MLB Defense Ratings, 2006 Season

[nanwynnfan]

FWIW, each season I compile defense ratings from a metric I've developed over the years. The basis of the metric is the assignment of degrees of difficulty for play execution at each position, the core element being the assist. The presumption is that the assist is generally the type of play that exhibits the athleticisms of the position player.

The putout is given a basic value for each position based on the observation that, of all the defensive entries on a scorecard, the PO is the "type" most prone to be routine over a long season. I realize that, like anyone who might have seen the game between the Bosox and the Yankees a few years ago, in which Pokey Reese hit the low retaining wall in foul territory up the LF line and folded like a card table - still making the catch in the stands - the PO was anything but routine. An inning or two later, Derek Jeter dove headfirst into the stands, sustaining facial abrasions and making another non-routine PO. It's not that POs count for nothing. They have a base value; but the assists are more heavily weighted.

The whole thing is part of a 1901-2006 study of MLB defense only, with changes of inputs due to changes in game dynamics.

I started the study based on the following suppositions:

1. defense has been historically the orphan child in the baseball ratings categories;

2. fans like to make comparisons of player skills, not only within a generation of play, but also among several generations; and I figured I'd try a study that makes the exercise feasible and credible;

3. not all fans have such intense sabermetric desire or dedication to subscibe to all the play-by-play [Retrosheet] granular breakdowns of performance, or the patience to study intensely mathematical studies of defense which often disagree in their results;

4. this attempts to base findings on the box score entries always there and published: PO, A, E, DP ... applied to the times, rules, equipment, ball, glove design, playing surface, etc.

Defense runs +/- are presented relative to league average performance at each position.

Example 1: Dustin Pedroia at 2B for Boston, gets a rating of +21.76 Defense Runs; but he played only 172 innings. Mark Loretta, playing 1,172 innings, gets a rating of +3.47. When all entries are made for Boston at 2B, the team rating us +5.81, weighted innings played determing team performance. Principal players are listed for each position; but I have not made entries for all players.

Base line for each position = +/- 0.00, which is the league average aggregated rating for each position. Ratings are position-specific.

It has been suggested there was a strikeout bias in my ratings, favoring low pitcher staff K teams over high K staff teams, based on fielding opportunity equivalence. The ratings provided here do not adjust, reflecting performance as originally calculated and evaluated. At the individual position level, such adjustments do not significantly effect defense runs, since the excess/shortfall in K's must be distributed among nine positions. On an aggregated team defense level they can alter ratings significantly depending on pitching-K variances of individual teams from league averages.

I've been told that my OF have high incidence of "relationship" with Range Factor, which essentially divides PO by games, which I do not do. However, given the regressions run to prove that point, I'll live with the findings and let the ratings stand on their own merits, being less concerned with their coincidence with another metric at particular positions [OF] than I am with results that promote discussion, debate or confirmation. Here goes.

