2008 Review, Part 1: Infield

by Jim McLennan on Oct 1, 2008 11:32 PM EDT Comment 33 comments

I'm starting the off-season by taking a look at the performance of the various positions this season. There'll be four sections, covering respectively: the infield, outfield and catchers [just to balance the positions players at four per section], starting pitchers and the bullpen. All stats will refer only to the appropriate position e.g. CoJack's stats for 1st base will reflect only his at-bats playing there. I'm manfully trying to avoid too much speculation about what might happen going forward, and concentrate more on what happened in 2008.

1st base
Overall: .278/.359/.446 = OPS .805 [sOPS+ 98]
NL avg: .277/.359/.479 = OPS .838
Games started: Jackson 66; Tracy 62; Dunn 14; Clark 12; Burke 6; D'Antona 1; Whitesell 1

Conor Jackson started the season as the full-time incumbent of the position, with Burke the occasional spot starter, and performed well enough there offensively, posting a line of .302/.399/.481, above the NL average for the position. Initially, he was spelled mostly by Burke, but the return of Chad Tracy and the departure of Jackson for the outfield prompted some shuffling.

The arrival in trades of Clark and Dunn further complicated matters, and by the end of the year, no less than seven players had started games at first for Arizona. Dunn's output was clearly the best [.255/.377/.608] by any player, while Chad Tracy's results there were a disappointing .256/.293/.393. Defensively, however, he had a .993 fielding percentage, with only four errors, and had an above-average range factor to go with it.

2nd base
Overall: .276/.349/.407 = OPS .756 [sOPS+ 103]
NL avg: .271/.338/.408 = OPS .746
Games started: Hudson 105; Ojeda 30; Eckstein 18; Burke 9

There's no doubt that the loss of Hudson proved a much greater issue this year than it did down the stretch in 2007. O-Dawg batted .308 before going down for the season on August 9: the three replacements, combined, hit only .218, with 3 HR and 20 RBI in 216 at-bats, and none of them had an OPS of better than .640. That's probably a good part of the reason why we scored 4.27 runs per game after Hudson's injury, compared to 4.51 before losing him. His .333 BA with runners in scoring position would have been particularly-welcome.

However, all the metrics point to Hudson's decline with the glove, his speed now beginning to drop, as you'd expect since he'll be 31 by year end. His fielding percentage was a career-worst .982, and his Range Factor also dropped for the fourth straight season. Per nine innings, his RF was actually below league average for the first ever time. We will likely miss his offense next season, but the defense he provided in 2008 should be relatively easy to replace.

Shortstop
Overall: .291/.339/.487 = OPS .826 [sOPS+ 128]
NL avg. .265/.335/.441 = OPS .776
Games started: Drew 147; Ojeda 13; Burke 2

After a disappointing 2007, this was the Stephen Drew we signed up for. Only one shortstop in the majors with 200+ PAs had a better OPS than Drew's .835 - Hanley Ramirez. No shortstops, and only one middle infielder (Chase Utley), had more extra-base hits than Drew's 76. He set a franchise record for homers at the position, with 21, and his OPS was fifty points better than the previous best by a qualifying shortstop [Jay Bell's .785 in our debut year]. Of course, out-hitting the likes of Tony Womack and Royce Clayton is a light thrill at best...

Not much room for anyone else at the position, with Drew starting some 91% of games, but The Ballplayer Formerly Known as the Littlest One [until the arrival of Eckstein] did bat .321 in 53 at-bats, with more walks than K's. Defensively, Drew had 14 errors, putting him middle-of-the-pack in the majors. However, both Range Factor and Zone Rating concur that he was below average, respectively ranking him 17th and 18th of eighteen qualifiers. Still, we can cope with that as long as he keeps hitting, especially during the second-half where he went .326/.372/.556, for an OPS of .927. A few more walks might be nice, but otherwise, I guess Drew's coming to dinner.

Third-base
Overall: .230/.313/.431 = OPS .744 [sOPS+ 92]
NL avg. .276/.334/.404 = OPS .738
Games started: Reynolds 149; Ojeda 9; Burke 2; Tracy 2

Mark Reynolds was perhaps the most mercurial of the Arizona players this year, and I doubt I need bother re-hashing in detail his team-leading HR and RBI totals, along with his major-league leading error and strikeout numbers. Both with the glove and at the plate, he was capable of astonishing brilliance one moment and infuriating ineptness the next. In his defense, this was still his first full season in the majors, and his youth provides some hope that he will improve both his defense and his contact rate next season. Whether that's at third or elsewhere...

