INFIELDERS

[Hairps]

In the next few days, Jeff Sackmann, creator of MinorLeagueSplits.com, is expected to release an analysis of minor league defense, the first publicly-available look at defense using batted-ball data for minor league players to date. The system used is modeled after David Gassko's Range.

The complete data set should be made available soon. In the meantime, here are the full results for last year's Red Sox minor leaguers (defensive positions 4-9):

POS-IP: Number of Innings Played at Position.
POS-PL: Number of Plays Made.
POS +/-: Number of Plays Made Above/Below Average.
POS/150: +/- Over 150 Games.

MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS: 175 Innings Played at Position.

INFIELDERS

Last	Team	Lev	2B-IP	2B-PL	2B-+-	2B/150	3B-IP	3B-PL	3B-+-	3B/150	SS-IP	SS-PL	SS-+-	SS/150
Bacani	PorEL	AA	916.3	198	-27	-40.3
Chambers	LowNYP	SS	402.7	120	-9	-32.6
Chiang	GrsGCL	RK	217.7	61	2	15.4
Diaz	GrsGCL	RK									275.7	96	11	54.6
Durrington	PawIL	AAA	242	53	-5	-30.7	473	88	-12	-35.2
Farkes	LowNYP	SS					294.3	63	-4	-22.6
Granadillo	GrvSAL	A					877.7	224	27	41.6
Harris	PawIL	AAA	182.7	49	5	35.8
Jeroloman	WilCAR	A+	204.7	66	10	65.4
Jimenez	LowNYP	SS					176.7	49	8	62.9
Khoury	LowNYP	SS									308.7	108	3	13.1
Lara	GrvSAL	A									871.7	267	3	5.1
Lowrie	WilCAR	A+									777.7	230	-4	-7.3
Machado	PawIL	AAA	384	69	-23	-83.7					507.7	110	-32	-86.8
Mercurio	GrvSAL	A	215.7	51	-6	-40.8
Natale	GrvSAL	A	237	61	-2	-12.6
Natale	WilCAR	A+	504	117	-21	-56.6
Nye	PawIL	AAA					333	87	16	66.3
Pedroia	PawIL	AAA	278	76	9	42.7					638.7	184	5	9.6
Pinckney	WilCAR	A+					914.3	169	-11	-16.3
Ramos	GrvSAL	A	528	150	9	23.4
Ramos	WilCAR	A+	241.3	73	7	38.4
Segovia	LowNYP	SS	196.7	57	-6	-43.7					293	93	-6	-30.7
Spann	PorEL	AA					823.3	156	-6	-10.0
Suarez	WilCAR	A+	268.7	66	-7	-38.4					400.3	116	-4	-15.4
Vasquez	GrsGCL	RK	216.3	73	15	92.7
Wilson	PawIL	AAA					350.3	76	2	6.5
Borowiak	PorEL	AA									759	201	2	3.1
De Renne	PorEL	AA									300	78	0	-3.4

OUTFIELDERS

Last	Team	Lev	LF-IP	LF-PL	LF-+-	LF/150	CF-IP	CF-PL	CF-+-	CF/150	RF-IP	RF-PL	RF-+-	RF/150
Allen	PawIL	AAA									240	58	2	8.6
Arias	WilCAR	A+									210.3	43	-3	-21
Bell	GrvSAL	A									260.7	46	-5	-29.6
Bell	LowNYP	SS									184.7	43	10	75.6
Calloway	PawIL	AAA	382.3	89	10	34.4
Corsaletti	WilCAR	A+
Daeges	LowNYP	SS	414.3	55	-8	-27.2
De Renne	PorEL	AA
Durbin	PorEL	AA	595.7	125	8	18.6
Durrington	PawIL	AAA	176.3	39	2	18.7
Ellsbury	PorEL	AA					402	129	19	64.2
Ellsbury	WilCAR	A+					512	162	25	64.9
Engel	LowNYP	SS					494.3	100	-3	-10.1
Fernandez-Oliva	GrsGCL	RK	356	53	-5	-21.4
Hall	GrvSAL	A	258.3	52	8	43.4
Hall	WilCAR	A+									568.7	135	9	22.5
Johnson	GrvSAL	A					181.3	36	-6	-50.4	304.7	68	8	33.4
Johnson	WilCAR	A+									279.7	65	3	15.8
Minges	PorEL	AA	198.3	48	9	62	248	72	4	23
Minges	PawIL	AAA									286.7	76	9	40.2
Moss	PorEL	AA									1106	223	-12	-14.9
Murphy	PorEL	AA					357.7	93	-4	-18
Murphy	PawIL	AAA					533.7	132	-19	-48.
Place	GrsGCL	RK					241	72	10	58
Pritz	WilCAR	A+					592	170	11	25.4
Smyth	LowNYP	SS	234.3	41	5	29.8
Soto	GrvSAL	A									526	96	-8	-21.5
Stern	PawIL	AAA					398	123	10	34.7	256	67	7	35.6
Turner	GrvSAL	A	769	116	-14	-24.7
Van Der Bosch	PorEL	AA	266	48	-4	-21.1
Yema	GrvSAL	A					868.7	209	4	6.4

NOTES: Not yet park-adjusted. Not yet converted to [/tr] Daeges LowNYP SS 414.3 55 -8 -27.2 De Renne PorEL AA Durbin PorEL AA 595.7 125 8 18.6 Durrington PawIL AAA 176.3 39 2 18.7 Ellsbury PorEL AA 402 129 19 64.2 Ellsbury WilCAR A+ 512 162 25 64.9 Engel LowNYP SS 494.3 100 -3 -10.1 Fernandez-Oliva GrsGCL RK 356 53 -5 -21.4 Hall GrvSAL A 258.3 52 8 43.4 Hall WilCAR A+ 568.7 135 9 22.5 Johnson GrvSAL A 181.3 36 -6 -50.4 304.7 68 8 33.4 Johnson WilCAR A+ 279.7 65 3 15.8 Minges PorEL AA 198.3 48 9 62 248 72 4 23 Minges PawIL AAA 286.7 76 9 40.2 Moss PorEL AA 1106 223 -12 -14.9 Murphy PorEL AA 357.7 93 -4 -18 Murphy PawIL AAA 533.7 132 -19 -48. Place GrsGCL RK 241 72 10 58 Pritz WilCAR A+ 592 170 11 25.4 Smyth LowNYP SS 234.3 41 5 29.8 Soto GrvSAL A 526 96 -8 -21.5 Stern PawIL AAA 398 123 10 34.7 256 67 7 35.6 Turner GrvSAL A 769 116 -14 -24.7 Van Der Bosch PorEL AA 266 48 -4 -21.1 Yema GrvSAL A 868.7 209 4 6.4

[finnVT]

Wow, fantastic. Is there a back of the envelope conversion between # plays and # runs?

Kind of amazing how bad Machado looks. Nice that Ellsbury and Place both look so good in CF. And promising for Pedroia, too.

[plnii]

finnVT, on Nov 20 2006, 01:54 PM, said:

Wow, fantastic.  Is there a back of the envelope conversion between # plays and # runs?

Kind of amazing how bad Machado looks.  Nice that Ellsbury and Place both look so good in CF.  And promising for Pedroia, too.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The difference for Pedroia from SS (9.6) to 2B (42.7) was also interesting. Ellsbury has the highest positive differential for any of the high-minors guys (~64).

[underhandtofirst]

Can these values be compared to the 2005 MLB numbers from the article you linked to or are these Runs above average comparable only to minor league players at their level? Is there some sort of MLB equivalent translation?

Machado didnt grade out very well in AAA. Ouch.

Murphy was below average in AA and much worse in AAA if I read these numbers correctly, I thought he was supposed to be a pretty good fielder.

I was interested to see Natale because of his rep as all bat no glove. These numbers support that claim unfortunately

[PedroKsBambino]

Jacoby Ellsbury defense = vintage Andruw Jones defense? I too am curious about how one would convert those numbers.

Awesome work and appreciate seeing the numbers.

[plnii]

underhandtofirst, on Nov 20 2006, 02:03 PM, said:

Can these values be compared to the 2005 MLB numbers from the article you linked to or are these Runs above average comparable only to minor league players at their level?  Is there some sort of MLB equivalent translation?

Machado didnt grade out very well in AAA.  Ouch.

Murphy was below average in AA and much worse in AAA if I read these numbers correctly, I thought he was supposed to be a pretty good fielder.

I was interested to see Natale because of his rep as all bat no glove.  These numbers support that claim unfortunately
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Regarding Murphy, he's something of a mystery to me- the times I've seen him play or listened on the radio, he's made some bad plays...bad routes, just missed catches, etc. But overall people say good things about his defense. My guess is that people overrate him because he has a good arm.

Given that the Sox traded for a guy (Crisp) who is fast but can't throw (after having a similar CF in Damon), I figure that they have studied this enough to conclude that an outfield arm means very little in terms of overall defense (at least at CF).

This post has been edited by plnii: 20 November 2006 - 01:56 PM

[Worst Trade Evah]

Eye-popping numbers for Ellsbury. With that level of defense, how much does Ellsbury need to hit to be better than Crisp? Will Ellsbury be ready in 2007?

Are Gassko's fielding numbers available for recent seasons? I don't see it on his blog. What's the difference between that and the BP numbers? How about Bill James style range numbers, following his chapter in the Dewan book?

This post has been edited by Worst Trade Evah: 20 November 2006 - 02:33 PM

[bowiac]

Worst Trade Evah, on Nov 20 2006, 02:31 PM, said:

Eye-popping numbers for Ellsbury. With that level of defense, how much does Ellsbury need to hit to be better than Crisp? Will Ellsbury be ready in 2007?
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If Crisp hits like he did in 2005, that's about 92 runs he creates with his bat.
If Ellsbury hits like Crisp did in 2006(ie not very well), then that's about 65 runs he creates with his bat.

So Crisp is 27 runs ahead offensively. If Crisp's UZR of -14 runs holds up, then that drops the gap to 13 runs.

Thus if Ellsbury is at least 13 runs better than average defensively, and can hit .264/.317/.385, then he's a better player than Crisp is in CF.

However, if Ellsbury's +64.9 plays / 150 pace keeps up in the majors(unlikely), then it's not close between them. 65 additional plays made in the outfield translates to something like 39 runs I believe. If that holds up, then Ellsbury could hit like Dontrelle Willis (.172/.243/.344) and still be 16 runs better. He would need to hit like Josh Beckett did in 2005(.153/.239/.254) to make the two comparable.

More or less, with that level of defense, you don't need to hit. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that Ellsbury won't be 65 plays better than average defensively in the majors.

This post has been edited by bowiac: 20 November 2006 - 02:50 PM

[underhandtofirst]

bowiac, on Nov 20 2006, 02:49 PM, said:

More or less, with that level of defense, you don't need to hit. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that Ellsbury won't be 65 plays better than average defensively in the majors.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The more I think about it the number for Jacoby just doesnt seem right. Over 150 games 65 extra plays means 1 play every 2.3 games (or .43 per game). Last year Carlos Beltran had 372 total chances (357 po, 13 a) in 136 games for an average of 2.73 per game. Coco Crisp had 250 chances in 103 games for an average of 2.43 per game. Multiply that out to 150 games for each (409.5 and 364.5) that's a difference of 45 plays. Ellsbury would be 50% better than the difference between Crisp and Beltran at least in terms of plays made. Wow.

That's probably oversimplifying it because I didnt make any adjustments for FB vs GB staffs, etc.

[Hairps]

Quote

Is there a back of the envelope conversion between # plays and # runs?

Back of the envelope? For some reason I've always used DefensivePlays*.6=Runs. I have no real recollection as to why, though.

So, 15 Plays Above Average*.6 = 9 Runs. Or something.

Quote

Can these values be compared to the 2005 MLB numbers from the article you linked to or are these Runs above average comparable only to minor league players at their level?

No, only to minor league players at their level.

Quote

Is there some sort of MLB equivalent translation?

Not yet.

[Rudy Pemberton]

But, you have to remember that Ellsbury's # is being compared to his peers, many of whom will never sniff the majors. So, I'm not so sure you can look at it the same way as you would two major leaguers. Would be interesting to see how Ellsbury compares to other top CF prospects in the minors, right?

[bowiac]

Hairps, on Nov 20 2006, 03:10 PM, said:

Back of the envelope? For some reason I've always used DefensivePlays*.6=Runs. I have no real recollection as to why, though.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's what I had in my mind as well when I ran the Crisp vs. Ellsbury comps, and I don't really remember where it came from either.

[Hairps]

Quote

Would be interesting to see how Ellsbury compares to other top CF prospects in the minors, right?

Lastings Milledge was +5 in CF over 464 Innings Played in Norfolk (AAA).

[Rudy Pemberton]

Nice, that is encouraging. I would have to imagine that park effects and the skills of a team's pitchers are fairly large factors here, no? Do we know how the other CF's on Portland played, or how opponents did (just in games vs. Ellsbury)?

These numbers are so strong (and they support what we've heard from scouts) that one can't help but be impressed, frankly.

This post has been edited by Rudy Pemberton: 20 November 2006 - 03:53 PM

[plnii]

Rudy Pemberton, on Nov 20 2006, 04:49 PM, said:

Nice, that is encouraging. I would have to imagine that park effects and the skills of a team's pitchers are fairly large factors here, no? Do we know how the other CF's on Portland played, or how opponents did (just in games vs. Ellsbury)?

These numbers are so strong (and they support what we've heard from scouts) that one can't help but be impressed, frankly.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Murphy was -18 at Portland, so we have that as a comparison.

Pritz was +25 at Carolina- I have no idea what his defensive rep is.

Edit - Soxprospects calls Pritz "Speedy centerfielder with great range" so +25 is consistent with that.

This post has been edited by plnii: 20 November 2006 - 04:16 PM

[xjack]

Fascinating that Murphy is this bad. Defense was supposed to be one of his calling cards, wasn't it?

[PedroKsBambino]

Stern was +34 in PAW. That gives us a bit of an idea of what that looks like, as we saw Stern for a while between the early season and WBC though not enough to really have a good sample for him at the MLB level.

Of course, that's an additional level away from Ellsbury but it's something.

What we need is a CF who was called up in 2006 and had roughly half the season in the minors and the majors...then we can look at metrics from both. Chris Young, maybe, but he missed a bunch of time early-season in the minors.

This post has been edited by PedroKsBambino: 20 November 2006 - 04:13 PM

[amarshal2]

xjack, on Nov 20 2006, 04:10 PM, said:

Fascinating that Murphy is this bad. Defense was supposed to be one of his calling cards, wasn't it?
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Murphy botched a couple of balls during his stay in Boston. He didn't look very good in Fenway despite being named the 2005 Red Sox minor league defensive player of the year (an award Ellsbury won this year). His reads looked solid but his range was so/so. If I was forced to give an evaluation I would say he's average at a corner and below-average/passable in center. Ellsbury's on the other hand, his stats back-up the anecdotal evidence which ranges from pretty good to f@#$*ng unbelievable.

This post has been edited by amarshal2: 20 November 2006 - 04:22 PM

[Eric Van]

Hairps, on Nov 20 2006, 03:10 PM, said:

Back of the envelope? For some reason I've always used DefensivePlays*.6=Runs. I have no real recollection as to why, though.

It's 0.8, not 0.6. A little bit more for an OF (that value is for a 1B).

You can get this from linear weights or from a formula like Runs Created or my Contextual Runs. For instance, p. 26 of Tango's The Book has a single as .475 runs and an out in play as -.299.

These minor league numbers clearly show much more variance than MLB numbers, since the latter pool has been selected already for a higher level of minimal competence.

In another year we should have a set of formulas to translate these numbers from level to level. That will be very interesting.

[OCD SS]

Rudy Pemberton, on Nov 20 2006, 03:19 PM, said:

But, you have to remember that Ellsbury's # is being compared to his peers, many of whom will never sniff the majors. So, I'm not so sure you can look at it the same way as you would two major leaguers. Would be interesting to see how Ellsbury compares to other top CF prospects in the minors, right?
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ellsbury looks like the defensive equivalent of a player who puts up a 1.000+ OPS in the minors; he might not continue at that level in the majors, but he's still a good bet to be an excellent major leaguer.