Catchers

LAA: Napoli +2.11
J. Molina +12.05

HOU: Ausmus +2.75

OAK: Kendall -3.48

TBD: Hall -8.26
Navarro -1.07 *Error corrected; incorrectly copied

ATL: McCann -11.43

MLW: Miller +1.13

STL: Y. Molina +15.32

CHI: M. Barrett -8.97
Blanco +19.97

TOR: B. Molina -5.61
Zaun -2.19

AZD: Estrada +4.55
Snyder +13.60

LAD: Martin +4.30

SFG: Matheny 0.00

CLE: V. Martinez -10.79
Shoppach +13.32

SEA: Johjima -1.63

FLA: Olivo +7.99

NYM: LoDuca -6.89

WAS: Schneider +2.46

BAL: R. Hernandez +1.46

SDP: Piazza -16.90
Bard +3.23

PHI: Lieberthal +5.11

PGH: Paulino +2.41

TEX: Barajas -9.86

CIN: LaRue +14.54
Ross +2.36

BSX: Varitek -11.08
Mirabelli -19.97

KCR: Buck -4.38

DET: I. Rodriguez +12.17

MNT: Mauer +/-0.00

CSX: Pierzynski -5.04

COL: Torrealba +10.24
Ardoin -5.91
Closser +3.64

NYY: Posada +3.42

1B

LAA: K. Morales -1.64
Kendrick +7.89

HOU: Berkman +4.32

OAK: D. Johnson +12.74
Swisher -7.18

TBD: T. Lee +3.85

ATL: LaRoche +2.77

MLW: Fielder -4.54

STL: Pujols +11.05

CHI: D. Lee -5.93
Mabry -7.69

TOR: Overbay +4.13

AZD: C. Jackson +2.17

LAD: Garciaparra +2.63

SFG: Niekro -.56
Sweeney +1.74

CLE: Broussard +4.65

SEA: Sexson +.98

FLA: Jacobs -1.85

NYM: Delgado -8.50

WAS: N. Johnson -7.21

BAL: Millar +.91

SDP: A. Gonzalez +.57

PHI: Howard -2.16

PGH: S. Casey -4.23
Nady +21.58

CIN: Hatteberg -6.39

BSX: Youkilis +2.50

MNT: Morneau -.55

TEX: Teixeira +4.33

KCR: Mientkiwicz +2.75
Shealy +3.85

DET: Shelton +1.08
V. Wilson -5.04
S. Casey [see PGH, above]

CSX: Konerko -2.96

COL: Helton +8.07

NYY: Phillips -3.93
Giambu -15.24

2B

LAA: A. Kennedy -4.03

HOU: Biggio -2.35

MNT: L. Castillo -3.31

OAK: Ellis +1.55

TBD: Cantu -10.58

ATL: M. Giles -2.94

MLW: Weeks -1.76
Graffanino -22.80

STL: Miles +7.40
Belliard +6.88

CHI: Walker -9.86
N. Perez -2.24

TOR: Hill +14.84

AZD: Hudson +11.40

LAD: Kent +6.39

SFG: Durham -6.23

CLE: Belliard -1.77
Inglet +8.96

SEA: J. Lopez -4.21

FLA: Uggla +1.15

NYM: Valentin +5.37

WAS: Vidro -12.32

BAL: Roberts +/-0.00

SDP: Barfield -6.39

PHI: Utley -1.78

PGH: J. Castillo -6.36

TEX: Kinsler +11.56

CIN: B. Phillips -11.92

BSX: Loretta +3.47
Pedroia +21.76

MNT: L. Castillo -6.60

KCR: Grudzielanek +7.85

DET: Polanco +5.99

CSX: Igutchi -6.55

COL: Carroll +30.15

NYY: Cano -.49
Cairo +8.80

3B

LAA: M. Izturis -4.14
Figgins -9.40

HOU: Ensberg +1.69

OAK Chavez +4.83

TBD: Huff +2.09
Upton -.55

ATL: "C." Jones -3.77

MLW: Koskie +2.71

STL: Rolen +5.04

CHI: A. Ramirez -5.61

TOR: Glaus +1.80

LAD: Betemit -1.97
Mueller +/-0.00

AZD: Tracy -3.81

SFG: P. Feliz +1.76

CLE: A. Boone -2.00
Marte +7.04

SEA: Beltre +2.03

FLA: Cabrera -2.89

NYM: Wright -1.34

WAS: Zimmerman -3.87

BAL: Mora -1.40

SDP: V. Castilla -4.15

PHI: D. Bell +1.55
Nunez +.54

PGH: F. Sanchez +9.98
Randa +.40

TEX: Blalock -.26

CIN: E. Encarnacion -4.13
Aurilia -1.11

BSX: Lowell +4.25

MNT: Punto +.45

KCR: Teahen +5.36
Graffanino +6.87

COL: Atkins -2.09

DET: Inge +7.33

CSX: Crede +6.57

NYY: A. Rodriguez -4.04

SS

LAA; O. Cabrera -7.04

HOU: Everrett +12.93

OAK: Crosby -.87

TBD: Lugo -3.38
Zobrist +/-0.00

ATL: Renteria -4.72

MLW: B. Hall -12.09
Hardy +13.18

STL: Eckstein +10.20

CHI: R. Cedeno -7.97

TOR: McDonald +6.04
A. Hill -15.52

AZD: Counsell +22.86
S. Drew -2.29

LAD: Furcal +8.99

SFG: Vizquel -3.26

CLE: Peralta +7.96

SEA: Betancourt -3.43

FLA: H. Ramirez -1.48

WAS: Clayton -3.47
F. Lopez -17.99

BAL: Tejada +1.98

BSX: A. Gonzalez -1.17
Cora +20.16

CIN: F. Lopez -8.10

PHI: Rollins +/-0.00

PGH: J. Wilson +11.34

DET: C. Guillen +/-0.00

COL: Barmes +5.99

CSX: Uribe +1.94

NYY: Jeter -8.32

LF

LAA: G. Anderson +4.75

HOU: P. Wilson -11.96

OAK: Swisher +15.66
Payton +11.76

TBD: Crawford +7.54

ATL: Langerhans +/-0.00
M. Diaz +17.55

MLW: C. Lee -15.12

STL: Taguchi +5.16
Duncan -8.61

CHI: Murton +2.77

TOR: Catalanotto -3.11

AZD: L. Gonzalez -7.20

LAD: Ethier -8.15

SFG: Bonds -1.07

CLE: Michaels -.32

SEA: Ibanez +.72

FLA: Willingham -10.48

NYM: C. Floyd -8.58

WAS: Soriano +11.10

BAL: Conine -2.65
Markakis +22.39

SDP: D. Roberts +7.24

PHI: Burrell -2.17

PGH: Bay +4.84

CIN: Dunn -5.61

TEX: Wilkerson +2.70

BSX: Ramirez -13.78

MNT: L. Ford +1.95
Tyner +31.61

KCR: E. Brown +6.12
DeJesus +11.37

DET: Monroe -7.02

COL: Holliday -3.33

CSX: Podsednik -1.54

NYY: M. Cabrera +3.95
H. Matsui +20.08

CF

LAA: Figgins +4.01

HOU: Tavaras +6.19

OAK: Kotsay -4.00

TBD: Baldelli +7.94

ATL: A. Jones +.71

MLW: B. Clark -6.64

STL: Edmonds -2.01

CHI: Pierre -5.96

TOR: V. Wells -9.42

AZD: Byrnes -8.42

LAD: Lofton -12.59

SFG: S. Finley +4.82
Winn +9.95

CLE: Sizemore +4.53

SEA: Reed -9.95
Suzuki +16.74

FLA: Abercrombie -.39
Amezaga -.74

NYM: Beltran +11.78
E. Chavez +17.00

WAS: Byrd +10.00
Church +15.98

BAL: Patterson +14.12

SDP: Cameron +2.93

PHI: Rowand -1.91
Victorino +7.34

SEA: Bloomquist -4.37

PGH: Duffy -12.02
Bautista +1.03
McLouth -13.81

CIN: Griffey -8.60
Freel +14.76

BSX: Crisp -2.14
Pena +5.67

MNT: Hunter +/-0.00

TEX: Matthews -3.36

KCR: Gathright +14.07
DeJesus +14.53

DET: Granderson +2.59

COL: Sullivan -5.46
Freeman +7.53

CSX: Anderson +10.51

NYY: Damon -.82

RF

LAA: Guerrero -15.77

HOU: Lane -1.70

OAK: Bradley +/-0.00

TBD: Hollins +18.19
Branyan +3.10

ATL: Francouer -2.01

MLW: Jenkins -3.12

CHI: J. Jones -2.78

TOR: Rios +1.78

STL: J. Encarnacion -4.55
Duncan +/-0.00

AZD: Green -14.05

LAD: J.D. Drew +4.44

SFG: Winn +16.98
M. Alou -2.03

CLE: Blake +8.20

SEA: Suzuki +3.94

FLA: Hermida -7.87
Borchard +13.70

NYM: Nady -4.73
E. Chavez +3.76

WAS: J. Guillen +21.61
Kearns +13.74

BAL: Markakis +10.96

SDP: B. Giles -6.62

PHI: Abreu -6.49 [see also, NYY]
Dellucci -16.90

PGH: Burnitz -16.98
Nady -5.00

TEX: Mench +1.02
DeRosa +7.94

CIN: Kearns +15.39
Freel +16.47

BSX: Nixon +4.41

MNT: Cuddyer -8.90

KCR: Sanders +15.93
E. Brown +9.95

COL: Hawpe +5.01

DET: Ordonez -9.59

CSX: Dye +2.96

NYY: Sheffield -.50
Abreu +8.87

[bedir than average]

I have a few questions

1- Are you using the term "Runs" because you feel this system is setup to judge the value of the player on a runs defended basis? Meaning if a player is +10 runs on defense is that somehow equal to 10 more runs scored by said player?

2- There seems to be a bias in the Outfield positions for players that are good, but not great. Guys who are challenged on the basepaths but who can succeed in defending those challenges. Could you maybe show the year to year of some of the top OF so that one could see if this is true? When using Assissts as the primary judge I can theorize how this is the case, but do the numbers support my theory?

3- Have you seen any trend in your data that would suggest that a player that has X Defensive Runs moving on the defensive spectrum then perfomrs at X+Y runs better moving right, or X-Y moving left? Specifically, if Jeremy Reed is used more as a defensive replacement in LF for Raul Ibanez, how could one expect his CF caliber defense to translate?

[nanwynnfan]

Bedir:

Hope this addresses the three parts of your question satisfactorily.

1. All player ratings are derived from performance against a template of excellence at each position. The template is driven by the highest level of performance at the position within a generation of play. Templates changes as performance/expectation levels are modified by such things as glove design, ball liveliness, playing surfaces, etc.

I use a conversion formula to reduce all ratings to a familiar model; they resemble the old fielding %. Defense Runs are determined from the differential between average performance at a position and +/- weightings, which convert into runs above or below the standard.

All player "games" are based on innings played at the position under consideration.

Example: If Player A plays 1,087 innings at second base and his rating converts to +17.00 defense runs, I present that number as his defense runs rating. It is his rate/level of performance. If the team aggregate shortstops played 1,440 innings, then each player participating is weighted against the total. Player A, playing 75.49% of his total team 2B innings, would then contributed +17 * .7549 = +12.83 defense runs saved to the team's 2B aggregate.

In terms of overall player evaluation, I isolate defense because that is the focus of my study. However, much like Baseball Encyclopedia does it, the ledger for me would be +/- offensive contribution PLUS +/- defensive contribution to get the whole picture. Thus, the huge contribution @ SS to the Bosox by Pokey Reese, during the post-Nomar adjustment period.

2. The year-to-year OF performance took the most time & to save space, I decided to toss out 75% of the original summary to highlight players who are either tops or who exemplify position shifts.

I reviewed 2001 through 2006. The defense runs are pre inning adjustment and indicate the player's defensive "rate."

.................2001.......2002.........2003..... ...2004........2005......2006

Left Field:

Crawford.......XXX.....+23.91......+18.80......+16 .58.....+15.80....+ 6.70
Jenkins.......+7.41...... XXX.......+ 3.80....... + 4.81.....see RF....see RF
Higginson,....+7.58.....+ 9.70........XXX........ see RF..... XXX..... XXX
G. Anderson.+7.58......+ 3.64....+17.64........ XXX......... XXX..... + 5.95
J. Jones..........XXX.....+20.08.......XXX........ XXX........see RF.....XXX
Soriano...........XXX........XXX........XXX....... ..XXX..........XXX......+10.87
DeJesus...........XXX.......XXX........XXX........ .XXX..........XXX......+11.14

Center Field:

A. Jones......+15.46....+ 7.05.....+ 5.29........+ 4.30...... - 3.25....+ 1.06
Hunter........+27.77.....+ 4.84....+15.83 .......+ 1.03...... + 1.00....+ .06
Erstad........+13.66.....+33.59......XXX.......... .XXX............XXX......XXX
Winn............ XXX......+13.57......XXX..........+13.14......+48. 72...see RF
Cameron.....+18.48.....+10.20....+31.27........+ 4.60..........XXX.......XXX
Beltran.......+17.51.....+ 7.51.....+17.61........+ 3.06..........XXX....+11.58


Right Field:

Suzuki........+14.96.....+11.44....+10.91........+ 19.20.......+19.79...+ 8.86
Hidalgo...........XXX.....+ 7.43.....+12.14........+ 6.02..........XXX.......XXX
J. Jones..........XXX........XXX........XXX.......... XXX..........+10.53.....XXX
Jenkins...........XXX........XXX.........XXX...... ....XXX..........+13.98..+ 1.00
Winn..............XXX........XXX.........XXX...... ....XXX............XXX....+20.86
Kearns............XXX.....+16.04........XXX....... ...XXX..........+19.15..+21.43
Higginson........XXX........XXX.........XXX....... .+14.73..........XXX.......XXX

The most obvious player for smooth movement in the OF is Randy Winn. In 2006, Ichiro Suzuki played 37.9 "games" [from innings] in CF and performed at +17.20 as a rate for the time played. Players like Higginson and J. Jones have moved without hitch from LF to RF, which appears to me to be an upgrade, with RF being the more challenging position, with the higher level of demand and the higher rating in performance over the last decade.

