What Stats Explain the 2017 Boston Red Sox?

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,283
AZ
In a game thread, or maybe somewhere else, I posted about the OPS disparity between the Red Sox and the good offensive teams in MLB. I posted a caveat to the effect that OPS is not the be all and end all of offensive prowess, but afterwards, I decided to take a look at home important (predictive?) it is. Here are the OPS season ranks of the 10 playoff teams:

1. Houston
2. Cleveland
3. NYY
4. Washington
5. Colorado
6. Chi Cubs
7. Arizona
8. Dodgers
9. Minnesota
22. Boston

That was pretty dramatic. Other power numbers are not nearly as predictive. The Rays and the Orioles hit a ton of home runs, etc. But it got me thinking, how did this team get to 93 wins. It has to be on the pitching side. So, I decided to look at opponent OPS. Boston ranks very well there, but not better than the Yankees, for example, or even the Rays – which are good comps given they are in the same division. Here are the rankings:

1. Dodgers
2. Cleveland
3. NYY
4. Washington
5. Arizona
6. Tampa Bay
7. Boston

No ballpark adjustments, obviously, so it’s a very rough indicator. But I also looked at several other pitching indicators, and they all show a very good pitching team – runs against stats come in around 5th in most categories (not advanced or adjusted, but a rough sense). But certainly not a generational pitching staff or anything.

Lots of stuff gets thrown around on this board about this phenomenon in one way or another – we’re “lucky,” we’re “great in extra inning games,” our “bullpen” – and some of this is clearly the Yankees dramatically underperforming their pythag. These strike me as a bit too simple, and there is something nagging at me that I cannot put my finger on. Those OPS numbers are staggering. This offense is not commensurate with having the third best win total in the league and 5th best in baseball. The question really is whether there is some market inefficiency baked in somewhere. Does this team’s dedication to unreasonably aggressive baserunning demonstrate something? Is there some defensive metric related to three fantastic outfielders that is undervalued?

And last, a point that I know would be quite controversial, but do managing decisions, especially pitching and pinch hitting, have any effect over 162 games? My hunch – emphasis hunch – has always been that it’s negligible. To the extent managing can impact wins, from where I sit there is at least some evidence to suggest that Farrell et al. may have had a positive impact, not a negative one as seems to be the conventional wisdom.
 

EricFeczko

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 26, 2014
4,823
Off the top of my head, the red sox are above average in OBP and in the top ten for stolen bases. If you dig deeper, I wouldn't be surprised if they were aggressive and successful at taking extra bases, they were seventh in doubles this year.
The OPS numbers are largely driven by a bottom 5 HR rate. Of course, one should keep in mind that In all likelihood the team HR rate is a fluke, its also likely that the runs scored is a fluke.
 

Merkle's Boner

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2011
3,757
Seems to me a lot of their success can be summed up by their extra inning record of 15-3.

Yanks were 5-6.
 

timlinin8th

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 6, 2009
1,521
Run Differential is a close corrolation, which makes sense since it doesn't matter if you score runs or prevent them as long as you are in the positive (only three teams had a slight positive run diff and missed the playoffs. 17 teams had negative run diff)

1. CLE +254
2. NYY +198
3. HOU +196
4. LAD +190
5. ARI +153
6. WSH +147
7. CHC +127
8. BOS +117
9. COL +67
12. MIN +27

(One final note, MIN are the lucky ones, because #10 STL with a +56 and #11 MIL +35 play in the NL. The other positive run diff team was LAA with a whopping +1.)
 

AB in DC

OG Football Writing
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2002
13,632
Springfield, VA
Those OPS numbers are staggering. This offense is not commensurate with having the third best win total in the league and 5th best in baseball.
As pointed out in the MLB thread, although the Sox run differential lags behind the other playoff teams, the difference is not as large as you might think:

With one day left in the regular season, here's the top teams in baseball in 2017:

LAD: 102-58 (+185)
Cle: 101-59 (+253)
Hou: 100-61 (+195)
Was: 97-63 (+153)
Bos: 93-68 (+118)
ChC: 92-69 (+129)
Ari: 92-68 (+142)
NYY: 91-70 (+199)
 

Pitt the Elder

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 7, 2013
4,418
Anecdotally, the Sox bullpen was very, VERY good in close and late games, with the 18 extra innings games the most obvious among them. A critical point in that equation, I think, is that Kimbrel was used within regulation in nearly every one of those games (I have to check this), meaning teams had to face arguably the best 1-inning pitcher in baseball if they wanted to win. I wonder if that had some sort of dampening effect on the performance variance you might expect in those games. In other words, even good teams are liable to give up a run here or there and thus lose these games at least on a semi-regular basis. The fact that the Sox bullpen often went multiple innings on multiple occasions giving up zero runs.

