THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

Questioning it thoughtfully is a good thing.  It can help us understand the move.  If we want to go under the assumption that this is the right move (I agree that this is a good assumption) then we should be trying to figure out WHY it is the right move so we can adjust our theories and ideas accordingly.

Well, I don’t mean literally, “Who are we to question it?” I mean that the M’s know about the health of the two players involved and their skill sets, and we don’t.  Even if both positions require around the same overall skill, clearly there are different skill sets associated with each one.  At third you want quickness of hands and a strong arm and an ability to block hard hit balls.  At second you need agility and quickness of feet and the ability to turn the DP and you can get away with a weaker arm.

In the end it probably does not make a whole lot of difference.

Well, I don’t mean literally, “Who are we to question it?”

Thanks for clearing that up.  Tango may work for the Mariners now but I’m still just an internet poster.  It is my purpose to question everything and anything I feel like, whether it has merit or not.  And I don’t feel right cutting anybody any slack. 

That being said, Figgins is the one with the quick feet (obviously), better fitting the defensive profile for 2B.  But he’s also the one with the strong arm.  He’s going to be a better defensive player than Lopez wherever they play. The one thing I’d worry about him at 2B is turning the double play, since it’s been so long since he played there regularly.

I’ve read a couple analyses of this move.  The thing that stood out to me is that a 2b is expected to field more balls in a season than a 3b.  Since Figgins appears to be a vastly superior defender, it makes sense that you want him in the zone with more balls in the bucket.  From my vantage point, it appears that Jack Z and crew are doing a new experiment on defense. 

I’ve seen it suggested that they could even move the two around to further leverage that (ie move Figgins to 3rd for strong RH pull hitters or move Lopez to 2b with a runner on first for his more developed DP skills).  My guess is that too much moving around would affect the players’ focus and comfort (that’s just a guess).

"The thing that stood out to me is that a 2b is expected to field more balls in a season than a 3b”

There’s more to it, though.  3B sees more difficult balls and, partially due to the longer throw, there’s more variation between players in how they handle those chances.  I guess you could simplify it and say that 2B sees more routine plays.

But that brings up an interesting thought—what if the Mariners expect that their pitching staff will give up more batted balls to 2B than the typical staff and vice versa for 3B?

Or, conspiracy theorists, what if the Mariners actually planned it that way…

Edgardo Alfonzo made the switch, though when he first came up he played both positions and it took a while for the Mets to settle him into third.  Then he moved to second full-time for a couple of seasons, then back to third.

With Figgins, he started out playing a lot of outfield, has been all over, and just recently has settled into third.

One common thing with them is that they weren’t primarily at one position for a long time and then moved later, the way SS tend to migrate to third or outfielders to first.  This isn’t something that’s just descending on Figgins from the blue.  This plus his natural agility and quickness should make him an ideal candidate to switch positions.

If I was a GM, I’d much rather have Figgins as my 2B than my 3B because his offense is more valuable there. I was a little surprised no one pursued him for the position.

It should be a pretty easy transition considering that he has been a utility player and played 2B.

I can recall Toby Harrah moving to 2B at age 36 after playing almost his entire career at 3B. He came up as a SS and felt entirely comfortable there and according to TZ was only a slight negative that year as a defensive player which was not bad for an over the hill, bald, white guy playing a new position.

Not sure how much sense it makes to move Lopez to 3B. He did play SS in his younger years so he probably has the arm for it.

In a vacuum Figgins is (probably) more valuable as a 2b*.  On the Mariners, Figgins is more valuable wherever the defensive output of himself and whoever else might play his position is maximized.  Or in this example, Figgins and Lopez should play wherever they combine to provide the best defense.

*Of course that depends on the team.  2b is a deeper position right now so there were probably more clubs looking to employ him as a 3b.

It’s widely accepted in Baseball that players learning a new position will struggle offensively. So the Mariners, optimistically, can expect both players’ offense AND defense to regress while they learn their new positions.

Sounds like a great plan.

Jared/9, I care much more about what’s true than about what is widely accepted.

#9, an interesting question for a study.  If we pull that one out of the pile of “widely accepted truths” what are the chances, blindly, that it is actually true?  50% at best?

And of course, the proper question is “To what extent is it true?” A yes/no answer for things like that is not going to be very instructive.

For example, let’s say you do a study and find that on the average players playing a new position have a wOBA of 2 points less than those who don’t (assuming a good, controlled study with, say, matched pairs of players), with a standard error of 2 points?  Does that answer the question?  Is the answer yes?  Is that result very instructive?  Probably not.  What if we find a 12 point difference with a SE of 3 points?  Much more significant result, right?  How about a difference of 2 points with a SE of 1 point? Statistically significant (at the 95% confidence level), but not terribly interesting.

Get my point about these silly yes/no questions?

I suppose in the end you might be able to attach a sound bite to the results of studies like this (for example, “We find little if any evidence of a significant offensive effect of playing a new position."), but the actual result, in comprehensive numbers, is generally way more interesting and instructive.

Let me make something clear: I wasn’t using that “widely accepted” caveat to prove anything, I was simply pointing out that, even while ignoring sabermetrics or any type of statistical study that shows how pointless the decision is, the move doesn’t even make sense in the “old school, too good for numbers” evaluation.

MGL, it would be fun to see how many of those “widely accepted truths” actually work in the real world. And like you said, it’s not a black and white issue. Some may work most of the time, some rarely, if ever.

And while it’s hardly substantial, I’m sure the “old schoolers” would point to A Rod’s .888 OPS his first year in NY (and first year playing 3B) as an example. But then again, it would be nearly impossible to prove that it was his defensive adjustment that impacted his offensive performance.

Sorry, didn’t mean to derail the thread.

If Figgins offense suffers from playing a different position that causes more wear and tear on his not so young body than 3B, it’s a bad move.

The thing about 3B is balls that get past a 3B’man go for doubles when hit down the line.  Figgins was pretty good at 3B, he stopped a bunch of doubles.  I don’t know how good a 2B’man he is. 

Lopez has a lifetime 303 OBP, I don’t care if he hit 25 HR, if he can’t field 2B well enough to fit their run prevention strategy they should have found someone who can in a buyers market, and not mess around with their expensive FA to keep a 303 OBP bat in the lineup.

But hey, this is a team that signed Griffey to be their DH when they had a guy like Branyan who ended up signing for almost nothing.

Jared, you didn’t hijack the thread. It is a legitimate and interesting question, and if it has not already been studied, it should be in the “things to do” thread, wherever that went…

We can’t ever say that “there’s no effect” with regard to position movement, clutch hitting etc. b/c theoretically there’s always *some* effect, it’s a matter of how big the effect is.  Saying, “this study didn’t find an effect” is really about the interaction between study and effect and not just the size of the effect.

I think saying something along the lines of “the effect is unlikely to be larger than x” might be the right thing to say in these scenarios and sometimes if you know it’s smaller than x, that’s good enough.

Baseball HQ says that pitchers pitch substantially worse when throwing to a rookie catcher.  That’s on my list of things I’d like to check/see checked.

Baseball HQ says that pitchers pitch substantially worse when throwing to a rookie catcher.  That’s on my list of things I’d like to check/see checked.

Tom Hanrahan’s article, Catcher ERA - Once More With Feeling, looks at this exact question.  Doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be investigated again. 

http://www.philbirnbaum.com/btn2004-11.pdf

J.Cross/15, Tom Hanrahan did the study on rookie catchers:
http://www.philbirnbaum.com/btn2004-11.pdf

There is some discussion of it here:
http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/the_best_and_worst_fielding_catchers_in_baseball/

One thing I don’t see discussed too often, except a quote I think by Jack Wilson, was the effect due to SS.  The quote said something like he wants to range as much as he can to the 3B side. So my thought is that the Mariners staff know that they need less range from Lopez at third, which seems to suit him, and can take more advantage of Figgins greater range at 2B.
Could that idea lead to at least one legitimate reason?

Thanks guys, that’s an interesting article and thread.  I initially found Tom H.’s last analysis (pitchers the year before and year of a rookie catcher) pretty convincing but Guy’s point about selection bias is a good one.  Should be easy enough to check how how much worse pitchers with 100 IP in both Y and Y+1 perform in Y+1 though and take that into account.

Good stuff in that hit&run/run&hit discussion as well.