Your best MLB shortstops (defensively)

[thebruce44]

This came from a debate I was having with a friend. I told him that I wouldn't put Hardy in my top 5 defensive SS list and that I don't trust defensive metrics. He asked me what my list would be and how I would quantify it. I didn't have a very good answer for him since I just don't see a lot of baseball outside of the NL central but my thought is to base it of of defensive scouting reports over statistics.

 

Off of reputation, I would assume my list would include Andrus, Reyes, Tulo, ATL's Escobar, and Furcal. I think HRam has made great strides as well recently.

If you were to make a list of top defensive SS, what would it be and where would Hardy (and Escobar for that matter) be?

[Ennder]

Unless you watch every SS play every day I think going with anything but fielding metrics is going to be a bad idea and just going by reputation can be pretty bad. If I had to make a list I'd probably take a long hard look at tango's fan scouting reports at http://www.tangotiger.net/scouting/ and then look at fielding values from the past few seasons.

 

Having done all that I wouldn't be comfortable rating Escobar yet and I'm willing to bet Hardy would make my top 10 but not top 5. Fans tend to dwell on flashy too much when a strong arm, good positioning and consistency are every bit as important.

[thebruce44]

Wow, that site is fantastic. Thanks Ennder.

[logan82]

Depends on how much you trust the MiLB defensive statistics. As far as I know there are only fielding percentage and Total Zone. Fielding % is really a terrible way to look at defense at the MLB level with well groomed fields and somewhat consistent scorers. I think it would be practically useless on the MiLB level. Total Zone is ok and probably gives you a small look at what to expect. I agree with ennder that it is probably way to early to know what to expect on defense from Escobar. His Total Zone in the minors is all over the place, but improving year to year. The scouting on him is that he will be a very good defender. What is he now, I don't know. Assume he is better than average for now.

[pete]

The irony is that Hardy's reputation as a poor defender comes from defensive metrics. At one time out of zone plays or "OOZ" weren't included and Hardy rated poorly. When the Brewers' propensity to play outside of the clumsy, crude zones was pointed out, the response was typically that they were "advanced metrics" and were excellent, ergo he wasn't very good. Later when the various metrics got a little better, Hardy rated as excellent - indeed one of the best.

 

Now the argument is made that because of the shifts, the metrics are distorted and he really isn't very good. Its a classic example of using data to support an emotion.

[logan82]

There are definitely flaws in the defensive metrics. They don't take defensive positioning into account. That is fine for the most part. Positioning can be part of what makes a defender good. The problem comes in when talking about drastic shifts. How much that effects the stats is really hard to say.

 

I think when many people think of defense they are probably thinking about raw skills and give credit for positioning to the coaches. I would love to see skill broken out from positioning.