My writing often gets challenged. I accept it as part of the process and here at At Home Plate it’s no different. When I looked at some of the feedback I got from my column about the Yankee defense, I realized that I had partially failed in communicating my message. This is something I take seriously. I always choose my words as carefully as I can, but sometimes I don’t communicate that as well as I could have.
The first miscommunication came when people thought I was saying that DER was the key to post-season success. I never said those words, but looking back at the column I realized that assumption could be made. I was working from the assumption that since the Yankees lineup and pitching staff were still relatively successful (in terms of DIPS) that the DER was the key remaining variable. Certainly, I didn’t mean it as the only key or even the main part of post-season success. That snafu was understandable and easily corrected. It is the second miscommunication that deserves a little more explanation.
The main criticism came when I said that third base was the least valuable position on the diamond next to left field. I should have known better to make a statement like that without qualifying it. Even though sabermetrics are primarily about numbers, they are also about language. When you use a word like value you have to expect a different image to pop into people’s minds. I never defined that image. I used value specifically, because I believe fielding can be divided into three categories: difficulty, importance, and value. I personally believe that those first two terms are largely immeasurable, but I think value can be measured. So, I wanted to revisit the issue to determine whether I simply had not done enough calculations or whether my definition of value is simply different.
For me, value is a mathematical measure. It can be measured by looking at dispersion and prevalence. In the case of dispersion, we are looking at the difference between the best fielder and worst fielder in terms of rankings. I will use the +/- from the Fielding Bible, fielding runs above replacement from Baseball Prospectus, and fielding runs above average from Baseball Prospectus. I know that sabermetricians have their favorite metrics and yours might not be in there. In this case, I’m not looking to determine who is best, but to figure out which position is more valuable. In that end, I will eliminate the positions in the middle of the diamond for interest of space.
First Base
We will begin our look at first base by looking at prevalence. What I did for all of the positions is go back the last three seasons. We are looking at the combination of putouts and assists for the top player, bottom player, and median player according to the Fielding Bible rankings. This is not an exact science because it really doesn’t need to be. We are simply looking at the number of plays a first basemen typically makes. Of course, first basemen often get downgraded at the perceived difficulty (or lack thereof) of those plays. Again, I’m not here to address those issues. We will follow that up with their rankings in +/-, FRAR, and FRAA.
TP/150 +/- FRAR FRAA
High 1305.8 +53 93 65
Median 1264.1 -1 29 5
Low 1212.6 -28 -11 -23
Range ------ 81 104 88
Obviously, these numbers will take on more significance when we look at third base, left field, and right field. However, it is pretty interesting how the different metrics have similar ranges. Of course, these numbers are over the course of three seasons (except for the total plays made which was done on a per 150 game basis), so you can divide them by three to see a per season total.
Third Base
TP/150 +/- FRAR FRAA
High 437.1 +71 87 32
Median 389.2 +5 46 2
Low 358.2 -48 3 -33
Range ----- 119 84 65
Unfortunately, numbers are never clear cut, but this is where we get to have those fun debates. We see that third basemen handle the ball less than first basemen and the dispersion in fielding runs (above average and replacement) are less than that of first basemen. However, the gap between plays made (+/-) was more for third basemen than for first basemen. However, I tend to go with the other three categories.
Left Field
TP/150 +/- FRAR FRAA
High 364.4 +45 73 29
Median 293.2 +1 27 -2
Low 249.8 -69 1 -31
Range ----- 114 74 60
So far, my statement from the previous column holds. According to my definition of value, left field is the least valuable position we’ve looked at so far. The left fielders made fewer players than the third basemen or first basemen. However, one could argue that the value of those plays is greater because not making a play could lead to more doubles and triples. Yet, the fielding runs tell the story. However, the gap is not as much as we might have been led to believe. So far I’m looking okay, but I have a feeling right field will hold the key.
Right Field
TP/150 +/- FRAR FRAA
High 354.6 +48 59 22
Median 321.4 -2 30 6
Low 291.1 -38 8 -17
Range ----- 86 51 39
Wow, the only words that come to mind right now are mea culpa. It looks like right field is the least valuable defensive position on the diamond under my methodology. Before we bring this issue to a close I thought I would show all of the ranges back to back for easy use and I will remove the top and bottom score to make sure outliers aren’t affecting the findings.
TP/150 +/- FRAR FRAA
Range1B 1264.1 81 104 88
Range3B 389.2 119 84 65
RangeLF 293.2 114 74 60
RangeRF 321.4 86 51 39
Range2 ------ 54 55 65
Range2 ------ 92 72 51
Range2 ------ 77 52 43
Range2 ------ 46 34 30
So, the results appear to be the same either way. Since first basemen handle the ball more often and since they had a larger dispersion in fielding runs above average in both range scores (fielding runs above replacement as well in the first range) we can successfully argue that according to my definition of value, first base is more valuable than third base defensively. While the scores are closer between third base, left field, and right field, we have to give the nod to right field. It looks like all of those Little League coaches must have been right after all.
Scott Barzilla is the author of “Checks and Imbalances,” “The State of Baseball Management,” and is looking forward to his release of “On the Outside Looking” at the end of 2006.
