Ruth award and give it to the best player and kill all this "playoff team" nonsense.

TamRa - Wednesday, September 28 2011 @ 05:21 PM EDT (#244935) #

If that happened, there would be hundreds of articles a year trying to parse the meaning of "best."

as may be - at least they wouldn't be polluted with all that dross about ""they can finish fourth without him"

the most insane thing i saw this week was the idea that the individual game ups and downs of Elisbury as it affected the Red Sox collapse had anything to do with his candidacy - particularly given that he personally has been ON FIRE during the whole collapse.

And you get rid of the idea a pitcher should be eligible.

i don't mind ONE BIT if their are differing views about whether or not Bautista contributed more value to his team than Elisbury or vice versa. I do care that nonsensical arguments hinging on what the rest of the team is doing come into play.

James W - Wednesday, September 28 2011 @ 07:09 PM EDT (#244941) #

They have a Hank Aaron Award. given to the player in each league selected as the best hitter.

smcs - Thursday, September 29 2011 @ 12:13 AM EDT (#244951) #

You know what, an MVP vote for Evan Longoria just became absolutely and completely defensible.

92-93 - Thursday, September 29 2011 @ 12:31 AM EDT (#244957) #

It would be funny if tonight alone vaults Longoria into the top 5. I wouldn't be surprised by a Verlander-Bautista-Ellsbury-Longoria-Granderson final vote.

Dave Rutt - Thursday, September 29 2011 @ 01:30 AM EDT (#244962) #

Hey, if you go by "Playoff WPA", which is certainly a computable stat, Longoria wins in a landslide. (Though Dan Johnson and Robert Andino are up there.)

greenfrog - Thursday, September 29 2011 @ 09:45 AM EDT (#244969) #

Dan Johnson should get a few votes.

John Northey - Thursday, September 29 2011 @ 11:23 AM EDT (#244980) #

B-R final WAR figures are...
Bautista: 8.6
Verlander: 8.5
Ellsbury: 7.2
Cabrera: 7.1
Gonzalez: 6.9
...
Longoria: 6.3 but what a big final bit.

Fangraphs...
Ellsbury: 9.6
Bautista: 8.4
Pedroia: 8.0
...
CC Sabathia: 7.2
Verlander: 7.0
...
Longoria: 6.1

Quite the difference in the two methods eh?

Glevin - Thursday, September 29 2011 @ 02:34 PM EDT (#244991) #

"I think it's legit to use BABIP in your Cy Young discussion because it helps give you an idea of how much someone was helped by his defence."

Very much disagree. One year of BABIP doesn't tell you much. The best pitchers usually have great BABIP because they keep hitters off balance. Giving up a bunch of soft grounders is going to get a better BABIP than giving up line drives. The top 6 in the AL in BABIP were Hellickson, Verlander, Romero, Beckett, Weaver, and Shields. Does this mean that they were helped by their defense more than anyone or that they were just very good pitchers?

"And I don't think Sabathia should win the Cy Young, but if you make any sort of ballpark adjustment his underlying numbers are comparable to Verlander's."

No, they aren't. Sabathia's ERA+ (which factors in ballpark)was 147 tied with Beckett and Romero. Verlander's was 170. It's not really close (and the Tigers' team defense aside from Austin Jackson is pretty bad). Verlander was better in every way and Sabathia is in a group in the second-tier this year with Weaver, Shields, etc...

Chuck - Thursday, September 29 2011 @ 04:48 PM EDT (#244995) #

It would be interesting to contrast strength of opposition for Sabathia and Verlander.

hypobole - Thursday, September 29 2011 @ 05:10 PM EDT (#244996) #

Glevin - ERA+ is simply ERA versus league average, with ballpark factors. Underlying numbers are things like K rate, BB rate HR/FB . These form the basis for FIP and therefore fWAR, which has Sabathia ahead of Verlander. GB rate would be another undelying factor.

However FIP/fWAR are predictive stats, whereas ERA/ERA+ are result based stats.

