BCB Projections: Defense
by Jordan M on Feb 3, 2009 3:15 PM CST
Email
PrintIntroduction, CA | 1B | 2B | 3B | SS | LF | CF | RF | SP | RP | RP Lev
We're going to project defense a bit more informally. Here are the CHONE defensive projections for each player. Look them over, and we'll discuss which ones we want to change in the comments section.
Catchers
C Jason Kendall 0
C Mike Rivera -6
Infielders
1B Prince Fielder -8
2B Rickie Weeks -9
3B Bill Hall -1
3B Mike Lamb -12
2B Craig Counsell +14
SS Craig Counsell +10
3B Craig Counsell +12
SS J.J. Hardy +1
Outfielders
LF Ryan Braun +2
CF Mike Cameron +3
RF Corey Hart +2
Here's The Book fan scouting report for 2008 for some reference, and Fangraphs has UZR ratings. Just query the player's name in the upper right corner of the Fangraphs home page and then click defense on the tabs at the top. A player's career UZR/150 at the position will tell you a lot about their ability.
I'll point out a few that I think could be changed:
- Kendall could probably get a modest bump, he was certainly better than aveage last year.
- I think Weeks could be a tad higher, some may disagree.
- Hall and Lamb both deserve bumps up, in my opinion.
- Counsell could probably come down, given his age.
- UZR and PMR love Hardy, so I think he should get a bump, too.
- You guys can decide on the outfielders. I think those are pretty fair, but could be changed just a bit.
The format is up to you, we just want to come up with a consensus at some point. You can bring up one guy you think should be changed or go through the whole thing point-by-point if you so desire. We need some discussion for this to work, so contribute if you can, even if it's just "Weeks should definitely be that low".
One thing to keep in mind is that we're just looking at defense average to position. So a 0 SS is a much more skilled defender than a +5 first basemen, so don't think CHONE is saying Braun's a better fielder than Hardy.
This is your chance to speak up-- let's get some fan influence in here instead of just CHONE defense projecitons. I'll be around by about 4 if anyone has any questions. Otherwise, let the discussion begin. We'll see how this goes before I decide on tomorrow's topic. I'm going to leave the starters and relievers open for a bit yet, the links are at the top of this post.
17 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Do projections include blown DPs?
I think we’d have to go beyond one hand when counting the number of double plays that Weeks blew last year, but didn’t count as “errors” because one of the two outs was made. Of course, I still believe some of Weeks’ blown plays / errors are because he can get to more balls than the average 2B.
Otherwise, Kendall up a hair, Counsell down a hair.
That's what the goal is here
we’re not projecting his UZR, we’re trying to project what his actual defensive worth will be compared to average. That brings up a good point, though, and leads me to think Weeks could stay down in the area he is right now. I’m with you on Counsell and Kendall.
Scored three times and detonated an indisputable in four visits to the batting box.
I have a few disagreements here for sure
Hall – 4
Rickie – -5
Hardy – +4
Counsell – +6/3/+6 2B/SS/3B
---
Juuuust a bit outside!!
http://www.rightfieldbleachers.com
Yeah, that's about what I'm thinking
Are those just off the cuff? I probably would have come up with something similar.
Scored three times and detonated an indisputable in four visits to the batting box.
I don't know why we'd push Counsell down so much.
yes, he’s old, but he’s not much older than he was last year. I don’t know much about defense aging trends, but they can’t be THAT sharp, and they are probably already built into CHONE’s projections. We have tons of data that suggests Counsell is a monster defender. I wouldn’t mind taking them down a tick, but I’d really like to see them stay above about 8 / 5 / 7, and I wouldn’t have a problem with leaving them where they are.
Also, cheese.
by Jeff Sackmann on Feb 3, 2009 4:18 PM CST up reply actions
That's a +4 for Hall
And I suppose that maybe I was a little low on Counsell, but I would still be very happy with those numbers for him. He has been on a decline every year for the last 3 years according to UZR though.
---
Juuuust a bit outside!!
http://www.rightfieldbleachers.com
I don't know anything about defensive ratings
what is the unit for these numbers? or is it unitless?
runs
it takes some getting used to. but generally, +5 is solidly good, +10 is outstanding, +15 or higher is incredible. Generally there’s a little more variation in middle infielders (esp shortstops) and CFs because they have more chances to be good or bad.
Also, cheese.
by Jeff Sackmann on Feb 3, 2009 4:16 PM CST up reply actions
over the course of the season?
So playing time is not factored in?
Is there a link where I can see the stat defined and described? I’m interested in knowing more about all these defensive metrics
For this we're normalizing for a full season, yeah
Here’s a post I wrote a while back, there’s an explanation and a few links. There’s a good link in the comments of that one as well, to the actual explanation of UZR. If we reference UZR, that’s a cumulative defensive measure; UZR/150 is prorated to 150 games to allow for equal comparison.
The goal is just to put an accurate overall projection for the defender skill level, and the best way to do that is in runs compared to average. If you have any specific questions, don’t be afraid to ask.
Scored three times and detonated an indisputable in four visits to the batting box.
My first thoughts are mostly in line with yours, jihad
kendall, weeks, maybe hall and hardy get a bump.
Then again, I feel like we’re fanboys if we’re just bumping everybody up. I wouldn’t mind knocking Hart down some, and I wouldn’t argue against knocking Braun down to even.
Also, cheese.
That occurred to me as well
I’m good with moving Braun down to average for sure. Hart is harder— his career UZR is +3 and he was +8 in 2007, so I’d be OK with between +2 and average.
If we’re in the market to move someone down, we could look at Fielder, although your point about 1B having less chances to screw up is a good one. I know UZR can’t really measure “scooping” throws that aren’t ruled errors.
I think a middle ground is in order for Counsell— CHONE is probably too optimistic and jhmoore’s is assuming a pretty big decline. 8 and 6 could work.
Scored three times and detonated an indisputable in four visits to the batting box.
Braun was good and will be better
Braun was good in the outfield last year. He fielded 1.000, though not completely accurate since he misplayed a number of balls at the beginning of the season that wouldn’t have been counted as errors, and had 9 outfield assists.
He’ll misplay fewer balls throughout the season and teams will respect his arm this year more than last which should take away a few bases from opponents. I’d strongly support Braun as a positive defensive fielder this year.
Alright, here’s my take:
Hall: 3
Counsell: +8/5/+7 2B/SS/3B
Hardy: +4
Weeks: -6
Fielder: -12
Hart: 0
Kendall: +4
Lamb: -6
No I don’t think Fielder will avoid being -double digits. No I don’t think Weeks gets a whole lot higher than that. Its possible Hardy goes up a bit more. Yes I think Hart will perform at average.
The only reason I think Fielder can be around -8 or so
Is the fact that there’s so few chances for first basemen that it would take about a season and a half of Fielder-esque defense to be that bad.
Taking a look at UZR/150, the only player below -8.0 in the entire league last year was Mike Jacobs, at a stunning -17.0 (which comes out to be -29.5 with the positional adjustment)
---
Juuuust a bit outside!!
http://www.rightfieldbleachers.com
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
NL Central Standings
| W | L | PCT | GB | STRK | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Chicago
|
0 | 0 | .000 | 0 | Lost 0 |
|
Cincinnati
|
0 | 0 | .000 | 0 | Lost 0 |
|
Houston
|
0 | 0 | .000 | 0 | Lost 0 |
|
Milwaukee
|
0 | 0 | .000 | 0 | Lost 0 |
|
Pittsburgh
|
0 | 0 | .000 | 0 | Lost 0 |
|
St. Louis
|
0 | 0 | .000 | 0 | Lost 0 |
(updated 2.15.2012 at 1:03 PM CST)
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
