Article: A preview of 2015 MLB Team Defenses.

[jimmer]

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/a-preview-of-2015-team-defenses/

 

Twins project to be 29th.

[gunnarthor]

They certainly don't seem to like the corner OF positions, which isn't a surprise, but also don't like 3B, which might be.  Plouffe scored fairly well there last year.

 

Anyway, if their measurements are right, the valuation of that means about a six win difference between the best team and the worst team, (if I'm doing the math right).

[Monkeypaws]

Our infield defense is actually pretty good.

 

Must really hate that OF.

[jokin]

The  Tigers "loss" is the Tigers "gain" (and the Twins "gain" is the Twins "loss")

 

  Quote

 

 

Most upgraded

Tigers - Like the Indians, the Tigers still don’t project to be a good defensive team, but even league-average is a step up from miserable. A full season of Jose Iglesias at shortstop would do wonders for the Tigers defense, and the innings butchered in the outfield by Torii Hunter and Rajai Davis will now be replaced with Yoenis Cespedes and Anthony Gose.

 

 

  Quote

In left field, they receive the lowest defensive projection in baseball, courtesy Oswaldo Arcia:

Arcia is being moved back to left this year because the Twins acquired Torii Hunter, who has amassed the most negative defensive value in baseball over the last two years. Not much to see in Minnesota.

 

 

But hey, Cuddy projects as a worse RFer than Hunter, so there's that.

[nytwinsfan]

All of that makes sense for the Twins, except for the big negative for Plouffe. Are they just assuming that last year's defense was a fluke, and that he will regress?

[markos]

 

  On 3/18/2015 at 7:32 PM, nytwinsfan said:

All of that makes sense for the Twins, except for the big negative for Plouffe. Are they just assuming that last year's defense was a fluke, and that he will regress?

That seems to be a big part of it. However, they are currently projecting Nunez and Sano to get ~230 PAs during the season, and they are both big negatives as well (particularly Nunez, -12 over a full season).

[USAFChief]

The Fangraphs article claims a 120 run defensive difference between KC and Cleveland last year.

 

Cleveland allowed 653 runs.

 

KC allowed 624.

 

It's probably just me, but the math seems...questionable.

 

Or Does this mean Cleveland's pitching was 90 runs better than KC's?

[jimmer]

 

  On 3/18/2015 at 10:14 PM, USAFChief said:

The Fangraphs article claims a 120 run defensive difference between KC and Cleveland last year.

Cleveland allowed 653 runs.

KC allowed 624.

It's probably just me, but the math seems...questionable.

Or Does this mean Cleveland's pitching was 90 runs better than KC's?

Cleveland's pitching was 2nd best in baseball and best in AL. 6 WAR difference in rotation.  Their defense was horrible.

[USAFChief]

  On 3/18/2015 at 10:19 PM, jimmer said:

Cleveland's pitching was 2nd best in baseball and best in AL. 6 WAR difference in rotation.  Their defense was horrible.

A quick check of Fangraphs shows Cleveland with 20.1 team pitching WAR, KC with 18.8.

 

Now look what you've done...you have me checking--and quoting--WAR. For pitchers, no less!

 

In any case, it doesn't seem to explain the 90 missing runs.

[jimmer]

 

  On 3/18/2015 at 10:32 PM, USAFChief said:

A quick check of Fangraphs shows Cleveland with 20.1 team pitching WAR, KC with 18.8.

Now look what you've done...you have me checking--and quoting--WAR. For pitchers, no less!

In any case, it doesn't seem to explain the 90 missing runs.

Yes, TEAM pitching WAR, I just used rotation since KCs bullpen helped close that WAR gap.

 

sequencing accounts for the runs, more than likely. It's never just going to add up cleanly.

[Halsey Hall]

 

  On 3/18/2015 at 7:32 PM, nytwinsfan said:

All of that makes sense for the Twins, except for the big negative for Plouffe. Are they just assuming that last year's defense was a fluke, and that he will regress?

They are assuming that last years numbers were a typo and he really is that bad.  Thanks goodness someone agrees with me. 

[jimmer]

 

  On 3/18/2015 at 10:37 PM, Halsey Hall said:

They are assuming that last years numbers were a typo and he really is that bad.  Thanks goodness someone agrees with me. 

projections always regress to the mean.  Until he makes his mean higher, that's what the projections will say.

 

The guy who created ZiPS actually think Plouffe's defense will be better than the projections and it also looks like the article is just taking about the positions, not just the starters at each position.

[USAFChief]

  On 3/18/2015 at 10:35 PM, jimmer said:

Yes, TEAM pitching WAR, I just used rotation since KCs bullpen helped close that WAR gap.

 

sequencing accounts for the runs, more than likely. It's never just going to add up cleanly.

Defense and WAR don't count when the bullpen is in?

 

And if it doesn't add up, why pay attention?

 

I'm still skeptical there was a 120 run difference between those two defenses last year.

[jimmer]

 

  On 3/18/2015 at 10:45 PM, USAFChief said:

Defense and WAR don't count when the bullpen is in?

And if it doesn't add up, why pay attention?

I'm still skeptical there was a 120 run difference between those two defenses last year.

I was just explaining what I did with original response, Chief. I wasn't suggesting WAR doesn't count when the bullpen is in.

 

And believe me, I never thought anyone would/could convince you to accept the 120 run difference anyway.  All that new age hocom math and all...

[USAFChief]

  On 3/18/2015 at 10:47 PM, jimmer said:

I was just explaining what I did with original response, Chief. I wasn't suggesting WAR doesn't count when the bullpen is in.

 

And believe me, I never thought anyone would/could convince you to accept the 120 run difference anyway.  All that new age hocom math and all...

I'm all ears, my friend. Teach me. How come the 120 run difference only added up to 29 on the field?

[jimmer]

 

  On 3/18/2015 at 10:54 PM, USAFChief said:

I'm all ears, my friend. Teach me. How come the 120 run difference only added up to 29 on the field?

There isn't a certain amount of runs available for each team to allow and then we add runs allowed and runs saved and it equals that number. Why do you think there would be an even 120 run difference? It's not how it works.

 

It's not like each team would allow the same amount of runs even of the defenses were equal, cause there is nothing to say they would.  Still have to account for the pitching differences of the teams and the sequencing of hits by the opponents that cause runs to score.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[gunnarthor]

 

  On 3/18/2015 at 10:54 PM, USAFChief said:

I'm all ears, my friend. Teach me. How come the 120 run difference only added up to 29 on the field?

Just take the numbers with a huge grain of salt.  We don't know how to accurately measure defense and we don't know how to accurately value the numbers after we get them.  Those are two pretty big issues. It's really not worth worrying about on a this scale. 

[USAFChief]

  On 3/19/2015 at 3:19 AM, jimmer said:

There isn't a certain amount of runs available for each team to allow and then we add runs allowed and runs saved and it equals that number. Why do you think there would be an even 120 run difference? It's not how it works.

 

It's not like each team would allow the same amount of runs even of the defenses were equal, cause there is nothing to say they would.  Still have to account for the pitching differences of the teams and the sequencing of hits by the opponents that cause runs to score.

Respectfully, the 120 run number doesn't come from me, it comes from the Fangraphs article.

 

It flatly states there was a 120 run difference, based solely on defensive measurements, between those two teams. It even rhetorically asks us to speculate about the 12 wins those runs represent.

 

 

There is no mention of pitcher quality, or sequencing, or any other mitigating factor.

 

I'm a skeptic, which isn't news, and isn't important. But it does occur to me that supporters should be wondering 1) do these measurements really measure anything, and 2) if so, are the results of these measurements so obscured by, or overwhelmed by other factors as to tell us nothing useful?