MVP's and Cy Youngs should be determined by what you did, not what you can be expected to do going forward. Sabathia may be Verlanders equal or a bit better pitcher as per FIP, but Verlander clearly had the better results this year and should win over any other AL pitcher.

hypobole - Thursday, September 29 2011 @ 05:18 PM EDT (#244997) #

It would be interesting to contrast strength of opposition for Sabathia and Verlander. And then factor in team defense. Fangraphs has the Tigers as a -2 UZR and the Yankees at +22.

Anders - Thursday, September 29 2011 @ 09:02 PM EDT (#245003) #

Very much disagree. One year of BABIP doesn't tell you much. The best pitchers usually have great BABIP because they keep hitters off balance. Giving up a bunch of soft grounders is going to get a better BABIP than giving up line drives. The top 6 in the AL in BABIP were Hellickson, Verlander, Romero, Beckett, Weaver, and Shields. Does this mean that they were helped by their defense more than anyone or that they were just very good pitchers?

One year of BABIP tells you how lucky a pitcher has been. Pitchers in fact have very little control over their babip, your mini-survey aside. In the top 10 for worst BABIP allowed amongst qualified pitchers: Madison Bumgarner, CC Sabathia, Zach Grienke, Jaime Garcia, Edwin Jackson. Are they not good pitchers? Ubaldo Jiminez, Chris Carpenter and Felix Hernandez were also outside the top 10. It changes from year to year - and almost no one repeats their results with any consistency. Justin Verlander was very good, and also very lucky. Them's the facts.

Jonny German - Thursday, September 29 2011 @ 11:43 PM EDT (#245010) #

Quite the difference in the two [WAR] methods eh?

If you and I each set out to measure the length of a baseball bat and one reports 21" while the other says 57", at least one of us is completely out to lunch.

Magpie - Friday, September 30 2011 @ 07:03 AM EDT (#245019) #

Any metric that says the most valuable defensive player in the game is a left fielder is totally, totally out to lunch and should be completely disregarded.

AWeb - Friday, September 30 2011 @ 08:07 AM EDT (#245020) #

Almost all of the defensive metrics are at some level comparative, so it seems possible a great left fielder could be the best, as compared to others playing the position. The Jays ran Thames out there, which helps the ratings of the best guys. Other LF stinkers - Raul Ibanez (1200 innings), Logan Morrison, Juan Pierre, Jason Bay, Ryan Braun, Delmon Young. etc. Gardner is great, and a lot of other guys stink. Carlos Lee (!?!) rated well in 600 innings, so you know the baseline isn't so good. It is a problem with the metric though...in a league full of great defensive shortstops, all of them add value with their glove, except the current rating systems won't let that happen. Maybe they should be tracking these things relative to available historical data, not one year.

Paul D - Friday, September 30 2011 @ 11:11 AM EDT (#245047) #

Any metric that says the most valuable defensive player in the game is a left fielder is totally, totally out to lunch and should be completely disregarded.

Why? This doesn't seem like a fair comment. What if you tookt he best CF of all time and put him in LF? That's the real issue with Gardner, he's a CF playing LF. So yes, he gains versus the crappy LFs versus good CFs, but he's still brought more defensively to LF versus the average player than anyone else in baseball relative to their positions.

bball12 - Friday, September 30 2011 @ 11:19 AM EDT (#245050) #

My guess is if you turned the clock back - and gave the Jays the choice - they would not have been interested in Brett Gardner because he doesnt hit home runs. Regardless of what position he plays.

They might want to start rethinking that strategy.

Mike Green - Friday, September 30 2011 @ 12:22 PM EDT (#245059) #

I happen to believe that Brett Gardner is indeed the best defensive player in baseball right now. Subjectively (to me, at least) and objectively, he was easily the best defensive centerfielder in the game. It is indeed odd that he would be in left-field and this does diminish his opportunity to use his defensive greatness. But, it still matters to a great degree.

So, for instance, if you look at 2010-11 and compare the five best left-fielders in the majors, Holliday, Braun, Hamilton, Gardner and Carlos Gonzalez, UZR (or DRS or just about any other measure) has Gardner making enough extra plays than the others that he makes up on defence to be of similar value than the others.

