Archive for defense

Jeff Zimmerman posted an interesting article on Friday. It prompted me to try to analyze the relationship between (i) an outfielder’s ability to make plays, and (ii) an outfielder’s ability to save runs. From my analysis below, the relationship is not as hand-in-glove as I initially would have thought.

From what I understood about Jeff’s article, he advanced a new defensive metric called “PMR,” which stands for Plays Made Ratio. Jeff calculated this ratio using data from Inside Edge, which categorizes every ball in play into one of six buckets. Jeff explains:

Most of the fielding data falls into two categories. The zero percentage plays are just that, impossible plays, and make up 23.2% of all the balls in play. Balls in this bucket are never caught and always have a 0% value. The other major range is the Routine Plays or the 90% to 100% bin. Defenders make outs on 97.9% of these plays, which make up 64.0% of all the plays in the field; the 2.1% which aren’t made are mostly errors. In total, 87.2% of all plays are graded out as either automatic hits or outs; it is the final ~13% which really determine if a defender is above or below average.

Between almost always and never, four categories remain. Even though each category has a defined range, like 40% to 60%, the average amount of plays made is not exactly in the middle of each range. Here are the actual percentage of plays made in each of the four ranges.

With these league average values and each individual player’s values, a ratio of number of plays made compared to the league average value can be calculated. To have the same output of stats like FIP- and wRC+, I put Plays Made Ratio on a 100 scale where a value like 125 is 25% better than the league average. Here is the long form formula and Jason Heyward’s value determined for an example.

Plays Made Ratio = ((Plays made from 1% to 90%)/((1% to 10% chances * .063%)+( 10% to 40% chances * .289)+ (40% to 60% chances * .576) + (60% to 90% chances * .805))) * 100

Heyward’s Plays Made Ratio = ((1+10+9+26)/((14*.063)+(16*.289)+(9*.576)+(27*.805)))*100

Heyward’s Plays Made Ratio = (46/32.4)*100

Heyward’s Plays Made Ratio = 142

Heyward had a heck of a season. Of the 66 playable balls hit to him, normally only 32 of them would have been caught for an out. Heyward was able to get to 46 of them, or 42% better than the league average. He has consistently had above league average values with a 133 value in 2012 and 125 in 2013.

Jeff posits that the new PFM metric gives us new insight that FanGraphs current go-to defensive metric (Ultimate Zone Rating) does not:

Now remember this stat [PMR] only looks at how often a fielder would have made the play considering their position on the field. The team could be playing its outfielders back to prevent a double or their infielders in for a bunt which could put the defender out of position. Additionally, it doesn’t look at the final results of the play (at least for now). If Sir Dive Alot is playing in the outfield and he loves to try to catch every ball hit his way, then he will get to a few extra flyballs by diving all the time, but those he doesn’t get to will pass him by for more doubles and triples. Also, an outfielder could be good at making plays while coming in versus going deep; balls which fall in over his head would be more damaging than those which fall for shallow singles. While his Plays Made Ratio may be high, the number of runs he saves, as seen by UZR or Defensive Runs Saved, may be lower by comparison.

This got me thinking about the relationship between a player’s PMR and his UZR, and, more specifically, his RngR. As I understand RngR, it is the component of UZR that estimates the number of runs a player saves, or surrenders, due to his range. RngR isolates the contribution a player’s range makes to his Ultimate Zone Rating by ignoring the contributions from his arm and his ability to limit errors.

Intuitively, it would make sense that a player’s PMR and his RngR would be strongly correlated. In other words, a player whose range allows him to make more plays than average would also be the same type of player whose range would allow him to save more runs than average. A simple two-by-two matrix, with RngR along the left side and PMR along the top would show the following quadrants:

My intuition is that players would fall in either quadrant (2) or quadrant (3). The interesting questions arise with players that would fall in quadrant (1) (those who exhibit poor range, but whose range saves runs), and in quadrant (4) (those who exhibit good range, but whose range does not save runs). There are several explanations for why a player may fall into quadrant (1) or (4).