 

In this specific case, pitcher quality doesn't seem able to hide 90 runs. And if random sequencing overwhelms defense to this extent, how do we know Cleveland isn't really good, but was only the victim of unfortunate timing? Why would we be trying to measure defense if it doesn't actually account for runs allowed?

 

If I seem argumentative, apologies in advance. I sincerely would like to believe in defensive metrics. But IMO the data doesn't support such a belief. YMMV.

[Paul Pleiss]

When the dust settles on 2015 I think the Twins will be even worse than projected defensively. -26 runs seems optomistic. I think -30 is a better place to start.

[TheLeviathan]

 

  On 3/19/2015 at 4:33 AM, USAFChief said:

Respectfully, the 120 run number doesn't come from me, it comes from the Fangraphs article.

It flatly states there was a 120 run difference, based solely on defensive measurements, between those two teams. It even rhetorically asks us to speculate about the 12 wins those runs represent.


There is no mention of pitcher quality, or sequencing, or any other mitigating factor.

I'm a skeptic, which isn't news, and isn't important. But it does occur to me that supporters should be wondering 1) do these measurements really measure anything, and 2) if so, are the results of these measurements so obscured by, or overwhelmed by other factors as to tell us nothing useful?

In this specific case, pitcher quality doesn't seem able to hide 90 runs. And if random sequencing overwhelms defense to this extent, how do we know Cleveland isn't really good, but was only the victim of unfortunate timing? Why would we be trying to measure defense if it doesn't actually account for runs allowed?

If I seem argumentative, apologies in advance. I sincerely would like to believe in defensive metrics. But IMO the data doesn't support such a belief. YMMV.

 

  On 3/19/2015 at 3:19 AM, jimmer said:

There isn't a certain amount of runs available for each team to allow and then we add runs allowed and runs saved and it equals that number. Why do you think there would be an even 120 run difference? It's not how it works.

 

It's not like each team would allow the same amount of runs even of the defenses were equal, cause there is nothing to say they would.  Still have to account for the pitching differences of the teams and the sequencing of hits by the opponents that cause runs to score.

 

Um, perhaps this paragraph will help you zero in on Chief's issue:

 

That’s a 120-run difference! That’s about 12 wins! Those teams play in the same division! Move 12 wins around and the result is an entirely different season!

 

That's right in the opening paragraph as a way to hype the analysis.  This is a great article to highlight my growing frustration with how some metrics are being very lazily presented.  Or how the perspective on their accuracy is really overstated.

[markos]

 

  On 3/19/2015 at 4:33 AM, USAFChief said:

Respectfully, the 120 run number doesn't come from me, it comes from the Fangraphs article.

It flatly states there was a 120 run difference, based solely on defensive measurements, between those two teams. It even rhetorically asks us to speculate about the 12 wins those runs represent.


There is no mention of pitcher quality, or sequencing, or any other mitigating factor.

I'm a skeptic, which isn't news, and isn't important. But it does occur to me that supporters should be wondering 1) do these measurements really measure anything, and 2) if so, are the results of these measurements so obscured by, or overwhelmed by other factors as to tell us nothing useful?

In this specific case, pitcher quality doesn't seem able to hide 90 runs. And if random sequencing overwhelms defense to this extent, how do we know Cleveland isn't really good, but was only the victim of unfortunate timing? Why would we be trying to measure defense if it doesn't actually account for runs allowed?

If I seem argumentative, apologies in advance. I sincerely would like to believe in defensive metrics. But IMO the data doesn't support such a belief. YMMV.

I think - and this is only a guess - that part of the missing 90 run difference between the two teams is due to ballpark factors. The absolute difference between the two teams was only 30 runs, but Kansas City is a much better hitters park than Cleveland, so in theory Cleveland should be X runs better than Kansas City just based on their ballpark. I have no idea what X should be in this case, but some rough back-of-the-envelope math using Fangraph's park factors makes me think it should be ~30 runs. Also, there will be some additional difference based on their opponent locations. It just so happened that both teams played the NL West last year, and KC had to go to Col and Arz and have LAD and SFG at home, while Cleveland basically did the exact opposite. So I think that gets factored in as well. I'm not sure that all adds up to 90 runs, but it does account for some of it.

 

Using another method, if you look on baseball-reference, its pitcher WAR calculation has a bunch of factors that get weighted by the park factors for the season. If you back out the defensive adjustment, you basically end up with the expectation that an "average" pitcher would allow 4.0 runs per 9 against Cleveland's opponents, while an "average" pitcher would allow 4.5 runs per 9 again Kansas City's opponents. That difference over a full season is ~80 runs, which is pretty close.

 

Now I'm no expert, so I can't guarantee that I didn't use these statistics in an inappropriate manner. But at least for me, it does give me a warm fuzzy that a 120 run difference in defense isn't COMPLETELY crazy.

[jimmer]

 

  On 3/19/2015 at 1:26 PM, markos said:

 

 

Now I'm no expert, so I can't guarantee that I didn't use these statistics in an inappropriate manner. But at least for me, it does give me a warm fuzzy that a 120 run difference in defense isn't COMPLETELY crazy.

It would concern me greatly if the difference between one of the very best defenses and one of the very worst wasn't at least 120 runs over the course of a season.  That makes it only like .75 run a game per season. The difference between a great defense and a horrible difference SHOULD be that much, if not more.  

 

How much do we want to minimize the importance of defense, anyway?

[gunnarthor]

 

  On 3/19/2015 at 1:32 PM, jimmer said:

It would concern me greatly if the difference between one of the very best defenses and one of the very worst wasn't at least 120 runs over the course of a season.  That makes it only like .75 run a game per season. The difference between a great defense and a horrible difference SHOULD be that much, if not more.  

 

.75 runs a game seems pretty big.  Why would you think it was that high?  And why are you confident that both the measurements and values of defense are accurate enough to make such a claim?

[jimmer]

 

  On 3/19/2015 at 1:50 PM, gunnarthor said:

.75 runs a game seems pretty big.  Why would you think it was that high?  And why are you confident that both the measurements and values of defense are accurate enough to make such a claim?

Mostly because it doesn't seem pretty big to me at all.  Seems to me a superior defense over the course of a season would save a team that much over a horrible one.  Less than a run a game?  Doesn't seem at all out of the question.

 

There's a 238 run difference between the best offense and the worst offense.

There's a 277 run difference between the team that allowed the least amount of earned runs and the team that allowed the most amount of earned runs.

 

But a 120 difference between one of the best defenses and one of the worst defenses should be too big, especially when the defense is essential to the pitching part? I guess I just can't wrap my head around that idea. I guess I consider defense a bigger piece of the game than many do. Again, how much do we want to minimize the importance of defense, anyway?

 

And I don't take any of it as exact gospel, anyway.  Neither do the people who generate the metrics. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

  On 3/19/2015 at 1:26 PM, markos said:

I think - and this is only a guess - that part of the missing 90 run difference between the two teams is due to ballpark factors. The absolute difference between the two teams was only 30 runs, but Kansas City is a much better hitters park than Cleveland, so in theory Cleveland should be X runs better than Kansas City just based on their ballpark. I have no idea what X should be in this case, but some rough back-of-the-envelope math using Fangraph's park factors makes me think it should be ~30 runs. Also, there will be some additional difference based on their opponent locations. It just so happened that both teams played the NL West last year, and KC had to go to Col and Arz and have LAD and SFG at home, while Cleveland basically did the exact opposite. So I think that gets factored in as well. I'm not sure that all adds up to 90 runs, but it does account for some of it.

 

Using another method, if you look on baseball-reference, its pitcher WAR calculation has a bunch of factors that get weighted by the park factors for the season. If you back out the defensive adjustment, you basically end up with the expectation that an "average" pitcher would allow 4.0 runs per 9 against Cleveland's opponents, while an "average" pitcher would allow 4.5 runs per 9 again Kansas City's opponents. That difference over a full season is ~80 runs, which is pretty close.

 

Now I'm no expert, so I can't guarantee that I didn't use these statistics in an inappropriate manner. But at least for me, it does give me a warm fuzzy that a 120 run difference in defense isn't COMPLETELY crazy.

I assume that Fangraphs WAR is already adjusted for parks and opponents.  (Otherwise, the Padres would presumably lead the league in dWAR every year.)

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

  On 3/19/2015 at 1:51 PM, jimmer said:

There's a 238 run difference between the best offense and the worst offense.

There's a 277 run difference between the team that allowed the least amount of earned runs and the team that allowed the most amount of earned runs.

 

But a 120 difference between one of the best defenses and one of the worst defenses should be too big

I actually agree with you, but by WAR, the hitting/pitching gulf isn't that wide.  In the AL for 2014, by Fangraphs RAR, it was a 148 run difference between best and worst teams on offense, 134 for fielding, and only 72 for pitching.

 

At B-Ref, it is 145 for hitting/baserunning, 121 for defense, and 160 for pitching.

[Mike Sixel]

Ugh....arguing over the exact numbers again, rather than the point......the Twins defense is likely to cost them wins this year. Arguing over the precision of the measurement, for the 100000000th time seems like a lot of typing for us to go over the same arguments again and again.

 

it's almost like some want to do that, so we ignore the actual point, which is that the Twins defense is likely to be about the worst in baseball.

[jimmer]

 

  On 3/19/2015 at 3:06 PM, spycake said:

I actually agree with you, but by WAR, the hitting/pitching gulf isn't that wide.  In the AL for 2014, by Fangraphs RAR, it was a 148 run difference between best and worst teams on offense, 134 for fielding, and only 72 for pitching.

 

At B-Ref, it is 145 for hitting/baserunning, 124 for defense, and 160 for pitching.

yeah, I was just using actual runs scored and actual earned runs allowed since they are the widely accepted traditional stats that most have no issues with accepting as a true measure of talent, regardless of any other factors that play into those (for example how home park factors into it, differences in league and division opponents, etc :-)

[jimmer]

 

  On 3/19/2015 at 3:14 PM, mike wants wins said:

Ugh....arguing over the exact numbers again, rather than the point......the Twins defense is likely to cost them wins this year. Arguing over the precision of the measurement, for the 100000000th time seems like a lot of typing for us to go over the same arguments again and again.

 

it's almost like some want to do that, so we ignore the actual point, which is that the Twins defense is likely to be about the worst in baseball.

Yeah, and unfortunately that ALWAYS happens.  

 

Even if we don't want to believe there was exactly a 120 run difference between the Indians and Royals defense, do we believe it was only like 25-35 runs?  I personally have no issues with the 120 run difference and certainly believe that if it isn't QUITE that much, the number it actually is comes much closer to 120 than the 25-35.  

 

And yeah, the actual point of starting this thread was to point out what some of us already know, that our defense is really bad and didn't get any better which does have a HUGE effect on preventing runs. Seems some want to believe it practically has no real effect if they believe the difference between one of the best defense and one of the worst defense ONLY saved the team with the great defense about 30 runs over the team with the horrible defense. If that's true, why even care at all about defense? It explains TRs approach to building this team :-)

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

  On 3/18/2015 at 10:14 PM, USAFChief said:

The Fangraphs article claims a 120 run defensive difference between KC and Cleveland last year.

Cleveland allowed 653 runs.

KC allowed 624.

It's probably just me, but the math seems...questionable.

Or Does this mean Cleveland's pitching was 90 runs better than KC's?

How would you explain that the Royals won 4 more games than the Indians, with a comparable pitching staff and a much worse offense?

 

Here's another way to look at the breakdown -- Fangraphs RAR (runs above replacement) breakdown for the two teams:

 

That is a 68.8 run difference.  That's about a 7 win difference, not too far from their actual 4 win difference.

 

B-Ref version:

 

 

That puts them almost equal, which is what their run differentials and Pythag records suggest too.