It occurs to me that there's actually a stat that might measure this - the newly coined "goose egg" by Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight. I can't find any recent leaderboards, let alone leaderboards broken down by team, but I bet you find the Sox at or near the top of that list.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
As pointed out in the MLB thread, although the Sox run differential lags behind the other playoff teams, the difference is not as large as you might think:
Is there anywhere that posts team run differential splits? I'd be curious to see if there is a trend anywhere. The team's winning percentage didn't fluctuate all that much once they got going in May.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,277
Anecdotally, the Sox bullpen was very, VERY good in close and late games, with the 18 extra innings games the most obvious among them. A critical point in that equation, I think, is that Kimbrel was used within regulation in nearly every one of those games (I have to check this), meaning teams had to face arguably the best 1-inning pitcher in baseball if they wanted to win. I wonder if that had some sort of dampening effect on the performance variance you might expect in those games. In other words, even good teams are liable to give up a run here or there and thus lose these games at least on a semi-regular basis. The fact that the Sox bullpen often went multiple innings on multiple occasions giving up zero runs.

It occurs to me that there's actually a stat that might measure this - the newly coined "goose egg" by Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight. I can't find any recent leaderboards, let alone leaderboards broken down by team, but I bet you find the Sox at or near the top of that list.
Yes. Our pitchers were excellent in hi leverage situations



 

ledsox

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 14, 2005
398
Off the top of my head...

Excellent pitching- lot's of swing and miss stuff

Excellent outfield and catching defense.

Excellent contact rates with the bats that put pressure on the opponent even if the contact was very weak overall.

Good offensive sequencing at the end of games. Most wins in baseball when trailing or tied after 5 innings (heard this last week)

Positive baserunning approach led to a team wide ethic of pushing the envelop and never relenting. Thus embracing the smaller ball, no stars, everyone contributes offense.

Also chemistry-wise, I think the team and coaches came together with an us against them (media, fans, complainers, haters) view which helped them establish a
post-Papi idenity.

Excellent pitching...

edit- sorry, you said stats. I'll get back to you...
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
As much as we love to hate defensive metrics around here, the Sox' performance there is a pretty striking indicator. The Rays squeaked past the Sox in overall DRS, 51 to 45, but the next team after that is Cleveland at 27. The Sox also led the AL in UZR. When you zoom in on outfield defense, the Sox led the league in both metrics. And then of course there's the outstanding framing and throwing of our #1 catcher. It wasn't just pitching this year, it was all-around run prevention.
 

streeter88

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 2, 2006
1,807
Melbourne, Australia
Here's one I posted the other day in the Astros game thread (and reposted in the Glass Half Full thread just now).

RS vs RA by inning - look at how the 2017 Sox outscored their opponents in the late and extra innings. I only highlighted this table (which is the end of season one from Baseball Reference) when the difference was > 1 run per game for that inning. Shows how much the Red Sox have clawed their way back into games late this season.

upload_2017-10-3_20-53-50.png


Or more simply the comparison of comeback wins and blown leads.

First the Red Sox:
upload_2017-10-3_20-56-29.png

Then the Astros:
upload_2017-10-3_20-57-51.png

Comeback wins is the same, but there is a 5 game difference in blown leads, and a 7 game difference in walk off wins - both for the Red Sox.

The MFY by contrast have 41 comebacks, 33 blown leads, and only a 5-6 record in walk-offs. And they pummel their opponents in the 4th, 5th and 6th innings, but in the other innings not so much.

The Indians really don't do comebacks and blown leads -- they only have 29 comebacks wins and 27 blown leads, and a 6-6 record in walk-offs -- they tend to get up early and hold their leads.

