A simple explanation for the success of the Pirates

by Roberto on Jul 13, 2011 2:57 PM EDT

What jolted my thinking was an excellent article about the Brewers by Rany Jazayerli. It's called "Undervalued Sluggers: Can the Milwaukee Brewers play winning baseball without playing defense?" I recommend it.

In the article he talks about the Atlanta Braves going from worst in '90 to first in '91. They did it by improving defense.

In 1990, the Braves ranked dead last in defensive efficiency; their defense turned only 69.8 percent of balls in play into outs. In 1991, that number jumped to 73.4 percent — best in the National League.

I wonder what happened to the defensive efficiency of the Pirates? Well, in 2010 they converted 69.8 percent of balls in play into outs. Eerie, isn't it. So far in 2011, they are converting 71.6 percent of balls in play into outs.That's 12th in the majors. FYI, the Cubs are 30th, Astros are 29th, Brewers are 24th, Cards are 18th, and the Reds are 4th.

Hmm. Maybe getting Carlos Pena would be a good idea after all. His defense played a role in moving the Rays from clank to crisp on defense.

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of the managing editor (Charlie) or SB Nation. FanPosts are written by Bucs Dugout readers.

Tweet Comment 21 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Carlos Pena

Pena was the 1B for the Rays in 2007, when they were in last place, as well as in 2008. I don’t think he really had much to do with their defensive improvement in ‘08, which was mostly the result of moving Upton to the OF full-time, calling up Longoria, moving Iwamura to 2B, acquiring Bartlett, and replacing Delmon Young with an assortment of guys who weren’t terrible defenders (Jonny Gomes excepted).

by epoc on Jul 13, 2011 3:37 PM EDT reply actions

this

there is a whole lot more the rays defensive turn around then carlos pena.

" Lord Stanley, scratch thier names on your fabled cup" Mike Lange june 12, 2009

by oldtimehockey09 on Jul 13, 2011 3:42 PM EDT up reply actions

Well yes

“Played a role” meant that. They only upgraded at third, short, left, second, first, and right. But are you objecting to the idea that upgrading at one position usually upgrades the whole defense.

Viva Clemente!

by Roberto on Jul 13, 2011 5:04 PM EDT up reply actions

when its first base ...kinda sorta

short,second, center seem to see the most action as far as feilding situations go. although i havent looked at the stats on balls put in play or anything like that…

" Lord Stanley, scratch thier names on your fabled cup" Mike Lange june 12, 2009

by oldtimehockey09 on Jul 13, 2011 5:55 PM EDT up reply actions

"only upgraded"

at 6 out of 8 positions?

“only?”

I’m sorry, I don’t understand what you are saying

Free your ass and your mind will follow.

by cocktailsfor2 on Jul 13, 2011 7:20 PM EDT up reply actions

Only upgraded at 6 out of 8 positions

Might be ironic, don’t you think. And oldtimehockey is right, short, second, center get the most fielding opportunities. But, most systems can’t cope with catching.

Viva Clemente!

by Roberto on Jul 13, 2011 8:48 PM EDT up reply actions

Gotcha

Arial is not a good font for irony.

Free your ass and your mind will follow.

by cocktailsfor2 on Jul 13, 2011 8:56 PM EDT up reply actions

im taking this and putting on meh wall

someone said i was right =p

" Lord Stanley, scratch thier names on your fabled cup" Mike Lange june 12, 2009

by oldtimehockey09 on Jul 13, 2011 9:51 PM EDT up reply actions

not to mention

that he plays for those same cubs that are dead last in defensive efficiency

by johnnycuff on Jul 13, 2011 8:02 PM EDT up reply actions

castro

nuff said

" Lord Stanley, scratch thier names on your fabled cup" Mike Lange june 12, 2009

by oldtimehockey09 on Jul 13, 2011 8:15 PM EDT up reply actions

If I recall correctly the year the Rays turned around and made the WS they were near the top in D as well

theres some validity to that oh and i think a certain Carlos was on that team too??

by pton16 on Jul 13, 2011 4:21 PM EDT reply actions

The Pirates are also 7th in the MLB in both UZR and UZR/150 if you like that stat too.

by Schide on Jul 13, 2011 4:54 PM EDT reply actions

Grrr, not again

The 1990-91 Braves did the same thing as the 2007-8 Rays. They remade their entire bullpen.

And scored 67 more runs.

And improved their defense.

The ’91 Braves pitchers gave up 98 (ninety-eight!) fewer walks than the ’90 Braves. And 11 fewer HR.

Also, it’s totally unfair to imply Steve Avery at 20yo in 1990 was the same pitcher he was in 1991. Pitchers do develop, and not just because of the defense behind them.

by azibuck on Jul 13, 2011 5:03 PM EDT reply actions

Grr?

I’m with you on the objection that the Braves scored more runs.

But are you sure that having 100 fewer base runners had no impact on walks and home runs? That’s what the Braves’ numbers mean.

Viva Clemente!

by Roberto on Jul 13, 2011 5:28 PM EDT up reply actions

I'm sorry, what?

Not sure what you’re saying.

And “Grrr” because I had some long arguments when the Rays defense was cited before on BD as “the” reason for their turnaround.

by azibuck on Jul 14, 2011 10:14 AM EDT up reply actions

Defense! Who knew? Offense! OMG!

Sabremetrics again explains what happened, as opposed to predicting what will happen.

Lino Donoso

by Lino Donoso on Jul 13, 2011 8:28 PM EDT reply actions

I suspect defensive efficiency does something useful.

Even if you go to every game, will you notice that 40 extra plays get made over the course of 162 games? If so, you’re a better man than I. Most plays get made even on bad defensive teams, The Cubs convert 69% of batted balls into outs; the Reds convert 72%. You knew that? Then I applaud you. Hats off sir.

Viva Clemente!

by Roberto on Jul 13, 2011 8:56 PM EDT up reply actions

I think what he's saying is that the idea of defensive efficiency is legitimate,

and that the surprised reaction most people will have to this idea is disappointing. Defense does win ballgames, and often makes up for subpar offense or pitching. To paraphrase Bull Durham, the difference between a .250 AVG and a .300 AVG is one seeing-eye grounder a week. The difference between those two averages against, then, is one diving stop on a ground ball a week per player. Defense does win games and is an overlooked component to the question of why peripheral statistics don’t always account for reality. I think what Lino is saying is that sabermetric stats spend an awful lot of time explaining themselves, rather than analyzing and predicting the game of baseball. In this instance, I think he agrees with you. But I don’t know.

by rennais94 on Jul 13, 2011 10:17 PM EDT up reply actions

Thank you, thank you very much.

Lino Donoso

by Lino Donoso on Jul 13, 2011 10:28 PM EDT up reply actions

How come

when a batter is hitting over his head, we often look at his BABIP rate and if it’s high, we assume he’ll come back to earth eventually. If a pitcher is pitching over his head, we often look at his BABIP rate and, if it’s low, assume he’ll come back to earth eventually.

But if a team’s fielding efficiency rate goes rom 69 to 72, we assume that shows legitimate improvement, rather than maybe there are just more balls being hit right at our fielders this year than last?

If hitters and pitchers can be “lucky” and “unlucky,” why not fielders too?

by bucdaddy on Jul 14, 2011 2:45 PM EDT reply actions