Tango on Baseball Archives

Archive List

True Talent Fielding Level, 1999-2003
Adjusted by Difficulty of Position, and
Extracted to All Positions (December 23, 2003)

Some more fun stuff. Please pay special attention to the italics and bold in one paragraph.
--posted by TangoTiger at 01:06 PM EDT

Posted 1:12 p.m., December 23, 2003 (#1) - tangotiger
The "r" is the regression towards the mean factor for that player.

Posted 2:16 p.m., December 23, 2003 (#2) - tangotiger
Here's how ESPN/STATS sees some of the top UZR fielders:

From ESPN/STATS

Darin Erstad: Erstad, the fastest player on the team, led the Angels' relentless charge on the bases. He races from first base to third as well as anyone in the league. His spectacular defensive style-diving to the ground and slamming into outfield walls-makes him susceptible to injury; he missed seven games after suffering a concussion last year.

Mike Cameron: In the field, there's nothing Cameron can't do, whether it's turning his back to a drive and chasing it down, climbing a wall to take away a home run, or outrunning a drive in the gap.

Geoff Jenkins: ...no one ever figured he'd develop into one of the better defensive left fielders in baseball. But that's what he's made himself into, by getting good jumps and going hard for everything that comes anywhere near his territory. He had fairly good speed and ran the bases aggressively before his ankle injury...

Aaron Rowand: He doesn't have great range but is fearless chasing down balls.

Seems that all these players have this "extra drive" that might make them go from being good fielders to great fielders. This "extra drive" might not necessarily translate itself into other positions.

Posted 2:50 p.m., December 23, 2003 (#3) - MGL
Tango, great stuff! It takes a while to figure out what the heck is going on, but after you do, it's even better. Where do you get the formula for "r" from? That's about what I use (around 50% regression for one year stats and 25% for 3, depending upon the position of course).

Your conversion numbers from one positon to another ar essentially based on how players actually do who have played more than one position, right? If so, I think we should be careful about to carried away with the suggestion that a player migh be particularly suited to one position and not another. That is specualtion. As I have said a number of times, I think that when a player has a vey high or very low UZR at one position, even if they have never played another position (like Jenkins, Jeter, or Bernie), I think that is strong evidence that they are at the wrong position, and I would have to be convinced that they have some special skill that would make those conversion numbers NOT apply to them. I mean you developed those conversion numbers based on thousands of innings of players who HAVE played multiple positions, yet everyone wants to make a "special case" for everyone that I suggest should be moved. That's ridiculous. By definition, the special cases have to be fairly infrequent. I know the argument is that the ones who have never played another positions ARE the ones who are the special cases, while the ones who HAVE ALREADY played mutliple positions are the ones to whom the conversions apply. I know this is a conundrum, like with MLE's, because of selective sampling issues (can you only apply the "conversions" to players who's managers have determined that they CAN play multiple positions, and therefore you CAN'T is them - the don't apply - to players who have only played one position?), but I think it is naive to think that the reason why Jeter doesn't play third is because managers "know" that no matter how bad he is at SS, he would be just as bad at third. That is ridiculous. One, they are afraid to ask him to move positions, two, they don't think he is as nearly as bad as he is, and three, managers don't like the rock the boat, especialy on a winning team (maybe they are right). Come on, Jeter is big and has a strong arm. If anyhting he may be mroe suited to third than to SS. Using Tangop's chart, the Yankees could conceivably pick up 6 runs just by switching Boone (who has played SS) and Jeter - but we all know that's not going to happen for political reasons.

He races from first base to third as well as anyone in the league.

Based on 2000-2002 S-lwts, he is not even in the top 20 for baserunning, although he is very good. For 2003, he is in the negative (worse than average) for baserunning!

The best basrunners in 2003:

Spivey, EY, Podsednik, L. Walker (amazing at his age and size), Castillo (the best of the best), Furcal, M. Giles, Polanco, Matthews Jr., Vizquel, C. Blake (also best of best), Kotsay (how good is this guy), O, Cabrera, Pujols, yes Pujols (also best of the best), Beltran (best of best), Guzman (only redeeming thing about his play), Ichiro, Hinske (THE best of best).

I was just eyeballing the list, so I may have missed some. I have a feeling that players as a whole are so non-optimal in running the bases (too passive) that the above players are either very smart or just plain aggressive. Speed is a factor but not as much as you might think.

Here are the worst, BTW. I suspect that most of these are just too slow to ever attempt many extra base advancements although some of them may be just even more passive than the average baserunner. Again, I am just eyeballing a list that has lots of data and is in no particular order.

Worst of 2003

K. Garica, T. Hafner, E. Martinez (worst of worse and takes away a lot from his hitting value, -7 runs per 162), Olerud, Millar, Fullmer, Phelps, Posada, Bellhorn, Matheny, Tino, Karros, R. Martinez (that's pitiful for a SS), V. Guerrera (???), Bradley (pitiful for a CF), A. Ramirez, J. Franco, J. Encarnacion (??), R. Belliard, Counsell (??), Jenkins (??), McGriff.

I'll put up a real best and worst on Fanhome.

Posted 4:57 p.m., December 23, 2003 (#4) - Jim Detry
I find it strange that Jacque Jones comes out as better than Torii Hunter.

Posted 7:10 p.m., December 23, 2003 (#5) - Tangotiger
There are several hundred players on that list. I expect that there should be tens of players that don't make sense (as you would expect from any list where the year-to-year r is .50).

Having said that, I'd like to hear from more people as to where they think their players should be. For example, I know that the Batters Box fans love Vernon Wells, but I think his fielding True Talent number is rather unremarkable.

Try to give them a number. For example, if Lofton has a true talent of +10, should he be +5, +15, -5 in your view? Exactly who is it that you have seen say for 20 games that surprises you?

Posted 7:36 p.m., December 23, 2003 (#6) - J Cross
I think the Mets would argue that Jose Reyes has more defensive ability than Bubba Trammel but who knows. Jose has a small sample so far but I'd expect a +10-15 from him if he continued at shortstop. Maybe he'll stumble a little in his first year at second (0-+5). Bubba looks like a -10 OF. I'd be a bit surprised if he's better than Lawton, Abreu and Floyd.

Posted 9:03 p.m., December 23, 2003 (#7) - Scoriano
Nick Johnson is probably a surprise to most Yankee fans but I found him to be consistently awful.

I am surprised that Matsui is not somewhat better. He seemed to be decent on flyballs and especially good at cutting balls off and holding hitters to singles on balls down the line and in the gap to my eyes. His arm seemed average, but my observation was that his positioning and release were very good, so on the whole he is a surprise to me.

Posted 12:27 a.m., December 24, 2003 (#8) - MGL
Scoriano, keepo in mind that UZR arms does not measure a fielder's ability to cut hits off and hold a batter to a single or a double, rather than a double or a triple. It only looks at "holds" and assists.

I could do that, but it would be a little hard, as there is no "marker" in the PBP data that indicates that an OF'er held a batter to a single or double. I would have to look at the percentage of singles, doubles and triples in the various parks by an average fielder and compare this to a fielder's own percentages. Lot's of noise there. Trouble. That is why I say you can probably add 50% or so to an OF'ers arm lwts to account for unmeasured holding batters to singles and doubles...

Posted 9:15 a.m., December 24, 2003 (#9) - David Smyth
Good stuff. It would be an interesting comparison (to me, at least) to see it done by combining the player's UZR with the 1999-2002 OPA of the position he plays.

Posted 9:42 a.m., December 24, 2003 (#10) - tangotiger
I've seen quie a bit of Nick Johnson, and I don't know who it is that says he's a good fielder.... he's horrible. The number of times he's not positioned well, or doesn't know what to do with a ball on a bunt, it's just staggering. He's a god athlete, so you hope that'll translate itself. But, I think that, as a fielder, he is completely lost.

Reyes is probably small sample, so the verdict is out.

I've also seen alot of Matsui, and I am surprised by how low he is. He seems like a very smart fielder, but it's hard to measure his quickness unless you watch him from the crack of the bat. When your frame of reference is Bernie, it's easy to look good.

Posted 3:26 p.m., January 12, 2004 (#11) - tangotiger
Erstad to 1B
I've got Erstad's true talent level at +34 runs per 600 BIP at a neutral fielding position.
Jose Guillen is +10.
Vlad is +5.
Anderson is -2.
Salmon is -11.

So, what you want is Erstad in CF, Guillen in LF, Vlad in RF, Anderson at 1B and Salmon DH.

The position-specific UZR would work out to:
Erstad +32
Guillen +11
Vlad +7
Anderson +7
Salmon 0
TOTAL +57

Moving Guillen to CF, Anderson to LF, and Erstad to 1B and we get:
Erstad +37
Guillen +6
Vlad +7
Anderson +1
Salmon 0
TOTAL +51

So, it seems that Erstad at 1B won't be that bad a move. While Erstad is +32 relative to an average CF, he would be +37 relative to an average 1B. How does that work out?

Well, Erstad is +34 relative to an average fielder at a neutral position, with 600 BIP. In CF, there'd by 4x162 BIP, and at 1B, there'd by 3x162 BIP. So, Erstad would be +37 in CF, relative to an average fielder (not average CF), and +28 in 1B. So, moving Erstad to 1B really costs the Angels only 9 runs.

(This assumes that the translation, which works for the average fielder, happens to work for Erstad as well. This might be a huge problem here.)

Leveraging Guillen in CF (a slightly good move) and we've only got a 6 run loss with Erstad at 1B.

I'm a little skeptical though.

Posted 3:41 p.m., January 12, 2004 (#12) - Rally Monkey
I'm real skeptical. Its just a completely different skill set. My guess would be more like +7 for him at first.

Of course, the +32 by Erstad in center may be completely a thing of the past, and his injury won't allow him to play that way anymore. That's what Stoneman seems to think. I'd have to be a doctor to say if he's right or wrong about it.

Posted 5:24 p.m., January 12, 2004 (#13) - MGL
Tango, does that +32 at first include the fewer opp's at first? I assume that it does.

I agree that Erstad's true value in CF, and therefore at any position is much less than it was in prior years, due to age and particularly injury (which is the reason for moving him in the first place). So in order to guess how much it will "cost" the Angels to move veryione around, I think we have to assume that Erst's true defensive neutral value at this point in time is a lot less than +34.

Plus, and this is a big plus, I don't know why Tango didn't regess those 4-year UZR stats to reflect true ability before doing the calculations, Before we true and figure how any runs the A's will save/cost by moving everyone around, we have to establish each player's true defensive value (by regressing their sample 3 or 4 year values). Actually we have to take that one-step further and esatblish their projections by taking those regressed sample values and adjusting for the fact that all these players are one year older in 2004, and are presumably going to be worse in talent defensviely than ever before. For example, I have Erstad's UZR projection in CF for 2004, including age and regression, at +20...

Posted 6:16 p.m., January 12, 2004 (#14) - J Cross
I'd be willing to give VERY good odds that Erstad doesn't get +37 at first base. In fact, my money says he doesn't get +20.

