Is defense really that important in baseball?

[HoustonGM]

well, maybe i went about it the wrong way. HGM was stating that a handful of teams improved pretty much solely because of their defense. I said its kind of short sighted to put it all, or even most towards defense IMO and then got into the line that their pitching had a big part of it.

When a team's pitching staff is pretty much the same, and the offense doesn't change much either, yet the team does significantly better and also made clear and obvious defensive upgrades... is it really a stretch to attribute a large part of their success to the defense?

Defensive Efficiency is a very simple team defensive metric. All it is is the percent of balls in play that a team turned into outs. The 2008 Rays were 1st in the majors in DE at .710 (71%). In 2007, they were dead last in the majors at .656 (65.6%). They were almost exactly the same offensively in both years - 774 runs in 2008, 782 runs in 2009. Their difference was entirely on the defensive side of things (pitching/defense). They allowed 944 runs in 2007 but lopped off nearly 300 in 2008, allowing just 671.

Their starting pitching staff was pretty much the same except for the addition of Matt Garza. Their bullpen was overhauled. They allowed nearly 300 less runs. I think that it was due to a combination of the better bullpen and the much better defense. Turning 6% more balls in play into outs is a very significant amount - as evidenced by them skyrocketing from dead last to first in the league in that category. Maybe I'm crazy, but I think changing 6% of balls in play from hits to outs will cause a team to be significantly better even if everything else stayed the same...which, in the case of the Rays, is largely true. The only significant difference was the bullpen, and I don't think 2 or 3 relief pitcher upgrades will cause a team to allow 300 less runs than the year before. Their radically improved defense was unquestionably a significant reason for their turn around and this is honestly the first time I've ever heard anybody view that skeptically.

[HoustonGM]

And, for the record, the other teams I mentioned:

2009 Mariners DE: .712 (2nd in the majors)
2008 Mariners DE: .682 (26th in majors)

2009 Rangers DE: .699 (6th in majors)
2008 Rangers DE: .670 (30th in majors)

2007 Rockies DE: .701 (6th in majors)
2006 Rockies DE: .684 (20th in majors)

[200tang]

Is there a stat that doesn't have a margin of error? I can only think of a few, like K%.

[dickay]

When a team's pitching staff is pretty much the same, and the offense doesn't change much either, yet the team does significantly better and also made clear and obvious defensive upgrades... is it really a stretch to attribute a large part of their success to the defense?

Defensive Efficiency is a very simple team defensive metric. All it is is the percent of balls in play that a team turned into outs. The 2008 Rays were 1st in the majors in DE at .710 (71%). In 2007, they were dead last in the majors at .656 (65.6%). They were almost exactly the same offensively in both years - 774 runs in 2008, 782 runs in 2009. Their difference was entirely on the defensive side of things (pitching/defense). They allowed 944 runs in 2007 but lopped off nearly 300 in 2008, allowing just 671.

Their starting pitching staff was pretty much the same except for the addition of Matt Garza. Their bullpen was overhauled. They allowed nearly 300 less runs. I think that it was due to a combination of the better bullpen and the much better defense. Turning 6% more balls in play into outs is a very significant amount - as evidenced by them skyrocketing from dead last to first in the league in that category. Maybe I'm crazy, but I think changing 6% of balls in play from hits to outs will cause a team to be significantly better even if everything else stayed the same...which, in the case of the Rays, is largely true. The only significant difference was the bullpen, and I don't think 2 or 3 relief pitcher upgrades will cause a team to allow 300 less runs than the year before. Their radically improved defense was unquestionably a significant reason for their turn around and this is honestly the first time I've ever heard anybody view that skeptically.

they are/were also a very young developing team. same players doesn't equal same performance year in and year out. a guy has a good year pitching and you want to attribute nearly all that to better defense behind him? I'll pass.