There was another table on the page that showed WL percentages by inning and by ahead, tied or behind at the start of that inning.This one is even more interesting! Obviously the good teams manage to win most games when they grab an early lead, but The Red Sox manage to claw back a lot of games.

Red Sox -- look at how great their record is in the late innings when Tied or Ahead.
upload_2017-10-3_21-16-14.png

Comparison with the Indians is stark.They really need to be ahead at the start of the fifth inning, whereas the Red Sox have a pretty good chance even if they're only tied.

upload_2017-10-3_21-18-4.png

Anyway, I wish I was a member of bref, because then I could customise these a bit better.
 

Attachments

KillerBs

New Member
Nov 16, 2006
906
The key question for me is: how does a team with a 92 OPS+, 92 WRC+ score 785 runs, 4.85 per game, better than AL average of 763 runs or 4.71 per game?

Couple obvious answers jump out:

1. The team was 8% better than league average with RISP, and 14% better with 2 outs RISP.
2. Baserunning. Even tho they led the league in Outs on Base, they were near top of league in stolen base and other base running stats, such as going 1st to 3rd.
 

yep

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 3, 2006
2,465
Red Sox Natin
I don't know the explanarion, but this has been a fun team to watch, and my heart is more excited about the ALDS than my head thinks it has a right to be.
 

charlieoscar

Member
Sep 28, 2014
1,339
The teams the Red Sox played had a combined .494 winning percentage (1602-1638).

If you use the log5 method to determine the expected winning percentage when the Red Sox played each opponent and then weight those by the number of games with each, the Red Sox predicted record was 93.38 - 68.62

W%(A v. B) = W%(A)*(1 - W%(B))/(W%(A)*(1 - W%(B)) + (1 - W%(A))*W%(B)) where A is the home team and B the visiting team
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,484
Rogers Park
Left on Base wins:

1. Boston 6.9
[...]
3. Cleveland 5.9
[...]
13. Houston 0.1
[...]
28. Yankees -4.1

So, that's an 11 win difference just in LOB between Boston and NY.

Kendrick, Sale, and Fister are the only Sox pitchers with negative LOB value, which either means we're incredibly lucky or incredibly good with men on. The Yankees have 17 pitchers with negative value in this stat, and Sabathia is their only positive standout.

edited to add the Fangraphs blurb for the stat:

LOB (left on base) -Wins is an estimate of how many wins a pitcher has added as a result of stranding runners on base. This is just a general name for a component that involves different aspects of a pitcher’s game with respect to baserunners, for example: controlling the running game, pitching differently with runners on, or pitching out of the stretch.​

The catchers' defensive prowess may have had a lot to do with this.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,283
AZ
Good stuff. You don't really think about clutch pitching.

That's really interesting, but, I guess, like clutch hitting there's a question whether it's even a thing or just a sample size luck issue (taking out the defensive factors like catching and ability to hold runners; probably interesting that we're fairly high up in the league in innings pitched by lefties, I would think (not sure how to check that), which would help control the run game).

Part of it is managing. (Gulp -- am I allowed to say that?) I would think that part of LOB-Wins also relates to whether a manager makes a change that strands a runner.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,484
Rogers Park
Good stuff. You don't really think about clutch pitching.

That's really interesting, but, I guess, like clutch hitting there's a question whether it's even a thing or just a sample size luck issue (taking out the defensive factors like catching and ability to hold runners; probably interesting that we're fairly high up in the league in innings pitched by lefties, I would think (not sure how to check that), which would help control the run game).

Part of it is managing. (Gulp -- am I allowed to say that?) I would think that part of LOB-Wins also relates to whether a manager makes a change that strands a runner.
Something that stood out in those numbers was Hembree. I thought he was pretty bad this season, and by some measures he was.

But somehow he was decent in his high and especially medium leverage outings, but awful in low leverage spots. As a result, he added a fair amount of WPA on net, even though his season line was dreadful.
 

EllisTheRimMan

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 6, 2007
4,560
Csmbridge
There is some great analysis in this thread. In the playoffs there are a maximum of 19 games and a minimum of 11 to win the series. The ability of this team to keep games close is something that bodes well for their chances IMHO. That said given the sss ahead of them none of it may matter. If some of their streaky hitters get hot over these next 11-19 games they could go deep and even win it all, somewhat easily.

