In world Moneyball, myself and jvford were having a conversation about defense at 2b....maybe this forum could help shed some light for me:

crabman26 Blue Waves 3/16/2010 12:08 PM Okay, this whole Timothy Franco at 2b is irking me. How is his defense almost as good as Victor Park ? He is getting to just as many balls as Vic, AND he has a better fielding pct. Yeah, he has more (-) plays, but everything else is almost identical. So basically, if you gave Franco a range of 77 and kept his glove the exact same as it is now, a 63, they would be identical.

jvford Education Agency 3/16/2010 12:50 PM Keep in mind that Franco also gets many more opportunites that Park (gb/fb ratios of their respective staffs). And I'm sure that for the most part, + plays turn hits into outs and - plays turn outs into hits.

crabman26 Blue Waves 3/16/2010 1:12 PM Yeah, I get all of that....I guess I would just expect his errors to be way more than they are. In the same amount of opportunites, he has LESS errors than Park does....with a glove rated as low as it is, in a premium position like 2b, Franco is not killing his team with his glove.

jvford Education Agency 3/16/2010 1:57 PM Oh contraire mon frere! Franco is getting many more oppotunities than Park. They just show up as - plays or ground balls that are 6 inches to his or right and therefore out of his reach.

crabman26 Blue Waves 3/16/2010 2:07 PM yeah, so thats 15 chances where he missed them.
..doesnt seem like a lot. I mean, if balls are going 6 inches to his or right and he cant get to them, they are going to show up as (-) plays right? So after 83 games, there have only been 15 plays where he couldnt get to the ball.

jvford Education Agency 3/16/2010 3:14 PM Not necessarily. I'm not sure what the dev chats say, but I believe there are many balls that Franco doesn't get to that aren't listed as - plays.

crabman26 Blue Waves 3/16/2010 3:22 PM Hmm, would be interesting to know....I mean, if he cant get to them because of range, technically it should be a minus play, right?

jvford Education Agency 3/16/2010 4:02 PM My assumption (opinion) is that simmy looks at the range and determines if the player can get to the ball. If he can't get to the ball, there's a chance (based on his range) that he makes a great play and gets to it anyway.
If he can get to the ball, there's a chance (again, based on his range) that he screws up his footwork and the ball goes by him. So, a higher range means that a player gets to more balls AND gets to more balls that are normally out of his range.

crabman26 Blue Waves 3/16/2010 4:17 PM I can buy that...but if he is getting to more balls, then his Put outs and assists would reflect that....Franco and Parks are pretty identical, which tells me they are generally both getting to the same amount of balls....I know they are in 2 totally different circumstances and situations...but if Park is supposedly getting to more groundballs, shouldnt it show up in more than just the (+) and (-) plays?

Here are the players in question:


Victor Park

Timothy Franco

Lets not make this about the fact that Franco shouldnt be playing 2b, I am more enamored with the fact that he doesnt seem to be killing his team on defense.

I'm going to assume you're looking at a SSS.

My thinking on 2B defense is this: He gets the 2nd most opportunities, by a wide margin, to make plays. So, in my mind, he is the 2nd most important defensive player on your team.

dammit, heading home, lost track of time....will check this thread out tomorrow...

Quote: Originally posted by MikeT23 on 3/16/2010I'm going to assume you're looking at a SSS.My thinking on 2B defense is this:   He gets the 2nd most opportunities, by a wide margin, to make plays.   So, in my mind, he is the 2nd most important defensive player on your team.

But the stats are showing the 2 players as equal, other than the 15 minus plays committed by Franco....is 15 minus plays really that huge of a difference?

The poorer defender (Franco) has committed less errors in the same amount of innings, with virtually identical putouts and assists...shouldnt his errors be alot more than what they are?

Look at it this way: Franco has many more balls being hit in his direction and Park gets to a larger percentage of the balls hit his way.

1 negative play every 5 games seems like a lot. But, to be fair, he is making a respectable amount of plays. If he played a full 162, he'd probably make about 100 less plays(counting the negatives) than a good 2B. That's pretty substantial in my mind.

Quote: Originally posted by jvford on 3/16/2010Look at it this way: Franco has many more balls being hit in his direction and Park gets to a larger percentage of the balls hit his way.

So you think Franco on my team would have way less putouts and assists?? I dont think it would be that significant of a number...

Quote: Originally posted by MikeT23 on 3/16/20101 negative play every 5 games seems like a lot.   But, to be fair, he is making a respectable amount of plays.   If he played a full 162, he'd probably make about 100 less plays(counting the negatives) than a good 2B.  That's pretty substantial in my mind.

But how do we know he is making 100 less plays? If he has the same amount of putouts and assists as my guy, isnt he for the most part getting to the same amount of balls as my guy?

He is on pace for around 30 negative plays right now....over a 162 games, that doesnt seem like a stiff enough penalty to me.

The math:

I expect my 2B to have a RF of 5+(most do considerably better but, as I said, I think 2B is the 2nd most important D position). So Franco is about 65-70 plays away from what I'd expect. Add in his negative play every 5 games and that's another 32. 100+ plays he doesn't make.

crabby, I use a little higher range at 2B than 77.

Quote: Originally Posted By crabman26 on 3/16/2010

Quote: Originally posted by MikeT23 on 3/16/2010 1 negative play every 5 games seems like a lot. But, to be fair, he is making a respectable amount of plays. If he played a full 162, he'd probably make about 100 less plays(counting the negatives) than a good 2B. That's pretty substantial in my mind.

But how do we know he is making 100 less plays? If he has the same amount of putouts and assists as my guy, isnt he for the most part getting to the same amount of balls as my guy?

He is on pace for around 30 negative plays right now....over a 162 games, that doesnt seem like a stiff enough penalty to me.

Your staff has a 1.15 GB/FB ration, while Franco's staff has a 1.44 GB/FB ratio. That's a significant number of additional groundballs being hit in Franco's direction that he's not getting to (probably around 25).

Is there also a difference in strikeouts between Franco's team and Park's team? GB/FB only tells (the most important) part of the story. Strikeouts, total hits and walks (more plays at "DP" depth) and range/glove of the 1b could also be affecting things.

I think jvford has bingo - an excellent explanation of how defense "works".

For example, Derek Jeter can't get to a lot of ground balls that a legitimate SS might reach (and possibly boot), plus he doesn't have to make difficult throws that a legitimate SS might try (and throw away) since he never got to the ball in the first place.

So a "ground ball up the middle, past the diving Jeter" might be a 6-3 or a "+" play for Omar Vizquel, or an E6 for Shawon Dunston who got to the ball, but threw it into the stands. Vizquel would get a + and an assist, Dunston would get an Error, and it wouldn't even show up for Jeter. All on the same grounder.

Agree with soxfan and jvford. Just based on the GB/FB alone, there's 0.6 or so extra GB hit into Franco's zone compared to Park each game, or about 45-55 so far this season (very rough estimate, you'd have to go through all the boxscores to really know). Despite this, Franco has 15 fewer assists (a crude approximation of successful GB plays) than Park.

I agree with the above statements that you can't boot what you can't reach-- but even without the errors it looks to me like Franco's just killing you or whomever at 2B, probably to the tune of almost a single a game. That number seems about right given their range difference.

EDIT--"whomever" turns out to be csherwood... any input into this?