http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/...t_id=1360119&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb According to John Dewan, Adam Everett is the best defensive SS in the NL while Craig Biggio is the worst defensive 2B in the NL. Other interesting facts is that Willy Taveras was the best defensive CF in the NL and Preston Wilson the worst.
very interesting, though i think we all saw willy's shortcomings and everett's miscues on easy plays, etc.. I'm not sure what the stats are based on
the guy also has ryan howard as the best 1st basemen. defensive statistics are useless, they dont take into account a players range.
Range factor is probably better than nothing but it is dependant upon your pitching staff. A player on a team whose pitching staff gets a high number of strike outs will have a lower RF because it takes into account putouts + assets. The more strike outs, the less put outs and assists. For example, Jeremy Reed, who played CF for the Mariners had a high RF of 3.05. As a matter of fact, he led the major leagues. Coincidentally, the Mariners were last in the major leagues in strikeouts so he had more chances. The best gauge of defensive ability would be to poll the scouts who attend most of the games. Everett would probably be one of the higest rated shortstops while Taveras (at this stage in his career) would not be at the top.
There's also a stat called zone rating that measures the % of balls hit into a fielder's traditional zone that are turned into outs, thereby controlling for the variances in pitching staffs due to strikeouts, ground ball / flyball pitchers, etc. It's not perfect, but the area of defensive statistics is getting better and closer to hitting and pitching stats. And scouts can be flawed, they might note a strong arm or be swayed by some flashy isolated plays, but miss the positioning and other subtleties that make up a good fielder. A combination of fielding statistics and scouting reports is better than either in isolation.
I agree that defensive stats are getting better, but there is so much that has to be observed in order to accurately gauge a player's true worth. For example, in Bagwell's heyday, there was no one better at getting to bunts but how is that measued as to its value to a team? Under the defensive stats, his range factor increases, his zone rating increases, but where is the stat that shows whether or not he threw out the runner at 2nd or at 1st? In other words, a first baseman that simply makes the play, and gets the runner out as first, has the exact same rating as the first baseman that makes the play and gets the out at 2nd. The same in the outfield. Runners would run on Biggio and he would get some outfield assists by default, thus upping his RF (since he gets an assist). Meanwhile, they don't run as much on Andruw Jones or Ichiro thus denying them a chance to increase their RF. The same is true in preventing the extra base. I don't think ZR takes into account a hitter taking the extra base on Biggio, while staying at 1st on the same ball hit to an outfielder with a good arm.
all of this is why i have such a hard time with defensive stats. there's just so many nuances that can't be accounted for in numbers.
Well, since it looks like Soriano is going to play LF, I didn't have that well to go to...but I'm still quite certain Biggio is at least as good as some other 2B in the league.
You could make the same arguments against offensive statistics. There's no differentiation made between a guy who hits a weak grounder to third and a guy who hits a towering shot that is saved at the warning track, or a guy who hits a screaming line drive that the shortstop makes an unbelievable play on. The statistics tell you nothing of the quality of the at-bat. There's no statistic to account for the speedster who draws the pitcher's attention at first base, distracting him from the batter and perhaps forcing him to groove a fastball that gets deposited into the seats. Just because stats aren't perfect doesn't mean you should ignore them entirely. And Bob's second example is pretty weak, since OF assists are such a rarity that an outfielder's range factor is almost entirely made up of putouts (balls they catch for outs).
You are correct. Everything needs to be looked at in order to gauge the true value of a player. For example, Taveras flirted with .300 much of the year, but he is not a good hitter at this point in his career. That being said, a .330 hitter is usually a great hitter, while a fielder with high fielding stats isn't necessarily a great fielder. Do you know which outfielder has the highest fielding percentage of all time?
No idea, but we've agreed that fielding percentage by itself is an incomplete and therefore potentially misleading statistic. As is, by the way, batting average. Placido Polanco hit above .330 last year, Adam Dunn hit below .250. Any guess as to which one was more valuable as a hitter?
These examples are acutally each a non sequitur. On the offensive side, the team benefits equally from each situation you detail--none whatsoever. (Unless a guy was on 3rd, but then there *is* a stat that measures that.) In fact, the team could actually *suffer* from a screaming liner that the guy makes an excellent play on--a runner could be doubled off. The defensive examples provided, however, are very different in the benefit to the team. The stats will reflect that no out was recorded, but in one situation the runner remained at 1st and in the other the runner advanced to 2nd. That's HUGE. An out is recorded on the bunt play, but in one situation the lead runner is cut down at 2nd while in the other the batter is thrown out at 1st. That's HUGE. Agreed, but to consult them exclusively is even more prone to error than consulting offensive stats exclusively.
Looking at Everett, I think it's very reasonable that he's the best fielding SS in the NL. The guy has absolutely unbelievable range at the position. Yes, he does make a lot of errors, but many of them come from attempting plays that simply rolls past other SS as singles. One reason why errors can be a poor indication of performance. I'm not sure about Taveras, but that's because it's really hard to tell from just watching the TV. Besides, great defensive OFs don't exactly make lots of highlights. Since lots of acrobatic catches come more from mis-judged plays or a OF not fast enough to catch it the normal way. I'm guessing the ranking comes from the fact that he covers a lot of area in CF. Which he seemed to do well last year. We know Berkman and Lane certainly didn't cover a lot of groud out there last year.
Just looking at batting average, I'd take Polanco, but when you add in other easily measurable tangibles such as slugging and OBP, I'd take Dunn, although if there were 2 outs in the bottom of the 9th and the tying run on third, I'd probably take Polanco. That is the main difference between offensive and defensive stats. We know how many times Dunn got on base and how many runs he produced by simply looking at the box score, while we can't say the same thing about how many bases or runs a particular defensive player prevented. Incidentally, Canada's own - Terry Puhl.
I guess. But I remember Everett throwing the ball into the stands on routine plays last year. I can live with the errors I guess, but he has to get his bat working this year.
I'll take a guy who botches a few of those "routine" plays... if he's still able to make the ones that nobody else can, as well as the high-pressure ones, such as him turning the DP to win game 4 of the NLCS... possibly the greatest DP in Astros history.