To give you a flavour of the size of the difference, according to the RZR method (which is not a Fangraphs specialty), Gardner made 202 plays on 214 balls in his zone and 120 plays on balls outside of his zone in 1251 innings in 2011. Braun made 186 plays on 204 balls in his zone and 73 plays on balls outside of his zone in 1250 innings in zone. Is it plausible that Gardner made 40-50 plays that Braun would not have (one every three-four days)? I believe so. Does that it add up to about 30-35 runs. Definitely. Is that roughly the offensive difference between the two players? Yes.

It is, of course, not a necessary conclusion. Gardner might be a ball hog and take more easy high pops from the shortstop or centerfielder. I haven't seen that, but maybe somebody else has. What I have seen is a fabulous defensive centerfielder playing left-field noticeably better than Carl Crawford ever did.

Anders - Friday, September 30 2011 @ 01:05 PM EDT (#245071) #

Any metric that says the most valuable defensive player in the game is a left fielder is totally, totally out to lunch and should be completely disregarded.

What UZR says is that, relative to his position, Brett Gardner is the best fielder in baseball. This is not to say he has the most defensive value (although it turns out he does.) According to the Fangraphs WAR system, Gardner was worth 25 runs above average with the glove (I believe that defense is measured against average as opposed to replacement? The overall point doesn't change) while Troy Tulowitzki was 7 runs above. Tulo gets a positional adjustment of 6 runs, Gardner -6 runs. It doesn't close the gap, but it does narrow it. I think that Dustin Pedroia and Alexi Ramirez are the only ones that come close overall when you factor in positional adjustments.

Gardner really is phenomenal, and every system agrees, over multiple years...

AWeb - Friday, September 30 2011 @ 01:26 PM EDT (#245075) #

Looking at it a different way, the past ten years of Blue Jays data for UZR/150, for those who played at least 1000 innings (almost a full season), the best defenders are Reed Johnson (LF only) and Alex Rios (RF only). This is followed by John McDonald (SS only) and Orlando Hudson (2B). I would have issue whatsoever calling Reed Johnson and Alex Rios the best two defenders on the Jays in the past ten years, confining them to those positions. Rios also rated well in CF, Johnson didn't really have much time there, and wasn't very good in RF (actually, RF Reed Johnson was as bad as LF Reed Johnson was good...which I recall being the case as well).

One systematic problem with defensive ratings that overvalues OFers is that OF get "arm" ratings, based on bases advanced and assists and such measures. Often it is the middle infielders who are as much responsible for preventing the extra bases by good positioning and strong throws as the OFers. The "glory" throws come straight from the OFers, but a lot of extra bases can be prevented by a well-positioned and strong-armed cutoff man. Not sure if there have been attempts to discern which infielders help the arm ratings of their outfielders the most - this could be 5 runs a year, it could be 20? Very tricky to measure, I would think.

The Yankees, I suspect are very good at this, because they have one of the top team "arm" ratings. Gardner has never played anywhere else, but both Swisher and Granderson have gotten small bumps in this area, and none impress me as having anything but thoroughly average OF arms.

vw_fan17 - Friday, September 30 2011 @ 02:28 PM EDT (#245092) #

I happen to believe that Brett Gardner is indeed the best defensive player in baseball right now. Subjectively (to me, at least) and objectively, he was easily the best defensive centerfielder in the game.

How does he compare to Peter Bourjos (i.e. where does Bourjos rank?)? I haven't seen Gardner play all that much, but I do recall Bourjos tracking down ball after ball in the gap against the Jays over the last couple of years..

Mike Green - Friday, September 30 2011 @ 03:04 PM EDT (#245105) #

Subjectively, Bourjos is very good. His one year numbers range from quite good to excellent, but I'll wait for another year or two to see if my subjective impression of Gardner's superiority is supported by the numbers.

Magpie - Friday, September 30 2011 @ 04:03 PM EDT (#245121) #

I agree that Gardner is a tremendous defensive player. But Derek Jeter has more defensive value.

Magpie - Friday, September 30 2011 @ 04:16 PM EDT (#245124) #

I'll also point out that FanGraphs regards Carlos Lee as the fourth most valuable defensive player in the National League, which is only slightly better than the bb-ref formulae which say Lee was the best.

Carlos Lee? I trust some of you have seen Carlos Lee play baseball?

I'm sorry. Take it back to the drawing board, talk to me later.

Mike Green - Friday, September 30 2011 @ 04:35 PM EDT (#245129) #

For Derek Jeter to have more defensive value than Brett Gardner, the positional value (the difference in value between a shortstop and a left-fielder) would have to be about 30-35 runs. Fangraphs has it in the 12-15 range, and this is more consistent with the way teams actually behave. John McDonald would have had a full-time job as a shortstop a long time ago if the position was worth that much.

Or to look at it another way, Ozzie Smith was probably 25 runs above a league average shortstop for 5-7 years. If that is worth 35 runs more than the defensive value of a left-fielder, he should have won 3 or 4 MVP awards. The WAR systems have him as a 5-7 WAR player, rather than a 7-9 player. I love Ozzie, but I don't believe that he was a better player than Tim Raines year-in and year-out during the 1980s.

Magpie - Friday, September 30 2011 @ 04:43 PM EDT (#245132) #

he should have won 3 or 4 MVP awards.

Nah, just two (1987 obviously, and I also think he's got a pretty good case for 1985.) And I do think the difference is closer to 25-30 runs than 12-15, and that when it comes to this terra inconnu teams are erring on the side of caution. (What? baseball teams? cautious and conservative?)

Mike Green - Friday, September 30 2011 @ 04:53 PM EDT (#245133) #

I happen to agree that the Fangraphs' positional adjustments are a little low, but not to the same extent.

As for Carlos Lee, he played only 645 innings this year. No defensive system is going to have any reasonable degree of accuracy over 1/2 a season for a left-fielder. Once you move to a larger sample, be it 1 and 1/2 or 2 and 1/2 years, Lee is a below average fielder according to whatever metric you look at.

I agree that the metrics are far from perfect, but if you look over longer windows of time, you will generally agree with what the metrics suggest. Strangely, if you look at a historical player's career defensive WAR from the retrosheet era, you will probably find it as informative or more than a slash line, unadjusted for park and league.

AWeb - Friday, September 30 2011 @ 04:56 PM EDT (#245134) #

I agree that Gardner is a tremendous defensive player. But Derek Jeter has more defensive value.

This is only true if you take a "instead of this player, let's not play anyone there" approach. Sure, not playing a shortstop would be worse than not playing a left fielder, but that's not the situation.

Which is why the question of replacement/average comes into it. Take an average (or replacement) SS and Gardner, versus an average/replacement LF and Jeter. Which combination gets you more outs? Actually, giving Jeter a lot of credit and calling him average at playing SS (he's probably a replacement level defensive player at best, unless you factor in relays from the OF), makes it simple. The Yankees could easily replace Jeter's defense, and couldn't do so with Gardner. Therefore, Gardner's defense has more value. If you got to auction off players skills, Gardner's defense gets bid on a heck of a lot higher than Jeter's.

Yes, Carlos Lee is not a good OF (he's awful), and it's widely acknowledged that funny things happen in a single year of fielding stats. And he only played half the year out there, so it's an even smaller sample. Think of it like batting average - sometimes, guys hit .330 for the first half, make the all-star team, and then disappear. But Gardner has been great for years, and Jeter has been below average for years.

Magpie - Friday, September 30 2011 @ 05:14 PM EDT (#245137) #

Gardner's defense has more value.

In my mind, that's a hard leap to make - like giving the Cy Young to a relief pitcher. Oh hell, that actually happens - how about like giving the MVP to a pinch-hitter? It's my belief that the position simply doesn't have enough value - that someone who can play a halfway competent shortstop is, by definition, more valuable defensively than any left fielder (or any left fielder who doesn't possess powers of levitation and site-to-site transport....)