If not and they just hit their averages for the season I'm gonna need a lot of Tums and Zantac, but they still could go all the way. Which would be the way they won many close games this season and eventually the division

Of course if the pitching under performs, I don't see them going very deep.

SSS - Now watch the hitters get hot and the pitching get cold.

That all said, I am surprisingly optimistic about their chances this year. They're almost all very talented multi-dimensional position players and the pitchers miss bats and don't issue a lot of walks. Our bullpen looks stacked if Price is what we think he may be too.

Can't wait for them to start!
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,243
Speier says pitching:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/redsox/2017/10/03/secret-red-sox-success-was-simple-pitching/jKWQ2kiIyosoMHPLQY023L/story.html

The Red Sox outperformed the league [ERA] by 15.3 percent — their biggest margin since Babe Ruth was a member of the rotation in 1918.
The Red Sox bullpen, for the year, received credit for a 10.63 WPA — the highest in team history, nearly 30 percent better than any other team in the majors, and the eighth-highest mark by any team since the statistic has been tracked (starting in 1974).
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,484
Rogers Park
It's not a bad point.

One way to look at it: Boyer (3.59 FIP), Abad (3.68 FIP) and Hembree (3.92 FIP) are probably the worst pitchers on the staff, and they've been... pretty decent, posting entirely pedestrian middle relief lines. If those kind of pitchers are the bad end of your bullpen, your bullpen is good.

The FIP of all AL relievers was 4.12. There are five teams with better bullpen FIP than Abad, and four are in the postseason: Anaheim, LA, Boston, NY, Cleveland.

(Guys like Kyles Kendrick and Martin and Ben Taylor had worse lines, but in just a handful of IP. Reed and Barnes have higher FIPs due to a few HR-happy appearances, but are clearly better pitchers.)
 

jerry casale

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
91
Left on Base wins:

1. Boston 6.9
[...]
3. Cleveland 5.9
[...]
13. Houston 0.1
[...]
28. Yankees -4.1

So, that's an 11 win difference just in LOB between Boston and NY.

Kendrick, Sale, and Fister are the only Sox pitchers with negative LOB value, which either means we're incredibly lucky or incredibly good with men on. The Yankees have 17 pitchers with negative value in this stat, and Sabathia is their only positive standout.

edited to add the Fangraphs blurb for the stat:

LOB (left on base) -Wins is an estimate of how many wins a pitcher has added as a result of stranding runners on base. This is just a general name for a component that involves different aspects of a pitcher’s game with respect to baserunners, for example: controlling the running game, pitching differently with runners on, or pitching out of the stretch.​

The catchers' defensive prowess may have had a lot to do with this.
Can you imagine what the number would be if our cleanup hitter didn't leave 220 men on base?
 

Sausage in Section 17

Poker Champ
SoSH Member
Mar 17, 2004
2,086
Red Sox -- look at how great their record is in the late innings when Tied or Ahead.
View attachment 17710

Comparison with the Indians is stark.They really need to be ahead at the start of the fifth inning, whereas the Red Sox have a pretty good chance even if they're only tied.
This stat seems to show what my eyes have been telling me about this team: The longer the game goes, the better their chances get. The may not quite have the most talent, but I'm not sure anyone plays better in tight games.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,484
Rogers Park
Can you imagine what the number would be if our cleanup hitter didn't leave 220 men on base?
It's a pitching stat, it doesn't net out with the offense. It might be interesting to construct such a stat.

Looking at the aggregate numbers, the team performed well with men on base.

The team had a .736 OPS overall. With men on, that rose to .762. With RISP, .801. 2 outs & RISP, .786. On 3rd, <2 out, .963.

I don't know where to find team-wide offensive strand rates, but Hanley aside, they likely scored more runs than their overall statistics would suggest, just as they allowed fewer by stranding runners. This is especially impressive for a team that hit so few HR.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,283
AZ
One way to look at it: Boyer (3.59 FIP), Abad (3.68 FIP) and Hembree (3.92 FIP) are probably the worst pitchers on the staff, and they've been... pretty decent, posting entirely pedestrian middle relief lines. If those kind of pitchers are the bad end of your bullpen, your bullpen is good.
It would be interesting to know what their FIPs are in games in which the team had a realistic chance to win. Or, even better, what the FIPs were in game that are in doubt. For example, it feels as though Abad was actually better in games he entered where the win percentage was in the 25 to 75 percent range then he was when it was on the other margins, but I'm just guessing. Maybe Speier's WPA analysis already does that work.
 

jerry casale

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
91
It's a pitching stat, it doesn't net out with the offense. It might be interesting to construct such a stat.

Looking at the aggregate numbers, the team performed well with men on base.

The team had a .736 OPS overall. With men on, that rose to .762. With RISP, .801. 2 outs & RISP, .786. On 3rd, <2 out, .963.

I don't know where to find team-wide offensive strand rates, but Hanley aside, they likely scored more runs than their overall statistics would suggest, just as they allowed fewer by stranding runners. This is especially impressive for a team that hit so few HR.
Key words...........Hanley aside.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,243
Whatever one wants to say about Hanley, he was better than the Astros' DHs.
 

David Kaiser

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 13, 2017
30
I started a discussion like this some weeks back on the 2017 lineup forum but this looks like the best place now. As I said then, I'm finishing a book, Baseball Greatness: The Best Players and Teams Acccording to Wins Above Average, 1901-2017. I have now calculated full 2016 data on the Red Sox and most of the other playoff teams. The data on the Red Sox was a bit of a shock.

The Red Sox have one of the weakest lineups ever to win a dvision. Their fielding (according to Defensive Regression Analysis, DRA) is essentially average; their hitting was nearly 3 games below average when Fenway is taken into account.

Now Mookie Betts wound up with a fine year, 3.9 WAA, just missing the 4 WAA threshold which defines a superstar season (he had exceeded that level in the last two years.) That's a lot better than I predicted for him a few weeks ago because it turns out he had an absolutely outstanding year in the field, saving a remarkable 22 runs comared to an average right fielder. Andrew Benintendi also had a strong year in the field allowing him to earn 1.5 WAA (his hitting was average.) That's the good news. All of it.

According to DRA, which I believe to be the most accurate fielding measure not based on detailed analysis of every batted ball, both Xander Bogaerts and Jackie Bradley had terrible years in the field. Xander was a Derek Jeter-like -23 runs worse than average, and Jackie was -17. I know Jackie makes spectacular catches and has a good reputation but he has never had a better than average DRA rating. I suspect he plays too deep. Xander was below average last year as well. One thing these stats tell me is that Mookie Betts should play center field. He seems to be a much better outfielder than Bradley. Because of their defense, Xander was -2.7 WAA (I don't make position adjustments), and Bradley was -2. These are very serious problems.

The rest of the full time lineup--Pedroia, Moreland, Ramirez, and the catchers--were all within 1 WAA of average, above or below. So were the catchers. Devers would have been over +1 WAA had he performed at the level he did for the whole season.

It's fair to say at the moment that Betts is the only superior player the Red Sox have in the everyday lineup, although Devers may become one.

The pitchers, of course, completely carried the team. Sale was second in the majors behind Kluber with 4.9 WAA, Pomeranz had 3.1, and Porcello and Rodriguez 2.5 between them. All told the Red Sox pitchers were worth +15 WAA.

The Indians are like the Red Sox, only more so. They missed their pythagorean projection by 6 games--they were good enough to win 108 games. Their lineup was worth only 2 wins over .500--their pitchers did all the rest, turning in one of the greatest pitching staff performances in history, relative to the league. Of course, their very weak divisional opposition helped quite a bit. The Astros have by far the best lineup in the AL playoffs and the Yankees are second.

It's very unusual for a team to sustain really outstanding pitching performances over a period of years, and thus, the future of the Red Sox isn't looking that great to me, alas.