Jeff noted three possible explanations.  First, a player may be overly aggressive, which would may lead to more outs (a higher PMR) but also more misplays resulting in doubles and triples (a lower RngR). Second, “an outfielder could be good at making plays while coming in versus going deep; balls which fall in over his head would be more damaging than those which fall for shallow singles. While his Plays Made Ratio may be high, the number of runs he saves, as seen by UZR or Defensive Runs Saved, may be lower by comparison.” Third, a player (or his team) may be particularly well adept at positioning himself, which would amplify his RngR rating, but not necessarily his PMR (as Jeff noted when discussing Nick Markakis).

How does the relationship between PMR and RngR look if it is applied to actual players? To find out, I looked at all center fielders who between 2012 and 2014 had at least 70 “total chances” (defined by Inside Edge as balls hit to that fielder where there is between a 1% and 90% likelihood that the ball is caught). That provided me a list of 18 center fielders. Next, I calculated each player’s rate-based RngR/150 (calculated by his total RngR divided by the innings he played in center field, multiplied by nine, multiplied by 150). That revealed the following table:

A scatter chart of this information looks like this. I also added a best-fit line to the scatter plot. My intuition that a player’s RngR/150 would be strongly correlated with his PMR is contradicted by this data. In fact, according to this data, (and based on my very limited skillset at statistical analysis, which may be completely incorrect), only 15% of the runs saved due to these 18 center fielders’ range can be explained by their Plays Made Ratio.

Even more interesting than the two-by-two matrix characterization introduced above, are the points on the scatter plot that are either way above (Juan Lagares and Lorenzo Cain) and way below (Dexter Fowler) the linear trendline.

The data suggest that Lagares/Cain and Fowler have similar range in center field, but that the former use their range to save more runs than the latter. One possible implication of this information is that Fowler is not optimizing his ability and that through better decision-making (such as being more aggressive or less aggressive on fly balls) or better positioning he could save more runs. As discussed earlier, it could also mean that Fowler is not (relatively) adept at playing balls hit over his head or in the gap, which leads to more doubles and triples.

On a larger scale, a possible implication of this data is that teams could significantly improve the amount of runs their center fielders save by (i) coaching their center fielders to make optimal decisions regarding their aggressiveness and (ii) properly positioning their center fielders. I would be curious to analyze what is the optimal amount of aggression a center fielder would have in going after balls hit to the outfield, the optimal way to position himself. For example, is it better to play shallow and be aggressive in cutting off singles (which Lagares has a reputation of doing) or to play deep? Those questions are best answered in a follow-up post/article.

I respect the change-up. As a pitcher myself, I know how difficult it is to throw a good one (thus I don’t). It’s not the most glamorous pitch in baseball, but certainly an effective one if executed correctly. Plus, what constitutes a good off-speed offering reads like a laundry list of mechanical and ball path attributes that have to be repeated over and over again. Proper grip on the baseball. Delivery and arm speed must be identical to the fastball. Velocity needs to be lower than the fastball. The ball should move (ideally both horizontally and vertically) and spotted in a good location. And lastly, there’s the intangible pitching IQ of understanding when to throw it.

The Diamondbacks Bronson Arroyo and his change-up seem to be missing a majority of these qualities… but for some reason he continues to throw the darned thing. 16% of the time in 2013, in fact, and already almost 18% of the time this season. I’m baffled.

Now, of course I can’t know what’s going on in his head (although if someone can point me to an all-encompassing Pitching IQ metric I would be more than happy to apply it). And I also can’t measure his arm velocity at release. So I can’t quantify all of his deficiencies. But there is, fortunately, hard numerical and visual data showing he’s lacking the necessary skills to throw a change-up well.

Let’s look at Arroyo compared to pitchers who threw more than 200 change-ups between 2011 and 2013:

Movement:

Since change-ups (especially the circle change) tend to move down and to the right for right-handed pitchers versus down and to the left for southpaws, absolute value of x-Mov and z-Mov is used to standardize axis movement for both.

I’ll give him a C- for movement. F’s are left for the likes of a Samuel Deduno, who posted a whopping 0.3″ of lateral and 1.6″ vertical (ignoring the natural pull of gravity) movement in 2013.

Velocity:

Again, keep in mind this does not include all pitchers, just ones who have thrown 200 or more change-ups between 2011 and 2013.