Our Swiss army knife - small, but with a thousand uses - Ojeda was not merely the spot starter but got a lot of use as a late-inning defensive replacement. He started just nine games, but appeared in more than three times as many overall, and played errorless ball in 110 innings. His range was also above league-average, though he only went 4-for-41 at third. Chad Tracy got a couple of looks at his original position, though his surgically-repaired knees restricted his range of lateral movement too much for him to see significant time there.

0 recs | Comment 33 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Conor Jackson started the season as the full-time incumbent of the position, …and performed well enough there offensively, posting a line of .302/.399/.481, above the NL average for the position.

LMAO
CJ is/was a poor defensive 1b and a below average lf.

NL 1bs and CJ’s “solid” 12 home run season…

11 out of 16 NL 1bs in OPS (if that is what turns you on).

13 out of 16 in HRs

13 out of 16 in rbi..

href=“http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/batting?split=0&league=nl&season=2008&seasonType=2&sort=slugAvg&type=reg&ageMin=17&ageMax=51&state=0&college=0&country=0&hand=a&pos=1b&startDate=null&endDate=null&minpa=350” >12 out of 16 in slg%

His “offensive production” will not make up for his defensive failures.

believe what you want to but those “offensive” numbers should be attached to a solid defensive ss, 2b or cf. not a poor defensive 1b or a below ave defensive lf.

by foulpole on Oct 2, 2008 1:48 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Honestly, foulpole, do you intentionally ignore what Jim writes, or is it just unintentional? Jim says Conor hit better than the average first baseman when he played the position. Conor did hit better than the average first baseman when he played the position. Jim provides the numbers to back it up. And you still take umbrage with that? Somehow, you feel that “above average” isn’t good enough?

And a few rankings there that you ignored: 5th out of 16 in OBP, 7th in runs, tied for 1st in triples, 2nd in stolen bases, 4th in strike outs, 3rd in BB/K.

Man, that guy sure is terrible.

"Now, this is the dumbest thing I've ever heard [Hank Steinbrenner] say, and this is the third time I've said that this season."

by kishi on Oct 2, 2008 2:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

He sure is.

Here’s the scary thing, too: his VORP in LF is just higher than Adam Dunn’s for the season. Go figure.

by Azreous on Oct 2, 2008 2:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Below average defensive LF.

Okay, you REALLY need to stop trying to bring that point up.

Let’s look at some actual numbers, shall we?

Revised Zone Rating:
.929, 2nd of 21 for NL LFs with 300+ innings.

Range Factor:
2.07 (league avg.: 1.90), 3rd of 18 for NL LFs with 400+ innings.

And all this despite jumping into the position mid-season.

So explain to me how CoJack is a below average LF. Please tell me, I’m dying to know. I’m sure it has to do with “actually watching games” and “unbiased numbers,” or whatever other convenient tunnel vision is applicable at the time.

By the way, if you want to check out “defensive failures,” look up your old boy Byrnesie’s numbers for this year. Injury or not, Jackson has him crushed.

by Azreous on Oct 2, 2008 2:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

LF

I thought Jackson looked solid in LF every game I saw. He’s no Carl Crawford, but he’s also no Barry Bonds. Arm strength is probably his weakness… but that’s why he’s in left.

Fire Bob Melvin

by nihil67 on Oct 2, 2008 9:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Fielding Bible +/-

Left Field 2008

Rank Player +/-
1 Carl Crawford +23
2 Willie Harris +22
3 Conor Jackson +14
4 Luke Scott +12
5 Matt Holliday +11

by shoewizard on Oct 2, 2008 10:00 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Also

Major League for first base: .272/.353/ .464 .817
Major League avge for LF =: .269 /.344/.442 .786
Conor Jackson 2008 avg: .300/ .376/..446 .822
Conor Jackson Career Avg .287/.367/.443 .810

I will admit to being disappointed by the power outage over the last 1/3 of the season. But on a team full of windmills that can’t make contact, his .376 OBP is worth A LOT. And his defense in LF was above average, not below average. I like how his bat plays in LF a lot more than how it plays at 1b.

by shoewizard on Oct 2, 2008 10:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't know if I've mentioned this,

but I’d like Josh Byrnes to re-sign Adam Dunn.

