Rothschild Speaks....

[XZero771679666304]

It's all about being efficient.

 

Yep.

 

Oh, and yes - our defense is crappy. There's Lee...and...that's about it.

 

Can't follow you there. We were 6th in defensive efficiency in '06, and 13th in '05 and '04.

 

I simply can't follow you there. In a sport like basketball, a team can have good team defense without having good individual defenders. In baseball, one must have good individual defenders to have a good team defense. Last year, the Cubs didn't really have it. Murton was average, Pagan was below average. Pierre and Jones were good at getting to the ball, and terrible at throwing. Ramirez was better, but still not great. Cedeno was below average. Neifi was very good at second, Theriot was average, and Bynum was terrible. At first, Walker, Mabry, and Nevin were average, with Lee being very good for his few games. Barrett was below average, while Blanco was above average but slipping. How can you have a significantly above average defense when there are very few plus defenders on the field?

 

Let's tackle this another way. The Cubs are ahead of the Cardinals last year. The question is-how can that be? Molina is much better than Barrett. Pujols is better than the Cubs first baseman that were there last year. Eckstein was better than Cedeno, and Rolen is better than Ramirez. The Cardinals OF defense isn't great, but they are probably about the level of the Cubs. With all these advantages-how does it turn out that the Cubs have a better defense than the Cardinals?

 

Unfortunately, there isn't any defense metric that is really accurate at this point. Unlike some batting stats, defensive stats don't hold a lot of water as of yet.

 

It's nice to be able to quantify things statistically, but defense is still something best evaluated through observation.

[DiamondMind]

 

That's how I feel-the people are doing a good job at refining the defensive metrics, but they shouldn't really be seen as nearly as reliable as the offensive metrics just yet, and even the offensive metrics cannot account for quite everything (nothing ever really can put all the variables in correctly). They should be looked at and given weight, but given pause when looking at a thing like the Cubs defense that struggled mightily at times, especially in the 2nd half of the season.

 

=D> =D> =D>

[Guest]

Actually, I think think it is really, really hard to evaluate the defense of one individual. However, the rate at which an entire team converts balls in play into outs is a pretty simple and effective metric for measuring team defense.

 

Now, the big stinking caveat there is how much influence you believe pitching has upon that, which is another subject in itself. However, nobody will much argue that ground balls, line drives and fly balls (inside the park) all convert into hits at different rates.

 

Still, even with that caveat, defensive efficiency is a nice metric. I'd trust it over any non-professional scouting opinion of a team defense. And I'd trust it over the top of a lot of scouts if it is broken into its components. It's just not an end-all, be-all.

 

Ask Jason Marquis what he thinks about our outfielders when the seasons over.

If our outfielders do a very above average job of converting fly balls into outs, I don't think he'll have room to complain. However, he may do so if the OF doesn't accrue "style points".

 

But isn't the fundamental idea of defense creating outs when the ball is put in play? I'm not trying to be smart here, but you do know that's what defensive efficiency measures, right?

[Guest]

I'm not tracking something here.

 

I agree that I've yet to see a defensive metric for an individual that I really agreed with. They're all flawed in one form or another.

 

Defensive efficiency doesn't suffer from any of those problems, though. It is a great metric to tell you the performance of defense. It isn't predictive whatsoever, but ERA really isn't, either, and that still has its uses.

[CubinNY]

 

Let's tackle this another way. The Cubs are ahead of the Cardinals last year. The question is-how can that be? Molina is much better than Barrett. Pujols is better than the Cubs first baseman that were there last year. Eckstein was better than Cedeno, and Rolen is better than Ramirez. The Cardinals OF defense isn't great, but they are probably about the level of the Cubs. With all these advantages-how does it turn out that the Cubs have a better defense than the Cardinals?

 

What does "better" mean? and how much is "much". According to the data they weren't more efficient.

[DiamondMind]

 

But isn't the fundamental idea of defense creating outs when the ball is put in play? I'm not trying to be smart here, but you do know that's what defensive efficiency measures, right?

 

Isn't that making the assumption that on every possible ball in play, the defense could have a % to record an out?

 

What about after the out is recorded, and you miss the cutoff man by throwing it 5 feet above his head? Where's that written down in numbers? What about the ability to not only record outs - but limit advancing base runners? What about double plays? I could go on and on here.

Edited January 29, 2007 by DiamondMind

[CubColtPacer]

Actually, I think think it is really, really hard to evaluate the defense of one individual. However, the rate at which an entire team converts balls in play into outs is a pretty simple and effective metric for measuring team defense.

 

Now, the big stinking caveat there is how much influence you believe pitching has upon that, which is another subject in itself. However, nobody will much argue that ground balls, line drives and fly balls (inside the park) all convert into hits at different rates.

 

Still, even with that caveat, defensive efficiency is a nice metric. I'd trust it over any non-professional scouting opinion of a team defense. And I'd trust it over the top of a lot of scouts if it is broken into its components. It's just not an end-all, be-all.

 

Ask Jason Marquis what he thinks about our outfielders when the seasons over.

If our outfielders do a very above average job of converting fly balls into outs, I don't think he'll have room to complain. However, he may do so if the OF doesn't accrue "style points".

 

But isn't the fundamental idea of defense creating outs when the ball is put in play? I'm not trying to be smart here, but you do know that's what defensive efficiency measures, right?

 

I would agree that the defense's fundamental job is creating outs, but I think a secondary job has to be not giving up extra bases, along with turning extra outs that cannot be measured as easily. For example, the throwing arms of the Cubs outfielders allowed runners to move up on a consistent basis. Also, I saw more easy double plays last year turned into no outs than any year I've ever seen of Cubs baseball. I could go on, but those two things hurt the Cubs greatly, along with some particularly bad defense with runners on (for example, how many errors of Cedeno's were throwing home with multiple runners on and throwing it 30 feet wide of the plate? 5 or 6? That's exceptionally high, and caused a couple of games to swing with the big innings that resulted-those errors hurt worse than an error with nobody on).

[USSoccer]

 

But isn't the fundamental idea of defense creating outs when the ball is put in play? I'm not trying to be smart here, but you do know that's what defensive efficiency measures, right?

 

Isn't that making the assumption that on every possible ball in play, the defense could have a % to record an out?

 

What about after the out is recorded, and you miss the cutoff man by throwing it 5 feet above his head? Where's that written down in numbers?

 

Balls in play would exclude home runs and strikeouts.

[RichHillIsABeast]

Can someone point me to the Rothschild thread? I must be lost. :)

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Stats and numbers, numbers and stats.

 

I can't believe any chart that has the geriatric giants at #7, sorry. Where's the numerology for Jacque Jones being an idiot?

 

Then what do you base your opinon on, their astrological signs?

 

I knew I'd get a smarmy remark in about 15 seconds. I apologize for not basing my entire baseball opinion on numbers. So does every manager and coach in professional sports.

 

BTW, when did I attack anyone in this thread previous to your reply?

 

What DO you base your opinion off of then? State your case instead of just saying "Numbers, I don't like them". And tangentially, which is going to be more flawed, a defensive metric, or your recollection of all 30 teams defense/individual defensive reputation?

 

I'm really (trust me) not trying to be a smart a** - but yea, I do base it off my personal observations more than what a stat sheet says. For defense, anyway. And honestly? I'd wager most managers agree with me on that. Do I know that for sure? No, but it's my opinion.

 

And how much did you personally observe of all 30 teams last year?

[DiamondMind]

 

And how much did you personally observe of all 30 teams last year?

 

Quite a bit until DirecTV told me to F off.

 

Oh, and we hijacked this thread.

[Guest]

 

But isn't the fundamental idea of defense creating outs when the ball is put in play? I'm not trying to be smart here, but you do know that's what defensive efficiency measures, right?

 

Isn't that making the assumption that on every possible ball in play, the defense could have a % to record an out?

 

What about after the out is recorded, and you miss the cutoff man by throwing it 5 feet above his head? Where's that written down in numbers? What about the ability to not only record outs - but limit advancing base runners? What about double plays? I could go on and on here.

The fundamental insight that spurred the development of this metric was the realization that balls in play that turn into outs for every pitcher tend towards the same value. The primary variables are: 1) type of batted ball (gb, fb, ld) and 2) defensive efficiency. #1 varies by pitcher and #2 varies by team. Not every individual ball has the same chance of becoming an out, but over the course of thousands of balls put in play per year, this has been repeatedly shown to average out.

 

What this means is that looking at the efficiency of the defense is a very valid metric.

[DiamondMind]

 

What about after the out is recorded, and you miss the cutoff man by throwing it 5 feet above his head? Where's that written down in numbers? What about the ability to not only record outs - but limit advancing base runners? What about double plays? I could go on and on here.

The fundamental insight that spurred the development of this metric was the realization that balls in play that turn into outs for every pitcher tend towards the same value. The primary variables are: 1) type of batted ball (gb, fb, ld) and 2) defensive efficiency. #1 varies by pitcher and #2 varies by team. Not every individual ball has the same chance of becoming an out, but over the course of thousands of balls put in play per year, this has been repeatedly shown to average out.

 

What this means is that looking at the efficiency of the defense is a very valid metric.

 

I understand your stance, and your opinion - that's not the problem. I'd like you to answer the question about where overthrowing cutoff men, throwing to the wrong base, Barrett calling 8,000 fastballs (on 0-2 and 1-2 counts) a game, Pierre playing about 10 feet behind second base, etc etc comes into play by numbers?

 

Edit: Meant to type 0-2 and 1-2 :D

[Guest]

Actually, I think think it is really, really hard to evaluate the defense of one individual. However, the rate at which an entire team converts balls in play into outs is a pretty simple and effective metric for measuring team defense.

 

Now, the big stinking caveat there is how much influence you believe pitching has upon that, which is another subject in itself. However, nobody will much argue that ground balls, line drives and fly balls (inside the park) all convert into hits at different rates.

 

Still, even with that caveat, defensive efficiency is a nice metric. I'd trust it over any non-professional scouting opinion of a team defense. And I'd trust it over the top of a lot of scouts if it is broken into its components. It's just not an end-all, be-all.

 

Ask Jason Marquis what he thinks about our outfielders when the seasons over.

If our outfielders do a very above average job of converting fly balls into outs, I don't think he'll have room to complain. However, he may do so if the OF doesn't accrue "style points".

 

But isn't the fundamental idea of defense creating outs when the ball is put in play? I'm not trying to be smart here, but you do know that's what defensive efficiency measures, right?

 

I would agree that the defense's fundamental job is creating outs, but I think a secondary job has to be not giving up extra bases, along with turning extra outs that cannot be measured as easily. For example, the throwing arms of the Cubs outfielders allowed runners to move up on a consistent basis. Also, I saw more easy double plays last year turned into no outs than any year I've ever seen of Cubs baseball. I could go on, but those two things hurt the Cubs greatly, along with some particularly bad defense with runners on (for example, how many errors of Cedeno's were throwing home with multiple runners on and throwing it 30 feet wide of the plate? 5 or 6? That's exceptionally high, and caused a couple of games to swing with the big innings that resulted-those errors hurt worse than an error with nobody on).

While true that the things you mention are not captured by defensive efficiency, those 5-6 plays by Cedeno (and I think your memory is betraying you on the number) are pretty insignificant in measuring the defense when compared to the thousands of balls put in play during the year. A small change in the defensive efficiency makes up for a tremendous number of the gaffes you mention.

[USSoccer]

 

What about after the out is recorded, and you miss the cutoff man by throwing it 5 feet above his head? Where's that written down in numbers? What about the ability to not only record outs - but limit advancing base runners? What about double plays? I could go on and on here.

The fundamental insight that spurred the development of this metric was the realization that balls in play that turn into outs for every pitcher tend towards the same value. The primary variables are: 1) type of batted ball (gb, fb, ld) and 2) defensive efficiency. #1 varies by pitcher and #2 varies by team. Not every individual ball has the same chance of becoming an out, but over the course of thousands of balls put in play per year, this has been repeatedly shown to average out.

 

What this means is that looking at the efficiency of the defense is a very valid metric.

 

I understand your stance, and your opinion - that's not the problem. I'd like you to answer the question about where overthrowing cutoff men, throwing to the wrong base, Barrett calling 8,000 fastballs (on 0-2 and 1-2 counts) a game, Pierre playing about 10 feet behind second base, etc etc comes into play by numbers?

 

Edit: Meant to type 0-2 and 1-2 :D

 

Barrett's pitch selection has nothing to do with defense.

[DiamondMind]

 

Barrett's pitch selection has nothing to do with defense.

 

Actually....you're right. That's for another thread I suppose.

[DiamondMind]

While true that the things you mention are not captured by defensive efficiency, those 5-6 plays by Cedeno (and I think your memory is betraying you on the number) are pretty insignificant in measuring the defense when compared to the thousands of balls put in play during the year. A small change in the defensive efficiency makes up for a tremendous number of the gaffes you mention.

 

I disagree with you for yet another reason that you can't quantify. Bone headed plays, even if irregular, lead to your club being the 2006 Cubs.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

 

And how much did you personally observe of all 30 teams last year?

 

Quite a bit until DirecTV told me to F off.

 

Oh, and we hijacked this thread.

 

Guesstimate, just for argument's sake. Aside from the Cubs, how many games per team? 30? 50? 100?

[Guest]

 

What about after the out is recorded, and you miss the cutoff man by throwing it 5 feet above his head? Where's that written down in numbers? What about the ability to not only record outs - but limit advancing base runners? What about double plays? I could go on and on here.

The fundamental insight that spurred the development of this metric was the realization that balls in play that turn into outs for every pitcher tend towards the same value. The primary variables are: 1) type of batted ball (gb, fb, ld) and 2) defensive efficiency. #1 varies by pitcher and #2 varies by team. Not every individual ball has the same chance of becoming an out, but over the course of thousands of balls put in play per year, this has been repeatedly shown to average out.

 

What this means is that looking at the efficiency of the defense is a very valid metric.

 

I understand your stance, and your opinion - that's not the problem. I'd like you to answer the question about where overthrowing cutoff men, throwing to the wrong base, Barrett calling 8,000 fastballs (on 0-2 and 1-2 counts) a game, Pierre playing about 10 feet behind second base, etc etc comes into play by numbers?

 

Edit: Meant to type 0-2 and 1-2 :D

I replied to your post before you edited it.

 

I game the answer to your question in my response to cubcoltpacer. In short, the defensive efficiency on thousands of balls in play is far, far more impactful than what happens on any 50 plays you care to pick out during the year. And while you watch the Cubs all the time and those 50 plays stick out in your mind and tell you the Cubs have a bad defense, the truth of the matter is that every team has some number of plays just as stupid every year. But however many it is, and however great the difference in those between the Cubs and the team with the smallest number of gaffes, the rate of making outs on thousands of balls is overwhelmingly more important.

[Electron Blue]

Can someone point me to the Rothschild thread? I must be lost. :)

 

Best post of the thread. :D

[fromthestretch]

I understand your stance, and your opinion - that's not the problem. I'd like you to answer the question about where overthrowing cutoff men, throwing to the wrong base, Barrett calling 8,000 fastballs (on 0-2 and 1-2 counts) a game, Pierre playing about 10 feet behind second base, etc etc comes into play by numbers?

 

Edit: Meant to type 0-2 and 1-2 :D

 

I'm not picking on you here, since a few others have mentioned how bad Barrett is at calling games, but this just isn't a strong argument. Chances are, unless the signs are coming from the dugout, the pitcher has every right to shake him off until he gets the sign he wants. (And if the signs are coming from the dugout, that's not Barrett's fault.) Bottom line, the pitcher is in control of what he throws more often than not.

 

Other things to consider is that even if Barrett is calling for an 0-2 or 1-2 fastball, he's certainly not calling for the pitcher to throw it in the middle of the strikezone. Depending on the hitter, a fastball thrown to the right spot might be the right call in that situation, but it's still up to the pitcher to execute.

 

Pitchers who blame their problems on the catcher's ability (or lack thereof) to call a game are simply looking for a scapegoat.

[DiamondMind]

I understand your stance, and your opinion - that's not the problem. I'd like you to answer the question about where overthrowing cutoff men, throwing to the wrong base, Barrett calling 8,000 fastballs (on 0-2 and 1-2 counts) a game, Pierre playing about 10 feet behind second base, etc etc comes into play by numbers?

 

Edit: Meant to type 0-2 and 1-2 :D

 

I'm not picking on you here, since a few others have mentioned how bad Barrett is at calling games, but this just isn't a strong argument. Chances are, unless the signs are coming from the dugout, the pitcher has every right to shake him off until he gets the sign he wants. (And if the signs are coming from the dugout, that's not Barrett's fault.) Bottom line, the pitcher is in control of what he throws more often than not.

 

Other things to consider is that even if Barrett is calling for an 0-2 or 1-2 fastball, he's certainly not calling for the pitcher to throw it in the middle of the strikezone. Depending on the hitter, a fastball thrown to the right spot might be the right call in that situation, but it's still up to the pitcher to execute.

 

Pitchers who blame their problems on the catcher's ability (or lack thereof) to call a game are simply looking for a scapegoat.

 

I think I've hijacked this thread enough, if you want to copy this to a new thread, I'd be glad to reply.

 

Also - this is a really good conversation :D

[Guest]

I understand your stance, and your opinion - that's not the problem. I'd like you to answer the question about where overthrowing cutoff men, throwing to the wrong base, Barrett calling 8,000 fastballs (on 0-2 and 1-2 counts) a game, Pierre playing about 10 feet behind second base, etc etc comes into play by numbers?

 

Edit: Meant to type 0-2 and 1-2 :D

 

I'm not picking on you here, since a few others have mentioned how bad Barrett is at calling games, but this just isn't a strong argument. Chances are, unless the signs are coming from the dugout, the pitcher has every right to shake him off until he gets the sign he wants. (And if the signs are coming from the dugout, that's not Barrett's fault.) Bottom line, the pitcher is in control of what he throws more often than not.

 

Other things to consider is that even if Barrett is calling for an 0-2 or 1-2 fastball, he's certainly not calling for the pitcher to throw it in the middle of the strikezone. Depending on the hitter, a fastball thrown to the right spot might be the right call in that situation, but it's still up to the pitcher to execute.

 

Pitchers who blame their problems on the catcher's ability (or lack thereof) to call a game are simply looking for a scapegoat.

Catchers who are receiving for pitchers who can't find the zone with their breaking balls may not have much choice on what they call, either.

[DiamondMind]

Can someone point me to the Rothschild thread? I must be lost. :)

 

Best post of the thread. :D

 

Can Larry play CF?

[Balsa]

I know the pitching staff are vastly different, but at 3B, Ramirez started about 1/3rd of the double plays that Rolen started.

 

In addition, all of the Cubs that played 1B started about half as many double plays as Pujols.

 

At SS, Eckstein started 42 and turned 42 double plays, while Cedeno played 100 more innings and started 36 and turned 26.

 

Second base is too fragmented on both teams to do any decent analysis, in my opinion.