[dickay]

And, for the record, the other teams I mentioned:

2009 Mariners DE: .712 (2nd in the majors)
2008 Mariners DE: .682 (26th in majors)

2009 Rangers DE: .699 (6th in majors)
2008 Rangers DE: .670 (30th in majors)

2007 Rockies DE: .701 (6th in majors)
2006 Rockies DE: .684 (20th in majors)

so did their defense improve that much, or are the stats flawed? not just when they did good, but when they did poorly? Is it proof of a small sample size? Is it improved pitching that helped the defense? Or is it truly that their defense improved that much and that alone improved their pitching and win totals?

[200tang]

so did their defense improve that much, or are the stats flawed?

I can't speak for the other teams besides the Mariners, but they traded for guys like Franklin Gutierrez and Jack Wilson AND creating a statistics department led by Tony Blengino and hiring Tom Tango as a consultant AND having the GM and manager talk about these stats and credit them to our success. There's a reason JackZ is quickly becoming one of the best GMs in the game and it's because he understands that advanced metrics have a place, along with scouting, in the front office.

Here's a quote from special assistant to the GM (and SABR member) Tony Blengino:

The statistics add another level. It shouldn't be scouting against numbers. Successful organizations have to find a way to blend the two. It's our responsibility to blend the two. ... Our own [statistics] are easily adjustable measures as they build in nature of our pitching staff and our defensive positioning. There's a margin for error with positioning with many of the public metrics. If you over-shift quite a bit, the shortstop may have skewed out of zone ratings. ... To properly evaluate teams have to know the context of how those numbers are generated. So, we use our own metrics to account for that.

There's plenty of other interesting stuff in the article, so definitely read the whole thing, but the gist is that the Mariners are among quite a few teams that are actively trying to quantify things that until recently have been based on eyes and scouting reports. Perhaps the most popular of the publicly available defensive metrics is Ultimate Zone Rating, and the Mariners have gone from 20th in UZR last season at -20.9 runs to second-best in UZR this year at +52.1 runs.

http://fullcountpitch.com/2009/08/24...get-defensive/

[actionjackson]

I can't speak for the other teams besides the Mariners, but they traded for guys like Franklin Gutierrez and Jack Wilson AND creating a statistics department led by Tony Blengino and hiring Tom Tango as a consultant AND having the GM and manager talk about these stats and credit them to our success. There's a reason JackZ is quickly becoming one of the best GMs in the game and it's because he understands that advanced metrics have a place, along with scouting, in the front office.



http://fullcountpitch.com/2009/08/24...get-defensive/

^ ^ ^

Word up to the bolded part.

[HoustonGM]

they are/were also a very young developing team. same players doesn't equal same performance year in and year out. a guy has a good year pitching and you want to attribute nearly all that to better defense behind him? I'll pass.

You're gonna have to be more specific than that. What "guy" are you referring to? The pitching staff did improve from 2008 to 2009. They allowed 1 HR/9 , 3.2 BB/9 and struck out 7.1 per 9. That's a slight improvement over the 1.3/3.6/7.5 rates of 2007 (although a decrease in strikeouts means greater responsibility for the defense). That does not explain a 300 run improvement in runs allowed though. I don't know how you DON'T attribute a significant part of that to the defense.

so did their defense improve that much, or are the stats flawed? not just when they did good, but when they did poorly? Is it proof of a small sample size? Is it improved pitching that helped the defense? Or is it truly that their defense improved that much and that alone improved their pitching and win totals?

All defensive efficiency is is percent of balls in play that were turned into outs. How does improved pitching make 6% more balls in play turn into outs? A 6% difference is very large. There's no way to explain that without part of that explanation being an improved defense.

And, of course, common sense backs up the fact that they improved their defense. Jason Bartlett is a much better defender than Brendan Harris at short. B.J. Upton was a terrible infielder and spent significant time their in 2007 but in 2008 played solely in the outfield where he is a plus defender. Akinori Iwamura moved from 3B to 2B and Evan Longoria took over at 3B. Longoria is a great defensive third basemen, and Iwamura was a clear upgrade over BJ Upton and Ty Wigginton at 2B. Delmon Young was gone in 2008 and was a poor defender. Without even bothering to look at any stats, it's mind-numbingly obvious that they improved their defense at multiple positions.

Also, stop saying "that alone" caused the increase. I've never even said that. In fact:

I think that it was due to a combination of the better bullpen and the much better defense.

A 300 run improvement cannot be explained solely by defense or by pitching improvement (barring very extreme cases, of course). It's obviously a combination of the two, but, once again, I don't know how you deny the importance of defense in the turnarounds of these teams I've mentioned when the stats from the simple (Defensive Efficiency) to the advanced (UZR) back up the defensive improvement AND the "eye test" and scouting side ALSO support clear defensive improvements. Couple that with a great decrease in runs allowed....how the hell do you deny the importance of defense? I really do not understand it. I understand that you do not trust the accuracy of advanced defensive metrics, but I think you're letting your distrust of that get in the way of what really is common sense. Better defense = more balls turned into outs = less runs allowed.

[dps]

If you didn't run a defense out there and the only way to get an out was to strike him out, his K/9 would be 27. So, yes, defense DOES have an affect on K's. That's obviously the extreme, but to say it doesn't is incorrect.

[Edit : I should clarify that the effect is probably small on most teams, but the less outs the defense makes the more chances of a strikeout.]

You're looking at it backwards. If the pitcher strikes out everybody, none of the fielders can ever make a play, and everyone's RF would be 0.

[200tang]

You're looking at it backwards. If the pitcher strikes out everybody, none of the fielders can ever make a play, and everyone's RF would be 0.

They affect each other.

[SirKodiak]

There is probably a lot about all this on Tom Tango's website: http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/
Might take some searching though. It is the blog for The Book, which Tango and MGL wrote.

Also, I believe that UZR/150 is independent of pitching as I believe that the 150 is the expected number of chances in 150 games for the position(s) played.

Also, while obtusely related to the subject at hand, this post and the discussion are well worth reading: http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/inde...v_true_talent/

[dps]

They affect each other.

No, not really. The pitchers, per nine innings pitched, always has the opportunity to strike out 27 batters, regardless of what the fielders do. The only exception is when the catcher fails to catch a 3rd strike, and the batter then reaches 1st safely, which happens so rarely that it can be ignored. Otherwise, the fielders can't do anything to increase that number, nor can they decrease it, because they will only make plays on balls put in play by batters which the pitcher has already had the opportunity to strike out, but failed. The pitcher, OTOH, can deny the fielders any opportunity to make a play on a particular batter by striking him out.

[actionjackson]

so did their defense improve that much, or are the stats flawed? not just when they did good, but when they did poorly? Is it proof of a small sample size? Is it improved pitching that helped the defense? Or is it truly that their defense improved that much and that alone improved their pitching and win totals?

Re: the bolded question, in a word: no. It is not proof of a small sample size because it is a team-wide season long measurement. Anything less than 1500 PA is a small sample size for a player. In 2009, the average team had 6236 BF against their pitching staff, and allowed an average of 1895 (BB + HBP + K + HR). That leaves (give or take) 4341 balls which were put in play per team. That is easily an acceptable sample size from which to draw conclusions re: improvement, increased suckitude etc. with regards to team defense, which is what DE or DER measures.

[200tang]

No, not really. The pitchers, per nine innings pitched, always has the opportunity to strike out 27 batters, regardless of what the fielders do. The only exception is when the catcher fails to catch a 3rd strike, and the batter then reaches 1st safely, which happens so rarely that it can be ignored. Otherwise, the fielders can't do anything to increase that number, nor can they decrease it, because they will only make plays on balls put in play by batters which the pitcher has already had the opportunity to strike out, but failed. The pitcher, OTOH, can deny the fielders any opportunity to make a play on a particular batter by striking him out.

And the fielders can deny the pitcher any outs besides strikeouts by not making any plays on balls in the field. They affect each other. I really don't see what you're trying to get at :|

[Alloutwar]

It looks like it's not just internet goofball fans like us arguing about defensive metrics, their applications, and the weight they should be given.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?...tnerId=rss_bos

Good MLB.com article about the Mariners and Red Sox embracing defensive metrics, while some other clubs like the Phillies do well while snubbing them completely.

Good article, and some basics on the metrics as well. A good primer for Dickay.