The value of defense to the Rockies

by hometownboy on Oct 25, 2007 7:55 PM PDT Comment 27 comments

Slate is running an interesting article by Eriq Gardner about the Rockies' fantastic defense this year, and what that might mean for future roster construction.

Agree or disagree, it's an interesting read.

http://www.slate.com/id/2176565/

This FanPost is reader-generated, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of McCovey Chronicles. If the author uses filler to achieve the minimum word requirement, a moderator may edit the FanPost for his or her own amusement.

0 recs | Comment 27 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Re: The value of defense to the Rockies

I can't help but call bullshit on this. Defense? Defense???

The Rockies scored 860 runs this season. Two of their regular hitters had OBPs over .400! 5 of their regular batter slugged better than .450! Five players with OPSs over .800, including Matt Holliday's 1.000+ OPS. Four of those five guys came up through the organization! They had a team OBP of .350. I think the Giants had like three guys on the whole team who did that. I mean, it's not great. The Sox out-do them in each of those categories, easy. But still, that is what a major league offense looks like.

Gee, drafting good hitters helps you win...

Defense? Give me a break. Don't get me wrong, it didn't hurt, but the Rockies absolutely did not get where they are because they built their lineup based on defense.

Like I said, don't get me wrong. Without the defense, the Rockies would almost certainly NOT be in the playoffs this year, but very few guys are on that team because they field the ball.

The Rockies spent years making patchwork teams based on this or that park effect. This kind of pitcher will succeed here. These kinds of hitters will succeed here. They filled their lineup with pure mashing half-hitters to no avail. They filled their pitching staff with Hampton's and Neagle's based on the misconception of park effects on winning ballgames. And because of that they were alright at home and the worst road team in the league forever.

What they did when "park effects" failed was go to a real plan. They drafted guys with complete skill sets. Guys who took pitches, got on base, hit for power, and ran well. Guys who would do well anywhere. They did what they could to artificially limit the effects of the altitude on pitching with the humidor (conspiracy theories aside) and then built a rotation with a combination of homegrown talent and AFFORDABLE free agent starters.

They started winning because they changed their philosophy from building a team that was designed to defeat Coors to building a team that was balanced from top to bottom in universally recognized critical statistical categories. They did it intelligently, and they did it affordably. But they didn't do it by building a team based on defense.

I mean, continue not getting me wrong. The defense is nice. But it's more of an accident that anything else.

Dave Righetti: You Know You Want It. / Also, my blog. For writers.

by howtheyscored on Oct 25, 2007 8:58 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Their team OPS+

is 103. Not bad, but hardly eye opening. Teams ahead of them in the NL, Phillie, Marlins, Atlanta, Mets, Brewers. There are 4 teams in the AL with better OPS+s, and one more AL team tied with them; so, they are tied for 11th in MLB in OPS+. Yes, Colorado is STILL a hitter's park. 1 year park factor of 109, 3 year park factor of 108.

Their OPS at home is 852, OPS on the road 731. Their home OPS is 20 percent better than league average home OPS, while their road OPS is 3 percent worse than league average.

By John Dewan's plus / minus, they were 58 plays above average in the field as a team, tied for 1st in the NL with Atlanta. They and Atlanta are tied for 2nd behind Toronto in MLB, who have 91 plays above average. Red Sox have 32 plays above average.

Their team ERA+ is 111, 2nd in the NL behind the Cubbies' 115. They are 5th in MLB.

Obviously, defense isn't the only factor in being a very good team, otherwise Toronto would be in the playoffs.

However, the Rockies do have a very good defense combined with very good pitching. Their offense, once their home park is taken into account is above average.

by rfloh on Oct 25, 2007 11:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Their team OPS+

But would you say that the team is strong defensively because of an organization focus on defense as opposed to other aspects of the game?

It seems to me that more than anything the strong defense is an accident of the system of drafting good baseball players, and the system of drafting good baseball players - as a rule - has more to do with their offensive potential than their defensive prowess. The Rockies drafting has been a little more lucky on the defensive side of the ball than probably the average draft is, but I wouldn't say that any of those players were scouted, drafted, or signed primarily on the merits of their defense. Kaz Matsui is the only one I can really see somebody making an argument for.

Dave Righetti: You Know You Want It. / Also, my blog. For writers.

by howtheyscored on Oct 26, 2007 12:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Their team OPS+

Or I mean the Rockies acquisitions have been more lucky on the defensive side of the ball than the averge acquisitions.

Obviously, drafting is only a part of the puzzle that is teambuilding.

Dave Righetti: You Know You Want It. / Also, my blog. For writers.

by howtheyscored on Oct 26, 2007 12:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Who knows?

Only the Rockies FO knows why they acquired their players.

I'm just pointing out that the Rockies do indeed have very good defense, and very good pitching that might partially be a result of that good defense.

by rfloh on Oct 26, 2007 5:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Who knows?

I was never disputing the fact that the Rockes have extremely good defense, or the idea that the defense played an extremely important role in getting them to the World Series. I absolutely believe that. The thing that I don't believe is that the team was built around defense. Empirically, in every way, the Rockies were built the way a good team should be built. Being a good defensive team is a perfectly natural side effect of drafting well and making shrewd FA signings, and being the best defensive team in the league is an accident of that process working particularly well.

Dave Righetti: You Know You Want It. / Also, my blog. For writers.

by howtheyscored on Oct 26, 2007 8:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Obviously, ideally a team

wants players that can hit well, and play defense well. In reality, most teams have to make compromises. Carlos Beltrans, ARods, Robinson Canos etc. don't grow on trees. No team, not even the Yankees can have Beltran type players starting in every position. Most of the time, you have to make compromises, like Manny (one of the best hitter ever, bad defender) or Coco Crisp (bad hitter, outstanding defender).

It is not a given that being a good defensive team is a perfectly natural side effect of drafting well and making shrewd FA signing. Take Cleveland as an example. Many people would say that they are good at player evaluations. Their defense isn't DRays or Marlins awful, but it is pretty mediocre. By plus minus they are 18 plays below average in the field, 11th in the AL. There are also 11 NL teams ahead of them, so 22nd in MLB. By Defensive Efficiency, they are 16th in MLB.

by rfloh on Oct 26, 2007 9:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Obviously, ideally a team

So you believe that the Rcokies roster construction is based primarily on defensive considerations?

Or, to be less inflexible, do you believe that the Rockies may have given defense specific priority when building the roster?

Just because I don't believe it doesn't mean it isn't possible or even true. I just don't see how that could have been their plan. I don't think it makes any sense. But I've beenw rong before.

Dave Righetti: You Know You Want It. / Also, my blog. For writers.

by howtheyscored on Oct 26, 2007 9:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

LIke I said above,

I don't know. I don't follow the Rockies much at all, so I have no idea what the FO believes, appears to believe, says to the press / fanbase.

My point is that I don't think it is reasonable to conclude that teams don't deliberately try to build teams that are good at defense.

Not sure if you would consider the A's as a good org to be emulated, but I'll use them as an example. The A's are known as a "softball" type team: OBP, 3 runs HRs etc. Yet, this hasn't been true for some time now. By the time Moneyball was published they were building their teams on defense. And they have freely conceded / admitted this.

Also, while their defense this year is mediocre, the Angels too have at least given the impression in recent times that they deliberately take defense and speed into account when building their teams. This is not to say that they ignore good hitters who are not good defensively when they are available; just that they do deliberately acquire / develope players who are fast, athletic and play good defense.

Of course, just because a team deliberately values defense doesn't meant that it ignores all other qualities.

by rfloh on Oct 26, 2007 9:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: LIke I said above,

You're misunderstanding.

I'm not saying the Rockies didn't take defense into account. I'm saying it wasn't the priority. It would be ridiculous to ignore defense. Obviously, you want guys who aren't butchers, so that you can maximize the value of the runs that they do score.