David Kaiser
 
Last edited:

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,484
Rogers Park
According to DRA, which I believe to be the most accurate fielding measure not based on detailed analysis of every batted ball, both Xander Bogaerts and Jackie Bradley had terrible years in the field. Xander was a Derek Jeter-like -23 runs worse than average, and Jackie was -17. I know Jackie makes spectacular catches and has a good reputation but he has never had a better than average DRA rating. I suspect he plays too deep. Xander was below average last year as well. One thing these stats tell me is that Mookie Betts should play center field. He seems to be a much better outfielder than Bradley. Because of their defense, Xander was -2.7 WAA (I don't make position adjustments), and Bradley was -2. These are very serious problems.
Is my memory correct that DRA is one of these zone-oriented metrics that effectively places fielders in competition for fly balls?

Xander doesn't look especially good to me in the field, but Bradley's rating raises questions. Shouldn't we expect him to suffer on the early 2000s-style of zone-based defensive metrics because he plays between two OFs with CF range? In other words, the fact that Mookie rates so well by DRA is not unrelated to Bradley rating poorly. They are drawing from the same well of fly balls, and the stat is set up to be "accountable." Their success comes at each others' cost.

It is telling that the new Statcast numbers based on aggregating plays by their historical likeliness of being made rates both Bradley and Betts highly — indeed, putting them both in the top ten defensive outfielders in the game.

I wonder why we would prefer the older methodology.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
David, I get why you would use DRA to compile cross-era rankings like the ones in your book, but I'm a bit puzzled that you're using it to evaluate individual and team defensive performance within a league/season. Wouldn't one of the more modern defensive metrics like DRS or UZR yield better information for this specific purpose? Both of those metrics differ widely from DRA on Xander and JBJ--DRS thinks Xander was bad but not that bad, and UZR thinks he was fringe-average, while both DRS and UZR think JBJ was well above average. It occurs to me that the explanation for this latter case is probably that UZR and DRS don't penalize outfielders for balls other outfielders catch. Part of the reason why JBJ plays relatively deep is that he has a very speedy right fielder, who plays relatively shallow, alongside him. Anybody who's been watching this year has probably seen several examples of a fliner to the RCF gap that JBJ and Betts could probably both have caught, but Betts is first to the ball because of his speed and positioning, and JBJ doesn't call him off it. This means fewer putouts for JBJ -- but it also means he's in a position to make all those ridiculous wall and triangle catches. Basically, it's a group strategy to make the most of the group's talents. DRS and UZR don't penalize JBJ for this, but I would assume that DRA, being based simply on raw play-by-play totals, would.

Also, can you explain why you don't use position adjustments? Obviously this affects your results pretty hugely (I suspect it's safe to say that you are in select company in finding that Hanley Ramirez was a more productive player than Xander this year!), so it would be interesting to hear your rationale for it.

EDIT: Or, what nvalvo said while I was typing.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
Xander doesn't look especially good to me in the field
While it's a bit of a blunt instrument, I find the Inside Edge section on FG to be useful sometimes in clarifying a fielder's tendencies, and Xander is a good example. Here are his numbers for 2017:

Impossible (0%): 0%
Remote (1-10%): 0%
Unlikely (10-40%): 15.4%
Even (40-60%): 61.5%
Likely (60-90%): 81.1%
Routine (90-100%): 96.6%

It's a pretty clear pattern: plays that require an extraordinary fielder, Xander rarely makes--because he is not one. Plays that require only a fielder of average ability, however, he makes with above-average consistency. Which is pretty much what the eye test shows, I think.
 

David Kaiser

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 13, 2017
30
I am using the same metric, DRA, throughout the book, yes, for both players and teams. DRA does not define zones. It does the best possible estimate of the number of balls in play (making adjustments by team for ground ball and left-righthanded batter tendencies) and compares the number of those balls turned into outs by fielder X, to what would have been expected based on the league average. That's all. It doesn't count popups in the infield or ground balls fielded by the pitcher, which therefore, in my analysis,. are credited, in effect, to the pitchers, as I think they should be. Now it's entirely possible that in a given year, a guy could have an unusual number of balls hit just within, or just outside, his reach. But DRA figures tend to be pretty consistent.

Just for kicks, Bradley's DRA (all positions) was 6.2 in 2014, -5.3 in 2015, -3.3 in 2016, and -16.5 this year. Betts was -4.1 as a center fielder (mostly) in 2015, 13.3 and 21.6 as a right fielder in 2016 and 2017.

