THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

Thursday, September 08, 2011

Only the nose knows

This is a discussion of defense (fielding + positional adjustment). I’m reposting from another thread, as it probably deserves its own thread.  This is to benefit the newer readers mostly.

***

Dallas:

Let’s take an easy example.  You have a bad fielding 1B.  He’ll be about -10 runs relative to the average fielding 1B.  Not a whole lot, but, 1B don’t have many opps to do damage to begin with (certainly not compared to SS or CF).

The positional adjustment for 1B is -12.5 runs.  So a bad fielding 1B has a fielding+positional value of -10 -12.5 = -22.5 runs.

The DH “positional” value is ALSO -22.5 runs.

So, whether you have a bad fielding 1B, or you have a non-fielding DH, both will have an identical “defense” value.

***

When you see players move from CF to the corners, or vice versa, you see a shift of about 10 runs.  This is why the positional value of CF is +2.5 and the corner OF is -7.5.

If you have a below average fielder in CF, say a -5 runs (relative to other CF), he will be an above average fielder in the corner (+5, relative to other corner outfielders).  In BOTH cases, his “defense” value is -2.5 runs (+2.5 -5, or -7.5 +5).

This is the point of the positional value adjustment, that it puts players on the same scale.  (Or tries to anyway.)

The positional adjustment in the OF is solid as a rock. 

The positional adjustment in the IF (2B/SS/3B) is somewhat solid.

The positional adjustment BETWEEN OF and IF is a bit shakier, not the least of which because all the lefthanded throwers are in the OF, creating a glut there.

The positional adjustment BETWEEN those 6 positions and 1B is also a bit shaky (but not that much).

The catcher adjustment is a bit of a stab in the dark.

So, I end up with the following adjustments:
+12.5 C
+7.5 SS
+2.5 2B/3B/CF
-7.5 LF/RF
-12.5 1B
-22.5 DH

(DH get a +5 bonus on the hitting side because it’s hard to hit as a DH.  You can also even do a similar adjustment for catchers.  But, no need to get into that here right now.)

So, you look at that scale, and it kinda makes sense.  We know, for a fact, that SS must be higher than 2B/3B: you almost NEVER see a 2B/3B become a SS, but tons of 2B/3B are former SS at some point of their lives.

Same idea for CF and the corners.

You kinda plug the two sets together, the 1B is obviously below the corners, and we suspect the C are above (huge scarcity).  And voila, you get a quantified version of the fielding spectrum.

ANY of those numbers can go up or down by 1 or 2 runs.  If you want to say the 2B should be +4 and 3B should be +1, I’m not going to argue.  If you want to say it should be different by era, I’ll agree (but it won’t change that much, certainly not in my lifetime).

It’s a fairly basic system that crystallizes how you would naturally feel anyway.  It passes the sniff test.

So, absent other research someone wants to present, then based on both my research, and the sniff test, that chart is pretty solid.

To argue against it means that you are going to bring something to the table.  And, I could be wrong.  But, absent actual research, we’ll be arguing between my nose (+ my research) against your nose (and no research).

Why would your nose win?

(Royal “your”.)