I omitted Coco Crisp [in error], who went from @ a +12 in LF to marginally above average in CF in Boston. However, in the CF listings in original post, my ratings have him slightly below average in CF when he was previously a leader in LF.

I believe the above also addresses #3, the mobility and expectation among OF positions. At the bottom line, for me it's an individual matter, although I'd rate the 3 OF positions at levels of demand in this order: 1. CF; 2. RF; 3. LF. I see an increasing distinction between RF > and LF <.

[Charles Saeger]

Not entirely relevant to the thread, but I thought I'd jump in here, and since I'm new, I avoided making a new thread, violating netiquette by hijacking an existing one.

Some folks know me from BFT, and I'm coming around here really to see if what Tango told me was true: folks would be interested in an open-source traditional statistics fielding system. (Sorry I took so long, Tango. Been both lazy and busy.) I have a system, Context-Adjusted Defense (CAD, Don Malcolm's title) that I have developed over the years, and I lack much of the expertise (database programming, namely -- I've done everything in Microsoft Excel, where I earn my daily bread so it's easy for me, but it has its limits) to develop it much further. There's an older version on BFT, though I've done work since then -- TangoTiger and Michael Humphries have seen a draft.

Thus, this is my feeler post. For what I'm looking out of this is a database of all players with defensive ratings, and what other folks can fix in various formulae and adjustments. (Among other things, I used a few seasons of Retrosheet data to make many of the tweaks, and ultimately, I have no proof that things stay constant from the 1970s NL backwards.) I almost surely have screwed a few things up, and there are areas (baselines most prominently) where I openly admit I have no idea what to do.

[DSG]

Hey Charlie,

Send me an e-mail and I'll help out in any way I can.

David Gassko

[nanwynnfan]

"2- There seems to be a bias in the Outfield positions for players that are good, but not great. Guys who are challenged on the basepaths but who can succeed in defending those challenges. Could you maybe show the year to year of some of the top OF so that one could see if this is true? When using Assissts as the primary judge I can theorize how this is the case, but do the numbers support my theory?"

Bedir posed the above-quoted question a few weeks ago; and, rather than giving a knee-jerk response, I decided to let it lie for awhile, then revisited defensive OF stats [1901-2007] before answering.

Under the [defensive] players who are "good but not great," two oldtime players jump to the forefront, both of whom have been historically downgraded on defense [in hindsight], largely due to park dimensions and general layout.

HoF RF Chuck Klein, now viewed as mediocre, paid a horrible penalty for playing in the Baker Bowl with its abbreviated RF and RCF dimensions, for which his incredible assists are tossed out, like the baby with the bathwater. However, Klein played in front of a mammoth, partially corregated 60' high wall given to weird caroms. That he made aggressive baserunners pay a price at such a high rate, for me, is the key to his excellence. His relatively solid PO rate supports this: limited dimensions might reasonably be expected to cut into relative PO "range;" but his numbers there indicate that, if it was catchable, he got to it.

Another RF [HoF] who gets a jaundiced eye on defense is Mel Ott, due to the football oval that was the last of the Polo Grounds reincarnations. He gets the "range" rap despite the fact that the Polo Grounds, at some times 256.5' down the RF line from home plate, widened to huge relative dimensions in RCF, as the park OF stretched towards the 505' sign in dead-center. Off the line, Ott had considerable pasture to cover. Another sign of Ott's versatility on defense was his shift to 3B in a pinch, a challengehe handled very well.

In short, OF assists and DP's, though rare, are modifiers which help evaluators make a more focused evaluation of defensive performance; and over 107 years of roster review, hold up quite well in OF comps.