Both Michael Humphreys and I have spent a good deal of time looking for cases in which corner outfielders seemed to poach from the center fielder, and vice versa. We have found almost none. (One he did find was the 1947 Yankees when DiMaggio had a bad heel. Keller and Henrich clearly took every ball they could.) Obviously the people who chart every ball could tell us how many balls Betts caught that were within Bradley's range but I don't know where to find the data.

I don't use position adjustments because I'm trying to measure exactly what each player contributed to his team's success. I don't see why we should deduct about 7 of the runs created by a DH just because he's a DH. He created them. Nor is what a shortstop does more valuable because he's a shortstop. Let me put it another way. If you believe in position adjustments, then you believe that a 3.4 WAA shortstop is just as good as a 4.8 WAA first baseman (in some years.) The problem is that lots of teams have won pennants with a 4.8 WAA first baseman (or outfielder) as their best player and I don't think anyone ever won a pennant with a 3.4 WAA shortstop as their best player.

Even if Bradley and/or Bogaerts are for some reason better fielders than these figures make them look (and I see no reason to believe that), the fact remains that their hitting is not a significant asset either. At the moment the Red Sox have one very good hitter (Betts), on decent hitter who may get better (Benintendi), and Devers, who may turn out to be very good indeed. Period. That's not enough.

DK
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,243
Even if Bradley and/or Bogaerts are for some reason better fielders than these figures make them look (and I see no reason to believe that), the fact remains that their hitting is not a significant asset either. At the moment the Red Sox have one very good hitter (Betts), on decent hitter who may get better (Benintendi), and Devers, who may turn out to be very good indeed. Period. That's not enough.
DK
I am not conversant enough in the defensive metrics to comment, but I think you are shortchanging Bogaerts's offense relative to his peers at SS. Certainly this year, he has offered little in the way of power. But I think most agree that that is likely injury-related. Getting on base at a higher clip than all but a handful of MLB SS and stealing 15 of 16 strikes me as something more than "not a significant asset." His past full seasons at SS, where he did offer more power, were no different.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,243
Having now logged another full (regular season) year beyond 2016, isn't that really more of a 1 out of 4 "season" at this point?
Just to be clear,
This was his 3rd full season at SS.
He was near the top in the AL in OBP this year, but down in SLG%. (maybe we agree it was hand-injury related, maybe not).
In 2016, he was near the top of the AL in both.
In 2015, he was near the top.
In 2014, he hit pretty well at SS, and very badly at 3B.

That's all I got. I can live with his offense.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
I have to quibble with any stat or metric that categorizes Jackie Bradley Jr as a below average defensive centerfielder. Particularly when that notion conflicts with pretty much any other metric as well as the old fashioned eye test.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
6,348
I have to quibble with any stat or metric that categorizes Jackie Bradley Jr as a below average defensive centerfielder. Particularly when that notion conflicts with pretty much any other metric as well as the old fashioned eye test.
I'm with this. I'm highly skeptical of defensive metrics as it is and JBJ is a top tier CF.... clearly. I'm also highly skeptical of claims like the one that I just made ( "My eyes tell me!!!") but something is off with David's stats here. Defensive stats in general seem to all use very arbitrary and uncontextualized information in their grading system. I understand clearly that offensive stats, while still more clearly objective, still have a lot of context (intentional walks, defensive indifference, defensive shift, shitty pitching,......) that needs to be distilled out of it, there hasn't been one defensive stat that has pushed my skepticism aside the way OPS+ has.
 

David Kaiser

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 13, 2017
30
Just a few quick comments.

In re Bradley's defense, many people have fooled the press and public who thought they were good fielders because they looked good. Derek Jeter had dreadful stats at shortstop and won five gold gloves. Fred Lynn turns out to have been just average in the field. Now I concede that Bradley's 2017 stat may not be a fair reflection of his ability--but DRA has never shown him to be significantly above average, and that, I believe.
The argument about Bogaerts relates to position adjustments. He may be in the top half of shortstops in the league. But my point is, to contend consistently you need players who can compete at the 4 WAA level and it doesn't look as if he will ever be one of them. Or that anyone else in the Sox lineup will except Betts and maybe Devers.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
Just a few quick comments.

