BY SCOTT LAUBEROK, let me preface this post with an admission: I'm not a stat guy.
It's my job to write about/analyze baseball, and in so doing, I recognize the value of advanced sabermetrics. But there are some conclusions I am able to draw without statistics. For example, I don't need to see any numbers to know Jimmy Rollins is a superb defensive shortstop. That becomes evident simply by watching him play.
That said, it seems there's a statistic for everything these days. And I thought I'd pass along some info from an e-mail I just received from the publisher of The Fielding Bible-Volume II by John Dewan, a sabermetrician who has developed a plus/minus system that measures a player's defensive abilities. In the latest edition of the Fielding Bible, Dewan presents a stat called "defensive runs saved." According to his system, the Phillies saved 78 defensive runs last year, most in the majors. Dewan says that 10 runs equals one win, so by that formula, the Phillies' defense added about eight wins to their total compared to an average team.
Thus, Dewan concluded the Phillies were the best defensive team in 2008, ahead of the Cardinals (71 runs saved), Athletics (64), Blue Jays (53), Brewers (49), Mets (41), Braves (33), Indians (29), Rays (26), Nationals (22), Astros (22), Red Sox (18), Mariners (14), Marlins (9), Cubs (7) and Dodgers (2).
Take that for what it's worth.
6 comments:
Thanks for posting this, Scott. I know you say you're not a stat guy, but as a stat guy myself, I have to say that you certainly are responsibly aware of what's going on and MUCH more so than many other writers. Undoubtedly, stats don't tell the whole story, but they also explain some things that observations can't and can quantify some things that observations can notice. The best sabermetrics is that which is derived from intelligent observation and subsequently quantified.
The fielding stats are certainly not as accurate as the batting and pitching stats. At the same time, they're very useful to look at. As fans and other observers, we can see how well a player plays once he is on screen (or once our eyes have focused on him after the ball was hit). We see how well a player avoids making errors on routine plays and how well a player gets to balls that are just in his grasp. What Dewan (who is reportedly better than all of the many people doing fielding research right now) can do is help figure out how many balls a player actually gets to-- whether they have a quick jump on the ball is almost impossible to tell watching the game unless you just stare at the shortstop while the pitch is being thrown. Fielding stats help with that.
Interestingly, I've read an article recently at The Hardball Times on Chase Utley's off the charts Dewan rating, and it turns out that what he does is mostly about positioning. The average second basemen, apparently, does not play far enough towards first base when lefties are up and Utley really does. I have to imagine some of this is Utley's good baseball sense, but I suspect that the Phillies scouts are statistical analysts are just ahead of the league in terms of fielder positioning. Dewan and other fielding analyzing sabermetricians help explain how good.
Wow, dude, you have ENTIRELY too much time on your hands. time to get a life. did you seriously just type "sabermetricians"?
Hi Scott,
You haven't been posting for a few days. Have you been furloughed?
Hi Scott,
You haven't been posting for a few days. Have you been furloughed?
MattS: As always, thanks for the thoughtful comment. I think we agree, fundamentally, on the use of sabermetrics. It can be a valuable tool, no doubt, when utilized in concert with observation. I get frustrated when I talk to scouts who say their organization sends them on the road armed with "Moneyball stats" that cause them to have pre-conceived ideas about a particular player. I think that can be dangerous.
Perhaps the best analogy came from Pat Gillick during a conversation I had with him before the World Series. Gillick is as old-school as they get. Things like "VORP" and "range factor" mean little to him. He likened a team relying too heavily on stats to a home loaner who quotes you a mortage over the telephone. You give them a zip code, they quote you a price. The zip code tells them which town the house is in, but it doesn't tell them if that house stands next to train tracks or a sewage plant, etc. That's not something you'd know unless you see the house for yourself.
I'd never say that stats aren't a valuable resource. I believe they are very useful. But depending primarily on stats can be tricky, especially since they've become so readily available and can be massaged and applied to seemingly every aspect of the game.
Thanks again for the reply. I always enjoy our give-and-take in this forum.
Thanks for replying, Scott. I think the difference really comes down to who is doing the sabermetrics. The stats need to enhance and summarize observations.
I would also guess the biggest value in sabermetrics is replacing less useful statistics with more useful ones.
I know Gillick is pretty old school, but it really does seem like the Phillies must be very aware of sabermetrics. Am I wrong in this assumption? They seem to always be right on the frontier of what's being done-- high OBP guys and slowfooted sluggers, and recently improved their team defense as that's been studied more. Do you know how seriously the Phillies do statistical analysis? Do they have a few guys on staff at the meetings who know their sabermetrics? It seems surprising that they wouldn't given that they're constantly good at what sabermetricians are studying.
Post a Comment