Dustin Ackley's defense

by dnc on Jun 28, 2011 11:14 AM PDT

This is my first FanPost so when I inevitably butcher something, please be gentle.

To me he clearly had the speed, athleticism and baseball IQ to suggest he'd put it together, but everyone bashing his defense through the minors certainly had me a bit concerned about his long term future at second. Obviously, many have been pleasantly surprised with Ackley's defensive acuity for the M's thus far. I haven't read a single report that suggests he hasn't passed the proverbial eye test since his callup (although I'm sure there's one somewhere in the vast internet expanse). For what little it's worth, he's looked quite capable to me as well.

Defensive stats are pretty worthless with a ten game sample, but so are offensive stats and that doesn't stop anyone from noting his team leading OPS or second best OBP. So my curiousity got the best of me and I decided to take a look at his defensive numbers. Do the early returns confirm or deny what we're seeing with our eyes?

Well, with a ginormous SSS disclaimer, the results thus far are at least encouraging. According to Fangraphs, his UZR at this point is 2.0. His UZR/150: 35.7 (!). Obviously, I'm not ready to declare him Dustin Death To Bouncing Things Ackley, but the premature UZR seems to suggest that we could be looking at a legitimate defensive second baseman.

Personally, I don't see any reason to think Ackley can't develop into a +5 to +10 run gloveman at second. That might even be a tad conservative. He may not have traditional second base movements, but he certainly makes second base plays.

I know everyone's already excited about Ackley, but I think he might be more exciting than we even realize.

UPDATE: To those allergic to UZR, Defensive Runs Saved (DRS) has Ackley at 4 above average, which is higher than his UZR. Obviously, the numbers themselves are meaningless at this point, but all available signs seem to point in the same direction.

Tweet Comment 23 comments | 1 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

In addition to the SSS issues

UZR seems to have lost a lot of favor as a stat.

At this point I think all we can say is that, visually, he’s looked good at second. Better than we were led to believe. Whether or not this remains true moving forward is another matter entirely.

by BrianL on Jun 28, 2011 11:23 AM PDT reply actions

I readily admit to not being on the cutting edge of statistical analysis anymore

I’m a casual reader of Fangraphs, but that’s about as far as I go outside of what I pick up here at USSM and LL. I long ago stopped subscribing to BP and haven’t even went to the Hardball Times in ages.

So what is the newest most widely accepted defensive stat? Is Dewan’s +/- the system of choice these days? Something new entirely? Or are we in a second wave of devensive statistic suspicion entirely?

by dnc on Jun 28, 2011 11:27 AM PDT up reply actions

I'm not sure if there is a defensive stat we can trust anymore.

Seems like we’re back to fielding percentage and the eye test.

by BrianL on Jun 28, 2011 11:32 AM PDT up reply actions

Don't forget Gold Glove awards

Derek Jeter kicks ass!

by dnc on Jun 28, 2011 11:34 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

Devensive?

ugh

by dnc on Jun 28, 2011 11:32 AM PDT up reply actions

Matthew has a pretty cool BABIP based team stat that he uses and it seems to be decent to good at telling how a team has performed.

For individuals, though, there is not much that is reliable.

by Kirk on Jun 28, 2011 11:58 AM PDT up reply actions

If UZR really falls out of favor to a large degree, is that going to set-back the sabermetric community to a large degree?

I’m asking honestly here as a person who has used UZR a lot in the past to show arguments for or against a certain player, but one who never fully understood how it was calculated. Is it more of a knock against Fangraphs? Does it give B-R WAR an edge over fWAR? Does it hurt WAR to a large degree in all respects?

follow @casetines

by Kenneth Arthur on Jun 28, 2011 11:46 AM PDT up reply actions

I would say yes to all those based on the question presented

Although I’m still skeptical to what degree UZR has fallen out of favor.

by dnc on Jun 28, 2011 11:47 AM PDT up reply actions

There was a problem found in his calculations last year, I don't know what that was, that was pretty major.

It puts the whole stat in to question because now we see some flucuations that weren’t going on before.

by Kirk on Jun 28, 2011 12:07 PM PDT up reply actions

B-R WAR uses a defensive stat that isn't any better, and is probably worse

The best thing to do here is probably use WAR but replace the defensive input with whatever your own estimate may be of a player’s ability.

by Jeff Sullivan on Jun 28, 2011 12:10 PM PDT up reply actions

For handy reference, StatCorner batter WAR doesn't include defense!

And does include park-adjusted wOBA, playing time, and position adjustment. No base running component though. Curses to MLBAM for making their base running stuff incredibly irritating to code.

by Matthew on Jun 28, 2011 12:12 PM PDT up reply actions 5 recs

Shane Monahan just made huge WAR leaps in my book.

The user formerly known as Phildopip

by Phil Hatzenbuehler on Jun 28, 2011 12:12 PM PDT up reply actions

I think one of the biggest reasons UZR and other metrics aren't looked as at reliable

is because it’s said they take a few years to normalize for any player. By that time, a player’s ability could have changed, and in addition, many players play irregularly or change positions over time. You end up with very few players that you can look at and say these defensive metrics are giving you a good read on their defensive ability.

It’s really a shame HitF/X isn’t made public. Given a few years of working things out, there would probably be a very good defensive analysis tool that could be developed using this technology.

by nathaniel dawson on Jun 28, 2011 8:24 PM PDT up reply actions

I think we're arguing that it's not taking a few years to normalize. It may just be wrong.

...and now I'm here

by CapSea on Jun 28, 2011 9:15 PM PDT up reply actions

It may be.

We’re not hearing a lot of people endorsing the stat recently.

My guess is that it’s giving us some real information, but not giving us everything we need to know. There are probably things it’s leaving out that constitute real contribution that a fielder can make. If you’re not getting all the information, the end result isn’t going to be accurate all the time, which ultimately means unreliability.

That’s a total guess, more like a hunch, really. I’m as confused right now about defensive metrics as I am about women.

by nathaniel dawson on Jun 28, 2011 10:09 PM PDT up reply actions