So, Olerud is of similar defensive value to Alomar (not even including the balls he picks out of the dirt - I think he's particularly good at this that)?

So, Olerud Career: 8371 PA - 132 OPS+, best 3 years 185, 163, 145
Alomar: 10,210 PA - 117 OPS+, best 3 149, 140, 140.

looks like one of 3 possibilities:

a) Alomar has been worth a lot of runs on the base paths.
b) Alomar used to be worth a lot more in the field than Olerud
c) Olerud's really been a better player than Alomar.

Posted 7:13 p.m., January 12, 2004 (#15) - Silver King
Intuitively, I expect there to be a limit or drag or diminished return to how much difference a great defensive talent could make at 1B compared to at CF. Such that even if Erstad's abilities are also pretty much suitable to 1B, he'd only get 70 cents on the dollar or whatever out of it at 1B 'cuz you just can't make the same degree of difference.

If that's not true, it's really interesting--that defensive ability would tend to be like water, and could be poured in different shapes or sit at different heights but remain the same effective quantity. In general, I'm finding the whole discussion about relativity between positions to be really interesting. Thanks.

I'll go ahead and mention about UZR. Thanks oodles for the 00-03 UZR info and the clear spreadsheetable format and the by-position break-down!!!

MGL, in the past you presented UZR for '98 and '99. On Fanhome a good while back, you also alluded to having the potential ability to work up SuperLWTS (and thus I assume UZR) from years previous to that. Do you suppose we'll get to enjoy (latest version) pre-'00 info somewhere down the road?

Posted 7:14 p.m., January 12, 2004 (#16) - Silver King
Intuitively, I expect there to be a limit or drag or diminished return to how much difference a great defensive talent could make at 1B compared to at CF. Such that even if Erstad's abilities are also pretty much suitable to 1B, he'd only get 70 cents on the dollar or whatever out of it at 1B 'cuz you just can't make the same degree of difference.

I'll go ahead and mention about UZR. Thanks oodles for the 00-03 UZR info and the clear spreadsheetable format and the by-position break-down!!!

Posted 10:19 p.m., January 12, 2004 (#17) - MGL
Tango certainly includes the number of opportunities in his "positional transformation formulas." IOW, the fact that first base has limited opp's as compared to CF or SS is already included int he nubmers. Keep in mind that a lot of the way the "formulas" were derived WERE based on players who DID play multiple positions (Tango can correct me if I am wrong), so they are not that theoretical and SHOULD apply to at least some players accross the board.

He does state many times, that they are rough approximations, that they would not necessarily apply to any large percentage of players, that there are indeed certain unique non-fungible skills at each position, etc, etc., so all these questions about whether Erstad would indeed be that valuable (+20, +30) at first are quite valid. I think that any exact number we surmise for his value at first is going to pretty unreliable.

OTOH, given that he is likely to have been the best CF'er in recent baseball history, it is not unreasonable to think that he might be one of the best first baseman, which is probably the equivalent of a true value of +15 or so UZR at first. OTOOH, it seems to me that the skills requirted for a great CF'er (speed, quickness, positioning, getting a good jump, eye-hand coordination, eyesight, judging ball trajectories, fearlessness, etc.) are somewhat different (to say the least) than those required at first (quick hands and feet, good hand-eye coordination, height, positioning, speed and quickness for bunts). As well, there is some evidence in my UZR research that players need to "learn" how to play first, unlike the other positions, where they "learn" them in amateur and minor league ball and "raw skills" are most important at the major league level. Plus, we have no idea how he is going to be in terms of catching bad throws (although as a great CF'er, you can assume that he probably has great athletic skills, eye-hamd coordination and eyesight), and covering first base and feeding the pitcher and things like that (some of these requiring practice and experience which one can only get by practicing and playing that particular position).

All that being said, I would put his over/under UZR and DP fielding at first (remember UZR does not measure catching bad throws) at +10 for 2004. That is just a WAG, and if anything, it may be high.

Silver, I am just finishing up the 2003 Superlwts and revised earlier ones. They should be out in the next week or so. As far as doing earlier ones, One of these days I will. For UZR, I don't have battted ball speed, earlier than 1998 I think, but it is not that big a deal. Other than that I can put out S-lwts for any year in which there is PBP data. I have the data going back to the late 80's, and I think earlier data is available on retrosheet, although I'm not sure they have the batted ball locations which would put the kabsh on UZR, although methods like DRA are pretty darn good at coming up with UZR-like numbers without using PBP data. We can also use PBP from one time period to approximate the distribution of the location of balls hit in other eras and do a "phantom UZR" using those distributions and traditional fielding data, as well as a team's pitchers' G/F ratio, handedness, BIP rate, etc.

Posted 10:58 p.m., January 12, 2004 (#18) - Silver King
From my not ungargantuan vocabulary, I choose the word:

Cool...!

The future of the past looks pretty exciting.

Posted 11:39 p.m., January 12, 2004 (#19) - Tangotiger
Plus, and this is a big plus, I don't know why Tango didn't regess those 4-year UZR stats to reflect true ability before doing the calculations

MGL, MGL, MGL... you must be the absolute worst reader I've ever met (to go with your memory)! The title of this article is "True Talent Fielding...". I also spell out how I did the weightings in the article, and I provided a complete spreadsheet example. And I also have a column that specified how much I regressed it.

To recap:
- title of article
- weightings of seasons
- regression towards the mean equation
- regression value for EACH player
- complete example of regression

I'm not sure what more I needed to do!

I actually should have added an age adjustment.

Posted 11:58 p.m., January 12, 2004 (#20) - Tangotiger
I wouldn't be surprised that for 1B that it would be hard to leverage your skills to the point that you can be better than +20. If that is Erstad's over/under, then that drops another 17 runs, for a total of -23 runs by putting him at 1B, compared to what a healthy Erstad delivers.

Posted 2:51 a.m., January 13, 2004 (#21) - MGL
MGL, MGL, MGL... you must be the absolute worst reader I've ever met (to go with your memory)!

Hey! I resemble that remark, as my mother used to say. I was referring to your last post, not to the article. I incorrectly thought that you were using unregressed UZR averages, as that +32 sounded to high to be Erstad's true UZR value. As I said, I had him at a projected +20 for 2004. My regressions are probably stronger than yours, plus I add in a fairly agressive age adjustment, especially for CF and SS. It's not necessarily that my reading comprehension skills and my memory are poor (although they both probably are). It's just that I have 8 million things on my mind, another 6 million projects going, and I make around 4 million posts on Primer and Fanhome a day!

Posted 11:18 a.m., January 13, 2004 (#22) - tangotiger
Please note that in 1999 through 2002, Erstad has 93 "UZR games" at 1B. (And Stoneman et al "know" what's best? It's like putting Ozzie at 1B for 93 games.... ridiculous.) He was +8 runs in that time span, or +14 runs per 162 GP.

I think Helton is +16 per 162 GP. So, perhaps +20 is probably around the best that you can hope for in a 1B.

Posted 11:50 a.m., January 13, 2004 (#23) - tangotiger
Finally, I looked at all players who:

- have a true talent level of above 0 and
- played 1B but
- not as their primary position

With 572 games, they had an average UZR at 1B of +12.5 above the average 1B.

Their "true talent" average UZR of these guys was +6 per 600 BIP, which translates itself to +14 relative to the avg 1B according to my adjustment factors. Pretty close to what they actually got.

So, maybe that's as high as the translation system works. That you can cap somebody at around +10 true talent per 600 BIP, which translates to +17.

On the flip side, I looked at all players
- have a true talent level of below -13 and
- played 1B but
- not as their primary position

With 609 games (equivalent to the above), these guys were -11 runs at 1B, relative to the avg 1B. Their true talent UZR was -18 runs per 600 BIP, which translates to -6 runs at 1B, relative to the avg 1B. So, they were actually a little worse, which may mean that there's a certain "familiarity" factor that a poor fielder has that a good fielder doesn't.

I can look at this all day, and I will, if MGL ever produced UZR back to 1989 (which I think is the first year Retro has almost complete locations for PBP).

Posted 12:02 p.m., January 13, 2004 (#24) - J Cross
Nice work. Btw, I'd like it if someone tested to see if there was a "familiarity factor" in moving pitchers between starting and relief roles. I think that Voros studied pitchers who were both starters and relievers a couple of years ago and decided that he'd adjust a pitcher's projection up .25 to account for a move from starting to relief and down .25 to account for a move to the pen. This struck me as a surprisingly small adjustment but I also wonder if it isn't really something like:

starter to relief = no change
relief to starter = +.5 ERA

Posted 12:10 p.m., January 13, 2004 (#25) - tangotiger
I updated the main article to highlight the player's primary position.

You will notice the large number of CF, and SS are a ways down. This is only because of the adjustment factors I use, which may or may not be accurate. Alot of it has been explained already, so please reread those posts.

Posted 12:12 p.m., January 13, 2004 (#26) - J Cross
Tango,

wouldn't you see some correlation between UZR on the infield for players and UZR in the outfield even if the two skills weren't correlated?

What I mean is, managers do know some things. If a players is really good at one position and bad at another he's probably only going to play the position he's good at. Players who move around between positions are likely to be those to similarly good or bad (in true talent fielding level) at multiple positions. I'm not yet confident that 1b ability would correlate better with CF ability than many other things like speed, age or even hitting. All the same, I think this is all very interesting.

+10 sounds like a fair over/under for Erstad at first.

Posted 12:24 p.m., January 13, 2004 (#27) - tangotiger
I was thinking about adding extra parameters to do the comparisons.

For example, the diff between a 1B and 3B is really just the arm. But, between 1B and CF, it's a host of things.

2B/SS is the arm
SS/3B is the speed
2b/3B is the arm and speed.

LF/RF is the same (since UZR tracks the arm to throw runners on based separate).
CF/(LF or RF) is the speed

So, just starting off with those categories (speed and arm) might be a good first step.

It would also be interesting to know if a good fielder has less need for familiarity than a poor fielder.

And, if some position needs more familiarity involved. I kinda think that all the positions would be the same, but maybe you need a bit more in the IF, since that involves 2 things (catching and throwing) as opposed to the OF (throwing).

But, MGL, I need more data!!

Btw, more important than all this is if MGL implements PZR. You guys should be starting a petition for that. THAT will be the culmination of DIPS and UZR, the 2 biggest advances in that last few years.

Posted 12:36 p.m., January 13, 2004 (#28) - J Cross
I like the idea, Tango, but I think we could spend a lot of time arguing about the real differences between these positions.

I might argue, for instance, that 2nd and 3rd really have more in common than either position has with SS. Both 3b-men and 2b-men have considerably more time to make plays than SS's do (3b-men b/c the ball generally gets to them quickly and 2b-men b/c it's a short throw). Maybe range (I think what you referred to as speed) is much more important, but the SS position really requires a player to be able to get rid of a strong throw quickly and, I think, requires better footwork than 2b and 3b do.

Anyway, none of that's really the point. I think we'd need some systematic way of determining the important componenet skills at each position.

Posted 1:28 p.m., January 13, 2004 (#29) - tangotiger
Actually, I think all of what you are saying is important.

You have:
a - time of ball to you
b - how much you have to move to get the ball
c - how much time it takes to throw the ball

All numbers ONLY for illustration

So, looking at the 4 IF positions (mean, sigma):
a)
1B,3B (2 sec, 0.5 sec)
2B,SS (2.5 sec, 0.7 sec)

b)
1B,3B (0.5 sec, 0.2 sec)
2B,SS (0.8 sec, 0.4 sec)

c)
1B (0.1 sec, 0.05 sec)
2B (0.3 sec, 0.05 sec)
3B (0.5 sec, 0.10 sec)
SS (0.6 sec, 0.15 sec)

So, when making the 2B/3B translation, you have to figure out where you fit in each of the distributions.

I think it would be a rather interesting (and rather monumental) work to model baseball as we really see it, and plug the various tools of the players as we think we see them (i.e., the best Earl Weaver baseball game you can do), and see if you can get the results to match the observed.

Then, it should be a rather simple task to then move these players to different positions, since you now know their specific tools set, and what each positions' toolset requirement.

What I am doing with my article is less than 1% of what I should be doing.

Posted 1:47 p.m., January 13, 2004 (#30) - MGL
The numbers for good and bad fielders moving to first is fascinating! People keep assuming thsat Tango's transformaton formulas won't "work" for one reason or another, and then he keeps reminding us that they DO work, as they are based on real life players who did play multiple positions, at least for players who are chosen by their managers to move or to play multiple positions (there might some selective sampling there).

But even if there were selective sampling (the transformation formulas only "work" for players who have the necessary skills to play multiple positions, and not all players have those unique skills), we might not care, as we really only need to use them for players like Erstad, whom the manager and team already decided CAN play first (has the skills necessary for multiple positions). IOW, they might not work, if we were to just speculate about a random player (e.g., how would Juan Gonzales do at SS?), or we were to try and figure the optimal placement of players on the field (like Jeter to third, AFB to SS, Matsui to CF, etc.).

Tango, it is a snap for me to do UZR's for past years (89-99)! It would take me like a couple of hours. I already have the PBP data (somewhere) for those years (used to have them stored on 3.5 floppies!).

I still don't know (or understand) what PZR's are. I'm sure you can point me to the appropriate thread...

Posted 2:02 p.m., January 13, 2004 (#31) - tangotiger (homepage)
The other thread has been brought forward.

Aaron, at the above link, also looks at Erstad at 1B.

Posted 2:27 p.m., January 13, 2004 (#32) - J Cross (homepage)
Sure, they do work in the sense that the group of players who played both positions were, on average, however much better at one position than the other. And, I imagine, they do work in the sense that the group of players who play both positions in the future will, on average, be a similar amount better at the same position. I'm just not so sure that this average has much to do with any one player. In fact, Darin Erstad is about as far from being the average player who gets moved from the OF to first base as he could possible be. I think this is a situation where the median isn't the message (see homepage link).

Posted 2:42 p.m., January 13, 2004 (#33) - tangotiger
I think the Erstad issue is really just one of leverage of skills.

Say that Hubie Raines, the most average of all fielders, plays any position, and he always converts 70% of all balls in his zone of responsibility. (An avg 1B say will convert say 67% and an avg SS say will convert 73%, etc, etc.)

Darin Erstad, when playing CF, converts 77% of all balls in his zone of responsibility. Now, the way I do my translations, I assume that he will convert 77% of all balls in zone of responsibility at every single position.

But, because of the tools he leverages at CF, this statement, while true for Hubie Raines, is not true for players of a "weird" profile like Erstad or Ozzie.

So, we may find that Erstad, because of his tool set, will only convert 74% of balls at 1B, and 76% in LF, and 73% at SS, etc, etc. That Erstad's tool set is being completely leveraged and maxed out at CF at 77%.

A player like Clay Bellinger, because he has a slightly above average profile across the board, might convert 72% of his balls in zone of responsibility at each an every position.

So, the key is to try to establish what those tools are, and how those tools are leveraged at each position. Speed and "ball tracking" can be leveraged the most at CF and the least at 1B. So, if Erstad can add +.04 to his tool set in CF, he might be a say "73%" true talent player, but because of his profile, he might be 77% at CF and 73% at 1B.

Hope all that was clear...

Posted 2:52 p.m., January 13, 2004 (#34) - tangotiger
To try to expand, what you should end up having is:

Erstad's speed, relative to Hubie Raines, in catching balls: +.04 / BIP

Leveraged Index of speed in catching balls at each position:
1B: 0.1
2B: 0.6
SS: 0.8
3B: 0.4
LF: 0.7
CF: 1.0
RF: 0.7

So, to figure out how much impact Erstad's speed has on catching balls at each position, you multiply the above LI by +.04/BIP.

So, Erstad's speed in CF is worth +.04, but at 1B, it's only worth +.004.

Then, you can come up with "instincts". Erstad's instincts say are worth +.03 relative to Hubie Raines.

Let's come up with an LI for instincts

Leveraged Index of instincts in catching balls at each position:
1B: 0.8
2B: 0.5
SS: 0.5
3B: 1.0
LF: 0.7
CF: 0.7
RF: 0.7

So, maybe instincts are more important at other positions, and you come up with new numbers for that.

You do the same for arm strength, and a whole bunch of other tools that you can think of.

THIS is how I would do the translation for fielding.

(All numbers only for illustration.)

So, if we want to get started, start jotting down specific tools that we want to look at, and the LI that you think it should be at every position (max it out to 1.0 for the top position).

Ready, set...

Posted 2:56 p.m., January 13, 2004 (#35) - MGL
I would think that an infielder moving to another position might convert around the same % of balls (into outs), regardless of where he plays in the IF, and that this might nor vary much from player to player. Ditto for an OF'er. But to go from OF to IF or from IF to OF, I would think that would vary tremendously from player to player, as the skill for converting a ball into an out are signficantly different in the OF and the IF. For one thing, almost all (maybe ALL) good OF'ers have excellent raw speed. Not true for good IF'ers, I don't think. Was Ripken fast at all?

Posted 2:58 p.m., January 13, 2004 (#36) - tangotiger
In fact, Darin Erstad is about as far from being the average player who gets moved from the OF to first base as he could possible be

Which is why it is so shocking at the amount of time that he has ALREADY put in at 1B. And this was in his 20s.

Posted 3:00 p.m., January 13, 2004 (#37) - J Cross
That sounds more like it to me.

It's hard for me to imagine something like Erstad as a SS without knowing how long he has to make the conversion. If I had to pick btw Erstad and Sheffield to be my shortstop tomorrow I'd take Sheffield b/c he was once a SS. If both players had the rest of the offseason and spring training to work on it I'd be tempted to go with Erstad but not so sure. If both players got to work at the position for 2 years I'd bet on Erstad. I'm not sure what the idealized or average situation is yeilds the true talent conversion factors.

Posted 3:04 p.m., January 13, 2004 (#38) - MGL
It's not like his manager didn't know that he was a great OF'er (I don't think). He probably played some first because he was particularly good at it, didn't mind playing there, had some experience at some level, they had no other good, full-time first baseman (or someone was injured), they had some acceptable replacement in the OF, he was injured, or he/they felt that because of the way he plays in the OF (recklessly and fearlessly), he needed a "rest" every now and then...

Posted 3:10 p.m., January 13, 2004 (#39) - tangotiger
MGL, I agree, which is why I said to break it up as I did (you probably posted at the same time as I did).

By the way, I just noticed that Jeff Davanon is one of the best fielders in the league (similar to Shinjo from his numbers). He's an average hitter. This would make him worth around +20 runs above average per season or +40 runs above replacement, or worth about 8 million bucks per year. So, why is this guy 30 years old, and had only 500 career PAs?

So, my recommendation is to get your scouts on Geoff Jenkins and Jeff Davanon.

Posted 3:17 p.m., January 13, 2004 (#40) - Rally Monkey
Erstad played some 1B early in his career because they already had 3 good outfielders, including a gold glove CF (Edmonds). He was the one to move to first not because it was the best use of onfield talent, but because he volunteered. The others were already fulltime players, while Erstad was trying to establish himself.

A player trying to break into a lineup at the beginning of his career will be open to things that a guy who's already driven in 100 runs won't. When the question was asked of who will move to 1st, Erstad's response was "I'll do it. Anything to help the team" Jim Edmond's response was "Why can't Salmon do it?"

Posted 3:18 p.m., January 13, 2004 (#41) - J Cross
Which is why it is so shocking at the amount of time that he has ALREADY put in at 1B. And this was in his 20s.

agreed.

Erstad played the most 1b in 1997 when he was 23. The Angels outfield was Anderson, Edmonds and Salmon. Edmonds won a gold glove that year and Salmon and Anderson were younger and probably better than they are now. It looks like the Angels just didn't want to move the veterans. In 1998 they did move Salmon to DH some and put Erstad in the OF. In 1999 I guess they decided that getting Mo Vaughn off the field entirely was more important that playing Erstad in the outfield. It's still strange that they didn't try Salmon or Orlando Palmero at 1st.

I don't think the Angels realized exactly how good Erstad was in the outfield.

Posted 3:20 p.m., January 13, 2004 (#42) - tangotiger
If I had to pick btw Erstad and Sheffield to be my shortstop tomorrow I'd take Sheffield b/c he was once a SS.

No way, not for me.

If both players had the rest of the offseason and spring training to work on it I'd be tempted to go with Erstad but not so sure

This one is even easier. Hubie Brooks, the 80s Derek Jeter, played SS in college. It didn't matter. Giving a guy the entire offseason and spring training is enough for me to choose Erstad over Sheffield. Heck, Vlad over Sheffield. How low can I go?

Posted 3:27 p.m., January 13, 2004 (#43) - J Cross
Assuming he's healthy, how long would you think Erstad needs to play SS to be better than Jeter? better than the average SS? Would he ever be an average SS?

Posted 3:42 p.m., January 13, 2004 (#44) - J Cross
Tango,

here's a shot at some components of fielding skill along with relevance to difference positions:

1) picking up the ball off the bat (cf=lf=rf)
2) first step (3b=ss=2b=1b>>>of)
3) several quick steps (ss=2b>3b>1b>cf=lf=rf)
4) sprint speed (cf>lf=rf>>>2b=ss>3b=1b)
5) footwork/quick release (ss>3b=2b>1b)
6) arm strength (ss=3b>>cf=rf>lf~=2b>>1b)
7) arm accuracy (3b>ss>of>2b>1b)
8) hands (ss=2b=3b=1b)
9) instincts (ss=2b=3b=1b)

basically, I think picking the ball off the bat and sprint speed are the two biggies for OFers with arm strength down there somewhere.

Posted 3:49 p.m., January 13, 2004 (#45) - J Cross
To be clear, I meant for that #2 to include reaction time. #1 refers to quickly judging how hard ball was hit, how much it might hook or how quickly it will drop (an OF skill).

Posted 4:16 p.m., January 13, 2004 (#46) - Rally Monkey
"In 1999 I guess they decided that getting Mo Vaughn off the field entirely was more important that playing Erstad in the outfield."

The decisions, like usual for the Angels, were not made by baseball men but by the fates. The plan was for Mo to play 1st, and the outfielders to rotate between OF and DH. Mo sprained his ankle in his first inning as an Angel while trying to catch a foul pop near the dugout, he was forced to DH for most of the year. Erstad played 1st when Mo couldn't, and OF the rest of the time. Salmon and Edmonds missed a lot of time as well, so an initial surplus of OF's quickly became a scramble for capable players.

"Assuming he's healthy, how long would you think Erstad needs to play SS to be better than Jeter? better than the average SS? Would he ever be an average SS?"

You guys do realize Erstad would be the first lefty throwing shorstop since, I don't know, a real long time ago?

Posted 4:17 p.m., January 13, 2004 (#47) - tangotiger
J, great list!! Unless someone beats me to it, we can try to generate some LI for each of those.

Then, we can try to discuss a few players that we've seen, like Erstad, Cameron, Jeter, etc. At the very least, we should end up getting EXACTLY what UZR says for their positions.

Afterwards, we can transform these players into other positions to see how they look there. This might be a fun exercise.

The only players I can comment on are Mets/Yanks players, and a few Expos players.

Assuming he's healthy, how long would you think Erstad needs to play SS to be better than Jeter? better than the average SS? Would he ever be an average SS?

better than Jeter: spring training
better than avg SS: probably under a year, but let's see after we do the transformation above

Posted 4:19 p.m., January 13, 2004 (#48) - tangotiger
Lefty: hmmmm... that's a great point! That should be part of the transformation as well... handedness!

Posted 4:22 p.m., January 13, 2004 (#49) - J Cross
oh, I forgot/didn't know that Erstad throws lefty.

Posted 4:33 p.m., January 13, 2004 (#50) - Rally Monkey
10) handedness (1b>cf=rf=lf>c>3b=2b=ss)

Not entirely sure about this. Outfield should be neutral. Catcher should be less of a disadvantage than infield, although its been 20 years since the last left catcher.

Does UZR show a lefty 1st baseman having an advantage, as conventional wisdom would claim? This might be tough to answer. A righthanded 1B might play there only because he can't play anywhere else, while a Keith Hernandez type might have played 3rd if he was right handed. Damn selective sampling. Its everywhere.

Posted 4:34 p.m., January 13, 2004 (#51) - tangotiger (homepage)
See above link for Fielding LI, using Cross's list.

I removed instinct, cause I thought it was captured in 2 other entries.

Also, "arm strength" I'm only considering with respect to getting the BATTER out (or keeping him to a single), and NOT for getting runners already on base out at 3B or home.

I'll add handedness as well.

Comments?

Posted 4:47 p.m., January 13, 2004 (#52) - tangotiger (homepage)
I updated the file with a new name.

Posted 5:02 p.m., January 13, 2004 (#53) - J Cross
Looking good. Okay, I think I can come up with "handedness" for all the players if you guys handle the other categories. Can we measure any of this or compare it to measurable statistics? triples/xbh = sprint speed, Sb's = several quick steps/sprint speed. Maybe we can look at non-throwing error rates for infielder hands. Throwing errors/attempts for arm accuracy?

Posted 5:33 p.m., January 13, 2004 (#54) - J Cross
one more comment before I go: Should the LI reflect that some of these categories are just more important than others (not just more important for some fielders relative to others)? Should we be making our judgments about players with their UZR's in mind or scale the finals rating to equal a regressed UZR?

To start the ball rolling my WAG Jeter ratings are (1-10 scale):

(btw, I'm no Jeter expert)

Picking up the ball - ??
1st step/reaction - 1
several steps - 5
sprint - 8
hands - 4
footwork/release - 2
arm strength - 5
arm accuracy - 7

I think he's worse than the sum of his parts. What's his best position if we assume that he's average in judging fly balls? Ok, gotta run.

Posted 7:07 p.m., January 13, 2004 (#55) - Rally Monkey
Going by your ratings, which seem reasonable, Jeter would be best off in the outfield. More time to react to the ball, greater need for his above average speed. He'd do less damage at 3rd base, if only because fewer balls are hit there, but his poor first step makes him a bad match for that position.

Posted 10:11 p.m., January 13, 2004 (#56) - Tangotiger
The scale should be extra outs per BIP compared to Hubie Raines.

So, if Jeter's arm is +.02 outs per BIP, but that the LI for arm strength for a SS is .7, then his extra value is +.014. (I see what you are saying, that we need another LI to compare all the tools to themselves.)

You do this for all the categories, and the sum of all these things will give you his UZR relative to Hubie Raines. In Jeter's case, I think that works out to about -.04 outs per BIP.

Posted 4:17 p.m., January 14, 2004 (#57) - J Cross
Back to Erstad for a minute. The following was written in a January 8th article on mlb.com:

Despite speculation that Erstad might play first base next year to take it easy on the hamstring (the Angels parted ways with their top three first baseman from last year, Scott Spiezio, Brad Fullmer and Shawn Wooten) the Angels have continued to say they plan on him playing [in] center...

"I'm 100 percent confident I'll be able to do that," Erstad said.

So, if as of January 8th the Angels were planning on playing Erstad in center then did the January 10th signing of Vlad change that?

Posted 6:17 p.m., January 18, 2004 (#58) - J Cross
from Stark's sidebar:

Garret Anderson hasn't played much in center field since 2001. And Darin Erstad hasn't played extensively at first base in five years. But one AL scout says: "Erstad is going back to the place he plays best, I think. And Garret Anderson is a real good center fielder. He's not as spectacular as Erstad, but I think he's better. He glides. He's not an ESPN highlight center fielder."

Wow. You might not want to take that scout's opinion's too seriously.

Posted 7:20 p.m., January 18, 2004 (#59) - MGL
It illustrates how using words like spectacular, steady, consistent, etc., can muddle the real issue, which is whose talent is worth more runs to his team, and by how much, not who looks better, who makes more spectacular plays, etc. We are always interested in quantitative assessments in baseball, and not qualitative ones, especially ambiguous and arbitrary descriptive ones...

Posted 9:58 a.m., February 16, 2004 (#60) - tangotiger
Without speaking about ARod or Jeter specifically, but players of their overall ability (as opposed to their specific toolset) would have the following impact fielding-wise on their team:

ARod SS / Jeter 3B: -7 runs
ARod 3B / Jeter SS: -13 runs

Putting out a suboptimal fielding configuration of players of this caliber will cost a team 6 runs.

If you think that 6 runs is "no big deal", then you have really come to the wrong place.

Posted 10:59 a.m., February 16, 2004 (#61) - tangotiger
For those thinking that the change should be even larger, remember that Jeter has to play *somewhere*. This is just like creating an optimal batting order. You can try to hide ReyRey at the bottom of the order, but he's still going to have over 10% of the PAs (as opposed to 11%).

Same thing here. The SS is involved in 5 plays a game while the 3B is involved in 4. What you need is to put Jeter at LF, RF, 1B (3 plays each), or DH (0 plays).

Posted 11:45 a.m., February 16, 2004 (#62) - tangotiger
I posted this at fanhome.

=====================================
ARod is 30 runs better than Jeter at SS.
ARod is 24 runs better than Jeter at 3B.

Jeter has to play SOMEWHERE. So, that's a 6 run gain by putting ARod at SS and Jeter at 3B (rather than vice-versa).

You can think of batting orders the same way. You might say that Barry Bonds is 100 runs better than ReyRey at #2 and that Barry Bonds is 85 runs better than ReyRey at #8. So, putting Bonds at #2 and ReyRey at #8 will be 15 runs better than the reverse.

This extends into parks as well. Piazza may be +40 runs compared to an average hitter at Shea, but +30 runs compared to that same hitter at Coors. So, Piazza would be more efficient at Shea (numbers for illustration only).

Or Larry Walker may be +30 runs compared to an average hitter against Randy Johnson, and +40 runs compared to an average hitter against Andy Pettite. So, Walker, in this case, can't take advantage of RJ to the extent that he can against Pettite. (Numbers for illustration only.)

Posted 2:19 p.m., February 16, 2004 (#63) - J Cross
I don't know about this. I think the true talent fielding is an interesting concept but in truth I don't think we really know for certain that A-Rod would be better than Jeter at third. He probably would be but you never know.

We have good reason to believe that A-Rod will be 30 runs better than Jeter at short. Is our best guess really that A-Rod is 24 runs better than Jeter at short? I kind of doubt it. That's a pretty big difference to project between two player's based solely on what they did at short.

Posted 2:40 p.m., February 16, 2004 (#64) - tangotiger
I agree that we can't look at these two guys in particular. Just generally, if you have two guys who happen to be a 30-run difference at SS, they would be a 24-run difference at 3B.

Posted 10:06 p.m., February 16, 2004 (#65) - J Cross
Is that right? Or is it just that if you had two guys who played BOTH SS and 3b and one was 30 runs better than the other at short you'd guess that he was 24 runs better at third? I guess if Jeter and A-Rod both play third next year they enter that pool of players who were in the analysis and if the Yankees play A-Rod at third it will be some indication that they think A-Rod 's advantage at third is comparable to his advantage at short. But, despite everything that's been said, I'd still bet on Jeter moving for A-Rod.

Posted 10:50 a.m., February 17, 2004 (#66) - tangotiger
As noted in the article, you can't take it too far, which is why I'm trying to distance from comparing ARod and Jeter specifically.

Given the average player who has played SS and 3B from 1999-2003, my conversions are what they are. I should really look at primary SS going to 3B. And, a good SS and a bad SS making that move. Given the lack of data points for such a small period of time (99-03), the confidence level will go down the tubes.

How this applies to ARod/Jeter specifically is anyone's guess.

Posted 10:56 a.m., February 17, 2004 (#67) - tangotiger (homepage)
Please read the above homepage link for more analysis on players switching between SS/3B.

Posted 12:45 p.m., February 17, 2004 (#68) - J Cross
Thanks, tango, that's a good read. So, most relevant to A-Rod Jeter we have a +1 SS goign to +8 at third (runs/1000 plays).

but, is there any data that suggest that it doesn't work something like this:

SS ---> 3b (runs/1000 plays)

+11 ---> +13
+1 ----> +8
-9 ---> +3

Posted 2:43 p.m., February 17, 2004 (#69) - tangotiger
I don't have the necessary data to say either way.

The skillset required between CF/LF/RF is the strongest in terms of similarity. So, we are in far better footing to say that the translations we have in the OF are going to be right.

If the reason that your +11 SS is a plus 11 is because of his blazing speed, then he won't be able to leverage that so much at 3B. If the reason that your -9 SS is a minus 9 because he is so incredibly slow, then he'll be able to unleverage all that at 3B.

It's very possible that the translations would work as you show them, if the profile of the players that make up your left column is far different than what is required in your right column.