When batters are already sitting on a below average fastball, it’s fair to say it won’t take much of an adjustment to catch up to the change. Below average may even be an understatement. There are only 12 guys in this data set of 275 with a lower average vFA. Jamie Moyer is one of them.

D+.

Location:

There are very few pitchers that can have success locating the change-up for called strikes.  Fernando Rodney being the freak off-speed guru who fools batters looking with a career 46.2 Swing%, 48.8 Zone% and 1.51 Val/C on the change. Typically the best change hurlers induce swings. And those swings either result in bad contact or a flat out whiff. But location of the pitch is still overwhelmingly crucial to achieve either.

I’ll use 2013 poor contact master Hyun-Jin Ryu and Braves injured whiff king Kris Medlen for illustration.

Ryu, with his 56.2 Swing% and 70.9 Contact% is looking to get bat on ball with the change. Ending 2013 with a .187 BABIP, the pitch worked beautifully to induce dribbling grounders (54.7 GB%) to an already above average Dodgers defense (3.1 UZR/150). How did he do it? Pin-perfect location (courtesy of Brooks Baseball).

Arroyo also induces hitters to get the bat on the ball with the change… at a whopping 85.5 Contact% rate. But is he getting poor contact with the pitch? I somehow don’t think .600+ SLG and 23 HR  over the past three full seasons would constitute bad contact. Let’s compare his zone chart with that of Ryu.

Not quite, Bronson.

“But what about whiffs?” you ask. With a 6.8 career SwStr%, batters aren’t swinging and missing Arroyo’s meatballs either.

Let’s look at Medlen who owns a 27.5 career SwStr% on the pitch for comparison.

Pretty, no?

I’ll give Arroyo a D- for location. At least he’s not hanging them up and in on lefties.

So overall grade: barely passing.

I really don’t know what to say at this point. I’m miffed. Confounded. And who is the culprit to blame in the grand mystery of why he continues to throw this sub-par pitch? Batters have already gone deep on it twice in 2014. Is it the catchers? Do we point the finger at Devin Mesoraco, Ryan Hanigan, and now Miguel Montero for keeping blind faith and confidence? Are these guys cursed with chronic short-term memory loss? Or do we blame Arroyo for stubbornly going out there outing after outing and continuing to shove that ball in the back of his palm and firing away? If that’s the case, I get it. I’m a pitcher. I’ve stood there on the mound and though, “This next one will be better, guys. I swear!”

So, please, Bronson. In the end, there is really nothing good that has come from you throwing the thing so often. I like you. I really do. I will forever be indebted to you for giving my beloved 2004 Red Sox their first World Series since “tarnation” was a common curse word. But please. Enough change-ups already.

Throughout the pre-sabermetric revolution days of baseball, the statistics that determine fielding ability (namely errors and fielding percentage) had generated much criticism of fielding stats and undeserving gold glove award winners (Derek Jeter et al), and had kept fielding ability a mystery. However, this mystery in part led to the sabermetric revolution in baseball statistics. In the current day and age, with improved measures of performance available publicly, measuring fielding ability is somewhat less of an enigma, but still far from perfect.

One of the most often used fielding metrics in this day and age is UZR or Ultimate Zone Rating (click the link for an excellent FanGraphs explanation). Instead of counting perceived plays and errors, UZR records every batted ball hit to each of the numerous zones on the baseball field at each trajectory and the runs lost/saved as the fielder gets to the ball or falls short. This is found by matching the average result of the play with the Run Expectancy Matrix. Therefore, UZR provides a very accurate measure of how valuable that fielder was in terms of runs saved/lost over the course of the season.

However, there are major problems with UZR. Sample size issues cause large fluctuations from month to month and even year to year. Moreover, it does not provide a stable basis of fielding ability. Even when all players’ impacts are averaged to a constant, UZR/150, averaged to runs saved/lost per 150 defensive games, the metric is very volatile.

The reasons behind this might actually be easier to identify and correct than you might think. Let’s face it: not all fielders get the same amount of balls hit to them in the same place at the same trajectory within the same number of outs or innings. Infielders with a good knuckleballer on the mound and a slap hitter at the plate are going to get more grounders to each zone than infielders whose teams have fly ball pitchers on the mound and face lots of power hitters at the plate.

However, while the actual amounts may fluctuate from pitcher to pitcher and hitter to hitter, many fielders get a decent sample size of each batted ball to each zone over the course of multiple seasons. Even with a staff of fly ball pitchers, infielders will still handle their fair share of ground balls to each zone over the course of a season. So if there was a way to average all the pitchers and hitters together and measure the value and frequency of making a play in each zone based on the entire AL, NL, or MLB* average batted ball chart, then we could create a similar metric that would be more predictive, rather than purely descriptive.

*The purpose of separating the leagues is the discrepancy of hitting ability with the DH in the AL and the increased frequency of bunts (from pitchers) in the NL.

If we take the average percentage of batted balls to each zone with each trajectory for the AL, NL, or MLB and multiply that by the average runs saved/lost for plays made or missed in that zone, we can find a universal batted ball sample from which to apply the fielders’ impact. While this would not be directly proportional to the runs saved/lost for the fielder during that season for that pitching staff and the batters faced, it would be a metric independent of the impact that the pitcher and hitter has on the fielders. It would measure pure fielding ability over multiple seasons in the form of runs saved, but unbiased by the specific ratio of batted balls per zone and trajectory hit to the fielder over the seasons.

Predictive UZR will have sample size issues but when taken over multiple seasons, a starting fielder should get his fair share of batted balls hit to each zone with each trajectory. The percentages for his success rates at each zone and trajectory can then be applied not to the actual ratio of batted balls per zone hit his way (from his team’s pitching staff and hitters faced) but rather the average ratio of batted balls per zone hit in the entire AL, NL, or MLB.

Both UZR and Predictive UZR are very valuable for different things. UZR is a good reflection of the fielder’s direct impact on defense for the season. However, this might not accurately reflect the fielder’s true talent level because of the assortment of batted balls hit his way. Predictive UZR, while not a concrete reflection of the past runs saved, is a more pure measure of fielding ability. It can provide a number that, when compared to UZR, tells which fielder got lucky and which fielder did not, based on his pitching staff and the hitters faced. Another interesting twist the concept of Predictive UZR brings is that it can be based on the average batted ball chart of teams, divisions, and differing pitching staffs in addition to the AL, NL, or MLB. So a fielder’s projected direct impact, or UZR, can be transferred more easily as he moves from team to team, forming the basis of more accurate fielding projections.

Predictive UZR is not by any means a substitute to UZR, but rather complements it and works with it in intriguing ways. It is a concept worth looking into that has the potential to leave fans, media and front office personnel better informed about the game of baseball.

Nik Oza
Georgetown Class of 2016
Follow GSABR on twitter: @GtownSports

Previously, I took a look at the benefits of a legally nebulous, but somewhat unlikely nine-man defense. In this piece, we’ll look at a group of other tactics that can be employed in the new one-game Wild Card Round that the MLB has created. This time, we’ll take a more traditional “outside the box” approach, if such a thing is possible.

With the addition of the new playoff round comes the opportunity for roster gaming. Being AL-centric here for a moment, we saw this last year in particular on the AL side. While the other three teams (Cardinals, Braves, Rangers) selected 3 starting pitchers to their Wild Card roster, the Orioles went with only 1, Joe Saunders. Sure, Arrieta, Hunter, Matusz all had starts in the year, but by September they were all in the pen. This freed up some roster room for Buck, which he primarily filled with other relief pitchers.

Now, that’s not the worst idea in the world, but given the uniqueness of the one-game playoff, why not make unique roster decisions?

First, as I mentioned above.  The selection and usage of pitchers seems paramount.  I’m of the opinion that one should almost play the entire game as if it were a game in extra innings.  Limit your pitchers to 2 innings or so, potentially even starting with your closer.  Now, that gets into the mental preparedness issues as to whether or not a closer could appreciate or handle coming into a game in the first inning. However, if he were aware that he is only going to be pitching the first inning, perhaps this may not be as big of an obstacle.

