Carlos Guillen Holds Forth on Jack

by Vlad on Sep 19, 2007 11:43 AM EDT Comment 9 comments

The Tigers' shortstop is thinking about the future.

"If they're going to get a shortstop, it had better be a Gold Glove," Guillen said before the Tigers lost 7-4 to Cleveland and moved closer to their offseason. "I don't have a problem with first base, but if you bring in a shortstop, it has to be a really good shortstop.

"It had better be the best shortstop in the big leagues."

Who could that be? Guillen mentioned a few names (Edgar Renteria, Omar Vizquel, Orlando Cabrera), and he pointedly didn't mention Jack Wilson, the Pittsburgh shortstop the Tigers tried to trade for on July 31. He later talked about shortstops who "hit make $7 million and hit .250," an obvious reference to Wilson. -Michigan Live/Booth Newspapers

He also had another idea about a possible solution:

"I heard a lot of rumors about Jack Wilson," Guillen said, referring to the Pittsburgh shortstop. "I don't know what his numbers are. He didn't win a Gold Glove."

If not Wilson, whom would Guillen endorse?

"Cesar Izturis," Guillen said of the Pirates' other shortstop, who will become a free agent this off-season if Pittsburgh declines a club option. "Omar Vizquel. He's got 11 Gold Gloves." -The Detroit Free Press

Guillen's responses are understandable, human... and pretty significantly misguided, if he thinks that Cesar Izturis is the Tigers' solution to anything. It must be galling to him to have the team try and shove him out of the way when he's carrying the offense with a .857 OPS. To preserve his ego, he needs for his replacement to have a reputation as a defensive god, even if that reputation isn't based on actual merit.

It's an interesting situation, and also a good illustration of why you should let the players play, and leave the front office work to the GM.

0 recs | Comment 9 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Genius

Carlos Guillen has a brilliant baseball mind and the Detroit front office should pay close attention to him.

Pass it along.

by WTM on Sep 19, 2007 12:58 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Yes, trade Isatabat to the Tigers!

Gotta keep Guillen happy. Jack Wilson is a better fielding shortstop than all of those mentioned by Guillen except for Vizquel

If we ever need to locate the chief source of really dumb managers, coaches, scouts and upper management in MLB, we should first look toward the idiot players who assess player value by awards won, salary and other dumb stuff.

by steve_z on Sep 19, 2007 12:58 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

That is absolutely true

I can't count the number of times I have heard and read players rave about a signing of or a trade for a guy that any fan who follows the game closely, much less a talent evaluator, thinks is a joke. Bill Madlock raved that George Hendrick would guarantee the Pirates the 1985 division title. Similar idiocies were uttered about Pat Meares, Derek Bell and Matt Morris. Many players were fine with Littlefield because they couldn't evaluate talent any better than he could. They don't follow drafts or Rule 5 transactions, so that eluded them as well. All the players know is that they are not winning, but few of them will ever admit the reason. They want more good players? To replace whom? In many cases, the guys who tell the media that they want more good players are the ones who would (or should) lose their jobs to those same players.

by RichieHebner on Sep 19, 2007 3:08 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Omar Vizquel?

He's won at least two Gold Gloves (probably more) based entirely on his rep, and I bet he gets another one this year. Here are three MLB shortstops with their RF/9 and DPs the past five years:

Shortstop A:

4.93 110
4.96 87
5.08 126
4.83 129
4.67 104

Shortstop B:

4.92 36
4.74 103
4.38 96
4.45 56
4.96 71

Shortstop C:

4.72 85
4.17 86
4.60 80
4.31 91
5.19 59

Whose glove would you want out there?
.
.
.
.
.
.
The three are A) Jack Wilson, B) Adam Everett and C) Omar Vizquel. The fact Omar keeps winning Gloves reiterates RichieHebner's point: The people closest to the game are not always the best judges of talent.

Plus, Omar is 40 years old, and hasn't had an OPS+ as high as 100 since 2002. If Omar has any contract left, my guess is Brian Sabean would be as happy to dump him on somebody as he was to unload Matt Morris on you-know-who.

by bucdaddy on Sep 19, 2007 3:52 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Defensive statistics

Range factor is marginally OK (but would tend to reward shortstops who play behind groundball staffs and punish those behind flyball staffs), but straight double plays? Without adjusting for playing time or baserunners allowed?

Let's try RZR, which at least attempts to measure the percentage of balls hit to a player's zone that he turns into outs. 2004-2007:

Wilson: .851 ..861 .823 .823
Everett: .877 .860 .891 .869
Vizquel: .823 .859 .869 .890

by matskralc on Sep 19, 2007 6:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, yeah ...

I know about the problems with standard fielding metrics, and maybe I cherry picked some numbers to make my case. But they're not bad numbers.

However, just on the entirely subjective side: There's no way you can tell me Vizquel, at 40, is a better shortstop than two VERY VERY GOOD defensive shortstops more than a decade younger. That's beside the fact RZR shows Wilson beating him twice and Everett beating him three times. Yet Omar keeps getting the glove.

This is not to deny Vizquel was at one time an excellent shortstop, is still pretty damn good. But does he have to die for them to vote the Glove to somebody else?

by bucdaddy on Sep 19, 2007 8:06 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

One other thing ...

Mats got me looking at the RZR leaders the past four years, and I think this is where the age difference shows up. Wilson is second in the majors in OOZ this year, was 11th in 2006 (with Everett third), was seventh in 2005 (with Everett second) and ninth in 2004. Vizquel is annually finishing middle of the pack or lower. I think this is evidence Wilson and Everett (and a lot of other guys) have better range than Vizquel. I would guess Omar makes up for it with years of knowledge about positioning.

by bucdaddy on Sep 19, 2007 8:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The thing is...

Looking at just the raw OOZ totals is going to be biased in the same way double plays, errors, or total chances would be. Still have to control for the amount of groundballs the staff gives up, still have to control for handedness of the staff, you'd even have to control of positioning as you (sort-of tongue-in-cheekly, I think!) said.

This is why I generally hate defensive statistics and just kind of avoid talking defense as much as I can. I can't trust my eyes, and there are very few numbers I can trust instead.

by matskralc on Sep 19, 2007 9:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well ...

It wouldn't matter how many balls were hit outside your zone, it wouldn't matter the handedness of the pitcher, if you didn't get to ANY of them, would it? This is a sort of "bonus" measure, balls you're not supposed to get to at all but you do, right?

Nevertheless, I get your point about your last sentence. Those things are true, or truly hard.

by bucdaddy on Sep 19, 2007 9:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs