Purple Row: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:



Around SBN: Check out our NFL Scoreboard: scores, schedule and blogs Bar-right-arrows



NL West Defense: 2008 Projections

I said I was going to do the bullpens next after having done lineups and rotations already, but I thought it might be important to insert this aspect of run prevention in this spot. Why I do this now is that I was realizing I was trying too hard to factor defense into the starting pitching evals I put up last week. Might as well just separate them out. If I were to do that, LA and San Diego both probably pass Colorado momentarily when it comes to rotational strength and the Rockies drop to the bottom. As you'll see in a moment, I don't believe it will be by far enough to make any team other than the Diamondbacks better than the Rockies at run prevention when starters are on the mound.

In 2007, defense played a critical role in determining the two teams of the four contenders that went to the playoffs, and the two that did not. Don't believe me? Look at the Davenport Translations, FRAA (Fielding Runs Above Average) for each team from 2007:

  1. Colorado +43
  2. Arizona +23
  3. San Francisco +8
  4. San Diego -15
  5. Los Angeles -18
That's a 61 run swing from LA to Colorado, a 58 run difference between the Padres and the Rockies.     That's a huge difference, completely erasing the advantage those two teams had on us in pitching in 2007. Taking my crystal ball out for 2008 doesn't show the status quo changing very much.

Catchers 2007:

  1. Russell Martin, LA
  2. Chris Snyder, AZ
  3. Yorvit Torrealba, CO
  4. Bengie Molina, SF
  5. Josh Bard
I've got some major issues with the stats community's efforts to quantify catcher contributions, but that's mainly because I have some major issues with how catching stats are accumulated in the first place. Jinaz at On Baseball and the Reds does an alright job at evaluating what happened at the position in 2007, but like many sabermetricians, in focusing almost completely on baserunning, he misses other important aspects of catcher fielding. A couple of suggestions to help quantify this: check out each team's putouts at catcher minus the strikeouts for an idea of how the catcher does at fielding pop fouls and tagging out guys trying to reach home. The latter is a hugely critical play as it's a complete reversal by taking a run away from the offense and creating an out for the defense at the same time. Pop fouls are nifty bonus outs for the defense that are unappreciated but not as important. The second area to look would be assists minus the caught stealing total as an indicator of the catcher's ability to field bunts and pick off runners. Colorado was better than most teams in both these areas mainly thanks to Yorvit, and I personally think it's enough to make up the difference between him and Snyder, with Martin still being quite a bit better. Look at the numbers and keep in mind that there's not an appreciable difference in the dimensions of foul ground behind home plate when it comes to Chase and Coors:

Snyder: PO-K(prorated): 9.27 A-CS: 29
Torrealba: PO-K(prorated): 23.67 A-CS: 41
Martin: PO-K(prorated): 36.32 A-CS: 44

Shortstop

I was going at this in the order of the Bill James defensive spectrum to show that the Rockies advantage comes from having their strongest defenders in the positions of greatest importance.

2007:

  1. Troy Tulowitzki
  2. Omar Vizquel
  3. Rafael Furcal
  4. Stephen Drew
  5. Khalil Greene
For 2008, I'd expect another slight decline from Vizquel, but it won't be nearly enough to drop him to the Drew/Greene range. By every advanced fielding stat I've looked at, Tulo was about thirty runs ahead of the two trailers in the division defensively in 2007.

Second Base:

2007:

  1. Orlando Hudson
  2. Kazuo Matsui
  3. Marcus Giles
  4. Ray Durham
  5. Jeff Kent
Two teams are experiencing some turnover at the position for 2008. Tad Iguchi was below average at second for the White Sox, above average at second with the Phillies, which overall makes him average -right where the Padres were last season. Jayson Nix, as my post last week pointed out, could be better than Hudson. Since I'm a homer, and I can also figure on age wearing at the O-Dawg a little bit, I'll go ahead and say that will be the case.

Center Field:

Doing this exercise made me realize how lackluster center field defense was across the division in 2007. There are some major discrepancies between STATS, Baseball Info Solutions and MLBAM when it comes to monitoring the play by play data at this position as well and I don't know how to untangle it, so for 2007 this is just a straight up FRAA ranking.

2007:

  1. Willy Taveras
  2. Dave Roberts
  3. Mike Cameron
  4. Chris Young
  5. Juan Pierre
The Dodgers have made a major defensive upgrade by getting Andruw, at least for 2008, while the Padres have likely lost a good chunk of value by not holding onto Cameron. Young should get better in Arizona. Roberts was either decent or close to terrible depending on where you get your defensive stats from, at any rate Rowand should be at least a slight upgrade and Taveras had a down season last year by the standard he set in Houston. So for next season, I'm going to guess that the Dodgers and Rockies will be vying for best at the position with Rowand and Young being the next tier and whoever winds up manning the position in San Diego (after Jim Edmonds' knees explode) will be way down on the totem pole.

Third Base:

2007:

  1. Pedro Feliz
  2. Mark Reynolds
  3. Nomar Garciaparra, et al in Los Angeles
  4. Kevin Kouzmanoff
  5. Garrett Atkins
Pete Happy was in a class by himself as far as the rest of the division is concerned, with no other third baseman rating as above average. Reynolds came up through the D-backs system as a shortstop and might be just making an adjustment to the position, so he should improve in 2008. LaRoche isn't the greatest gloveman, but he isn't the liability Atkins and Kouzmanoff are or Garciaparra was in 2007. Names besides Feliz associated with San Fran will be an automatic downgrade. If they retain Pedro, they retain the top spot, if they go elsewhere, I'll give the slight nod to Arizona, with Los Angeles just behind. The Rockies become the best defensive unit in major league baseball by a pretty easy distance just by replacing Atkins with Ian Stewart.

Right Fielder:

2007

  1. Arizona's committee
  2. Randy Winn
  3. Ethier/Kemp
  4. Brian Giles
  5. Brad Hawpe
Brad needs his strong arm to be accurate to have any value as a right fielder, and last season it wasn't, so he ranked near the bottom of the majors  at the position by nearly every stat I've checked. Arizona's top rating is in jeopardy for 2008 with more innings to Justin Upton, who for all his tools still takes bad routes and doesn't get very good reads on balls in play. So for next season I'm going to put Winn on top, Kemp second, Upton third, and then Giles and Hawpe rounding out the bottom. Part of AZ's success in 2007 was liberal use of Jeff Salazar, who might be the best defensive right fielder in the division. Look for him to get a lot of late inning substitute assignments for Upton this year.

Left Field:

2007

  1. Eric Byrnes
  2. Matt Holliday
  3. San Diego's committee
  4. Luis Gonzalez
  5. Barry Bonds
Despite his circus flops while throwing, Byrnes has a sizable lead here, and should be the best defender in left in the division in 2008 as well. Holliday does alright for himself. Los Angeles will be good to very good in 2008 whenever Andre Ethier's playing, they won't be so hot when Juan Pierre's out there. San Fran also will have a substantial upgrade by subtraction defensively, although certainly not enough to make up the loss on offense. San Diego's trying another hodgepodge in left it looks like, however this time the caliber of defense of the players involved appears substantially lower, so I'm expecting them to take up the rear in 2008.

First Base:

2007

  1. Todd Helton
  2. Ryan Klesko/Aurilia/Ortmeier
  3. Adrian Gonzalez
  4. Conor Jackson/Tony Clark
  5. Garciaparra/Loney
For 2008, look for Arizona and LA to flip as Loney's a superior defender to Jackson. Everything else should stay about the same as far as ranking goes.

Pitcher:

This is actually much higher on the defensive spectrum, but it's a group effort rather than mostly individual work like the rest, so I've saved it for last.

2007

  1. San Diego
  2. Los Angeles
  3. Colorado
  4. Arizona
  5. San Francisco
The difference between the three teams in the middle was negligible. San Diego's edge has a whole lot to do with Greg Maddux. None of San Fran's starters field particularly well, so it's a group effort that leads them to the rear of the pack. Arizona had pretty good defense from it's starting rotation, but poor defense by the bullpen. By contrast, all of LA's starters are just about average fielders, it's their bullpen -particularly Beimel and Saito- that fields especially well. Colorado gets good defense from Cook, Francis and Morales, but not so great D from Hirsh and Jimenez. There's a similar mix in the pen.

2008 figures to see a little change. I think the Padres retain the top spot, but the gap closes between them and the Dodgers as Kuroda's purportedly pretty decent. Livan Hernandez was the second best defending pitcher in the division, and Danny Haren is a poor defender replacing him. With more innings from Morales, the Rockies should move further ahead of the Diamondbacks in third. If Kip Wells sticks the full year, that probably won't be the case.

Summary Projections:

The Rockies aren't likely to get notably weaker at any position in 2008, with a possible exception of an age related step down by Helton. Upgrades appear to be coming at second and possibly center if Taveras bounces back. Arizona's downgrading on the right side with full seasons of Upton and Jackson, although I know most scouts expect Upton to be a tremendous asset in the field someday. They do figure to get upgrades of experience with Chris Young and Mark Reynolds. San Francisco figures to be better in the outfield but worse in the infield. I don't know if I'd take that trade-off. Los Angeles has probably improved itself the most by moving Pierre, but there's still a lot of ground to make up and I really think San Diego has taken a step back this winter. The Padres might be in the -25 range as far as fielding next year.

So for 2008:

  1. Colorado +50? It seems very possible right now if Nix delivers.
  2. Arizona +25  After everything, I see them right around the same level they were in 2007.
  3. Los Angeles +5 to +15 depending on the playing time of LaRoche and Ethier.
  4. San Francisco +0 The Giants are going backwards.
  5. San Diego -25 I'm beginning to think the Padres might be the biggest disappointment in 2008.

0 recs | Comment 24 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

wow good stuff as usual
Maybe this year instead of a lopez/herndez bet you could do which team has a better defense.. or something like it.

good stuff rox girl thanks

At least the broncos dont totally suck

by roxfan4life on Jan 21, 2008 7:22 PM MST   0 recs

I hope Taveras gets better.
Not to say he did bad last year, he was actually pretty decent and made some good plays.  And I might be way off the mark in saying this but it always seemed to me from watching him that he just didn't usually get very good jumps on the balls hit to center.

Maybe he was still getting used to not having a goofy hill and flag pole behind him.

by belt on Jan 21, 2008 7:32 PM MST   0 recs

I agree, he's sort of a wildcard
Similarly to Holliday -and his goofy way of flailing at balls hit over his head- the numbers suggest Willy's not as bad as he appeared at times, but still not nearly as good as he was in Houston. I'm expecting that after a season of acclimation to Coors Field that he regains some of his stature out there and better anticipates where the flys are heading.

by Rox Girl on Jan 21, 2008 7:49 PM MST to parent up   0 recs

Don't unestimate the impact of his injuries
Just because he was in the lineup at various points didn't mean he was at 100%.  Most groin injuries are nasty.  I'm sure it affected his defense to a reasonable extent in 2007.  If he's healthy, that rebound Rox Girl is looking for will almost definitely happen.
rockies in october.

by LarryB303 on Jan 21, 2008 10:22 PM MST to parent up   0 recs

This is why I love Purple Row
Full breakdowns of NL West defenses in the middle of January.  If I had never discovered this site I would be pulling my hair out waiting for spring training to start.  Great work, yet again.
It's amazing how much free time I have during the off-season.

by jcd823 on Jan 21, 2008 8:28 PM MST   0 recs

Amazing
My baseball IQ just jumped 10 points. AND I actually understand the post! That's bonus points for you Rox Girl, and Purple Row posters as well.

Now that I know what a LOOGY is and what VORP means, not to mention FRAA, I'll be talking some smack down at the old watering hole! OK, so that part's not true. But still, I'm learning so much by being part of this great blog/community.

Now if it were just spring....

2007 NL Champions, baby!

by rockhead on Jan 21, 2008 9:29 PM MST   0 recs

Rox Girl
Are you a lawyer? Your analytical skillz probably make alot of GMs jealous.

by lizardlad01 on Jan 21, 2008 10:43 PM MST   0 recs

I never understood...
Why Holliday gets a bad rap as a poor defensive left fielder, every game I've attended he has made plays at the wall. He's top 5 in putouts and assists for left fielders and only committed 3 errors. Heck Griffey committed 8 and Byrnes had 5!

