New Look Outfield and Improved Defense
by Scott Weber ~ January 9th, 2009
Today let’s inspect the new-look Seattle Mariners outfield for 2009. Gone are Raul Ibanez and Jeremy Reed, and in are Endy Chavez and Franklin Gutierrez.
First of all, the loss of Ibanez’s offense will hurt. But the loss of his defense is a welcome change. The last two years of Raul Ibanez in Seattle were remarkably similar, with a .291/.351/.480 line in 2007 followed by .293/.358/.479 in 2008. Typically, a corner outfielder of this offensive caliber would be worth around 3 WAR. But Raul’s defense was so terrible that his value was diminished greatly. In 2007, Raul’s UZR was a whopping -20.8. Combined with 13 games missed to injury, Raul was only worth 0.6 WAR over replacement (WAR) in 2007. That’s easy production to replace. 2008 was better, where Raul was worth a more normal 2.2 WAR, as his defense regressed down to a -12.6 UZR in LF, so…horrible to just plain bad. Over the past two seasons, Raul Ibanez was worth just 2.8 WAR– a total of $12 million on the open market. And, he made $11 million over those two seasons. Somehow, this managed to get him $30 million dollars over three years in a lefty-loaded lineup where he will be playing defense every day, and getting worse at it every year.
It’s important to understand the conditional value of offensive production compared to defensive production, and Ibanez is a prime example. Obviously, the point of baseball is to score more runs than the other team. The common perception of a fan is that this is done with great offense and defense is a nice bonus. In actuality, they hold similar weight. If scoring runs is one half of the equation, isn’t preventing runs the other half? This comes from pitching and defense. Clearly, position players (outside of catchers) have no effect on how the game is pitched, but their impact on defense can be evaluated in terms of runs prevented, which holds equal weight to their runs created with their bat. Adding the net value of those two numbers gets you to a player’s total worth. Again, I direct everyone to Fangraphs and Dave Cameron’s excellent series on understanding the win values/WAR section on player pages over at Fangraphs for a great explanation on this. I’ll be referencing these ideas and numbers frequently, so if you don’t get it, he does a great job explaining the methodology and logic, much better than I can.
With Ibanez gone, the team loses a constant of offensive production, but instantly becomes significantly better on defense with the addition of Endy Chavez and Franklin Gutierrez. Jon already did a nice job summing up Gutierrez in an earlier post, but let’s examine Gutierrez and Chavez’s win values in comparison to Ibanez and Reed’s departure. Offensively, there’s not a whole lot of difference between Jeremy Reed and Endy Chavez. Both got around the same amount of at-bats last year, with Endy posting a .284 wOBA and Reed posting a slightly better .296 wOBA. But Jeremy Reed’s WAR was actually -0.2 last year. Negative. In today’s market, Jeremy Reed should have paid the Mariners $900k for letting him get on TV and play baseball for a living. While Reed showed tons of promise defensively in 2005, he quickly declined in his later years, truly struggling in 2008. In fact, Reed had not posted a positive UZR in the outfield since his 2005 campaign. Endy Chavez, on the other hand, has been a outstanding defender his entire career, especially in corner outfield spots.
2008:
Jeremy Reed: -9.8 UZR, -1.9 value runs, -0.2 value WAR, Market value -$900k.
Endy Chavez: +14.2 UZR, 8.5 value runs, 0.8 value WAR, Market value $3.8 million.
As you can see, defense matters. It’s not unreasonable to say that if Endy Chavez is our full-time left fielder, receiving around 600 at-bats, he’s nearly a 2 WAR player. And what was Ibanez? An average of 1.4 WAR over the last two seasons. It’s something to think about. Could a defensive wiz like Chavez be more valuable than Ibanez? It’s possible, and with Ibanez’s increasingly bad defensive skills, this is a player the M’s should be happy to have in LF instead of Raul.
Franklin Gutierrez is an even stronger reinforcement of the defensive theory. Once a top prospect, his bat has disappointed but has glove has not. Over the past 3 years, there has been nobody stronger defensively in RF than Franklin Gutierrez, according to The Fielding Bible’s plus/minus system. Gutierrez logged an astounding +55 score with a mere 1,933 innings logged there (for comparison’s sake, Ibanez logged 1,340 innings in LF last year alone). Over the past two years, Gutierrez has racked up an outfield UZR of 29.7, combined with his mediocre bat, he’s still worth 3.6 WAR over the last two years. Also, more than Ibanez. And that’s being a part time player, only receiving about 56% of the at-bats he’s expected to log in two years as a Mariner. Gutierrez, playing full time, could project to as great as a 3 WAR player next year. Now, there’s some uncertainty about him making the move to center field, but he’s shown proficiency at the position before and played it in the minors. There’s also a chance for some offensive growth, and a much smaller chance for offensive regression.
In conclusion, if the Mariners stopped their shopping today and started 2009 with a full-time outfield of Chavez, Gutierrez, and Ichiro, they’re flat-out worth more WAR than Ibanez, Reed/Wlad/Bloomquist, and Ichiro were last year. Last year’s outfield logged a -25.4 UZR, while this year’s could land in the +40-50 run range. In outfield defense alone, you’ve just made a +65-75 run differential swing between the 2008 and 2009 Mariners. This outweighs the loss in run value of offense the M’s will experience, and next week we’ll take a look at the difference in offense between this year’s outfield and last year’s. But it might be in the M’s best interest from a pure value standpoint to give Endy Chavez full-time innings in LF if they’re done acquiring outfielders.
16 Responses to New Look Outfield and Improved Defense
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment. If you don't yet have an account, please register here and join the discussion. Registration takes only a few seconds!
Rob T.
January 9th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
I can’t see them starting Endy Chavez everyday so it won’t be that much of a difference in run differential (not 65 runs anyway). I have very little faith in Wlad but as the team is currently constructed they will probably send Wlad out there as the starter on most days to give him a chance at least at the beginning. I also think that the M’s will acquire another OF before ST starts.
Scott Weber
January 9th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
sure. this is all hypothetical of course, just showing how could it could be if he did play full time.
SABR Matt
January 9th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
I have a real problem with the way Cameron and a lot of sabermetricians are combining offensive runs above replacement (the baseline being roughly .350 W% production) and defensive runs above AVERAGE (the baseline being .500 W%).
The justification of doing this is that the replacement level bat will be an average fielder, but this is fatally falwed logic. The idea isn’t to pick some arbitrary net player and describe this amalgum as the replacement level…the idea is to figure out what level of production can be replaced for “free”. It’s demonstrably UNTRUE that the replacement level for defense (by itself) is .500. Every team routinely carries players who produce at below average output defensively AND offensively…even championship caliber teams carry these guys.
The proper way to describe players is by comparing their offense to the replacement level for offense and their defense to the replacement level for defense. The net will not be a single replacement player’s likely production, but it WILL more accurately scale offense to defense in terms of the real value of each for a team.
When you do this, you end up describing Raul Ibanez as a 3 win hitter and a 0 win fielde (three net wins)…of course a lot of other bad fielding left fielders will move up in value too…but the math will change significantly…and you won’t get ridiculous looking lists that claim Raul Ibanez is a comparable valued commodity to a part time all-fielding no-batting 4th outfielder (this has actually happened this off-season) or Eric Hinske has the same value as Adam Dunn. Both of those statements should immediately make you rethink the way you’re using fielding metrics…because they’re so far out of joint with traditional rational thinking about the game that they demand immediate attention.
No one in the game today would listen to you if you tried to claim that Raul Ibanez and a part time fielder were the same value or that Adam Dunn is the same as E5 Hinske. Not one man in the game would believe that. NONE. Dunn is clearly and identifiably a more valuable commodity even with -20 runs of defense in left field. Ibanez got 11 million per year while the 4th outfielders of the game get 1 mil if they’re lucky…FOR A REASON. And no…that reason is NOT that GMs are all a pack of morons who can’t use the new wave of sabermetric tools.
Scott Weber
January 9th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
This is really interesting stuff, and stuff that I’ve considered in the past – but never seen an intrinsic problem with assuming a replacement player is average defensively – especially since it seems most replacement players, like a Willie Bloomquist, are regarded as all glove/speed and no bat type guys, even if that’s not correct, that has always been a justifiable perception to me personally. Is there a simple way you would propose to fix this? Would you still use UZR data but place less weight on it? Using your .350 and .500 ratios, is it feasible to use a similar ratio to recreate win values/WAR?
Rob T.
January 9th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Great post Matt. Thanks for explaining it.
SABR Matt
January 9th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
unfortunately, you can’t use a ratio like that because W% is non-linear with value. Think nof the Pythagorean equation:
W% = RS^X / (RS^X + RA^X) where X = ((RS + RA)/G)^0.295
You can use the same logic to compare a player to his average expectation and come up with a winning percentage figure (this is the principle behind Bill James’ Offensive Winning Percentage).
Similarly, you can use UZR data if you know what the average run created per unit playing time (inning?) rate is for the position – I’ve calculated those values from the historical database if you’re curious).
You would take the player’s UZR runs (-20 for Dunn in ’08 for example) and add them to his expected runs (a left fielder should creat about 30 pure runs in a full season…Dunn played about 98% of a full season) to get a net runs figure. That’s about 9 runs.
Then you need to figure out what the replacement level is for left field defense (you’re going to discover that the worst defensive left fielders are not all sluggers, but even if they were…that’s real information you need to use in your analysis to describe how important defense is t the position…if teams readily except bad fielders only when they’re plus plus bats…that argues that a -20 defensive rating WAAAYY overstates how teams value defense)…
The fielding replacement level for corner outfielders is on the order of 18 runs created. So Dunn is about a -9 run above replacement fielder…that’s about 0.9 of a win below replacement…not 2 wins.
Unfortuantely…I got my values of what the replacement level is, and what the average runs produced by position are by creating a full win-shares-like sabermetric tool using more modern approaches than James did…that’s obviosuly not a quick back of the envelop approximation for people who don’t want to spend years pouring over the database.
BUT…you can make a rough estimate of those values yourself by looking at the average number of plays made by each position and the relative value of those plays using linear weights.
For example, the typical left fielder makes 300 plays in a full season and each of those plays is worth about -0.1 runs (30 runs total value). This isn’t perfect but it does paint a rough picture…except you don’t do that with first basemen (their putouts are mostly not plays…you need to look only at unassisted putouts and assists) and catchers (their PO are mostly Ks…you need to remove the Ks). You also need to be aware that double plays, catcher assists and outfield assists often have more value than the typical out. But you hopefully get the general idea.
So anyway…the defensively is unfortuantely not simple…another reason why there’s a major problem when you start combining different scales together as though they were linearly comparable.
You general point here is a valid one though…we can gain 20 or 40 runs by the changed outfield defense alone…maybe more….just adding another sabermetric viewpoint you don’t often see.
Scott Weber
January 9th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Appreciate the input, Matt. That’s ridiculously heavy stuff, but interesting nonetheless. I think if nothing else, it just should encourage people to realize that we all need to take defensive metrics and win values with a grain of salt. They’re still being developed and tweaked, and while I will likely continue to use the current method, (for lack of a widely available and accepted alternative for player win values) it doesn’t mean it’s the gospel, for reasons you just posted.
SABR Matt
January 9th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
I’m hoping for a career in the game…I’m pretty far “deep” now after years of studying the statistical record.
I do stuff like simultaneously solve for run-scoring context variables like home plate umpires, starting pitchers, intrinsic team skill, and park factor (soon to be adding a panel of weather variables to this).
Bottom linr on this topic…I can understand you wanting to use the statistics at your disposal…but just be aware that there will be significant biases against sluggers and for part time glove men.
Jon Shields
January 9th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
I really appreciate the work sabermetricians have been putting in. I’ve followed some of your work, SABR Matt, for maybe a year or so, and of course all the other guys out there too. It’s intriguing stuff for sure, but it’s still way over my head for the most part.
Interesting thread.
If you ever want another outlet for publishing your stuff feel free to drop me a line.
Mike Rogers
January 9th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
SABR Matt, do you have a place where you’re publishing your work? I’d definitely love to read it.
SABR Matt
January 9th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
Yeah Jon, Mike…I have written technical papers on most of my current research…though a lot of my plans are not yet completed due to time constraints and limitations in my programming speed and computing power. But for the stuff I’ve completed, I have wirtten documentation I can send out to anyone who wants it…just drop me an e-mail (matt.soudrs@verizon.net)
I have write-ups on four things:
PCA (my win shares equivalent rating system)
PythagenMatt Game Tracker (think Pythagorean W% but done for each individual game instead of just on the seasonal run scoring totals…it’s statistically significantly more predictive than regular Pythag in-season though the improvement in accuracy is relatively small…it’s great for looking at in-season trends though)
The Fiato/Souders Matrix (the math theory behind this is actually very simple and can be summed up in one sentence: for any game, for any team, the runs that team scores are equal to the league average run scoring rate plus the perturbations in run scoring context caused by the many interwoven variables that can impact scoring…everything from team offensive ability to opposing defensive ability, opposing starting pitcher, ballpark, home plate umpire, weather conditions, etc…basically the matrix is just a HUUUUGE set of linear equations…solving the matrix solves for all of the variables I can identify all at once)
Defense Neutral Run Average (my DIPS pitching metric…based on the idea that pitchers as a group have little control over the results of batted balls in play…but that individual pitchers have quantifyable impacts on batted ball results and those are defined as the differences between event rates they allowed and event rates the team allowed when they were not pitching)
I’ve done other work that I still need to write up…lots to do…little time to do it.
And hey Jon…if you’re interested we can discuss occasional contributions on the sabermetric end of things…I try to boil things down to simple common sense as much as possible just because very few people have the time or energy to be as geeky as I am…LOL I don’t know how much demand there is in the Mariner blogosphere for yet ANOTHER saberdweeb…but…there ya go.
Matt
SABR Matt
January 9th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
Oh…to answer Mike’s question, I don’t have a blog of my own (tried that once…got about 1 hit per eon…kinda not worth it…LOL)…I’d love to discuss topics related to my work, but I guess I’m not the greatest communicator in the universe.
Mike Rogers
January 9th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Very interesting, Matt. I’ll drop you a line. I’m not math savvy in the least and it’ll take me a few times re-reading each paper you’ve written (i’d imagine), and possibly some back and forth with you, but I’m interested in reading them. I’m trying to delve into the realm of quantitatively evaluating college hitters, so the nerd level is right up there for me.
Mike Rogers
January 9th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Matt, I just tried to email you and it got returned back to me. Drop me a line mikerogers04 at gmail.com
SABR Matt
January 9th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
matt.souders@verizon.net bounced?
that’s not good. I’ll e-mail you.
SABR Matt
January 9th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
oh I see…I had a typo in my last e-mail…dropped an e…try the adress above.