On Lopez As 3B And Figgins As 2B
Note: there's a good discussion of positional adjustments in the comment thread. The numbers I present don't tell the whole story.
-----
So I'm late to the party, here. If it helps, that was deliberate - this being the first day of anything, I didn't think the position switch was sufficiently meaningful to warrant a post. But I've gone back and forth on it, and now here I am.
I won't bother repeating in detail what others have already said. You can read Dave's take at USSM, Jon's first and second takes at PBNW, and Shannon Drayer's take as well. They've already been very thorough in their coverage of the first real story of the spring.
The main point of concern being raised is lack of experience - practice and minor leagues aside, Figgins has never played second as more than an occasional position, and Lopez only has 25 innings of ML time at third. It seems strange, then, to switch them, because Figgins is great at third, Lopez is okay at second, and all of their experience at their respective positions has to count for something. How reasonable is it to expect them to be able to make seamless transitions to another spot?
It is an excellent point. Experience at a defensive position can matter a lot. There are parts of playing second and parts of playing third that you can't learn if you don't experience them firsthand, and experience them over and over. Lopez, one imagines, is better at turning the double play than Figgins is right now. And Figgins, in turn, is probably better at, say, charging a bunt or throwing across the diamond.
But what if both Figgins and Lopez take to their new positions with ease? What if? This is all just an experiment, after all. There's no commitment. That's why they're trying it out, and trying it out so early. Lopez has the body of a third baseman while Figgins has the body of a second baseman, and the team wants to see if that means anything.
Using stats from The Hardball Times, here are the league average balls in zone per season:
Second Base: 425 balls in zone
Third Base: 334 balls in zone
Over the last three years, the Mariners have averaged 445 BIZ at second and 336 BIZ at third. And while third basemen make more out-of-zone plays (OOZ) than second basemen do, the point remains clear - second basemen get more play opportunities than third basemen.
I wonder if this isn't at the very heart of the matter. Chone Figgins is a better athlete than Jose Lopez. He's clearly the better defensive player at his position. He has more lateral range. If Figgins can play second as well or better than he can play third, and if Lopez can handle the hot corner without embarrassing himself, suddenly it might make sense to bump the better defender to the more active position.
Don Wakamatsu made an interesting decision today. We'll see if it means anything going forward. I'm guessing that, come season time, Lopez and Figgins will be back at their normal positions. But now is the time to experiment. We know Lopez can handle 2B and Figgins can handle 3B. They don't need much practice to get up to speed. What if they can switch? What if the team can get the better glove to the more active position? What if it turns out that Figgins is better suited for 2B than 3B, or that Lopez is better suited for 3B than 2B? I'll leave it to the Mariners to determine whether or not this'll work, but I absolutely don't see the harm in trying to find out.
0 recs |
76 comments
|
Comments
Didn't know where to find those numbers.
Not that I looked very hard… or at all.. but that would have been helpful.
Also, thanks for keeping it as simple as it actually is. If it works, it works. If it doesn’t, we won’t even remember this come September.
Unfortunately the THT Stats section is dead
but still accessible if you know where to look:
by Jeff Sullivan on Feb 23, 2010 11:57 PM PST up reply actions
In the best case scenario, how many wins does this improve the Mariners?
Could we also get a breakdown similar to the one that was done with the Lopez to 1B entry?
Aren't plays made at 3B more valuable, though?
Don’t most plays that a great 3B makes over average prevent doubles, while plays made by the 2B prevent mostly singles? That was always my understanding of why their positional adjustments are the same, anyway.
Let's see if I can do math
Based on what I just posted below, 2B’s make, on average, 393 plays per season, while 3B’s make 300.
Let’s say every 2B play made saves a single. A single is worth .77 runs, meaning those 2B’s “save” 303 runs. In order for 3B’s to “save” 303 runs, the average run value of their plays would have to be 1.01, meaning they’d be saving 69 singles and 231 doubles.
That’s silly. There’s no way that 77% of the plays that 3B’s make prevent doubles.
Additionally, the M’s have talked about how Kotchman’s range could allow them to shift Lopez closer to the middle. With Figgins at second, they could shift him closer to the middle, then shift Wilson closer to third, and then shift Lopez closer to the line, and suddenly they don’t have to worry as much about doubles anyway.
by Jeff Sullivan on Feb 24, 2010 9:11 AM PST up reply actions
So let me get this straight
Our positional adjustments are the same for 2B and 3B, and yet defence is inherently more valuable at second?
That is so far over my head that you'd have to ask Tango or one of the other positional adjustment guys
You could probably ask Tango in such a way that he could give an answer without directly stating anything about the Mariners.
by Jeff Sullivan on Feb 24, 2010 9:21 AM PST up reply actions
I have a 101 post about positional adjustments coming up so I've been reading on the subject heavily
I’m not convinced that we’re doing them perfectly. We know that ~average 3Bs are ~average 2Bs, yes? We also know that they’d be about -5 over a season at short. So they have the same positional adjustment.
However, we calculate that adjustment based on plate appearances rather than defensive chances. I had imagined that this had been corrected for, but that would be difficult just using UZR. It also normally doesn’t matter that much, because we’re stuck with having a third baseman as well as a second baseman, so hey, whatevers. It might make some sense to look at standard deviation of UZR/DG (assuming some cutoff) at each position and seeing what it yields – if second is more important, it’ll show up there.
And, are there more putout chances at 2B? Turning double plays, etc.
Please excuse my ignorance if this doesn’t follow with that part of the argument.
by lemonverbena on Feb 24, 2010 9:38 AM PST up reply actions
The double plays at 2B would seem to make the 2B more valuable too since these are worth a lot
by Edgar for Pres on Feb 24, 2010 12:01 PM PST up reply actions
I think you'd ideally perform the position adjustments based on "defensive innings"
Now, that could actual innings, or it could be pro-rated innings where you compare the actual chances of a player with the average number of chances per inning across MLB. And “chances” is plays made plus all the fractions of plays that could have been made that weren’t. So yeah, good luck.
Beyond the Boxscore Not a member? Sign up.
Well a certain number of balls hit to second prevent doubles, since you'll get the occasional smoked line drive or grounder headed towards the gap
but there’s still no way that 70% or whatever of the balls hit to third would be double
by seattlebruin on Feb 24, 2010 9:27 AM PST up reply actions
Me either
It seems intuitive that 2B would be more valuable.
Further thought:
It’s not about the number of plays made, it’s about the marginal plays made. The vast number of plays at second and third will be made 99% of the time by a professional player. These will probably mostly be singles. Then as you get more challenging plays, the run value will increase at third at a higher rate than second, just by the nature of the position. So just because it’s clear that 80% of plays at third don’t prevent doubles it does not follow that third base defence is worth less than 2B defence.
Outfield positioning, too
only the LF can get to a ball hit to third, plus typically a ball hit right down the line is more likely to turn into a double than a grounder into right-center
by seattlebruin on Feb 24, 2010 9:45 AM PST up reply actions
My point: Would the velocity and comparaitvely shorter distance account for an equal number of marginal plays between a second baseman and a third baseman despite the second baseman having so many more total plays?
That the second baseman fields more plays, but the third baseman fields an equal number of difficult plays.
This was my thought, and it seems hit fx could help answer the question
Even in-zone plays, or balls hit close to the fielder would be more difficult. That is, instead of 80% of plays at 2B that any competent professional could handle, maybe it’s only 70% – setting aside the run value of the plays. Or something. It’d be really tough to figure out given that many teams have tended to stick a 30 HR guy out there and tacitly punt on the marginal plays.
Let me see if I understand
So there’s some percentage of plays that are marginal, say 10% at 2B and 15% at 3B (I have no idea what those percentages actually are), and this percentage differs between positions. We’re assuming that every player at a given position has the same chance of recording an out on the easiest , say, 75% of balls hit to them and no chance on the hardest 10%.
It’s the total number of balls that fall in the “marginal” range that we’re really interested in, and that combined with the SLG on those marginal balls determines relative defensive value?
by cowdisciple on Feb 24, 2010 11:35 AM PST up reply actions
Hmm
This makes sense to me for range, but how does throwing ability figure in?
by cowdisciple on Feb 24, 2010 11:54 AM PST up reply actions
Just going off raw RZR the last few years
3B comes up at .707, while 2B comes up at .822. Excludes OOZ and doesn’t account for any year-to-year changes in BIZ data, etc.
by Jeff Sullivan on Feb 24, 2010 10:30 AM PST up reply actions
That's fair, though it'd be really interesting
to see this broken out by different chunks of each zone. Little heat maps of sub-zones.
I’d like to see that anyway, to see what the spread in 3B talent is on bunts/charging plays. 2Bs don’t have a lot of those. If it’s big, and if Figgins isn’t terrible at it, then I think the ‘experience’ angle on this whole thing is a much bigger deal.
There are plenty of charging plays at 2B
Not many bunts though
What do you mean by "charging plays"?
Because 2B rarely are moving towards the mound when they make a play, that would be overlapping the pitchers defensive territory.
The second baseman plays pretty deep
so anything that gets by the pitcher, like a slow-roller, would be a similar play to a bunt. A RH pitcher is in a bad position to field those unless they’re hit right at him.
This was my thought as I went to bed
but I haven’t worked out where to take it next.
by Jeff Sullivan on Feb 24, 2010 9:44 AM PST up reply actions
Zones are a bit arbitrary, which is why 3B ends up with more OOZ plays.
How about looking at number of plays made, on average, by each position?
Beyond the Boxscore Not a member? Sign up.
2B = 393 plays made/162
3B = 300 plays made/162
by Jeff Sullivan on Feb 24, 2010 9:03 AM PST up reply actions
I'm betraying my ignorance here, but...
If 2B is the more important position, because second basemen get more play opportunities than third basemen do, then why do they have the same positional adjustment in WAR calculations? I get that players have historically been able to switch between the two positions fairly easily, but how does this difference in value show up in the value calculations that we all are familiar with?
Not so sure this is just a soon-to-be-forgotten Spring Training experiment
Kirby Arnold implied that the team has been considering this move as far back as December. And it sounds like they have spent some time getting Lopez on board with the idea:
“Figgins is a good guy, and he’s quick. He’s got the range that we need. I’ve got a better arm than Figgins at third base, especially with a diving catch. But it’s no big deal. I’ll wait for the games and see how I feel in the games.”
The Mariners must absolutely, positively be at their strongest up the middle, and Figgins gives that because of his range at second base in a tandem with shortstop Jack Wilson.
So they’ve already told Lopez he will be getting ST game time at third. If the philosophy is to maximize defense up the middle, and they considered this move shortly after signing Figgins (or after failing to move Lopez), then the only thing left is to see if Lopez can make the transition.
Doesn't necessarily rule out the thought process
Arguably a better strategy to not tell him before then.
by lemonverbena on Feb 24, 2010 1:35 PM PST up reply actions
Remember that oddly phrased statement from JackZ
about getting “someone we recently had” to play 3B? Everyone assumed they were talking about Beltre at the time. I think they wanted Figgins at 2B the whole time and were considering moving Lopez to third then.
Hm. Interesting.
The other thing that struck me, too, is that versatility is a hall mark of this team. So one way to inculcate this as a team philosophy is to encourage this among established veterans.
Too, if you talk about it with your vets, it might be a way to keep them engaged and interested during spring training. If it’s fun for them and doesn’t hurt, WHY NOT?
Not necessarily so
The question is, does Lopez at third make him more or less valuable as a trade piece? Let’s assume that he is considered an average glove and slightly above average bat at second. I think the most likely scenraio is that he will also be an avearge defensive 3rd baseman but his bat will be considered sub-par for that position. Even in this case, he may be more marketable because it opens up the possibility of more teams needing him. There is a glut of pretty good second basemen available (just look the free agent market this past year) but the market for 3rd base is less crowded. He would still be wanted by teams needing help at second but he would also be an option for those teams looking for help at 3rd.
Good post, Other Jeff
This pretty much sums up my feelings on the subject. While it may or may not work, it’s at least worth exploring, since I think the switch would play to each player’s strength while minimizing their weaknesses.
Anyone think this is a way for the media/fans to talk about something other than Milton Bradley for 2 minutes?
It hit me this morning that maybe this was a smoke screen in order to let people focus on something else for a day or two while the rest of the team gets settled in to Spring Training.
Yes, I believe it was also for the experiment and seeing if they could market Jose Lopez as a third baseman to other teams. The timing of it (first 30 minutes of practice) suggests to me that there may have been another motivation.
I imagine you're more a parsimony kind of guy
And I agree.
I had similar ponderings...
I’m sure there is ultimately more to it beyond that, but it would be a nice bonus.
Huh
It’s odd because I’m quite sure that Lopez is gone next year and then you’re either blocking Ackley or moving Figgins again. Another thing is we may end up with four lefties in the rotation come summer time. I assume that the number of balls hit to 3B would increase if that were the case.
One way to rationalize this is Lopey’s arm might be a lot better than Figgins’. I remember thinking Chone’s throws were kinda meh, and Lopez has always been a strong thrower. I doubt there’s enough difference between them to merit a move but I didn’t see anyone mention it skimming down the thread.
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Feb 24, 2010 10:21 AM PST reply actions
Well hey Dave already said all those things.
Guess I should chase links first, comment later.
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Feb 24, 2010 11:21 AM PST up reply actions
This potentially improves Lopez's trade value too, does it not?
If he can show he’s competent at both second and third, wouldn’t more teams be interested in him?
Determined, Jonesing Commentor
Unless his move to third implied that the M's (defensive extrodinaires) didn't think he could cut it as a 2B
limiting his value to that of a 3B.
But he's fine at 2B
Unless they’re familiar with the Seattle blogosphere.
Phrased that poorly.
Unless his move to third was interpreted by other teams as Seattle (who is getting all this praise for their defense) viewing Lopez as a poor defensive second baseman.
He’s fine, yes. But if the M’s move him, don’t you think some teams would think twice about sticking him at 2B? Smarter teams would know better, but there are still plenty of dummies.
Yeah, I agree, it would probably cast some doubt.
Plus, he’d be a year removed from playing 2B.

by 
