In re Bradley's defense, many people have fooled the press and public who thought they were good fielders because they looked good. Derek Jeter had dreadful stats at shortstop and won five gold gloves. Fred Lynn turns out to have been just average in the field. Now I concede that Bradley's 2017 stat may not be a fair reflection of his ability--but DRA has never shown him to be significantly above average, and that, I believe.
The argument about Bogaerts relates to position adjustments. He may be in the top half of shortstops in the league. But my point is, to contend consistently you need players who can compete at the 4 WAA level and it doesn't look as if he will ever be one of them. Or that anyone else in the Sox lineup will except Betts and maybe Devers.
Jeter only fooled Yankee fans who exalted his calm eyes and intangibles. His defense was not just discredited by the metrics. Plenty of observers of his defense saw the shortcomings. His deficiencies going to his left were well documented and "past a diving Jeter" was a common joke for much of his career. He wasn't a gold glover until Vizquel passed his peak and Arod was a teammate, by which time his legend was cemented by his fancy jump throws, the flip play at the plate in 2001, and his unnecessary dive in the stands in 2004. He was the epitome of the notion that gold gloves were often won at the plate.

JBJ hasn't fooled anyone. He is an above average center fielder. One outlier metric isn't enough to change that.
 

BillMuellerFanClub

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
1,388
JBJ hasn't fooled anyone. He is an above average center fielder. One outlier metric isn't enough to change that.
Just want to chime in and agree with this. This metric certainly doesn't pass the smell test with regard to JBJ. He is, to the eye, in the upper-echelon of defensive outfielders. Thinking just now, it's crazy how many elite defensive outfielders play in the AL East. Mookie, Kiermaier, and Pillar are basically must-see TV and are arguably superior.

Edit:

Just to add, I think the overall values, but mostly the rankings relative position on the spectrum, seems pretty spot on to my gut feelings on each player, defensive rating aside. I'd agree that Mookie was head and shoulders our best player, and Sale/Pom, with an overachieving bullpen anchoring the pitching, basically is the story of the 2017 edition of the team.

I also think that's enough, if the BABIP gods smile in their favor, to bring home another championship.
 
Last edited:

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
JBJ hasn't fooled anyone. He is an above average center fielder. One outlier metric isn't enough to change that.
Thinking just now, it's crazy how many elite defensive outfielders play in the AL East. Mookie, Kiermaier, and Pillar are basically must-see TV and are arguably superior.
It's not just the AL East, either. Taylor, Buxton, Hamilton, Herrera, Zimmer, even our young old friend Manuel Margot -- it's a golden age of defensive center fielders. In that context, I think JBJ is still a solidly above average CF, but he may be no more than that, where 5 years ago he would probably have been a clear top 5 guy and possibly even a clear #1 (a 30-year-old Michael Bourn, Trout and Harper topped the DRS/UZR CF leaderboard in 2012).
 

David Kaiser

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 13, 2017
30
So far here I don't believe anyone has posted any other metric showing JBJ to be an above average center fielder.
The argument that the general level of center field play has improved may be valid. But I don't think there's any way to evaluate a center fielder's value to his team, except in comparison to other center fielders.
 

David Kaiser

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 13, 2017
30
DRA does show him with a superior arm, but not range. By the way, the DRA stats on everyone are available at the baseball gauge, seamheads.com, under fielding.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,243
Just want to chime in and agree with this. This metric certainly doesn't pass the smell test with regard to JBJ. He is, to the eye, in the upper-echelon of defensive outfielders. Thinking just now, it's crazy how many elite defensive outfielders play in the AL East. Mookie, Kiermaier, and Pillar are basically must-see TV and are arguably superior.
At least the merely-bad JBJ was better than the god-awful Pillar:
http://www.thebaseballgauge.com/player.php?playerID=pillake01&tab=fld_dra
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,484
Rogers Park
So far here I don't believe anyone has posted any other metric showing JBJ to be an above average center fielder.
The argument that the general level of center field play has improved may be valid. But I don't think there's any way to evaluate a center fielder's value to his team, except in comparison to other center fielders.
I did. He’s tied with Kiermaier for sixth among all outfielders in Outs Above Average.
 
Last edited: