Is defense overrated?

[adambr2]

It seems baseball now, more than ever, puts high value on gold glovers with range and good athleticism. I've always felt defense in baseball gets a little more credit than it should -- in contrast to other sports where defense is a signficant part of the game, most "defense" in baseball is just routine fielding.

 

Of course, routine fielding can be botched at times. So let's just give an example saying "Player A" is a slugging infielder who commits 20 errors a year, a pretty high total.

Now, do all of these errors have significance? In my opinion, no. First, you have to look to see if the error actually led to any runs being scored. If it did not, it would be a harmless error. Even when considering an error with runs being scored, it's still harmless, to a degree, if the runs allowed didn't make a difference between winning and losing the game. So, of those 20 errors committed that season, will any actually lead to a team directly losing a game? Maybe. It happens.

 

Then again, defense is more than just the abscence of committing errors. Certainly outfielders with better speed and infielders with better range can track down balls that would have not been errors, but actually basehits for an average defensive player at their position. Arm strength can make the difference between throwing out a sac fly attempt, or the difference between an out and an infield single for an infielder. Of course, all that is impossible to grade.

 

It's hard to debate that Braun is one of the worst defensive 3B in the game right now. But, I think the consensus is that he wins a lot more games with his bat than he loses with his glove. Prince is below average for a first baseman, but we're not looking for a gold glove out of him. This is all just random speculation on my part -- but it does seem to me that the value of a position player should be measured a lot more by their offensive ability than their defensive prowess.

[HebrewHammer]

Bad defense doesn't just mean errors. You can be a poor defender but not commit many errors at all. Good defenders get to more balls and make plays on balls that typical defenders wouldn't.

 

You can't honestly watch a guy like Troy Tuluwitski and not be impressed by how he plays SS. Firstly, he plays a little closer than most SS's and it shows because his team is a leader in double plays.

 

Good OF's can cover a lot more space and will steal more hits than average OF's. They play angles well as well.

 

Good defenders will make plays to the untrained eye that may seem routine. But very often these guys will make an extra out a game if not more.

 

One Rockies game seemed like Tuluwitski took 3 hits away form us. He was able to get some grounders by diving and make the play because of his canon arm. He then started a double play on a slow roller that was impressive. The second baseman (I forget who) turned it real nice.

 

Se I'd say defense is important. Errors are just one thing you look at. But it's the hits these guys take away and the extra outs they're able to make. It adds up quickly.

[brettac1]

I think it's probably very underrated at this point.

 

There are of course cases where a player who is nothing but a gloveman gets majorly overpaid (i.e. Jack Wilson), but for the most part it is underrated because it isn't really quanitifiable with a statistic at this point (although advances have been made in the past couple of years).

[endaround]

No. They are both important. Part of the reason the Brewers pitching looks so bad is that the Brewers only have two above average fielders in Hart and Jenkins. So the Brewers best fielders are in the least important places.

[adambr2]

I'd agree that Hart and Jenkins are really the only good defensive players on the team that regularly start. Hardy was hyped as a very good defensive player when he came up -- so far I don't think he has really liven up to that hype. His range isn't particularly impressive, and he commits his fair share of errors at his position.

 

I wouldn't agree that both are equally important, though. If you looked at that way, Braun is probably one of the best offensive players at his position, and one of the worst defensively. If both were equally important, that would imply that his production at 3B is average, and I think we can all agree that Braun brings a lot more to the table than that.

[mothershipconnection]

What really matters is the aggregate balance of runs allowed and created. The problem is that we can't adequately measure defense with much precision at all. Otherwise, you could say "player X hit at this rate and allowed runners at this rate". You could then compare the difference with that of another player. Essentially, VORP with precise defensive metrics.

 

If you take a micro view of a single game, if one player had one single and took away three hits, he's really as valuable as another guy who had 4 hits and played completely average D.

[Brian the Automator]

I wouldn't say that Braun is the worst defensive third baseman in the league. Errors-wise, yes, it gets ugly at times. However, and maybe my perception is skewed because of the games I've watched vs. not watched, he's made some tremendous plays that I don't think Counsell or Graffanino would have made.

 

In general, I don't think it's either overrated or underrated. I think it had been overrated with defensive whiz's with absolutely no sticks playing the game, but sort of like undervaluing OBP, I think the "market" has adjusted itself.

