Right Field: The Burkstowinnian Connundrum

The “right field needs an above average defender because it is so difficult at ATT” argument is akin to the “we need gap to gap hitters because ATT is such a pitcher’s ballpark” argument.

as rights fields go. So if you take an average right fielder and play him there all season, he might give up a few more runs over the course of the year than he would in a more typical right field. But I think the dramatics about how difficult it is and how it requires only really amazing fielding players is a gross exaggeration. Alou played out there for a while, he was average at best, and he didn’t look any worse at home than on the road. I’d rather have a good offensive player who can be a league average fielder.

But again, no evidence. Maybe there’s a wayt o look at UZR numbers at AT&T as compared to other parks? I dunno.

The argument isn’t necessarily that RF at AT&T is horrendously difficult, but that any RF is a place where you might want to fit someone with good defense and an awesome arm.

The not-so-subtle undertone of this post is that you don’t think that Nate Schierholtz should be a starter, But I would contend that Nate’s defense would play well in any RF, not just AT&T. Watching him gun down those guys trying to stretch singles into doubles is a joy.

So no, I don’t think the world would end if Bowker or DeRosa or any of the other people who might play RF were put in there. But I know that a run saved is as good as a run scored, and I think that Nate will save enough runs to make him worth it.

Great post Howie! You allude to the bigger picture. The curse of Triples Alley. The Giants front office is simply one big propaganda machine. It is cheaper and easier and requires no courage or integrity to simply blame the ballpark rather than put together a roster of even mediocre offense, let alone post-season capable.

I find it the height of arrogance, and hypocrisy for the dolts in the front office to use the ballpark that they designed, that they begged for, that they promised would be the final piece in the world series puzzle, to use that very same ballpark as a reason for failure, which is what they are doing when they suggest that they have to use a weak hitting/good fielding outfielder.

It smacks of the Sabean stupid quote about JT Snow saving countless runs with his glove

But yes. It is the fault of the ballpark. And for all the prevarication and misdirection about right field triples alley, anyplace else those are homeruns, not triples and not outs. A simple canard and an excuse to not sign the hitters they need because Sabean’s system doesn’t produce any outfielders.

taking the ballpark out of this, and just considering value, in terms of WAR, or whatever stat you want to use that takes into account both runs created and runs saved, which player is the best – Nate, Bowker, or Lewis (or Torres?)?

Orlando Cepeda and Willie Mac both played right field(61-62). On some OK teams. Granted, that team did have Cepeda, McCovey, Mays and Marichal.

I think it’s a learning process — positioning and playing caroms off the wall — more than a skill based thing.

I think it’s probably difficult, but I also think people have had, like, their idea of what we need in RF skewed by Randy Winn. I mean, yes, it’s better to have a good defender than a bad defender. But the last few years, Winn wasn’t just a good defender… he was a ridiculously amazing best in the league defender! And that’s great to have! But I don’t see how it’s necessarily the case that you NEED to have a +15 defender in RF at all times.

Yes, Bowker wouldn’t play RF as well as Winn. But that’s like saying that a mid-tier Hall of Famer shouldn’t be in the Hall of Fame because he’s not as good as [inner circle guy]. If you make “excellence” your standard (which seems to be what’s happening, because it seems like “If he’s not as good as Winn defensively, he can’t play RF!”), you’re severely limiting your options and I think that’s a mistake.

Defense is important, but a run saved is worth as much as a run earned. If you think Bowker will be an average or below-average defender, that’s probably a safe assumption. But there’s a chance he could be a MUCH better hitter than Winn or Schierholtz were last year and there’s a chance that could make up for lost runs in the field.

T.S. Eliot’s range factor is pretty dreadful, you’d have to admit.

We should just trade for Ichiro.

• It seems generally agreed upon that John Bowker is a mediocre, below-average defensive outfielder. Why?
• Is this what scouts are saying, and this general knowledge gets passed down to GM’s, managers, coaches, Shawon Dunston, sportswriters, and then to us?
• Are there statistics that clearly indicate Bowker’s defensive mediocrity?
• If there are stats that indicate that Bowker is lacking defensively, are they conclusive this early in his career?
• Where does one go to find good defensive metrics, anyway? I think ESPN’s and Baseball Reference’s defensive stats are generally mocked. Is there anyplace else online that offers good, current defensive stats online, free of charge?

This is a great post, howie. I’ll admit that my bias is definitely skewed towards having better hitting over better defense. Part of that comes from being unable to recall opposing right fielders struggling at A.T.&T. (more bias, I guess). Part of it comes from the fact that I just like seeing good hitting up and down the batting order. And probably the fact that I miss that, where the Giants are concerned.

With respect to what “works” defensively in RF at Mays Field, I suspect it’s not much more than decent defensive skill/instinct, an ability to learn how to handle the unique things about Mays (right) Field, and above average speed for covering the wider expanses from Triples Alley to to the line. But then again, are there really “wider expanses” to cover? Is Triples Alley really that much of a factor? I don’t really know—I’ve always just assumed it was. But I think howie’s correct in saying that Moises Alou in RF wasn’t a disaster of Hindenburgian proportions. I don’t remember his defense being bad at all.

Anyway, good work howie, moving discussion away from conjecture and (hopefully) more towards fact.

Let’s just not have a right field.

I have some facts:

1) Recently, Mays Field has played as a relatively neutral hitters park. But,
2) The conditions at Mays Field, be they the dimensions, the weather, etc. increase triples while suppressing homeruns.
3) Outfielder defense has no effect on homeruns (except for the rare jumping over the fence crazy catch).
4) Triples at Mays Field are basically doubles in other parks (or homeruns) that have traveled a little farther, giving the baserunner more time to reach third base. These triples are most often hit into triples alley, where the CF and RF have a chance to get the ball.
5) A better outfielder with more range would have a greater chance of either making a put-out on a would-be triple or holding the runner to a lesser base.
6) Triples have more value than either doubles or singles, but not more than homeruns. Once again, the homerun issue is moot as outfielders do not have an effect on them.
7) Thus having a better outfielder in Mays Field is disproportionally more important than many other home parks because of the triples issue. A better defender will yield less runs.
8) I don’t know HOW much more of an issue this is at Mays Field, and this would be a great thing to study.

Incidently, a few of us have wondered if Mays Field actually increases the UZR value for RF at Mays Field. Many Giants have ranked near the top of the league for UZR in RF which seems unlikely.

I think Howie is basically asking us would we willing to trade some glove work for better hitting from RF? If that is the case, Yes I would.

If Howie is asking in more general way, would an average fielding RF with less than an average glove be fine with me? My answer is not this season. I look at the INF defense and it is pretty darn shaky for a team expecting to 85+ wins. The pitchers have to be able to get some help some were on balls in play. Add to that the Giants have spent the last 3 seasons or so encouraging fly ball pitching so placing a guy with a below average fielding skills will hurt this type of a team more.

That means I think the Giants’ would not necessarily see as large of a benefit from a player with glove work well above average as they would see harm a player equally below average glove work.

Great piece Howie.

I think RF at AT&T is the most difficult of all the ballparks in the majors. I think we’d greatly benefit from having a CF-type defender in right field. But we have bigger problems in our offense, and this is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about when I said that we should trade defense for offense: we don’t know exactly how hard it is to man RF at AT&T, and assuming that it is a minefield where the mediocre defender becomes Jermaine Dye and Brad Hawpe’s lovechild as well as the godson of Jonny Gomes is perhaps an extreme assumption. Given this, it would seem more logical that obtaining a solid bat and putting it in RF, which is typically strong offensively and thus shouldn’t be too difficult, would be a sensible course of action. Fact is, we can’t guarantee that signing a guy who’s spent most of his years in RF in normal ballparks and most of his years in the batter’s box smashing line drives is going to hurt us more than Randy Winn’s excellent defense and blindfolded offense, and I’ll be damned if we couldn’t use another bat.

I wonder how much the double super secret Supervision cameras are used in evaluating the RF D.

As far as anecdotal evidence, watching Adam Dunn plod around like a brachiosaurus actually caused me pain, and I really wanted Arizona to lose. Hawpe is like watching a donkey falling off a treadmill into a bed of nails at Coors, and in AT&T he just looks lost. He turns singles into triples.

It doesn’t matter how hard it is to play RF in AT&T. Because both teams have to play there.
Let’s presume that our RF is hard to play. Let’s make up some numbers. Let’s say that, for all Giants batters (i.e, averaging over the whole milleu of NL RFs), that AT&T’s RF has a 2.0x factor for triples, and a 1.3x factor for doubles, and a 1.1 factor for hits in general.

So, this is exactly what the opposing teams gain when the Giants stick a totally average (by definition) RF out there.
If they put a better RF out there, they will save runs. If they put a worse one, it will cost them. But if they put an average one out there, it will BY DEFINITION cost them nothing!

Now, you could suppose that a +5 or +10 RF because of the “extra hits to take away” could become a +6 or +12 RF playing half his games in AT&T, similarly, you could suppose that a -5 or -10 RF becomes proportionaltly worse.
As such, it’s possible that the Giants would gain a few EXTRA runs by playing an especially good OF (and conversely lose extra with a terrible one).

However, this is an idependent supposition than one that the park is “hard to play” (i.e, adds more hits) in a neutral context. Maybe if you showed that RF allows more chances? But even then, you can superimpose all the small RFs on AT&Ts big one, and then you will see that a “terrible” RF will still catch almost everything he would normally (possible exception for wierd caroms off the wall… but since the RF wall is short, there should generally be fewer deep balls).

But in general, it’s not a disadvantage – because the other teams have the same problem. At worst, it’s a ‘possible advantage not taken’ – which is technically a disadvantage in the game theoretical sense, but since there is not an infinite selection to choose from… moot.