Is defense really that important in baseball?

[kenny1234]

I find it very shortsighted to award any of those performances merely to improved defense. I'm going to also assume that better pitching yields better defensive ratings which shouldn't technically be the case?

All of the measures condition on the general path of balls in play - so the effects of pitching are minimized.

[KowboyKoop]

Does anyone speak english on the forum? What is with all this crazy talk? I feel like I landed on a different planet! What happened to field %?? Seemed like a good way to measure defense to me...

No, fielding percentage sucks, but I can tell from your quality post percentage that you need more times in the minors.

[haveacigar]

Evaluating fielding with fielding % is like trying to evaluate a hitter's skill with HBPs. I.e. completely useless.

The thing about the new fielding stats like UZR and +/- is that, while they are not perfect and have significant margins of error, they are vastly superior to range factor, fielding % and errors, and whatever else that people used to be using.

[SirKodiak]

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/bl.....now-gamef-x/

[HoustonGM]

Does anyone speak english on the forum? What is with all this crazy talk? I feel like I landed on a different planet! What happened to field %?? Seemed like a good way to measure defense to me...

It's not. At all.

I find it very shortsighted to award any of those performances merely to improved defense. I'm going to also assume that better pitching yields better defensive ratings which shouldn't technically be the case?

Why would better pitching yield better defensive ratings? It'd be more of the OPPOSITE. A better defense will yield lower ERA's (and thus better "pitching", though defense obviously wouldn't have an effect on the pitching aspects like walks, home runs allowed and strikeouts).

Furthermore, the pitching staffs of those teams were largely unchanged from the previous year, yet there were clear and obvious defensive upgrades (Franklin Gutierrez in Seattle, Elvis Andrus in Texas, etc.). Do you think Jarrod Washburn suddenly became amazing at pitching and then started sucking when he left Seattle, or is it just that, as a flyball pitcher, the ridiculous range of Gutierrez superficially improved Washburn's statistics?

The thing about the new fielding stats like UZR and +/- is that, while they are not perfect and have significant margins of error, they are vastly superior to range factor, fielding % and errors, and whatever else that people used to be using.

This.

[yomamaimontv]

No, fielding percentage sucks, but I can tell from your quality post percentage that you need more times in the minors.

What does that mean? Anyone know if these stats are going to be incorporated into the next BM game?

[HoustonGM]

What does that mean? Anyone know if these stats are going to be incorporated into the next BM game?

That'd be outstanding, but I don't know how easy such implementation would be.

[haveacigar]

Thanks......i honestly don't know based upon all this how much stock I really can put into any of these numbers. The eye test seems much more plausible than these IMO. And that said....a guy gets 4-5 chances at the plate per game. They very well may not see that many chances in the field per game, and the vast majority of what they do see will be somewhat "routine". I just can't see the recent trend towards good defense at the expense of offense is a workable strategy considering the flaws in all these numbers.

Obviously you can't have stone hands or lead feet at key positions in the field....but I don't see it as complicated as they seem to be making it of late.

Well, the strategy of adding defense is independent of how good UZR and +/- stats are. If you replace a bad fielder with a good fielder, you will improve on defense and record more outs. That happens irrespective of whether UZR and +/- are accurate indicators of fielding ability.

[haveacigar]

Why would better pitching yield better defensive ratings? It'd be more of the OPPOSITE. A better defense will yield lower ERA's (and thus better "pitching", though defense obviously wouldn't have an effect on the pitching aspects like walks, home runs allowed and strikeouts).

Furthermore, the pitching staffs of those teams were largely unchanged from the previous year, yet there were clear and obvious defensive upgrades (Franklin Gutierrez in Seattle, Elvis Andrus in Texas, etc.). Do you think Jarrod Washburn suddenly became amazing at pitching and then started sucking when he left Seattle, or is it just that, as a flyball pitcher, the ridiculous range of Gutierrez superficially improved Washburn's statistics?

Yeah, this. Having watched the Tigers all season, they went from a 70 win team to an 86 win team despite getting significantly worse on offense. They also got way better on defense, and it definitely showed. Attempting to determine whether good pitching improves defense or good defense improves pitching is circular; they work in tandem, and one improving will necessarily improve the other.

[dickay]

Evaluating fielding with fielding % is like trying to evaluate a hitter's skill with HBPs. I.e. completely useless.

The thing about the new fielding stats like UZR and +/- is that, while they are not perfect and have significant margins of error, they are vastly superior to range factor, fielding % and errors, and whatever else that people used to be using.

agree they are better...but as you said have significant margins of error. thus, my concern is that people take them too literally. and with that large margin of error, i fear it must be near impossible to do with anykind of accuracy what I see done in here all the time. And that is, when someone says offensively player X is worth this many runs, and defensively he's worth this amount of runs, thus he's better than that guy. I have faith that the offensive ones are pretty valid...i have little faith in the defensive ones.

[haveacigar]

agree they are better...but as you said have significant margins of error. thus, my concern is that people take them too literally. and with that large margin of error, i fear it must be near impossible to do with anykind of accuracy what I see done in here all the time. And that is, when someone says offensively player X is worth this many runs, and defensively he's worth this amount of runs, thus he's better than that guy. I have faith that the offensive ones are pretty valid...i have little faith in the defensive ones.

Just because it's difficult to do accurately, doesn't mean you should give up trying. Basically, all you can do is use the best resources you have and make decisions based on that data. If it turns out to be wrong, oh well.

[kenny1234]

agree they are better...but as you said have significant margins of error. thus, my concern is that people take them too literally. and with that large margin of error, i fear it must be near impossible to do with anykind of accuracy what I see done in here all the time. And that is, when someone says offensively player X is worth this many runs, and defensively he's worth this amount of runs, thus he's better than that guy. I have faith that the offensive ones are pretty valid...i have little faith in the defensive ones.

And this is where sample sizes come in. If the question is about veterans that have a few years of defensive statistics - then we can be fairly comfortable in using statistics.

If you want to tell me that Elvis Andrus is a fantastic shortstop - then the statistics cannot really support that yet. We have some evidence that he might be good, but the scouting reports are probably more important than the stats at this point.

Similarly, Prince Fielder was a bad defensive fielder who was statistically average last year. Did he become a better fielder - or was that an anomaly? The statistics can't answer that question - so you move on to a scouting report.

[kenny1234]

Just because it's difficult to do accurately, doesn't mean you should give up trying. Basically, all you can do is use the best resources you have and make decisions based on that data. If it turns out to be wrong, oh well.

But the question is whether we can make meaningful projections of defensive ability. The answer is probably yes, but, especially for younger players, their defensive value should be regressed a long way toward 0.

[dps]

Evaluating fielding with fielding % is like trying to evaluate a hitter's skill with HBPs. I.e. completely useless.

Not quite true. If a player has a bad fielding percentage for his position, it tells you right away that he has bad hands, or else makes a ton of throwing errors. If he's booting/throwing away the ball that often, I don't think anything else he does defensively is really going to make up for that; he's a poor defensive player.

Unfortunately, the opposite isn't true. A guy can have a great fielding percentage but still not be a good defender if he has the mobility of a cigar store Indian and the throwing arm of a 3-year old girl.

[metsguy234]

I really really don't like defense, I prefer pitching and hitting and consider them much more important. Your defense can suck huge dick, but if your pitcher is great and striking lots of guys out, it won't matter. Similarly, you can have a shitty pitching staff and awful defense, but have a lineup of big boppers, and win all your games 13-12.

That's why I rank them this way, from most to least important:
1. Hitting
2. Pitching
3. Fielding

And of course, at a very very distant 4th, baserunning