[brettac1]

No. They are both important. Part of the reason the Brewers pitching looks so bad is that the Brewers only have two above average fielders in Hart and Jenkins. So the Brewers best fielders are in the least important places.

 

Precisely. And I meant to say this in my initial post - look no further than Jeff Suppan for an example of defense being underrated. As far as I can see, he's the same dude he was last year. But he had a great defense behind him, which made him look better than he was. But, he basically got the credit for the defense's great work. Now, this year with a shoddier defense behind him, he's had worse results. Yet it mainly gets blamed on Suppan himself, when he really has very little control over what happens once somehing that isn't a home run is hit.

[danzig6767]

No. They are both important. Part of the reason the Brewers pitching looks so bad is that the Brewers only have two above average fielders in Hart and Jenkins. So the Brewers best fielders are in the least important places.

 

Precisely. And I meant to say this in my initial post - look no further than Jeff Suppan for an example of defense being underrated. As far as I can see, he's the same dude he was last year. But he had a great defense behind him, which made him look better than he was. But, he basically got the credit for the defense's great work. Now, this year with a shoddier defense behind him, he's had worse results. Yet it mainly gets blamed on Suppan himself, when he really has very little control over what happens once somehing that isn't a home run is hit.

 

I see this get said alot that a pitcher is basically at the mercy of luck and his defense on balls hit that aren't homers,but what is this based on?I don't doubt a good or bad defense has an effect on the pitcher and bad or good luck on balls hit can vary over small samples,but the history of baseball is littered with pitchers who have had alot more sustained success than other pitchers who both pitch to alot of contact.These pitchers also often change teams/defenders and luck over extended innings i don't buy,so how is that pitchers have very little control of hit balls other than homers?

You watch a guy like Glavine,Tim Hudson,or say Mark Buehrle type of pitchers through their careers,they don't strike alot of hitters out,but are very successful because they locate pitches so well that hitters more often than not don't make great contact.You could then find numerous other pitchers who throw the same type of way,but get many less outs on hit balls because they leave more pitches in hitter friendly spots.

I'll be the first to admit that sabermetrics bores me silly for the most part and that i could be all wrong on this.If i am,how have guys like Glavine/Hudson/Buerhle types been so much more successful than other low strikeout pitchers who don't walk alot of guys?Location of a pitches doesn't matter at all if it's hit and not a homer?It generally won't have any bearing on how well a ball is hit,thus increasing/decreasing the likelyhood of it being a hit or out?Pitchers who generally keep pitches on the corners with command compared to those with less command who leave more over the center of the plate are pretty much both equally at the mercy of luck and defense when batters hit baseballs that are non-homers?

 

 

 

 

[rluzinski]

I see this get said alot that a pitcher is basically at the mercy of luck and his defense on balls hit that aren't homers,but what is this based on?

 

The tradition DIPS stance that pitchers have no control over balls in play is clearly wrong but common sense suggests that the defense behind the pitcher plays a huge part in deciding what percentage of balls in play results in a hit. The numbers back that claim up. Over a typical full season for a starting pitcher, according to "Solving DIPS", this is how much each factor influences balls in play:

 

luck: 44%

pitch: 28%

field: 17%

park: 11%

 

This certainly isn't the last word but I think it's the step in the right direction. Over the career of a pitcher, the luck factor of his BABIP shrinks down and the other 3 factors increase by about the same ratio. According to the above, fielding account for about a third of what can be controlled. When an average out is worth about .8 runs, it's not hard to realize the importance of good defense.

[mothershipconnection]

Yeah, it seems it can't all be boiled down to DIPS, because there are other factors like the % of grounders and fly balls, and the things Russ mentions. An extreme groundball pitcher will have different results than a similar pitcher in terms of DIPS who gives up a lot of flys and line drives, since liners are more likely to result in hits than grounders (though the line drive pitcher would probably also serve up more dingers).

[danzig6767]

I see this get said alot that a pitcher is basically at the mercy of luck and his defense on balls hit that aren't homers,but what is this based on?

 

The tradition DIPS stance that pitchers have no control over balls in play is clearly wrong but common sense suggests that the defense behind the pitcher plays a huge part in deciding what percentage of balls in play results in a hit. The numbers back that claim up. Over a typical full season for a starting pitcher, according to "Solving DIPS", this is how much each factor influences balls in play:

 

luck: 44%

pitch: 28%

field: 17%

park: 11%

 

This certainly isn't the last word but I think it's the step in the right direction. Over the career of a pitcher, the luck factor of his BABIP shrinks down and the other 3 factors increase by about the same ratio. According to the above, fielding account for about a third of what can be controlled. When an average out is worth about .8 runs, it's not hard to realize the importance of good defense.

