THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

Dewan says that because the Red Sox’ new additions last year were, defensively, about nine wins better than their departures, they should increase their win total by nine. Of course, this is false, and I faintly remember it was Dewan (or maybe Pinto?) that made this same mistake about the Blue Jays last year or the year before.

It was Dewan.

http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/sample_v_true_talent/

Even if they never look at stats, the Phillies have done a great job on defense the last few years.  If they had focused more on defense last offseason, maybe they would have signed someone else instead of Ibanez, but then they would have been without his 36 homers and I seriously doubt they would have been a better team.

Getting Pedro Feliz for 2 years to fill a hole instead of a better hitter like Greg Dobbs, that looks to me like a team that values defense.

Seriously, who on that roster can you replace with a defense oriented player?  Aside from Franklin Gutierrez, there was no defense oriented player available who was better than Raul.  The only other case you can make is for CF, but again, Gutierrez is the only guy to outperform him (I have trouble believing his negative UZR last year reflects his true talent level, I think he’s in the +1-5 range TTL.  Other than that, everyone else is very good at defense.  I worry an older Polanco’s ability to make the throw from 3rd, but that’s a debate for another day.

"(I have trouble believing his negative UZR last year reflects his true talent level, I think he’s in the +1-5 range TTL.”

I’m confused who you’re talking about.  Raul?  His UZR last year was actually positive (+8) but age, previous negative UZR, and scouting reports make it likely that he is actually a below average fielder.  But still, at least last season, a better overall player than whatever generic glove man the Phillies might have grabbed instead.

Re: #1 & 2

C’mon guys.  Dewan’s not saying he expects the Red Sox to win 95+9=104 games next year.  There’s the presumed offensive downgrade, plus natural aging, and the true-talent issue.  It’s the “all-else being equal” implied disclaimer. 

The average mlb.com reader already understands that defenders might not match last year’s numbers.  While that’s not entirely the same as understanding what you mean by “true-talent”, it’s part of it.  But there’s a time and a place for that discussion and explanation.  A brief quote for an mlb.com article is not it. 
You start talking about regression and measurement error in this context, and you immediately lose your audience.  You can argue about subtle wording and adding disclaimers, but you’re missing the greater point.

I saw this article and read it as a great positive for the defensive stats movement.  You’ve got Dewan, MGL, Epstein, and Blengino all on the same page about defensive stats.  There’s a Boston Herald article (click my name for link) where Dewan and Dave Cameron are quoted with hundreds of comments from readers already. 

If we see a Mariners-Red Sox ALCS, can you imagine what kind of press Fangraphs, Dewan, MGL, etc. will get?  This can only be a good thing.

The Phillies say they don’t look at the fielding stats, but rely on human observation.  I’m ok with that.  It’s not like their observers are saying that Adam Dunn is a good fielder or anything.  In the four fielding spots, Rollins, Utley, Victorino, Feliz (now Polanco) are perfectly fine.

They then decide they want offense in the other spots (Ibanez, Werth, Howard).

A perfectly fine roster construction.

***

The Mariners have a different view obviously, and the Redsox seems to have followed suit.  Again, perfectly fine. 

The problem is with teams that want the good fielders in the high-leverage fielding spots, but put bad fielders there, but pretend they are decent fielders.

I agree with Ben that in this particular article, in a two or three line quote from Dewan, what Dewan said was fine, (even out of context it would have been fine), and the author of the piece did a great job in not bastardizing his quote.  That’s pretty much as good as it gets. 

As for the article linked in Nick/2, my words there speak for me.

"If we see a Mariners-Red Sox ALCS, can you imagine what kind of press Fangraphs, Dewan, MGL, etc. will get?  This can only be a good thing.”

Not worth it.  That’s a nightmare of an ALCS as far as I’m concerned.  It better not come to pass.

"I’m confused who you’re talking about.  Raul?”

Sorry for the confusion, I was talking about Shane Victorino.

Ok, I see.  Makes sense re-reading it.  Confused by the use of “he” after only mentioning Ibanez and Gutierrez by name.  But I agree on Victorino, whatever the numbers say for last year, I don’t think he’s a bad fielder.

RE:  Rally/#9

Haha ok let me rephrase that:

“If we see a Mariners-Red Sox ALCS, can you imagine what kind of press Fangraphs, Dewan, MGL, etc. will get?  This can only be a good thing, unless you’re an Angels (or Yankees) fan.”

Ben:

http://actasports.com/sow.php?id=235

“Using the rule of thumb that 10 runs equals one win, defense could boost Boston as many as eight or nine wins beyond their 2009 win total. “

No, no, no, no, no!

If Boston came back with the exact same team (and at the same age, i.e., repeated the season), they probably lose 4 or 5 more games.  THAT’s the starting point.

"This can only be a good thing, unless you’re an Angels (or Yankees) fan.”

I’d love to see this series, at it involves my favorite team (Mariners), and shuts out my two most hated teams (Angels/Yankees).

From the article:

“Gutierrez, for example, led baseball with a UZR score of 29.1, while Aaron Rowand of the San Francisco Giants was one of the lowest-ranked center fielders in the game with a UZR of 1.3.”

Did the author not look at negative UZRs?  0 isnt bad, its league average.