The main benefit to this is that you are able to rest your starters for a potential 5-game series against the best team in the league.  Additional benefits exist in the ability to play matchups, and remove a pitcher who gives up more than a run or two.   I would imagine this would result in selecting mostly (all?) relief pitchers, with an “emergency” starter, similar to how the All-Star Game has worked as of late. I would imagine employing this strategy would lead you to want to carry 11 or 12 pitchers on your roster.  That may limit your options for position players, which brings us up to point two.

Second, depending upon the comfort one has with their team’s starting lineup, the logical roster choice is to select speed.  In a one-game scenario, the likelihood of needing a hot bat to add to the lineup is low, and the value of a stolen base, potentially late in the game, can be incredibly high, as we saw in the 2004 ALCS.  Perhaps the inclusion of an emergency catcher would be a good idea, if you’re one of those who lives in perpetual fear of random foul tips and collisions.

The third and final element is for managers and players to put their ego at the door.  Here we live in the age of the immense infield shift, with the third baseman playing behind second base in some instances.  In a one-game playoff, the correct move is for the player to bunt the ball down the line where no defensive player exists.  Sure, I agree that over the long term of a season, you’re better off with the potential for a double or home run, but given the difference in value of having a player on the bases in one game (plus the potential that for the next at bat, the defensive team would not shift as dramatically) increases the likelihood of success for the team as a whole.  And besides, it even opens up the opportunity for the rare bunt double.   I’m not the first to make this argument, though.  This has existed since at least the 1946 World Series, when Ted Williams was out-dueled by Manager Eddie Dyer of the Cardinals.  For the record, Williams batted .200 that Series, with all of his hits being singles.

Ultimately, this boils down to one thing: small ball is the name of the game.  Even teams full of power hitters can benefit from not having to rely on the long ball to win a ball game, especially one as important as the Wild Card Game.   We only have to look back one year to see an example of a power team’s bats going cold at just the wrong time, with the Rangers, the MLB’s best offense in runs per game, only able to put together one run, while their opponents scored five with only one extra-base hit (and three sacrifices!).

What do FanGraphers think?  What strategies that are not typically employed would be worth the effort in a one-game playoff?

(Author’s note: This is the first of a series in nontraditional tactics that may be advantageous in a one-game playoff scenario)

It certainly wouldn’t be earth-shattering for me to tell you about baseball being heaped in tradition.  In fact, to most of us, that’s the appeal.  The tradition. The consistency. The ability to reconnect with old times, making the comparisons between Manny Machado and Brooks Robinson without fear of having to factor in the large changes of the game.  The traditionalists out there, the ones who surely disagree with interleague play, and maybe even the designated hitter, make up a large part of the viewing audience.  Unfortunately for them, this article is probably not for them.

With the way that sports have evolved in the past few years, the future seems to be innovation.  In football, there was the Wildcat Offense, which was only outlasted by the (similarly gimmicky) Spread Offense.  Of course, who can forget New Orleans opting to onside kick to begin the second half of the Super Bowl, something that “common sense” would dictate is a terrible idea?  Meanwhile in hockey, Uwe Krupp, coach of the German national team has decided that when on 5 on 3 power play, he will pull their goalie.  While football and hockey are more prone to innovation, it is surprising that, for the most part, baseball offense and defense is almost exactly the same as it was in 1950.  Or even 1900.  Sure, the traditionalists will cite the Designated Hitter, the rise of the relief pitcher who exists solely to get one out, the Joe Maddon-esque shifting that seems so prevalent.  However, the shifts that we’ve seen have assumed the traditional positioning of defensive elements.

It’s time to change that.

Now, like I have mentioned, what I’m about to propose is extremely radical. The reactions I’ve gotten from people I’ve told is twofold: one group telling me that I’m an idiot and it would never work; the other telling me that I should write a letter to the manager of my favorite MLB team to ensure success in a one-game playoff (likely the best venue for such a suggestion).

It’s simple.  Move the catcher.  For lack of a better name, we’ll call it the nine-man defense.

“What on Earth are you talking about, the catcher can’t move, he’s there to call pitches, position his glove, and of course catch the ball!”

Relax, traditionalists.  I realize the problems.  The passed third strike or fourth ball, the runners on base concerns.  This isn’t about that.