As i said before,i don't read on these kind of stats,but this explanation strikes me as pretty reasonable from a common sense point of view if you watch enough baseball,moreso than it being almost entirely out of the pitchers control.

The numbers sound pretty close to what i'd imagine if you take alot of at bats into consideration.No question that plenty of bad pitches that are thrown can turn into outs via a hard hit ball finding a glove,a defender making a good play,or the hitter simply not making good contact.The reverse can also happen where a well located pitch finds a hole in the infield or drops in front of an outfielder.

I watch Suppan and maybe it's mistaken perception,but he seems to give up a higher percentage of hard hit balls compared to others on the staff.Even a good number of the outs he gets seem to be hit on the button,leaving me to think his command simply isn't as sharp this year.Now it's not like i watched him pitch a ton while with the Cardinals,so maybe our lesser defense is the main reason for the spike in ERA and while with the Cardinals,batters also made good contact on a consistent basis.He was though roughly a 4 ERA guy if you averaged out his 575 innings with them.Could a lesser defense really add nearly a run to his ERA if he was pretty much pitching exactly how he did as a Cardinal?

 

 

 

 

 

[brettac1]

Could a lesser defense really add nearly a run to his ERA if he was pretty much pitching exactly how he did as a Cardinal?

 

Over a span as small as what he's pitched so far, sure. I thought before the season that he'd have a 5.00 ERA this year due to the decline in defense behind him and a slight decline in his abilities. And I think that those are the two main culprits, with the defense being the main issue.

[Fatter than Joey]

I think it had been overrated with defensive whiz's with absolutely no sticks playing the game, but sort of like undervaluing OBP, I think the "market" has adjusted itself.

 

I think in a large part (esp when I was growing up in the mid70s) you didnt have any (very few) Cs and SSs that could hit at all -- so, you might as well throw out the best gloves -- but coming into the 80s with guys like Larkin, Ripken, Yount, etc.., SSs that could hit then you had a debate on your hands.

 

When an average out is worth about .8 runs, it's not hard to realize the importance of good defense.

 

I think this is the fact that is often overlooked and not appreciated -- bases are worth much less than outs -- but people sometimes only focus on the bases, and not the missed opportunity of the out.

 

For example -- A fielder makes an error -- and a batter reaches base -- you can say the base is really not significant -- which I agree it isn't -- but what is, is the "anti-out".

 

Take that game the other night, where Wise makes that error and Helms gets on base, the dam broke at that point. That is an extreme example-- but just remember -- every error means more pitches your pitcher has to throw and the closer you get to letting the meat of the opponents batting order get ABs. If you give up an error to the 9th hitter with 2 outs in the 8th -- even if the 1st hitter makes the 3rd out -- the pitcher in the 9th inning now has to face the cleanup hitter.

 

As a tangential -- I get into arguments about Estrada's noodle arm -- and I get the "stolen bases are overrated" thrown in my face, which they are -- but, what would be nice, is converting some of those SB attempts in CSs and outs. A SB isn't huge, a CS is though.

 

I am pretty sure that if a player had 4 hits and 4 errors every night -- they would be an overall liability.

[igor67]

It bears pointing out that there is a huge interaction affect between the pitch component and the defense component, namely defense is not uniform across the diamond and the primary affect of the pitch is groundball vs. flyball. And for that matter you have interaction between pitch and field too. I think it's fair to say that our infield defense is a lot worse than the Cards was last year and this has a big effect on Suppan's numbers. On the other hand the more strikeout's our pitchers get the less relevant the defense becomes and the more important the offensive contributions from each batter become.

[Boy Jeenius]

If you can't play "D" you've seriously reduced your chance of getting looked at. You better be more than special with the stick to have a chance.

 

My guess is that Adambr2 never played the game in a serious fashion - as "just routine fielding" is a statement never uttered by someone who has actually tried to catch some of those rockets that look ever so slow on televison. If you only knew how good you had to be to make most of those plays look like "just routine fielding" you might chosen a different way to present this thread. It has lead to pretty good discussion, but please don't ever think that what these guys do is easy or "routine."