(To play 1B)

"If the government's nuclear football ever were to fall into the wrong hands Chris Horton would be called upon to intercept it on behalf of the Pentagon."

by DbacksSkins on Oct 2, 2008 4:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree with all this

Not only is CJ’s OBP generally welcome on this team, but our lineup is particularly saddled with right handed redundancy – to the point where the team (without Dunn, Hudson) cant compete against right handed pitching.

Conor doesnt crush righties, but he hits ’em better than any other right handed batter we currently have, I assume partly owing to a more line drive – and less of a home run -approach.

I still absolutely feel the Dbacks need to trade off some of this right handed redundancy to become a contender, and that Conor is fair game, but his OBP and L/R consistency will be harder offensive assets to replace than those demonstrated to date by any of his right handed teammates.

by Diamondhacks on Oct 3, 2008 12:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Solid enough

To have Eric Byrnes very, very worried, to the point of publicly dissing the competition. Even as a ‘joke’, that says quite a lot, I think.

by Jim McLennan on Oct 2, 2008 10:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Solid use of statistics to back up your point!

Sweet!

"Now, this is the dumbest thing I've ever heard [Hank Steinbrenner] say, and this is the third time I've said that this season."

by kishi on Oct 2, 2008 11:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

_____!

"If the government's nuclear football ever were to fall into the wrong hands Chris Horton would be called upon to intercept it on behalf of the Pentagon."

by DbacksSkins on Oct 2, 2008 4:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

This

seems like damning praise to me.

by Azreous on Oct 2, 2008 5:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It seemed like an appropriate usage to me.

"Now, this is the dumbest thing I've ever heard [Hank Steinbrenner] say, and this is the third time I've said that this season."

by kishi on Oct 2, 2008 5:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Reading comprehension. It's clearly vastly over-rated

As we explicitly stated in the first paragraph, the stats for players reflect only their time at the position. I imagine this means that, if Reynolds gets moved to second, you will still be comparing his output there with that of an average third-baseman. While playing first-base, Jackson’s overall offensive production was – much though you want to deny it – actually better than the average player there.

And I thought we’d discussed how meaningless a statistic RBI is: if Jackson had less than you like with them, you should really be blaming ‘Wolf’, for not being on base often enough for CoJack to drive him in. But this is just another example of your prejudiced and biased posts: it’s clear that you have made up your opinion that Jackson sucks, and no amount of those pesky facts is going to dissuade you from this dogmatically-held belief.

by Jim McLennan on Oct 2, 2008 11:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

NO!!

WOLF = GOD!!!!!!!

"If the government's nuclear football ever were to fall into the wrong hands Chris Horton would be called upon to intercept it on behalf of the Pentagon."

by DbacksSkins on Oct 2, 2008 4:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

""OPS (if that is what turns you on).""

Getting on base, not making outs, and hitting for power, all in combination, DEFINITELY turn me on.

by shoewizard on Oct 2, 2008 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

OPS, to foulpole,

is like “i”: An imaginary number.

"If the government's nuclear football ever were to fall into the wrong hands Chris Horton would be called upon to intercept it on behalf of the Pentagon."

by DbacksSkins on Oct 2, 2008 4:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Drew

I’d still like to see him moved to 2nd. I think the problem with him isn’t so much his range (52 OOZ plays was good for 6th out of qualified SS), it’s his decision making and arm strength. I would target Christian Guzman (2 years, 6-7m per?) as a FA replacement at SS. Or maybe try to get the Pirates to bite on something for Jack Wilson (7.25m next year with a 8.4m 2010 team opt).

Fire Bob Melvin

by nihil67 on Oct 2, 2008 9:21 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

not a bad idea

We might be able to pry away Furcal from the Dodgers as well. That might be a good gamble.

"There are only two seasons: winter and baseball"
-- Bill Veeck

by njjohn on Oct 2, 2008 11:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The problem with Furcal

Is age and injury. He struggled with a bad ankle all of 2007, missed 24 games, and put up the worst numbers of his career. Even more concerning, is that the back injury that got him in 2008 actually surfaced in September of 2007, perhaps as a cascade injury due to the ankle troubles ??

From Rotoworld, September 21, 2007

Rafael Furcal’s back has caused him to miss the past three games, but he still plans to play again this season.
“We have (some) of the greatest fans in all of baseball,” Furcal said. “Even if we’re out of it, they’re going to come and watch us play. If my back feels better, I want to start playing as soon as possible.” Furcal’s back pain may be a result of compensating for a sprained ankle he suffered in spring training.
Source: Los Angeles Daily News

If you look at 2007, he had the worst numbers of his career. He came out of the chute guns blazing in 2008, and had a great 1/5 of a season. But the back problem became too much for him to play through and he missed almost the rest of the entire season until his recent return.

He’s going to be 31, coming off two straight injury marred years. But because of who he is, and his track record, he’s not going to be cheap. He may not get as much as the deal he got from LA that expires this year, (3 yrs, 39 million), but he’s not going for 3 yrs 18 million either. He’s probably going to get AT LEAST 10 million a year from some team.

Back injuries suck.

by shoewizard on Oct 2, 2008 1:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

OTOH,

we’d have another midget on the team to replace Eckstein and complement Augie?

"If the government's nuclear football ever were to fall into the wrong hands Chris Horton would be called upon to intercept it on behalf of the Pentagon."

by DbacksSkins on Oct 2, 2008 4:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

sOPS+

For those not familiar with Jim’s application of sOPS+ here, it’s comparing our players’ OPS with the OPS of players around the league at the same defensive positions.

This is significant because defensive “comps” are probably a player’s most relevant peer group in terms of offensive production. For example, OPS at third base tends to be higher than that among catchers, so it makes more sense to measure Mark Reynolds’ hitting against Ryan Zimmerman and Chipper Jones than to compare him with Chris Snyder and a crush of Molinas.

One caveat: sOPS+ is not park adjusted, so all the AZ figures are park inflated.

Here’s 2008’s sOPS+ of Dback infielders (at their primary positions), relative to their league-wide defensive peers:

Chris Snyder 125
Conor (1b only) 117
Tracy (1b only) 68
Hudson 120
Drew 121
Reynolds 101

Jim, nice writeup, btw.

by Diamondhacks on Oct 2, 2008 1:21 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Knew I'd forgotten something

Appreciate the explanation. I think it’s pretty clear that overall, our infield was an offensive strength during the past season, at or above average almost everywhere.

by Jim McLennan on Oct 2, 2008 1:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not quite that rosy

I’m afraid :-)

First, the league average frame of reference (ie 100) includes production from defensive reserves, so typically you want your starters to exceed that broad norm. Second, shortstop and catcher (Montero was 119, btw) were offensive strengths, but third base and the platoon at first both fell under league ave, after park adjustments.

Third, our best relative production came from the traditionally weakest defensive positions. Ideally, you’d like that the other way around (ie a 110 sOPS+ at first is worth more than a 110 at shortstop, because the production “pie” is bigger at first. Conversely, an 85 at first hurts you more than an 85 at shortstop).

I agree these guys hit better, positionally, than the outfield, but looking forward, with Hudson’s status doubtful, our offensive infield has more holes than strengths – relative to the league.

by Diamondhacks on Oct 2, 2008 3:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Very useful stat

Thanks for the link.

"Now, this is the dumbest thing I've ever heard [Hank Steinbrenner] say, and this is the third time I've said that this season."

by kishi on Oct 2, 2008 1:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I just linked

to the formula, which I actually think is pretty confusing.

The neat thing about sOPS+ is that it’s not just one confined stat, but a formula defining hundreds of statsistical relationships, where the “s” stands for a specific “split” within the huge array of splits.

Here, we’re talking about OPS splits by defensive position, but there’s an sOPS+ comparing batters with RISP, another v LHP, by year, v the Dodgers, or v finesse pitchers, etc, etc.

The only thing there’s not an sOPS+ for is overall career stats, because that’s not a “split” – you just look at plain old OPS+

Sample sizes are often small, but still fun stuff to look at on B-R and get a feel for.

by Diamondhacks on Oct 2, 2008 3:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I learned that Park Factors not updated yet

All the park factors are the same as last year. They will probably update in the next week or two. That means all the park adjusted metrics are pretty much useless as tools for comparison until the park factors are updated. The ERA+ and OPS+ are based on the 3 year park factor, so for most teams the difference should not be too great. But for some, it will be, (i.e. LA)

Dan Zymborski posted his park multiplier in post 39 of this thread. I don’t know if BB-Ref will come up with the exact same numbers..

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/newsstand/discussion/tht_the_dodgers_have_the_best_offense_of_any_nl_playoff_team/

by shoewizard on Oct 2, 2008 6:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Too funny

I inquired to Sean F. about his B-Ref park factors on Sept 4th, specifically about LA’s huge PF discrepancy (compared to ESPN). So, we’re definitely on the same learning curve there. LOL

I am a little concerned, though, that you responded to my sOPS+ post with this park factor info. You do understand sOPS+ (as opposed to OPS+ or ERA+) is not park adjusted, nor is it intended to be, right?

Thx for the BTF thread. Good discussion, as usual. Couple thoughts:

I was similarly blown over when Sean told me about the year lag for his park factors, but I dont think his “retroactive” park adjs present a terribly big problem because, as I understand it, B-Ref uses a rolling three year Park Factor when calculating OPS+ and ERA+. IOW, the current ERA+ and OPS+ values are pegged to 2005-2007 park data. Next week (or month), they’ll be pegged to 2006-2008 data, which all in all, is a more accurate, temperate way to look at comparative value issues, imo, than having folks debating whether Chavez is a severe hitter or hurlers venue, based on insufficient (one year) data sets. It’s a pitcher’s park, period, and we’re seeing data regress back to that reality.

On a smaller point, I disagree with Sal about strength of competition. Whether you play the ‘36 Yankees or the ’62 Mets, it shouldnt affect your PF much, as long as you play them home and home. What will affect home PF with the unbalanced schedule, however, is an imbalance in the away environments you disproportionately play at. Not the teams – the environments. Per ESPN’s methodology, Chase and Coors both get a + boost from their tenants playing a disproportionate amount of away games in Petco, Chavez and , yes, even AT&T (despite recent “neutral” data). We all know what the div’s two best hitter’s parks are – it’s just not by quite as much, relative to the rest of MLB, as some people think – especially if they’re relying on ESPN’s one year figures.

by Diamondhacks on Oct 2, 2008 11:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Your concern appreciated ;)

Error on my part to attach this to sOPS+ post.

Did you notice the drastic change for LA though? Per Zym’s multiplier, Dodger Stadium played to just a 92 for 2008, and the 3 year factor for 2006-2008 is now 96 or 98 I think. BTF’s servers not responding as I type. Anyway, the 3 year factor for LA for 2005-2007 was 104 .

So as I mentioned in that thread, this is going to affect LA’s numbers a lot.

by shoewizard on Oct 3, 2008 12:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I dont fully understand

Dan’s or the B-Ref methodologies for park factor, but if we’re right on the rolling three year notion, essentially the newest PF iteration is (or will be) swapping out 2005 with 2008, right?

And according to the simplest PF calculations (from ESPN), those LA factors are as follows:

2005: .901
2008: .842

So, the Chavez rolling PF is coming down, but that’s not nearly enough to sway a 3 year average from 104 to 98. Not unless we’re wrong about the rolling average (ie it’s weighted heavily towards the most recent year or something like that).

My guess is that the 2005-2007 figure (104) from B-Ref is suspect. Look at LA’s yearly park factors, per ESPN:

2005: .90
2006: 1.04
2007: 1.05

That averages out to neutral, about 100, right? I understand there’s different methodologies here, interleague and all that, but 100 v 104? Over three years? That’s one helluva gap. Sounds like someone smarter than me’s got some ‘splainin’ to do :-)

by Diamondhacks on Oct 3, 2008 3:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'll check with Dan

But the BB-Ref numbers for 2005 are higher than ESPN, and I’m sure the most recent season(s) are weighted more heavily, but I don’t know the exact amount. (5,3,1…3,2,1,….etc).

Actually, now that I can follow that link again, Zym has LA 3 yr at 96. Wow….I look forward to hearing how it dropped that far.

Can’t wait to see the revised ERA+ and OPS+ numbers for the NL West teams. ;)

by shoewizard on Oct 3, 2008 12:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Between 2005 and 2007

Dodger home games saw 2238 runs. Away games, 2237.

Ask him how he gets a “104” out of that ;-)

I’m curious about the weighting. I guess it makes sense if a park has undergone physical changes; otherwise it seems to undermine the purpose of utilizing a three year average to begin with (ie counting one insufficient sample size dramatically more than another)

by Diamondhacks on Oct 3, 2008 4:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs