Improving Infield Defense

[clancyphile]

I never was a Gantner fan back in the day... and I had no idea what OPS was then either. Granted, it probably wasn't until the 90s when I started wondering why they didn't replace him.

 

I just didn't get it, period.

 

What did Jim Gantner provide that was worth starting him at second for 140+ games a season?

[reillymcshane]

Defense is interesting in that it is often hard to quantify - which means it's often (but not always) undervalued and easier to find. This inability to quantify defense has, at times, made it harder for teams to feel comfortable electing to employ more defensive oriented players. Teams - and fans - can see and relate to easily accessible numbers - batting average, HRs, etc. What's better - a 3B who hits .260, 10 HR, .750 OPS and good defense, or a guy who hits .280, 20 HR and .800 OPS, but with below average defense? Most people will pick the latter, but depending on the (always tricky) defensive value the player brings, it might not be true.

 

As a small market, we have to take advantage of every opportunity. If that means taking a more measured look defensive value - it should happen. It's foolish for it to NOT happen. An undervalued skill is a market opportunity for a team like Milwaukee. They should exploit it if possible.

 

But this is a team that let Betancourt play 140-50 games at SS, so I'm not optimistic.

 

I see an interesting case in the near future with a guy like Michael Reed. If he projects as a high OBP, above average RF, but only gets 8-10 HRs, will the club give him the chance to start? Or will his lack of power limit him to a back up role?

 

Obviously, there are other factors involved in a team's make up - money, upside (or downside) of the player, the composition of the roster, etc. But I think many teams, Milwaukee included, do undervalue defense, and thus there is the potential to exploit the market by adding players that we value more than other teams - and at a lower cost. But the team needs to have the stones to make those decisions - we'll see.

[clancyphile]

Defense is interesting in that it is often hard to quantify - which means it's often (but not always) undervalued and easier to find. This inability to quantify defense has, at times, made it harder for teams to feel comfortable electing to employ more defensive oriented players. Teams - and fans - can see and relate to easily accessible numbers - batting average, HRs, etc. What's better - a 3B who hits .260, 10 HR, .750 OPS and good defense, or a guy who hits .280, 20 HR and .800 OPS, but with below average defense? Most people will pick the latter, but depending on the (always tricky) defensive value the player brings, it might not be true.

 

As a small market, we have to take advantage of every opportunity. If that means taking a more measured look defensive value - it should happen. It's foolish for it to NOT happen. An undervalued skill is a market opportunity for a team like Milwaukee. They should exploit it if possible.

 

I don't dispute that, in theory, and in practice, I'm open to doing that sort of thing at times. For instance, Adam Weisenburger is a catcher I'd like to see get an extended look in September (maybe with trying Lucroy at first). He guns down 50% of would-be base-stealers and he is putting up a .370ish OBP on a .240 batting average at Biloxi.

 

That being said... I'd probably err far more often on the side of offense. And the better the offense (say, .900 OPS and 30+ homers), I may just come to the conclusion that the good offense stays at a given position (say, third base), and I worry about other holes in the lineup.

 

But this is a team that let Betancourt play 140-50 games at SS, so I'm not optimistic.

 

I see an interesting case in the near future with a guy like Michael Reed. If he projects as a high OBP, above average RF, but only gets 8-10 HRs, will the club give him the chance to start? Or will his lack of power limit him to a back up role?

 

Obviously, there are other factors involved in a team's make up - money, upside (or downside) of the player, the composition of the roster, etc. But I think many teams, Milwaukee included, do undervalue defense, and thus there is the potential to exploit the market by adding players that we value more than other teams - and at a lower cost. But the team needs to have the stones to make those decisions - we'll see.

 

Reed's an interesting question. No doubt, he is an OBP machine with speed and what appears to be some gap power (22 XBH in the Southern League). While's he's mostly played right field, he's played enough center field in the minors (64 games total from 2012-present, with 116 putouts, 6 assists, and 3 errors) that I'd be okay putting him in there, especially if he is at the MLB minimum.

 

A case of sacrificing defense for OBP/speed? Yeah, I probably am. But Reed's speed and OBP skills have me very intrigued...

[Thurston Fluff]

As a small market, we have to take advantage of every opportunity. If that means taking a more measured look defensive value - it should happen. It's foolish for it to NOT happen. An undervalued skill is a market opportunity for a team like Milwaukee. They should exploit it if possible.

 

I agree we should look to see if it is indeed undervalued. But we should be careful not to just assume it is because it is hard to define. It could just as easily be overvalued as undervalued.

[TheCrew07]

I don't follow sabemetrics anywhere near as much as I used to, I just don't have the time.

 

However I believe it's been proven multiple times that runs prevented are more important than runs created, which is something many of us felt was true all along. I could be wrong on that, maybe someone who's stayed more current on that stuff could weigh in?

[Thurston Fluff]

I don't follow sabemetrics anywhere near as much as I used to, I just don't have the time.

 

However I believe it's been proven multiple times that runs prevented are more important than runs created, which is something many of us felt was true all along. I could be wrong on that, maybe someone who's stayed more current on that stuff could weigh in?

 

That doesn't get us any closer to measuring relative value of an offensive player vs defensive one though. If the best defender only saves a few runs per season over an average one but the best offender creates a bunch of them v average then the value of a player who saves runs at a higher than average rate, while being more than a single run created, may not be as valuable.

[reillymcshane]

Article on ESPN about the epic defensive play of the Royals.

 

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/13173708/the-kansas-city-royals-defense-just-good-historically-elite

 

It's a team built around great defense, below average starting pitching, awesome relief pitching, and solid hitting.

 

They are 15th in runs scored, with guys hitting for average (3rd in the majors) vs power (27th). Pitching-wise they are 7th in ERA overall. But their starters are 27th in ERA and their relievers are best in the majors.

 

It is an extreme example, as the relievers and D are both historically great. But it's an interesting combination. They have managed to use great defense and a great bullpen to overcome the weak starter pitchers.

 

But one thing I like is that KC has not been overwhelmed by a desire to employ a weak player just because the club lacks something. They aren't trotting out an OF who can hit 25 HR, but sucks at defense, just so they improve their power numbers. They are taking the talent they have and letting it play, irregardless of the