However, we’ve all surely seen the following: fewer than three balls or two strikes, the pitch is in the dirt, skipping past the catcher, and the ball is replaced by the umpire.

Did you see that sequence?  The catcher did nothing.  He sat there, providing marginal defensive benefit, while he could have been occupying valuable defensive space.

“Okay, but the rulebook says that’s how it has to be!”

Not exactly.  The rule book only has a couple of fleeting references to the role of the catcher, surprisingly.  The first is Rule 1.12 which cites that the catcher is allowed to have a different glove than most other positional players and section 1.16 which permits a protective mask.  You’ll note a complete absence of a mention requiring that a catcher be in the catcher’s position for every pitch.  Remove the mask and the glove, and your catcher is just your run of the mill positional player.  The chest protector and knee pads, according to the rules, may remain on.  The second section (rulebook owners or adept googlers, refer to section 4.03) references the requirement that only the catcher is permitted to be positioned in foul territory during an at-bat, and that the catcher must be positioned behind home plate.  However, that does not say that a catcher is a REQUIRED fielder. I’ll leave it up to the Joe Maddons of the world to determine the optimal position of the catcher, my initial suggestion would be to place him near first base, and shift the second baseman to directly behind the bag, while moving the first baseman to the previous position of the second baseman.  Perhaps there would be more value in a fourth outfielder,  that discussion is beyond the scope of this hypothetical discussion.

So that’s it.  That’s all the rules have to say about the catcher.  It’s almost silly how few references there are to the role of the catcher in the rulebook.

“Okay, Chris.  I acknowledge that there may be some value to this, but I just have to think there are entirely too many downfalls.”

As I see it, there are quite a few downfalls to the approach.  The balance of trade on these downfalls as compared to the opportunity will be left up  to you.

One: The associated hassle of moving the catcher from “behind the plate” to “in the field” and back (once a third ball or second strike has been thrown, or a baserunner has gotten on base.)  Of course, baseball has had to deal with the complaints about long games, this does absolutely nothing to rectify it.  In fact, every pitch flying to the backstop might frustrate everyone involved.  Which is why it would have to be done in a one-game playoff type scenario (or series deciding game), segueing us perfectly to downside number two.

Two: The rules committee  would come down hard on this loophole after the first application of the nine-man defense.  There’s no getting around this.  This is a nuclear defense.  It’s only to be used in the most critical of situations.  Indeed, even the on-field crew may have difficulty in permitting it, which brings us to point number three.

Three: The poor home-plate umpire is just left behind the plate to have to somehow deal with being directly thrown at with 90-100 MPH pitches.  I feel sorry for the umpires, and this may be why I’ve gotten a less-than-receptive response from the MLB umpires I have contacted. My only remedy to this issue is a simple one: the umpire move to the side…or work on his reflexes.

Four: The defending team is now susceptible to a bunt.  Now, this may seem the case, but with a fifth infielder, the corner players would be able to play a lot closer in on the infield without worrying about range as much.  The additional infielder perhaps discourages the practice of bunting by having true fielders located along the baselines in a position to better field bunts.  In fact, it may make the fielding of bunts simpler without the opportunity for the pitcher to collide with the catcher running out from behind the plate to field a ball.

Five: The relatively minor concerns about pitch selection and positioning.  It may take some time for a pitcher to adjust, given a lifetime of throwing pitches to a target, but it is not unreasonable to think that pitches could be called from the dugout, or even the catcher positioned in the field.  As for targeting, I would hope that is something that the team would address with their pitching staff before implementing such a plan.

That’s it.  For many, even the non-traditionalists, I realize this is a quantum leap in the defensive mentality of baseball teams, normally limited to an infield shift, or the ever-so-rare 5-infielder-2-outfielder-hope-to-keep-the-ball-in-the-infield-to-save-the-game-in-the-ninth defense.  And sure, the rules committee may take exception, but in a one-game playoff, which MLB has tacitly admitted an affinity for (by forcing an annual one-game playoff), this seems like it would certainly cause a buzz about October baseball.  And after all, isn’t that the point?

Okay FanGraphs, what do you guys think?