McCutchen's defense

by ElDuce on Nov 17, 2009 12:36 AM EST Comment 31 comments

I saw that Rob Neyer had posted his take on the McCutchen vs. Coghlan debate and was a bit surprised when I saw this part:

Knowing that, this would have been an awful choice if McCutchen had played well in center field ... but it's not clear that he did. Last winter, Baseball America wrote about McCutchen, "He has outstanding speed that makes him a basestealing threat and a potential Gold Glover. He has outstanding instincts and an average arm in center field."

You give me a Gold Glover with McCutchen's hitting stats and I'll give you a Rookie of Year, even if he plays on 108 games. But McCutchen doesn't seem to have played Gold Glove defense in 2009. According to Ultimate Zone Rating, he was average at best. According to the Fielding Bible data, he was one of the worst center fielders in the majors.

I looked up the numbers and sure enough, there, towards the bottom of the list, was Andrew McCutchen with a -17. Not quite the ridiculous -37 from McLouth last year, but pretty bad, and far worse than I expected. UZR/150 didn't have him nearly as bad at -1.0, but still not nearly as good as you would hope for from a player like McCutchen.

Interestingly, both measures had the aforementioned McLouth coming out as a decent CF in the positive range. Maybe I'm just reacting to a small sample, but is it possible that coaching/positioning somehow plays with these numbers for Pirate center fielders?

0 recs | Comment 31 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

He did

mistrack/misplay the ball several times that I saw, but it’s his first ML season and he’s still only 22. Also with Moss/Jones/Millidge, it’s not like there was a lot of help coming his way, so he probably had to cover quite a bit of ground to compensate for them.

by DialedtoGiles on Nov 17, 2009 1:16 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Where did you find the Fielding Bible data for this year?

by Adam Reynolds on Nov 17, 2009 7:16 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I actually asked someone who subscribes to Bill James Online for the data. Hopefully they’ll put it up on the free site at some point.

by ElDuce on Nov 17, 2009 12:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

UZR doesn't agree.

They have him as an average glove in CF.

by Vlad on Nov 17, 2009 9:20 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Doesn't this seem to be the problem with defensive metrics?

You can find ten systems that will rate McCutchen as one of the best in the league, and probably just as many that will rate him as awful. Seems like we’ve had similar discussions about Bay, McLouth, Cedeno, Luigi, even Freddy. Not sure what to make of all of these analyses.

by jlk9697 on Nov 17, 2009 9:20 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

No, the problem with defensive metrics is that you need to look at a lot of games to get a large enough sample size (often over a couple years if you want to be sure). ~100 games isn’t enough to come up with an extremely meaningful conclusion about McCutchen’s defense based on most metrics.

by wickethewok on Nov 17, 2009 12:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

For Example

If you look at McLouth’s UZR scores for center field, he was well above average in his first year (21 games), fell to well below average in year two, got worse, stayed bad, then improved dramatically. For his career, he shows up as below average, but one could easily be mislead by the data for any one year.

Viva Clemente!

by Roberto on Nov 17, 2009 5:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm glad you brought this up

I wanted to make a post of this a while ago.

My one problem with some commenters on here is that they sometime cherry pick players stats based on how they feel towards the player, especially defensive statistics.

After we traded Nate/he won the GG, everybody jumped on the bus about his poor defensive ratings. However, the same people are simply overlooking Cutch’s poor defensive ratings and assuming he’s a future GG himself. Just don’t get it.

by Danatural08 on Nov 17, 2009 12:28 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Nate graded out below-average in numerous systems, not just one...

…and those grades corresponded fairly closely to his poor defensive reputation coming up through the minors (which was the primary reason the Littlefield-era front office preferred Duffy as the CF of the future). As such, the result passed the smell test.

The same is not true for Cutch’s result.

by Vlad on Nov 17, 2009 12:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Good Point

Its also reasonable for Cutch to improve. It just makes me a little nervous when I see those negative ratings when he(along w Nate last year) looked pretty good defensively through my eyes. Or maybe I’m just getting more skeptical of my own baseball scouting ability, and become more analytical since becoming a regular on this site

by Danatural08 on Nov 17, 2009 12:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Reputation

Having a negative impression of McCutchen’s defense from the (very few) games I saw him, I think reputation might have a lot to do with it. He’s not a butcher by any means, but minor league defense as far as I know is not reliably quantified. I’m guessing his makeup speed has wowed many in the smalls, and covered up most route-running deficiencies. I think if you’re fast, look the part, and field the balls that come to you, your reputation is good.

I do think what we know about the Pirates’ aggressive positioning of their CF might skew the numbers though.

by azibuck on Nov 17, 2009 4:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Can anyone tell me...

if the Fielding Bible takes positioning into consideration when determining it’s scores. Is the plus-minus system similar to UZR in that it rates how many balls a player gets to?

by Slick1 on Nov 17, 2009 4:18 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

My understanding is...

and this may be wrong…that a player gets a plus for a play he makes that at least one player at his position did not make…and a minus for each play that he doesn’t make that at least one other player did make. I’ve seen nothing would indicate that it is based on bins (charted areas of the field) like UZR.

by Thunder on Nov 17, 2009 5:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The Fielding Bible Awards...

themselves…are actually voted on by a 10 Man/group panel. Some of the names on that panel are Bill James, Peter Gammons, Rob Neyer, Joe Posnanski, John Dewan, Tom Tango’s Fan Poll.

A few personal views of the voting…results here. Go to the “The Voting” drop down and select “Complete Vote Tally”.

1B…Pujols pretty consistently rated #1…with 95 points out of a possible 100 (10-9-8 scale)…Adam LaRoche…despite his reputation by some as a good defensive player was ranked 15th.

2B…Hill…Pedroia and Utley were within 3 points of each other…Freddy with ZERO votes…so no one had him in their top 10.

3B…Zimmerman had a bit of a lead on the others that were competitive (Beltre, Figgins, Longoria). Out of a possible 100 points…Andy LaRoche had 5 points…so at BEST…one out of the 10 in the panel could have had him as the 6th best defensive 3B.

SS…Jack beat Tulo by 1 point…yet had 5 1st place votes vs. Tulo’s 2. The Tom Tango Fan Poll had Jack 6th (all other votes 4th or better). Maybe a lack of Pirates/Mariners fans voting??

LF…Carl Crawford with 99 points of a possible 100. Who got the other 1st place vote?? Nyjer…on the Tom Tango Fan Poll!! So…can’t be straight Pirate votes on that poll. Interestingly…Nyjer didn’t get voted for CF…guess it was because he had 61 starts in LF, and 54 in CF…that they would only vote him in LF…even though a lot of the national highlights were of him in CF.

CF…Franklin Gutierrez….got 97 out of a 100. Far and away the best CF. Rankings for this position were a LOT more scatter-shot than any other position. The 2 first place votes that Gutierrez didn’t get…went to Torii Hunter (Hal Richman) who finished 9th in the voting…and Chris Young (Bill James) who finished 10th in the voting. Cutch had 1 point…which means one voter had him 10th. Carlos Gomez….the guy in the JJ Hardy trade…actually finished 2nd in the voting.

RF…Ichiro with 93 of 100 points…Hunter Pence actually got 3 1st place votes and was the only other really in the running. Brandon Moss actually got 1 10th place vote.

C…Yadier Molina with 96 of 100 points (Bill James actually had him 4th). Points went 23 players deep…no Pirates.

P…Mark Buehrle…with 86 points of 100. My surprise…tied for 8th…Zach Duke…who actually received top 10 votes from 8 out of the 10 on the panel.

by Thunder on Nov 17, 2009 6:18 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Does that seem right for Freddy? I agree that he’s probably not one of the ten best 2Bs in the game, but there’s no way there’s 20 better 2Bs than him. UZR has him +11 2 of the last 3 years, and just about 0 last year, when he struggled in the field. It’s interesting to me that Jack (finally) got the love while his erstwhile DP partner got completely snubbed.

Oh well. Nice news for Zach – always nice to have pitchers who can field.

by JRoth95 on Nov 17, 2009 6:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

UZR vs +-

IMO, while UZR is a completely logical way of grading defense, the +- system is completely subjective. First of all, if you BELIEVE someone (like Pujols) is the best first baseman, then any marginal play that he did not make you are more inclined to believe that NO player could have made that. Similarly, if you see Adam LaRoche miss that same play, you think “Albert could have made that” and grade accordingly.

I put much more stock into UZR. That grades things that actually happened, just like batting average. We all realize now that BABIP involves some luck, but when you look at AVG or OBP, you feel like you can get a rough understanding of how likely that player is to not make an out.

Also, we tend to imagine that defense is an unchanging skill, and defenders who can make a play should make that play all the time. But that’s not reality. Fielders make good reads and bad reads all the time, just like batters do on pitches.

There’s no reason McLouth couldn’t be below average one year, then work on being better and actually become better the next year.

by MarkInDallas on Nov 17, 2009 8:12 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I agree witht UZR overall...

but I don’t think it does a good job in evaluating 1B defense. Yes, range is important. But equally as important is a 1B ability to scoop balls in the dirt, stretch for a ball and throw the ball to 2B during a pick off or turning two. It is my understanding the UZR doesn’t take any of these things into consideration. If I’m correct than I don’t believe that the UZR system is an accurate measure of 1B defensive abilities.

by Slick1 on Nov 17, 2009 10:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

UZR doesn't pretend to be a measure of a guy's ability to scoop

It’s not incorporated into the formula at all. As such, I think it’s less a flaw than a designed limitation.

It’s tough to pull nails or cut lumber with a screwdriver, but that doesn’t make a screwdriver a bad tool.

by Vlad on Nov 18, 2009 8:46 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree...

All I meant was, in respect to the 1B position (and probably the Catcher), that you can’t look at UZR numbers alone and say X is a better defensive 1B than Y. Although, as you point out, UZR is just a tool so it is not wise to use it alone as an end-all be-all when evaluating any player. Good point!

by Slick1 on Nov 18, 2009 1:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh, yes, very true.

And worth keeping in mind.

by Vlad on Nov 18, 2009 3:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think it's a question of pretense

It’s a question of what it’s for. Saying that Player X is a good defensive 1B is only incidentally about range, and primarily about receiving throws. I understand (I guess) why UZR doesn’t look at that, but it means that it’s a near-useless stat for that position. As a standalone number for 1Bs, it tells you about as much as RBI for hitters. I’d almost rather they didn’t bother for 1B and C.

by JRoth95 on Nov 18, 2009 3:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I kind of like seeing range numbers for 1B.

Among other things, it’s a useful secondary factor when considering aging trends for a particular player, or the odds of him successfully managing a position shift.

But if you don’t like them, to each his own.

by Vlad on Nov 18, 2009 3:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Some work on 1B ability to rereceive throws:

So twelve runs—a little more than one win—is a rough estimate of the difference between the best and worst first basemen in this one particular aspect of their fielding skill.

Pittsburgh Lumber Co.
http://mvn.com/pittsburghlumberco

by MBandi on Nov 18, 2009 4:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

OK

And total span of UZR/150 from best to worst is…12.4! What are the odds?

This suggests that UZR captures about half of the defensive talent of a 1B; unfortunately, there’s no (widely-accepted) way to know whether the two skills are aligning or not: Kendry Morales could be 24 runs better than Billy Butler, or they could be exactly equal.

by JRoth95 on Nov 18, 2009 4:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Reading the comment to that article

Suggests that 12 runs is probably high, but maybe not by too much. It certainly appears to be on the same order as range per UZR.

by JRoth95 on Nov 18, 2009 4:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Holy Cow!

I just took a closer look at the ranked UZR/150 for 1Bs. Pujols is more or less in the middle, at just 0.8, sandwiched between… Howard and Fielder! What are the odds?

I’m agnostic on the merits of this measurement, but it’s hilarious either way.

by JRoth95 on Nov 18, 2009 5:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That's probably the only circumstance...

…in which being sandwiched between Howard and Fielder isn’t hazardous to your health.

by Vlad on Nov 19, 2009 9:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

As for McCutchen...

I agree that he was probably overall average this year. He made some great plays, and he also missed some reads. There were times when he could have dove for balls but played it safe.

It will be interesting to see what happens to Nyjer next year. If he continues to hit like crazy, then it’s going to be an interesting debate as to whether the Pirates should have kept him to play CF.

I think it’s most likely that Milledge is the better player to have for the Pirates, but we’ll see how it shakes down.

by MarkInDallas on Nov 17, 2009 8:20 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I thought that Andrew McCutchen

was outstanding in his rookie season-better than advertised.

I look forward to watching him in 2010 and beyond.

by patthatt on Nov 17, 2009 8:26 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

McCutchen's

defensive potential is definitely elite. The speed and athleticism are certainly there. He doesn’t posses any glaring errors with his glove as far as the actual act of ball hitting leather and remaining in said leather.

Last year, McCutchen didn’t live up to that potential. He did not make full use of his speed, taking poor routes to balls at time. He also rarely made the spectacular play (not necessarily a problem), often letting balls drop and preventing doubles or triples, rather than laying out for a diving catch.

Basically, it was his first season. He showed some inexperience that limited his outstanding tools. Give him another year to get acclimated to CF at PNC and the speed of the big league game before getting too worried, or calling him an average fielder.

by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Nov 18, 2009 2:10 PM EST reply actions 0 recs