I hope Atkins worked on his defense this year. Last year there was improvement on balls his down the line, especially in the World Series he was amazing diving to his right and throwing out runners. If he could learn to go to his left (actually Tulo gets all of those balls), and charge a slow roller he would be an adequate third baseman. At least he would receive more gold glove consideration than Ryan Braun.

There's only one Rocktober!!

by Charlie77 on Jan 21, 2008 10:44 PM MST   0 recs

A few things
- FRAA is garbage.  Just use ZR.  Seriously.  FRAA isn't worth the bandwidth it takes up (damn online technology... "not worth the paper it's printed on" sounds so much better).

There's a spreadsheet with both STATS ZR and BIS ZR available here.  I happen to think that the BIS data is screwed up, and if you examine this spreadsheet, you'll see why: almost all of the cases where the two ZR systems differ significantly are cases in which BIS has an extreme rating for a player and STATS doesn't.

  • I like what you're trying to do with catchers, but there's just too much noise in the data for it to be the least bit trustworthy.  Outs recorded at home plate has far more to do with a) the strength of the outfielders' arms and b) the number of baserunners the pitching staff allows than it does with the catcher.  Assists minus CS doesn't mean anything unless you can figure out a way to remove the dropped third strikes from the equation.  And obviously, all of this suffers from the same problem that range factor in general does - we simply have no idea how many opportunities each catcher had.
  • We're in agreement on the Rockies' defense, save Nix (already discussed) and Tulo (who I presume you're counting on for a +20 or so, and who gets just a +6 based on the ZR projections, in part due to a lousy performance during his September callup).
  • I think you're being too harsh on the Giants.  They're only meaningfully below average at one position (Durham), and Vizquel is further from average in his direction than Durham is in his.  Frandsen should be fine at 3B, they've got three center fielders in the outfield (two of whom are bad center fielders, but still)... that's a good defensive team.  It's not nearly enough to make them relevant, but they should probably be in the +25-35 range, depending on whether you think Rowand is something special (I don't).
  • I don't see the Padres' defense as a problem.  Okay, Josh Bard is terrible.  No argument there.  But Gonzalez and Iguchi are average, Greene is good, Kouzmanoff is decent (-2 according to ZR), Hairston has performed very well in LF in his limited time there, Edmonds is still average, Giles is a hair below... put it all together, and they're right around average.  I suppose you can subtract a few runs for the inevitable Edmonds injury, but still, this isn't a -25 team.
  • Here's what my projections say:
SF +28
ARI +14
COL +13
SD +1
LAD -6

I like the D'Backs' and Rockies' chances to beat those numbers.  In Arizona's case, that's because the numbers see Hudson and Upton as average, which I'd be inclined to disagree with.  In the Rockies' case, it's because I think Tulo is being sold short (although not by that much; Adam Everett projects at +13, so that's the de facto ceiling for these things) and because you've spent enough time extolling the virtues of Jayson Nix that I've decided to expect something in the +5-10 range (whereas the projections use Giles, who is a little below average).

by Heltonfan on Jan 21, 2008 10:53 PM MST   0 recs

Spreadsheet
Forgot to put in the link to the STATS/BIS ZR spreadsheet: http://home.comcast.net/%7Ebriankaat/zonecombo2007.xls

by Heltonfan on Jan 21, 2008 10:55 PM MST to parent up   0 recs

Why ZR?
I'm curious why you are down on FRAA.  Doesn't ZR in itself punish the great defensive players that make a lot of plays out of their "zone" anyway by counting it as a play made in their zone?  Not to mention that the whole zone is a subjective call anyway.

by belt on Jan 21, 2008 11:50 PM MST to parent up   0 recs

Defensive stats
Why am I down on FRAA?  Because it's not zone-based, and therefore does a terrible job of estimating each player's opportunities.  Simple as that.

ZR isn't perfect, and your criticism is accurate, but it's light-years ahead of FRAA or any other non-zone-based measure.

by Heltonfan on Jan 22, 2008 7:40 AM MST to parent up   0 recs

Well
I agree that a lot of defensive metrics are flawed but ZR to me isn't any better.  It rewards good hands solely and does nothing to measure how a player excels.  Vizquel had a higher ZR in '07 than Tulowitzki (.897 vs. .866) but that doesn't take into account that Tulowitzki has much better range, a much better arm, and isn't playing with near as good of a fielding third basemen.  Not to mention it doesn't take the park into account so Rockies outfielders are already at a disadvantage because of the huge outfield and same zones.

I don't know it just seems like a huge disservice to limit yourself to one stat when all of them are obviously flawed.

by belt on Jan 22, 2008 8:24 AM MST to parent up   0 recs

ZR
"It rewards good hands solely and does nothing to measure how a player excels."

This isn't even remotely true.

"That doesn't take into account that Tulowitzki has much better range, a much better arm, and isn't playing with near as good of a fielding third basemen."

It does take into account the first two things there, and the third would make Tulo look better by ZR, not worse.

"Not to mention it doesn't take the park into account so Rockies outfielders are already at a disadvantage because of the huge outfield and same zones."

Right, that's what park factors are for.  And I use them.

by Heltonfan on Jan 22, 2008 9:56 AM MST to parent up   0 recs

Maybe I'm way off the mark?
"This isn't even remotely true."

I'll never be the one to claim to be an expert on Zone Rating, but I've always been under the impression that zone rating is how they handle the balls in their zone.  When a fielder goes outside of their zone, they'd be effectively expanding the size of their zone because ZR does nothing to account for the fact that ball was outside their zone and counts it as a ball that was fielded in that zone.  Therefore, a player that stays in his zone, and doesn't ever range out of his zone is automatically at an advantage over someone that ranges out of their zone and has to make harder plays.

"It does take into account the first two things there, and the third would make Tulo look better by ZR, not worse."

Well, like I said to the previous point, it counts a ball out of the zone that they field the same as it counts a ball in their zone.  Therefore players with better range effectively play a bigger zone and are at a disadvantage.  You're right it does account for a better arm to some degree.  And a poor fielding 3rd basemen wouldn't make a shortstops ZR better the way I understand it for the same reason I've already stated, the shortstop has to range further and put himself at a disadvantage.

I might be way off of the mark in my understanding of ZR, so if I am please explain where I'm going wrong.

by belt on Jan 22, 2008 10:10 AM MST to parent up   0 recs

ZR
"Therefore players with better range effectively play a bigger zone and are at a disadvantage."

They aren't at a disadvantage, because no matter what, they don't get penalized for not making plays on balls outside of their zone.

by Heltonfan on Jan 22, 2008 11:14 AM MST to parent up   0 recs

Ok.
Ahh, I misunderstood that part.  I thought if they made an attempt on the ball even if outside their zone it counted against them.  

Haha, like I said I never claimed to be an expert.

by belt on Jan 22, 2008 11:33 AM MST to parent up   0 recs

So..
If they're not penalized by plays outside their zone are players given bonus points for making the plays outside the zone?
There's only one Rocktober!!

by Charlie77 on Jan 23, 2008 11:09 PM MST to parent up   0 recs

Yes
"Bonus points" is a bit of an oversimplication, but yes, they are.

by Heltonfan on Jan 24, 2008 7:45 AM MST to parent up   0 recs

I was actually using a mix
of ZR at ESPN, Pinto's PMR the Dewan +/- numbers and RZR in addition to FRAA plus some subjective tweaking that typically followed Tango's FANS ratings if there were cases that the systems were in complete disagreement on. It was an effort, but for you and Xeifrank, I don't want to leave the impression that I was solely relying on FRAA, other than the team ranks and center field, which I felt the discrepancies between STATS and BIS' systems were just too big. I probably should have explained that, but then the post would have gotten bogged down by esoteric acronyms.

I think we'll just have to continue in disagreement on a lot of the nitty-gritty individual position stuff until it plays out. As for catchers, I agree about too much noise with the outs, and in fact tweaked Torrealba down because of that, Pinto's PMR actually has him ahead of Martin which is nonsense. At the same time, I think just ignoring that aspect altogether leaves an incomplete picture.

I definitely think you've overrated San Fran, particularly Vizquel, who's closer to average than you think (almost all of his added defensive value came in the first half of the season, from the end of June on he was pretty mediocre) and both he and Durham are declining fairly rapidly. Add in declines at catcher (Molina's also aging poorly in regards to defense) first (Klesko and Aurillia were much better than Ortmeier will be) and third (whoever it is won't come close to Feliz) and I see a decline at every position in the infield, a couple of them significant. That's not good, and at that point I don't care how they've upgraded their outfield because it won't be enough to counter that slide.

San Diego seems to be overrated by ZR defensively in general, I don't trust the Greene and Kouzmanoff rates in particular. Hairston might be alright, but it looks like he's going to be splitting time with Chase Headley, and that downgrades that position. Overall, maybe I am underrating them a little, but there's no way they're going to be close to within fifteen runs of Colorado. I would bet a lot of money on the over if you gave me that 14 run difference in Vegas.

I can see how small or no-samples will affect your rating of the Rockies, and ZR definitely didn't like Taveras, so I can't really argue there. I think by using solely ZR you wind up penalizing teams whose pitching staffs have high contact, high GB rates like the Rockies -Toronto's another example- when in reality they wind up getting a sort of synergistic bonus in the form of DP's and better OOZ #'s than you would otherwise expect -particularly if they have decent defensive parts to begin with. I don't know if you've accounted enough for this in either your pitching forecasts or here, but it has to figure in somewhere and right now I'm not seeing it in either.

by Rox Girl on Jan 22, 2008 7:22 AM MST to parent up   0 recs

expla
ok, thanks for the explanation.  Defensive metrics seem like the one area that many of the sabermetric gurus are in disagreement of.  It's just a difficult thing to pin down without any large degree of variation.  Offense and pitching are alot easier to nail down.
vr, Xei

by Xeifrank on Jan 22, 2008 9:16 AM MST to parent up   0 recs

For those of you that don't know me
The fact that I'm going to argue against myself might seem odd. But I don't like leaving something so incorrect as that last paragraph hanging. It's wrong on at least one point, and what I'm trying to say about the synergy thing, I haven't quite figured out how to frame it yet.

I noted this last week when we were talking about FIPs, and I saw how the discrepancy between FIP+ and RA+ for Colorado tended to track higher according to the pitcher's GB rates, but that for some teams, like San Diego and Arizona, this wasn't the case.

One way that I think that what I'm talking about shows up in the team's DER when high GB% pitchers are on the mound. For Colorado, you'll notice that the DER gets higher with Cook, Corpas, Morales and Jimenez but tends to track lower with lower GB rates. There were a couple of exceptions to this like Hirsh and Redman, but for the most part, the principle held.

For San Diego, the opposite occurred, high GB pitchers like Maddux, Germano and Cla Meredith had lower efficiency scores than their high FB counterparts. I usually don't like DER, especially not by itself, but I think there's something to this, and it's a big part of the reason why I think Greene and Kouzmanoff might be overrated defensively.

by Rox Girl on Jan 22, 2008 11:29 AM MST to parent up   0 recs

FRAA
I am no expert on defensive metrics, but isn't FRAA considered to be outdated by the sabermetric community?

vr, Xei

by Xeifrank on Jan 22, 2008 1:04 AM MST   0 recs

FRAA
I think the big problem with FRAA is that there seems to be several different versions of it.  It's hard to know when you are looking at the one Pete Palmer came up with or the newer iterations that have been improved.  And every time I try to actually look at what makes up the stupid stat it's almost as if it's some closely guarded secret.

by belt on Jan 22, 2008 10:13 AM MST to parent up   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about the Colorado Rockies.

Established 28 April 2005.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Small
If you love baseball, this is a show you will want to see.
Small
Relief pitching?
Small
2011 Colorado Rockies (Best Colorado Team Ever???)
Du_animated2_small
Reflections on the Holliday trade
Small
The Big Unit
Colorado_rockies_logo200_small
Cards GM Mozeliak: Trade talks for Holliday are dead.
Rockies1_small
Holliday to the Cards?
212013248044830ea9b5ccb_small
Three-Way Deal with Yankees?
Coors_sunset_small
Jimmy "Ballgame" in left?
Du_animated2_small
Jayson ix-Nay to the Pale Hose

Post_icon New FanPost All FanPosts Carrot-mini


Managers

Img_01873_small Russ

Li_l_rox_girl_small Rox Girl

Bench Coaches

Nixie2_small malakian

Small David OhNo

ad

Site Meter