founded by Leonardo da Vinci and Mary Magdalene to destroy baseball as we know it.
Just finished my first glance at the Fielding Bible. Didn't read it closely, but it?s Maundy Thursday, Friday for me, and there are some pretty interesting things in there re the 'Stros. It's probably not as fun for you guys as bashing Clarks, but I thought it was interesting.
First, here's the general methadology, which I'm sure you know. Watch every game for a 3-year period. Grade each batted ball by exact direction, distance, speed and type. Determine whether and average player would make a play on that batted ball based on the percentage of times the play is actually made. The average player ends up with 0, the less than average player ends up with a negative number, the better than average player ends up with a positive number. There are adjustments for the kinds of special plays each position is required to make: bunts at 1st and 3d, holding the runner at 1st, double plays, hits and runs at 2d and SS. Unserweiter.
Second, there?s how much you can trust the methodology. My guess is mostly, some, but saying that one guy is a +24 while another guy is a +23, well that can come down to a coding error, or a bad night. I?ll treat the numbers as true and worthwhile, and you can bring your own skepticism. There?s also James?s discussion of Everett and Jeter, but more on that later.
Here's what, in a quick glance, I found interesting. Using the 2005, not the 3 year figures, Lance Berkman ranks 29th among first baseman. That means Berkman made 7 fewer plays than the average first baseman in 2005. The average first baseman at 0 was no. 20, Shea Hillenbrand. The number one ranked defensive first baseman was Mark Texeira was a +17. So Mark Texeira made 24 more plays than Lance Berkman in 2005. The question is, what's 24 plays in the course of a season worth? Not much. And it's not at all clear to me that in comparing Berkman, with 96 games, to Texeira, with 155 games, that you're comparing apples and apples. At least some of that difference can be luck.
In 2005, Bagwell played 24 games and still managed a +3. According to the list, he was still a better than average first baseman in 2005.
In the National League, the Astros have two number one defensive players for 2005: Everett and Taveras. As a team, they're ranked 6th behind, in order, the Phillies, the Cardinals, the Braves, the White Sox, and the Blue Jays. Compare Everett, +33, with Lugo, -2, and Royce Clayton, -6. You know what? That sounds about right. Compare Taveras, +9, with Beltran +7 (remembering that Beltran was playing on a bum leg) and Andruw, +7, and you know what, that sounds about right, too.
Not defending the numbers, mind. Just saying that to this Clark, that sounds about right.
On through the list. Biggio is 33d out of 35 with a -14. he made 49 fewer plays than Craig Counsel. Kent is 22d with a -5. Ensberg is a very respectable 4th with a +15. David Bell is 1st with a +24. For left fielders, Burke is 7th with a +7, Coco Crisp is first with a + 26. Adam Dunn has a -16, and Manny Ramirez a -18. I?ve mentioned Taveras, but it?s worth noting that 6 American League CFs, including Aaron Rowand, Jeremy Reed, and Joey Gathright, ranked above him. Rookie year, I?d guess. Preston Wilson is a -28. Jason Lane was a -4, in a group with Jeromy Burnitz, Shawn Green, and Aubrey Huff.
Now SS. It?s the most interesting because of the amount of press Everett got out of it, and because of the James essay. Here?s the obvious numbers. Everett is 1st with a +33. Derek Jeter is next to last with a -34. That means that Everett made 67 more plays at ss than Jeter. Up at the top, though, the differences aren?t that great. The difference between Everett and Rollins (4) is 10 plays, between Everett and Furcal (3) is 7 plays, Everett and Jack Wilson is 2 plays. The differences over the 3 year period are greater, but Everett, Wilson, Rollins and Furcal are still the best 4 defensive ss for the three year period.
James points out some differences between Jeter and Everett that you don?t get from the numbers, and while there?s a brief narrative about each player?s defensive style, it doesn?t point out the shortcomings of the numbers the way the James article does. James watched a video of the best 40 plays and the worst 40 plays of the 2 players. First, both had plays that you would expect a SS to make, but they didn?t That wasn?t obvious to me. It wasn?t obvious that the +33 was a net number. And while the number is based on observation, it?s also a weighted number based on expectations: not every play is a +1, depending on your expectation that a ss would make a particular play, that play might be a +.55 . It?s not worth getting into, but it?s kinda interesting.
Jeter, James says, doesn?t throw with his feet set. Everett almost always sets and throws. Jeter plays shallow and cheats to his left, Everett plays deeper. Everett doesn?t gamble on forceouts, Jeter does. James says he doesn?t know enough to know which style of play is better or worse, but that when James watched the play, most of Jeter?s top 40 plays were the kind of plays Everett missed: slow rollers into the grass. Remember the spectacular broken bat bare hand by Everett against the Nats? Everett has to barehand that play because he?s playing deep. Jeter is standing there. Usually, according to James, that?s Everett?s bad play.
Everett?s outstanding plays are often in the outfield grass, and involve range. Jeter made 3 plays in shallow outfield.
That said, James, being James, wants to quantify what the numbers mean. Assume, he says, that there?s a difference of 72 plays between Jeter and Everett. Most of those plays are going to result in singles, which has a value of ? a run. That translates into 30 to 35 runs. Jeter, James says, is a better player than Everett, and in 2005 created 105 runs on offense, Everett 61. So the difference, on balance, is a -9 runs for Everett. Roughly. More or less. Everett oughta ask for more money. Furcal oughta be asking for a ton of money. Oh . . . Wait . . .
Anyway, for what it?s worth . . .