I'm probably pretty intractable (which might be a nice way of saying totally unreasonable and completely close-minded) on that there belief...

AWeb - Saturday, October 01 2011 @ 10:56 AM EDT (#245168) #

In my mind, that's a hard leap to make - like giving the Cy Young to a relief pitcher. Oh hell, that actually happens - how about like giving the MVP to a pinch-hitter? It's my belief that the position simply doesn't have enough value - that someone who can play a halfway competent shortstop is, by definition, more valuable defensively than any left fielder (or any left fielder who doesn't possess powers of levitation and site-to-site transport....)

I'm probably pretty intractable (which might be a nice way of saying totally unreasonable and completely close-minded) on that there belief...

To extend my analogy above, I don't think anyone would argue replacement starter + best reliever > best starter + replacement reliever (that is, relievers really aren't valuable enough to compare to the best starters). And the same certainly applies to pinch-hitters.

I see your resistance - Left Field is the one position where there are literally guys in the competitive softball game at the nearby park who could play it as well as a few of the MLers who get put there, whereas no one possesses MLB calibur Shortstop skills aside from professional players. One other thing is that great LF defense prevents XB hits; every time Gardner catches a ball in the gap, picture Thames running to pick it up at the wall (I don't mean to pick on Thames, but he looked terrible out there a lot).

Mike Green - Saturday, October 01 2011 @ 01:51 PM EDT (#245172) #

It's funny. The attributes that are important for a shortstop- quick reactions, athleticism, at least a decent arm (pace Ozzie), and quite a bit of baseball intelligence- often age well. Think of Bordick or McDonald.

On the other hand, the key requirement for a left-fielder- speed- ages fast.

It is, I think, rarer to find a good defensive left-fielder at age 35 than a shortstop who is good defensively at 35. This does tend to create a wider replacement pool at shortstop, although there are obviously fewer players who have the skills to be adequate at the position as a young player.

ogator - Saturday, October 01 2011 @ 03:14 PM EDT (#245176) #

Maybe the LF/SS defence dilemma is an optical illusion. When someone smacks one through the infield it is harder to conclude that a younger, more agile infielder with greater range would have gotten to the ball whereas when the ball bounces in front of or over the head of an outfielder everyone immediately says that so and so would have had that one especially if so and so is a younger version of the present leftfielder. And maybe experience allows an infielder to position himself better, read the batter's stance better or understand better where a ball is likely to be hit whereas all the anticipation in the world won't get old legs to a spot even when the outfielder knows that's where the ball is going to go.

Magpie - Saturday, October 01 2011 @ 05:03 PM EDT (#245178) #

How many runs did Gardner save, by catching 294 fly balls, compared to... oh, there's Gerardo Parra of the D'Backs on TV right now. Who caught...267 fly balls. Well, that's an extra 27 outs Gardner accounts for and certainly some of them would have been for extra bases.

Of course, Gardner played an extra 140 innings in LF. Parra actually made more plays per 9 innings than Gardner. So I assume - what? That there must have been an enormous number of balls hit to LF against the D'Backs that Parra didn't get to? Okay. What else can I think? What else could you possibly be telling me? Except... whoa. This isn't Manny Ramirez we're talking about. Parra can play. Really, just how many plays did Parra fail to make that Gardner would have? Who the hell knows?

How many runs better than Parra are these metrics claiming Gardner to be? FanGraphs is saying 16 runs - that's about 2 games; BB-ref says 31 runs or about 4 games. I think Gardner might well be the best defensive centre fielder we've seen since Barry Bonds was young, and he might be that much better than someone like Raul Ibanez. But I have trouble believing he's that much of an upgrade on Parra or Alex Gordon (20 BaseRunner Kills? 20?) Or Vernon, actually.

Magpie - Saturday, October 01 2011 @ 05:05 PM EDT (#245179) #

That should have read "best defensive left fielder" of course.

AWeb - Saturday, October 01 2011 @ 06:44 PM EDT (#245183) #

Really, just how many plays did Parra fail to make that Gardner would have?

No one knows for sure, but the estimates based on the game observations seem to put the number pretty high. Gardner was much better on the "in the zone" plays (94% vs. 89%, 12 more plays with only 2 more chances), and made an extra 15 "out of zone" plays (with the extra 140 innings, that advantage is proportional to only 2-3 extra). So 14 plays, give or take, by a rough look. Gardner is probably credited with limited gappers to singles as well. All the numbers are a best guess. You don't have to agree that Gardner is a more valuable defensive player than Jeter, but "shortstops are always more valuable than Left Fielders" is exactly the type of convential wisdom sabermetrics were created to check (often ends up being true, sometimes refuted).

This does tend to create a wider replacement pool at shortstop, although there are obviously fewer players who have the skills to be adequate at the position as a young player.
I conclude exactly the opposite - baseball has hundreds of young players (6 minor league teams X 30 teams) who are already playing left field. The majority of minor league shortstops seem to be still working on being good enough, but Left Fielders are a dime a dozen. Which makes Magpie's point, I suppose - teams are thrilled to have a ML ready SS to play the field, but no team ever sweats finding a reasonable replacement for LF, since they all have them already (except they might not be able to hit well enough, not a concern for a fill in at SS). I see that as making Gardner's dominance more impressive, but I can see the skepticism I suppose...and Gardner's one hamstring injury from not being nearly as good, and is going to start declining soon (Magpie is right about one thing which came up with Crawford - never pay for past defensive outfield performance as an elite skill).

I am curious though - what positions can a great defender be more valuable than a poor SS? Are Shortstops the best no matter what? Can a Left Fielder be more valuable than a Centerfielder? Catchers the most valuable of all? C, SS, 2B, 3B, CF, RF, LF, 1B is the usual "spectrum", give or take a shuffle.

Jonny German - Saturday, October 01 2011 @ 07:02 PM EDT (#245184) #

Think of it like batting average - sometimes, guys hit .330 for the first half, make the all-star team, and then disappear.

But when a guy hits .330, it's for real. He really does get a hit every 3 at bats, those hits count every bit as much towards his team winning as if they were hit by a truly great player.

Can you say the same thing about the goofiness dWAR comes up with? Did Carlos Lee actually play something close to Gold Glove defence in his half a year in the field in 2011? It looks, smells, and quacks like a measurement error.

I'm with Magpie. I'm not eating this WAR cake when it's clearly underbaked.

AWeb - Saturday, October 01 2011 @ 07:34 PM EDT (#245186) #

Can you say the same thing about the goofiness dWAR comes up with? Did Carlos Lee actually play something close to Gold Glove defence in his half a year in the field in 2011? It looks, smells, and quacks like a measurement error.

A hitter can get a series of bloops and bleeders and infield singles and suddenly look much better than they really are. A fielder gets a series of balls hit to them that are easy, or they make a bunch of uncharacteristic diving/shoestring plays in a row. The defense happened (probably, there are certainly margins of error larger than with hitters), but it's very unlikely to repeat. Crappy pitchers have great years (hi Josh Towers!). Crappy hitters have great years (at least by batting average). Why can't crappy fielders have great defensive years? A stat that doesn't give you any surprising results might as well not exist...

Jonny German - Saturday, October 01 2011 @ 08:09 PM EDT (#245187) #

Why can't crappy fielders have great defensive years?

Maybe they can. But do we have any evidence or any confidence that that's what fWAR is showing us? I've never seen anyone try to defend the Carlos Lee situation. Does the man deserve a Gold Glove, or is fWAR out to lunch on him?

Magpie - Saturday, October 01 2011 @ 09:14 PM EDT (#245188) #

what positions can a great defender be more valuable than a poor SS?

Second base, obviously. There are job requirements that make shortstop a more difficult position, mostly related to arm strength and accuracy. But second basemen are regularly in on more plays than shortstops, so there's even more room for divergences in ability. I have no problem saying a good second baseman - Robinson Cano, let's say - is a more valuable defensive player than a mediocre shortstop - hello, Derek Jeter!

It's Awards Time... | 51 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.