Positional Adjustments

[connorp]

Since Tom is in the mlb circle, I’m curious of how much mlb professionals like GMs embrace the publicly available information on defense metrics, as opposed to their own internal scouting and data.

 

Could you provide some sort of extremely rough percentage of how much they leverage each.

 

Ie: 30% public, 70% internal

[Jimcanuck]

Kinda silly to be talking about 1B. Every position has its unique skillsets. For example, what about turning double plays? If the metrics primarily focus on the one fielding the ball, I presume the play be the receiver at 2B does not get any credit? Most often, the receiver at 2B is the one that makes the more difficult play.

 

So the primary WAR adjustments are park and defensive position. Are there any other key adjustments? I am sure there are quite a few others that are less significant.

[Jonn]

Is their reliable data that would suggest a player would be superior at another position? There’s a natural theory that any SS would automatically become better 3B and 2B. Or any speedy infielder would convert to the Outfeld better with more room to run. Is their any information would take or look at before making that decision?

[connorp]

Is their reliable data that would suggest a player would be superior at another position? There’s a natural theory that any SS would automatically become better 3B and 2B. Or any speedy infielder would convert to the Outfeld better with more room to run. Is their any information would take or look at before making that decision?

 

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know you can convert a speedy IF into an OF, teams do it all the time. Heck, teams will put guys like Jordan Walker in the OF where he has no business just to get his bat in the lineup.

 

This “defense scarcity” is a farce. The Jays or any other team can find someone in A ball at any position that could play mlb OF or IF. It comes down to if they can hit. Of course if you’re a great defender, you can get away with hitting less. But you aren’t getting paid the bucks.

 

In milb, There’s probably more small athletic guys playing IF that can’t hit, and gliding OF that can’t hit on mlb level, than there are fat guys that can only play 1b

[mphenhef]

My issue with WAR was very specific to David Ortiz and the HoF voters using it as a relative stat to judge David Ortiz against his peers and those already in the HoF. My issue was not with the metric, it was the use of the metric.

 

Unfortunately, there were baseball writers using a WAR comparison for Ortiz who obviously played DH a significant amount of the part of his career that he had the most success.

 

And thank you Tom for being here and taking everyone's questions.

 

Wouldn't using WAR have reduced Ortiz's case for getting to the hall though as a DH (unless I'm misunderstanding your concern)? And he was a first ballot hall of famer. If you want to take issue with Ortiz's hall vote the fact he got in despite obvious steroid links while others haven't is a bigger issue in my mind (note I'm a firm believer a hall without Clemens and Bonds is a mistake). He seemed to get the "I'm nice to media" vote to push him in.

[Laika]

Is their reliable data that would suggest a player would be superior at another position? There’s a natural theory that any SS would automatically become better 3B and 2B. Or any speedy infielder would convert to the Outfeld better with more room to run. Is their any information would take or look at before making that decision?

 

For specific players or in general?

 

In general, yes. That's literally what the positional adjustments in WAR are based on. Actual data from players who played multiple positions or moved positions.

 

For specific players you would use that value adjustment as your starting point / assumption but it might not be true based on player characteristics. Like, a 2B should in theory be just as good at 3B but if they don't have the arm or the reflexes they might not be.

[tangotiger]

For specific players or in general?

 

In general, yes. That's literally what the positional adjustments in WAR are based on. Actual data from players who played multiple positions or moved positions.

 

For specific players you would use that value adjustment as your starting point / assumption but it might not be true based on player characteristics. Like, a 2B should in theory be just as good at 3B but if they don't have the arm or the reflexes they might not be.

 

We show the data right here based on where they stand on the field, regardless of what their official position is listed on the batting lineup:

 

https://baseballsavant.mlb.com/visuals/statcast-infield-defense?type=Fielder&playerId=543760&startYear=2016&endYear=2023&result=&direction=&normalize=undefined&roles=&esrGT=0&esrLT=1&evGT=0&evLT=125&distGT=0&distLT=200&batside=&viz=intercept_fielder_starting_position_

 

We can see in this particular case Semien is far more effective standing in the 2B spots than the SS spots.

[Jonn]

We show the data right here based on where they stand on the field, regardless of what their official position is listed on the batting lineup:

 

https://baseballsavant.mlb.com/visuals/statcast-infield-defense?type=Fielder&playerId=543760&startYear=2016&endYear=2023&result=&direction=&normalize=undefined&roles=&esrGT=0&esrLT=1&evGT=0&evLT=125&distGT=0&distLT=200&batside=&viz=intercept_fielder_starting_position_

 

We can see in this particular case Semien is far more effective standing in the 2B spots than the SS spots.

 

Thanks! Very cool.

[Carlos Danger]

Wouldn't using WAR have reduced Ortiz's case for getting to the hall though as a DH (unless I'm misunderstanding your concern)? And he was a first ballot hall of famer. If you want to take issue with Ortiz's hall vote the fact he got in despite obvious steroid links while others haven't is a bigger issue in my mind (note I'm a firm believer a hall without Clemens and Bonds is a mistake). He seemed to get the "I'm nice to media" vote to push him in.

 

You misinterpreted my whole post. I was and am saying there were writers saying that Ortiz should not be a first round HoF and then posted a list using WAR comparisons of recent first round HoF, showing Ortiz all the way at the bottom of the list.

 

I will try to post it, but this board always gives me issues with my pics.

 

David Ortiz should have been a first round HoF. Using a WAR vs his position playing peers, was an unjust comparison that was screwing with him.

 

Some highlights of just one article I remember seeing, below....

 

 

David Ortiz Had a Great MLB Career, but Not First-Ballot Hall of Fame Great

 

The easiest place to start for the sake of comparing Ortiz to that group is with wins above replacement or WAR, which provides a numerical figure for the number of wins a player was worth to his team above a replacement-level player over the course of his career.

 

Chipper Jones: 85.3

Ken Griffey Jr.: 83.8

Jeff Bagwell: 79.9

Frank Thomas: 73.8

Jim Thome: 73.1

Larry Walker: 72.7

Derek Jeter: 71.3

Barry Larkin: 70.5

Ivan Rodriguez: 68.7

Edgar Martinez: 68.4

Roberto Alomar: 67.0

Craig Biggio: 65.4

Mike Piazza: 59.5

Vladimir Guerrero: 59.5

David Ortiz: 55.3

[Jimcanuck]

Rephrasing - in the case of a routine grounder to the SS, to 2nd for the force and then the 2B makes a difficult play to get the DP, only the SS gets rated? The relay to first is treated as any other relay, no rating?

[tangotiger]

Rephrasing - in the case of a routine grounder to the SS, to 2nd for the force and then the 2B makes a difficult play to get the DP, only the SS gets rated? The relay to first is treated as any other relay, no rating?

 

That's the current iteration, yes. The "transfer" or "teamwork" portion of the play is not currently being handled. The DP is one of the big items that I'd like to get done.

[Jimcanuck]

That's the current iteration, yes. The "transfer" or "teamwork" portion of the play is not currently being handled. The DP is one of the big items that I'd like to get done.

 

Great to hear. Will see the defensive value of 2B like Hoerner and Gimenez go up a fair bit

 

Must be tough to integrate big changes like that into the framework, everything recalibrated

Edited July 15, 2023 by Jimcanuck

[The Cats Ass]

You misinterpreted my whole post. I was and am saying there were writers saying that Ortiz should not be a first round HoF and then posted a list using WAR comparisons of recent first round HoF, showing Ortiz all the way at the bottom of the list.

 

I will try to post it, but this board always gives me issues with my pics.

 

David Ortiz should have been a first round HoF. Using a WAR vs his position playing peers, was an unjust comparison that was screwing with him.

 

Some highlights of just one article I remember seeing, below....

 

 

David Ortiz Had a Great MLB Career, but Not First-Ballot Hall of Fame Great

 

The easiest place to start for the sake of comparing Ortiz to that group is with wins above replacement or WAR, which provides a numerical figure for the number of wins a player was worth to his team above a replacement-level player over the course of his career.

 

Chipper Jones: 85.3

Ken Griffey Jr.: 83.8

Jeff Bagwell: 79.9

Frank Thomas: 73.8

Jim Thome: 73.1

Larry Walker: 72.7

Derek Jeter: 71.3

Barry Larkin: 70.5

Ivan Rodriguez: 68.7

Edgar Martinez: 68.4

Roberto Alomar: 67.0

Craig Biggio: 65.4

Mike Piazza: 59.5

Vladimir Guerrero: 59.5

David Ortiz: 55.3

 

Lance Berkman is as good as Ortiz. How did he do in the voting?

[The Cats Ass]

Berkman had a higher career wRC+, OPS, WAR. And he fell off the ballot. He didn’t quite have the counting stats, but because of health. It’s a lot easier to stay healthy when all ya do is swing a bat and sit on the bench. How many pulled groins would Ortiz have had even playing 1B, never mind OF.

[tangotiger]

Great to hear. Will see the defensive value of 2B like Hoerner and Gimenez go up a fair bit

 

Must be tough to integrate big changes like that into the framework, everything recalibrated

 

Getting the data the way I need it is really the challenge.

 

I don't know what "fair bit" means, but I'd think 2 or 3 runs.