What I'm saying is that while defense was a consideration in their organizational philosophy - and part of my idea of bringing ins and drafting good players is that defense is a consideration in what makes a good player - getting a great defensive team was not the aim. Of course you want a team that plays good defense, but you score more runs with good hitters than you usually lose with bad fielding.

Again, I'm not saying my point of view is the end all. Of course Rockies management could be thinking ANYTHING and I'm not in their heads and saying they could very well have been thinking this is very diplomatic.

But realistically, defense was not the organizational lynchpin. It was just a part of the bigger picture, and realistically it was never even the biggest part.

That's all I'm saying.

Dave Righetti: You Know You Want It. / Also, my blog. For writers.

by howtheyscored on Oct 26, 2007 10:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: LIke I said above,

I think you're right, howie. Nobody in their right mind goes out and tries to build a team based on defense. Or speed. It would take an idiot to... oh ... nevermind.

The SF Giants: agressively promoting young talent since 2008.

by Lyle on Oct 26, 2007 11:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The A's over the last severals years

have built their teams on pitching AND defense. Deliberately.

by rfloh on Oct 26, 2007 11:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: The A's over the last severals years

Really? Swisher, Barton and Cust aren't exactly speed demons or defensive specialists.

They have some defense-first players, sure, but only at defense-first positions (except Chavez, who wasn't re-signed to be a defensive specialist).

Fool me seven times, shame on you. Fool me eight or more times, shame on me.

by Bhaakon on Oct 27, 2007 2:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Firstly,

if you toss out the best defenders on the team, obviously the team no longer appears to focus on defende. If you toss out the Marlins worse defensive players, their defense no longer looks so bad.

Furthermore, 2 of your counterexamples have been on the team for only the last several MONTHS. In addition to that 1 of your counterexamples is a DH, while the other one is a 1b. Last I checked, DHs don't play a position.

Cust is a DH. Yes, they have used him in the OF this year, but they also used Marco Scutaro in the OF this year. Cust is a DH, and is going to be used as a DH next year. Barton's a 1b. 1bs usually aren't there for their defense

Swish is actually a very good defender in the corners. Somewhere around 10 runs above average by most metrics. Offensively, he has been worth about 25 runs above average. A fairly significant part of his value is that he is very good defensively. He is obviously out of his depth in CF, but again, he only plays there in emergencies.

Ellis is a phenomenal defender. Somewhere around 20-25 runs above average in defense. In his good offensive years, like 2002, 2005, 2007, he is one of the most valuable players in the AL West. Even in his bad offensive years 2003 and 2006, he is still above average, due to his defense.

Kotsay was signed to his contract, in large part because he was supposed to be good defensively, before his back injuries.

Beane in an interview in 2005 with Blez of AN.

One of the reasons we got Mark Kotsay is because of his defense. We had to start shifting and finding guys in other areas. We led the league in fielding percentage last year and we were second in the league in pitching

Milton Bradley was fragile like glass, but he was a pretty good defensive OF.

Crosby has been pretty awful offensively the last 2 years. Ray Durham awful. He is good defensively, about 10 runs above average.

While Chavez wasn't signed to be a defensive specialist, the fact that he is / was a phenomenal defender before the injuries means that having him in the lineup improves the defense significantly.

By plus minus, they are 35 plays above average as a team. That's 2nd in the AL, behind Toronto, 8th in MLB.

Beane in an interview with Blez of AN in 2004, towards the end of the season:

So we have evolved. If you look at some of our first playoff teams, the `99 team that won 87 games, it was a power, on-base team. Now we're tops in the league in defense and pitching

Beane in an interview with Blez of AN in 2005, midseason:

So, if you listen to the people that cover this team, there's this assumption that we're this slow-pitch softball team. At one point, we were probably close to it. Back in 1999, we had a lot of homers, we were a high on-base percentage team and we scored a lot of runs. But we didn't have a particularly great defense. The shift over time was because the market started valuing those things. We were the top team in the league, fielding percentage-wise, but you would've never believed that five or six years ago.

Beane in an with Blez on AN interview at the beginning of 2006:

Beane: All those things came into play. The fact that we'd have three centerfielders playing all three outfield positions, and actually what people might not realize is that Nick Swisher is an outstanding defensive first baseman.

Should I continue?

by rfloh on Oct 28, 2007 5:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, if you have very good hitters,

they can make up for bad fielding.

Manny, at least when he is being Manny, more than makes up for his bad defense with phenomenal hitting. He is typically about 45-60 runs above average offensively each year. He is also typically about 20 runs below average defensively, once his home park is properly taken into account.

OTOH, a guy like Carlos Lee pretty much cancels his offensive contributions with his poor fielding. He is typically about 20 runs above average offensively. He is also typically about 20 runs below average defensively.

by rfloh on Oct 26, 2007 12:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: The value of defense to the Rockies

I think the whole World Series Rockies team had something to do with the 5 players in their lineup with 20+ homers, the NL rookie of the year, and that MVP guy I think they have...Fuck their defense right in the ear; that's not why they got as far as they have.

by boonitez on Oct 25, 2007 9:51 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: The value of defense to the Rockies

Speed and defense are important -- but hitting and pitching are much more so.

by sharksrog on Oct 26, 2007 2:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: The value of defense to the Rockies

You don't think their pitching was highly effected by the great defense they played this year?

More and more, with the new advances people have made into quantifying defense, it's looking like defense is just as important as having a good offense and good pitching. Now, you probably can't win with just good defense, but it's definitely not a luxury.

Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.

by jponry on Oct 26, 2007 2:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: The value of defense to the Rockies

Just look at the home and away splits for this team. They really can't hit all that well. So, you're right speed and defense can get you a long way, even to the world series. You probably need pitching (preferably veteran pitching) and hitting to actually win the world series though.

"But I AM a stepchild!"-Pedro Feliz

by Smotheredinhugs on Oct 26, 2007 8:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: The value of defense to the Rockies

Evangelicals have good gloves I suppose.

WE FIGHT WARS! WE CHEAT ON OUR SPOUSES! WE LISTEN! TO THE STEVE MILLER BAND! BUT IF;! WE THROW OURSELVES INTO SOMETHING AS GLORIOUS AS BASEBALL ALL IS FORGIVEN!

by nick on Oct 26, 2007 10:28 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: The value of defense to the Rockies

Just when you think they don't have a prayer, they do!

Vote for Grant

by Goofus on Oct 26, 2007 12:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: The value of defense to the Rockies

The idea that defense is undervalued has been rumbling around sub rosa for several years now. If it is now being bandied about in the media -- more, if it has penetrated even as far as Brian Sabean's office -- that's probably a sign that the market has shifted and it's time to invest in lumbering sluggers or something.

by Evan on Oct 26, 2007 12:50 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: The value of defense to the Rockies

The defense rests?

Vote for Grant

by Goofus on Oct 26, 2007 1:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: The value of defense to the Rockies

Well , they are a balanced team...and the offense seems to be resting...

Rockies juggernaut rolls on , leaving in its wake dead snakes and cigars...and runs into The Green Monster.

by victor frankenstein on Oct 26, 2007 5:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: The value of defense to the Rockies

I'm going to say the Rockies suffered/benefited from the '05 Chicago White Sox effect. Their pitching waaaayyy outperformed any expectations or previous benchmarks (this staff is simply not that good. The bullpen was way more awesome than they should have been). Throughout the year they had no bad starters, just some mediocre ones in terms of ERA. They scored the amount of runs a top offense scores and got lucky with a lot of their pitchers.

They were 3rd(!) in the ML in runs scored this year! And that's in the "pitching-friendly" NL West ballparks for 3/4 of the time.

In the end, they scored a crapload of runs and their pitching was effective enough to net them the Wild Card.

Pedro Feliz: Marginally better this year.

by SloIsLonelyForTheOrange on Oct 28, 2007 3:30 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs