Ever since the Putz trade went down and it became apparent that our regular 2009 starting outfield is likely going to feature Ichiro flanked by Franklin Gutierrez and Endy Chavez, a lot of people - both malcontents and optimists alike - have been saying "okay, but where's the power?" These three players combined to hit 15 home runs last year. Adding together their career highs only yields 33. A major point of concern, then, is that, while the outfield will be able to scamper its ass off, it may not be able to hit enough to really help the team.
These people are correct on one point - the outfield isn't going to drive in that many runs. CHONE projects only one of the group to finish with a SLG over .400, and that's Gutierrez, at .403. It's not a unit that Zduriencik put together with the intent of stabilizing the lineup.
But it's on the subsequent suggestion - that the outfield won't hit enough to be of much service - that I think these people are mistaken. I shouldn't need to tell you that a run is a run, no matter how it's contributed. A player could be worth 3 WAR by hitting a lot of singles, drawing a lot of walks, slugging a lot of homers, stealing a lot of bases, or making a lot of plays in the field. It doesn't matter. They're all equally valuable. It makes no difference how runs are created, so long as they're created.
And the outfield that it looks like we're going to put out there a lot of the time will generate a good deal of its value by tracking down fly balls. Just because the contributions won't be as conspicuous isn't going to make them any less real.
Let's try this. In order of 2009 projected WAR, over a full 700 PA sample:
Ramirez: 3.75 - 4.25
Ichiro: 3 - 3.5
Gutierrez: 2.25 - 2.75
Dunn: 2 - 2.5
Abreu: 1.5 - 2
Burrell: 1.5 - 2
Ibanez: 1.25 - 1.75
Chavez: 1 - 1.5
Anderson: 0.25 - 0.75
Griffey: 0 - 0.5
We're looking at a league-average outfield with the potential to be more than that, and while the names might not be sexy and the bats might not be the most potent, it's about equal with an outfield of, say, Ibanez/Ichiro/Dunn, and well ahead of an "outfield" of Ibanez/Ichiro/Griffey. Hell, for all the flak Ichiro gets for not being a classic run producer, over the past three years he's been worth 0.9 wins more than Alfonso Soriano, 2.6 wins more than Vladimir Guerrero, and 4.4 wins more than Torii Hunter. He's an awesome player, even if he doesn't seem like one.
Home runs, OBP, RBI - don't get caught up in these things. They're good things to collect, but there's a lot that goes into being a useful player, and bemoaning the 2009 Mariner outfield's collective lack of power and traditional run productivity only serves to sell it short, because that's not how it brings its value to the table. If you can accept that there are several different ways in which a player may help his team, then you will be more prepared to enjoy these guys for what they are, and less inclined to be frustrated with them for not being what they're not.
0 recs | 103 comments
Good stuff as usual
As a Giants fan, I hear the same shit all the time about our outfield and it gets pretty frustrating.
marcello - January 25, 2009
To quote Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine
“Chicks dig the long ball”
Its their weakness, they never consider defense
Scrupio - January 25, 2009
Thank you.
I saw a comment at USSM along the lines of “If Branyan is our cleanup hitter, we’re not winning the AL West,” and I wanted to rip my hair out. Not that I think we’ll win the West, but I wish people would stop setting arbitrary qualifications and baselines that mean nothing.
The goal is to outscore your opponents. There are many ways to do that.
Teej - January 25, 2009
They will just have to win many 1-0 or 2-1 games.
Fin - January 25, 2009
Hopefully many of these will involve Carlos Silva, giving GMZ a chance to trade his untradeable contract
seattlebruin - January 25, 2009
If Gutierrez and Chavez can keep making all our shitty pitchers look better over the coming years, this trade will truly be a gift that keeps on giving.
People are bound to figure out our scheme after a while, I guess.
Teej - January 25, 2009
Which is why
I’d rather have Ichiro/Gutierrez/Chavez out there than Ibañez/Ichiro/Dunn; the two outfields might be about equal in WAR, but the latter would make our pitchers look worse, while the former will make them look better — and if we have any hope at all of moving the boat anchors, that’s it.
The Ancient Mariner - January 25, 2009
Plus
they’ll also give our young pitchers, Morrow and the guys coming up behind him, better results, which will help them make the transition to the majors and improve their odds of succeeding.
The Ancient Mariner - January 25, 2009
Yes!
With a stellar outfield and a thinner Silva, that impossibility becomes all more possible.
Fin - January 26, 2009
Has there ever been evidence where an outfielder gets better jumps on balls going either the player's left or right or maybe forward or back?
And how that might affect their zone in relation to other fielders?
Scrupio - January 25, 2009
I mean a player's zone isn't circular necessarily so what shape would it most likely be?
Scrupio - January 25, 2009
I've seen some work on that
but I don’t remember where; what you wind up with is a shape something like a cross-section of a full box of movie popcorn (a long, narrow trapezoid with the base convex rather than flat).
The Ancient Mariner - January 26, 2009
`
http://www-stat.wharton.upenn.edu/~stjensen/research/safe.html
Matthew - January 26, 2009
That's not the exact site I saw, but thanks
That looks like interesting work; I look forward to digging into it when I have a few moments to spare.
The Ancient Mariner - January 26, 2009
Couldn't one argue
that a defensive run saved also saves wear and tear on the pitching staff (both mentally and physically). It could be a blessing for Mariner’s fans to have such a good defensive outfield in combination with young talented pitchers (well, Felix at least).
DyeLongJustice - January 25, 2009
One certainly could...
I’ve run into the argument that defense lets you then sell pitchers high (as we could early in this century), but the wear and tear is a good point too. But the outfield defense is going to be a bigger deal for the flyball pitchers. Felix, when he’s on his game, could have a couple high school players in the outfield and be fine.
Washburn, when he’s on his game, by definition is having balls tracked down by the outfield.
Sidi - January 25, 2009
It seems logical that we should have fewer pitches thrown per game.
Teej - January 25, 2009
You could also argue...
…that lack of run support may be frustrating, or could lead to more high-stress innings during their starts. Ultimately, though, I would think that the better defense set-up would be preferable, the primary concern for pitchers’ health being to avoid high-pitch innings.
Also, getting more innings out of the starters could allow for fewer appearances by the ass end of the bullpen. (And conversely, out-makers at the back end of the lineup mean fewer appearances by the middle of the order, so pick your poison there.)
ubelmann - January 25, 2009
Bill James has, iirc.
Others probably have as well.
The Ancient Mariner - January 26, 2009
I feel like I've seen quite a few articles talking about this
Here is one. Basically it sounds like a run prevented is very slightly more valuable than a run scored. Is an almost insignificant amount though.
Edgar for Pres - January 26, 2009
Washburn and Silva were pretty good stat wise before they came here...
Anyone know how good the Angels and Twins were defensively when they were on their teams compared to the M’s last year?
Roy Weaver Stuckey - January 25, 2009
The Twins and Angels were very good defensive teams during their respective tenures.
Silva had one season where he was good by traditional measures, but Wasburn did post significantly better numbers as an Angel than as a Mariner. I think it’s fair to say that the defense he played in front of had at least something to do with that.
Aaron Campeau - January 25, 2009
Well, one of those Washburn seasons featured him putting up a 3.20 ERA and posting an LOB% of 81.8%
Sure enough he came crashing back to Earth the next season (4.67 ERA w/ a more normal for him LOB% of 69.8%).
Unfortunately that first season was ’05 with the Angels. The second season was ’06 with the Mariners. Thanks, Bill.
BrianL - January 25, 2009
Silva's ERA was pretty close to his FIP in 2007
The Twins had some good (Bartlett, Punto) and some poor defenders (mostly the corner outfielders) that year, so average-ish defensive support seems about right. The Metrodome has increasingly played as a pitcher’s park (at least according to bb-ref’s park factors), so that might be a bigger deal in his case.
Judging by his FIP in ‘05, Washburn either got a lot of help from his defense or luck that year. The A played as a slight pitcher’s park that year, too.
ubelmann - January 25, 2009
Silva also had Torri Hunter.
Wilder. - January 26, 2009
Torii Hunter hasn't been good at defense for a while.
JI - January 26, 2009
Exactly
Hunter’s speed has been gradually deteriorating, with the help of some leg/ankle injuries, and on top of that, he’s had a hard time adjusting to his slower speed.
ubelmann - January 26, 2009
But Silva benefited from Hunter when he was good.
Wilder. - January 26, 2009
During the time they shared with the Twins
Torii Hunter was worth aprox. -21.3 runs with the glove (according to UZR) and his best season was 1.3 runs. That’s not exactly eye popping “make Silva look good” defense.
Vatinius - January 26, 2009
...had he been on the Twins, sure.
JI - January 26, 2009
Silva is probably hurt less than Washburn by poor outfielders since he allows fewer OFBs
seattlebruin - January 26, 2009
I would argue that when your FIP is the same as your ERA...
…it doesn’t really matter who was standing behind you—your ERA was pretty indicative of how you pitched in that case.
ubelmann - January 26, 2009
Also...
…Silva had a 103 ERA+ and a 99 tRA+, which give you the same idea that he was a league average pitcher that year.
ubelmann - January 26, 2009
You are using the wrong stats.
Neither Washburn nor Silva were good pitchers before they signed here.
Matthew - January 26, 2009
But they weren't as awful as they appeared to be last year
seattlebruin - January 26, 2009
Washburn has been basically average his entire time here.
ThundaPC - January 26, 2009
Silva wasn't good, but he was worse in 2008 than he been before*
At least, according to tRA he was approximately a league average starter in ’04, ’05 and ’07. But he was clearly not improving at all, and even if he had been, he was way overpaid. Especially when you have guys like Morrow and RRS cooling their heels in your bullpen.
*Aside from 2006 when he basically showed the world how truly limited his skill set was.
Vatinius - January 26, 2009
The only year where Washburn was a legitimately good pitcher was 2002.
JI - January 26, 2009
Imagine what a defensive upgrade at SS would do for our pitchers on top of our new OF!
Yuni was the worst defensive shortstop in the league (out of the 19 who played over 900 innings)!!!! -14.7 UZR is horrible!
http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?p … 08&month=0
not to mention almost anyone could be an upgrade over his offensive stats…
Yuni had the 2nd worst OBP out of all the SS’s who were qualified.
Yuni had the lowest Win Probability Added out of all the SS’s who were qualified. -2.76
Yuni had the 5th least stolen bases for SS
Yuni had the 2nd least HRs for SS
Yuni was tied for 7th least triples … only 3 at SS
Yuni had the least walks at SS
Roy Weaver Stuckey - January 26, 2009
If Yuni keeps growing the way he has
he’ll end up on top of our new OF, just by expansion.
The Ancient Mariner - January 26, 2009
Question
Is there some inherent value in having some sort of distribution of run creation? I mean, are a bunch of replacement-level hitters who play +30 run defense really going to be a successful team? While I fully agree that the M’s don’t need a stereotypically set of outfielders, at some point don’t they need a few good offensive players? Even with a great defense, there’s a minimum threshold of runs they need to score in order to win a reasonable number of games, and I think it’s legitimate to wonder where those runs are going to come from in this offense.
Sportszilla - January 26, 2009
What do you consider "good offensive players" to be?
Hitting homeruns?
I thought Jeff made it clear why it’s okay to go with a defensive-minded team and not worry about the power numbers on the offensive side. Look at 2001. Great defensive team with few mashers on offense. Bret Boone had a career year, but outside of him, you had a lineup of guys who would simply get on base and hit the occasional long ball. Beltre can be looked at as that one power guy right now. As long as the rest of the lineup is circling the bases on singles and doubles, then the team is going to score plenty of runs.
Wilder. - January 26, 2009
The 2001 team led the world in offensive production
even if you take away Boone, Edgar was outstanding, Olerud and Ichiro, and Mike Cameron were solid, and even Dan Wilson hit ok for a catcher.
JI - January 26, 2009
Yes, but they weren't your typically mashers.
Which was my point. Everyone on that team was a fantastic contributor on offense.
Wilder. - January 26, 2009
They would have been in the traditional sense had Safeco not masked their numbers
JI - January 26, 2009
Our offense isn't as bad as it seems
http://ussmariner.com/2008/12/11/the-starting-eight/
Jeff Sullivan - January 26, 2009
I think it's more of a hypothetical question, is there some minimum amount of un-shittiness offensively a team needs to be successful
like say, 400 runs
seattlebruin - January 26, 2009
Yes
I mean, to be reasonably capable of being a playoff team, a hypothetical team has to score what, close to 4 runs per game (648 per season)? I think a more accurate way of expressing the value of a guy like Ichiro is that while his raw offensive numbers may not wow you the way some other outfielders would, he does enough at the plate to be useful, which allows his various other contributions (defense, base running) to add value. A guy who was below replacement level at the plate can be a defensive wizard, but he’s really not going to add a whole lot of value overall, since there are a finite number of plate appearances a team has, and giving them to a black hole might be a bad idea, even if they add value on the defensive side of things
Sportszilla - January 26, 2009
You'd have to prevent runs like the 03 Dodgers
Who scored ~560 runs and won 85 games (and they probably make the playoffs if they score 640 runs).
Another way to think of it is: sub replacement-bat + outstanding glove + premium defensive position = 1 – 1.5 win player.
It’s not a good idea to assume what a player’s value is until you play around with a win value spreadsheet and run a few calculations yourself.
JI - January 26, 2009
But here's the point I'm trying to make
Sure, that kind of player for cheap is useful, but there are only so many premium defensive positions to go around. That Dodgers team still got more value out of the poor fielding/good hitting Shawn Green than anyone else.
Sportszilla - January 26, 2009
Sorry, more wins
Not necessarily more value
Sportszilla - January 26, 2009
He was only slightly better than Beltre that year.
Wins can be added from the pitching staff too. The Mariners this coming year are going to score at least 100 more runs than that team.
JI - January 26, 2009
Yes, I understand
But they’re also probably gonna allow at least 100 more runs than that Dodgers team (556)
Sportszilla - January 26, 2009
The problem with your premise is that there's some barrier a team must cross offensively to make the playoffs
All we have to do to finish .500 is to score more than we allow. All we have to do win the division is finish .500,. As it stands we do not have to finish .500 to win the AL West.
Having said this, I’d love to make improvements (Swisher, Dunn etc) because those improvements could push us to 83-84 wins.
JI - January 26, 2009
ehh
All we have to do win the division is finish .500,JI - January 26, 2009
I was wondering about that one
pdb - January 26, 2009
I need to write my rough drafts not int he comment window.
Are Kos needs to upgrade to the USS Mariner comment editing software
JI - January 26, 2009
Not to be pedantic
But there IS a threshold a team has to cross: to win 81 games, we’d have to score at least 81 runs. More realistically, a team would have to score ~550 runs to have chance, and that’s in the NL. The fewest runs an AL playoff team has scored in the last five years is the 741 the 05 White Sox scored. I understand that’s far from a rigorous mathematical proof, but I think it illustrates a point: if you expect the M’s to make the playoffs, even in a fairly weak AL West, they need to score at least, say 700 runs. I see reasons to be optimistic, but this team also only scored 671 last year.
Sportszilla - January 26, 2009
Not if you win 81 games by forfeit
JI - January 26, 2009
Touche
Sportszilla - January 26, 2009
Theoretically that would count for 729 runs, no?
seattlebruin - January 26, 2009
When you find out who was responsible for which runs...
JI - January 26, 2009
Don Wakamatsu is worth 73 wins over a replacement-level manager
seattlebruin - January 26, 2009
team also only scored 671 last year.
The offense is better than last year as it stands today.
JI - January 26, 2009
I agree
I think there’s a good chance we get to ~.500. This was mostly a hypothetical discussion: do you see diminishing returns by adding solely to the run-prevention side of things, or is a run a run a run no matter what…
Sportszilla - January 26, 2009
You see diminishing returns
as you move to the extreme in either direction; if anything, I think you’re closer to that point giving up fielding for hitting than going the other way around.
The Ancient Mariner - January 26, 2009
I understand
I’m not really talking about the 09 Mariners, just a hypothetical M’s team that perhaps focused even more on defense. If you swapped out every halfway decent offensive player on the team with guys who were worth the same number of runs, but added that value only in the field, I’m not sure you’d have an equally successful team…I can understand that, say, swapping Ibanez for Chavez (assuming he gets the bulk of the playing time) doesn’t hurt the team much, but if you made an equivalent swap everywhere, don’t you eventually start running out of offense?
Sportszilla - January 26, 2009
Not if
you gain more run prevention every time. If you do that, you’re improving your margin with every swap.
The Ancient Mariner - January 26, 2009
It's not like you're going to end up with a team that scores 0 runs a game
Adam Everett has a career wOBA of .288. A team full of Adam Everetts would score like 525-550 runs in a season, or more than 3 R/G.
Jeff Sullivan - January 26, 2009
I would love to watch that team
Graham MacAree - January 26, 2009
So would Nate Cornejo
Jeff Sullivan - January 26, 2009
He would have his back to them.
JI - January 26, 2009
Let's put it this way
While we can’t know for sure how this would work in reality since it hasn’t been attempted, in theory, X runs is X runs, so there’s no reason why the team with hitting would be better than the team with fielding so long as you knew for a fact that the latter saved as many runs with its gloves as the former produced at the plate.
Jeff Sullivan - January 26, 2009
On the other hand
You might have a bunch of very good defensive players, even at a premium position, but they’re not going to touch an elite offensive player in terms of value, unless that guy is an utter butcher in the field. Obviously, terrible defense hurts, but even if you make Albert Pujols as bad with the glove as he is good with it, and take 20 runs from his value, he’s still a 7 win player. You’re not getting that out of a defense only player.
Sportszilla - January 26, 2009
Right
You’re not going to build one of the best teams in baseball by focusing exclusively on defense.
Jeff Sullivan - January 26, 2009
You're not going to build one of the *best* teams in baseball
by focusing exclusively on anything; but in terms of the players you can just go out and get, you’re not going to find an elite player anyway. Those guys, you have to develop yourself.
The Ancient Mariner - January 26, 2009
Blasted screwed-up tag . . .
The Ancient Mariner - January 26, 2009
By the way
The lesson we all should learn from this: Albert Pujols is fucking awesome. Not that it’s anything new, but damn.
Sportszilla - January 26, 2009
Amen.
Vatinius - January 26, 2009
Theortically
a lineup full of Everett like players would be worth something like 4 wins, but that’s mostly because DHing Adam Everett makes DHing Jose Vidro look like a good idea.
JI - January 26, 2009
It's worth noting
Score 800 runs, allow 750: PythW%: ~.532
Score 600 runs, allow 550: PythW%: ~.543
Individual runs are worth a little more in a lower-scoring environment.
The Ancient Mariner - January 26, 2009
But you're not keeping the same ratio there
you’d assume a team that scored 600 and gave up 550 would give up only (550*1.33) to get to 800 runs (off the top of my head, that would be 550 + 172 = 722.)
seattlebruin - January 26, 2009
What about varience?
Let’s say you keep the ratio the same, 600 RS to 500 RA and 900 RS to 750 RA for example, is one of those teams going to tend to perform more closely to their expected win percentage?
spikefriedman - January 26, 2009
Your guess is as good as mine
This would make a very interesting study and one I’d be happy to undertake (kind of), unless someone has already done it.
J/M/G?
seattlebruin - January 26, 2009
I feel like somebody must have looked at this before so I don't want to do all the work
Jeff Sullivan - January 26, 2009
My guess:
It matters a little but not that much.
JI - January 26, 2009
This would be my guess as well
seattlebruin - January 26, 2009
Sounds about right
Jeff Sullivan - January 26, 2009
You can kick Matthew and Graham out of the band
Three NEW guys who agree on everything!
JI - January 26, 2009
We don't agree on Craigslist threads
Jeff Sullivan - January 26, 2009
We will someday
seattlebruin - January 26, 2009
Played.
JI - January 26, 2009
A hand waving argument
Suppose the M’s outscore their opponents over the season.
The M’s would want to score more runs if the ratio of runs scored to runs allowed were fixed. Given reasonable random variable assumptions (gamma, normal, logistic), the probability of runs scored exceeding runs allowed in a game would increase as the difference in means increased even if the means were held at a fixed ratio. (I am assuming fixing the ratio of means is the same as fixing the ratio of runs scored to runs allowed.)
The M’s would want to score fewer runs if the difference between runs scored and runs allowed were fixed. This is way more crude than the previous argument, sorry for going downhill! Outscoring opponents by a difference of 162 runs is perfect if the opponent is held scoreless. As soon as the opponent starts scoring runs, the opponent’s chances of victory grow. If you went to some other outlandish extreme, say 10,162 to 10,000, the difference would be masked by the variance in two very similar distributions.
Sorry for being extremely long winded.
two_hands - January 26, 2009
This problem is screaming for a 3D plot.
Edgar for Pres - January 26, 2009
If somebody gives me the equation they want
I’ll make you a sweet graph.
Edgar for Pres - January 26, 2009
Actually,
There are more than three dimensions involved. The variance in win% is a function of both the means and variances of runs scored and runs allowed, along with their covariance (unless you are prepared to assume that RS and RA are independent – yikes!).
cyberwulf - January 26, 2009
Which is my point, actually
If you trade offense for defense in the same amount — which is what you’re doing in my hypothetical — then you’re not keeping the same ratio. In other words, a lineup of 3 WAR players who derive 60% of their value from their gloves would actually be slightly more valuable than a lineup of 3 WAR players who derive 60% of their value from their bats (by this sort of calculation, anyway). This tends to the suggestion that “if you swapped out every halfway decent offensive player on the team with guys who were worth the same number of runs, but added that value only in the field” — to use your hypothetical — not only would you have “an equally successful team,” you’d probably have one that was a little better.
The Ancient Mariner - January 26, 2009
Mariner run production 2009
Instead of getting beat last year 5-1 or 6-1 the new found defense will allow us to get beat 2-1 or 3-1?
stoyboy - January 26, 2009
Well, yeah...
…but also think that in this situation that “manufacturing runs” could actually make sense.
rtang - January 26, 2009
If I remember correctly, "manufacturing runs" does make sense when you need exactly one run
so yes, it would be helpful in close games
seattlebruin - January 26, 2009
Exactly what I was thinking.
“Manufacturing runs” makes no sense when most casual fans use it. What you need to do is “get on base.” (Cause if you get on base and make no outs as a team, you eventually score).
rtang - January 26, 2009
I am looking forward to many 2.5 hour games this year.
I also will always say a great defensive play is far more exciting than any offensive play. This should be a fun OF to watch.
Sec 108 - January 26, 2009
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Lookout Landing to post a comment.