Comments on: Hanley, Jacobs, Defense

By: Matt H.

Matt H. — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 18:18:54 +0000

I just wanted to chime in, because I watch nearly every Marlins game and wanted to say from what I’ve seen Jacobs is absolutely just as bad as the statistics say.

I agree Hanley has diificulties with getting the ball out of his glove, and also with accuracy on throws. However it seems like he doesn’t take easier plays seriously sometimes and that hinders his overall performance. I still love Hanley even if he is slightly below average as a SS

By: Peter Jensen

Peter Jensen — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 17:49:03 +0000

It is very relevant that you point out what Cabrera was doing in relation to Ramirez’s numbers at shortstop. However, whatever he did in 2008 didn’t affect Ramirez because Cabrera was playing for the Tigers. Cantu was the third baseman for the Marlins and he had much more range than did Cabrera at third in 2007 or even in 2006. This helped to lower Ramirez’s overall numbers as well in 2008. Ramirez is a below average SS, but his 2007 numbers were adversely affected by Cabrera’s horrendous fielding season at third.

By: Erik

Erik — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 17:28:34 +0000

What makes it “seem” that defense should be a lot more controllable? If anything, I’d expect more variation from year-to-year in defense than in offense.

We can’t always explain the variations like we can with offensive stats, but that doesn’t make “They vary too much” a legitimate criticism of defensive stats.

By: Jermack

Jermack — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:32:10 +0000

Whereas I can’t dispute the conclusions based upon your statistics, I do watch nearly all Marlin games. No, Jacobs is no Keith Hernandez. However it should be noted (and isn’t) that he played hurt all through 2007. He had a bad ankle but played anyway. In 2008, he hurt his wrist and not only missed significant time, but wasn’t up to par for a period when he returned. He’s a little better than the statistics say.

As for Ramiriz, many errors occur because he can’t get the ball out of his glove. It cost the Marlins a game when he didn’t record the last out because of this. Personally, I think the guy’s glove is too darn big for a shortstop.

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:13:35 +0000

I understand that that their will be variation, but defense seems a lot more controllable than offensive and, therefore, should not have violent swings every year. Like I said, I could see a player being +- 6 from a mean every year, but it seems like the stat is +- 9. I don’t think it accurately captures what actually happened during the season.

By: KingKirkpatrick

KingKirkpatrick — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:12:49 +0000

Yes, offensive stats do vary just like UZR can, but with offensive metrics, you can explain the variations. Things such as an increase in BABIP, HR/FB rate, LD%, or various other stats can explain why the player varies offensively from year to year. With defensive stats, you can’t, at least not to the same degree.

I think defensive metrics have a LONG way to to go before they can be as legitimate and stable as offensive metrics. Doesn’t mean they are completely useless, but I’m not sure how much stock you can put in them.

By: Kincaid

Kincaid — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:06:38 +0000

He is not in any way characterizing Ramirez and Jeter as similar. He just mentioned that Hanley has a reputation for being among the worst defensive shortstops in the game, which would be Jeter-esque.

By: JLP

JLP — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:43:14 +0000

This was the situation with Raul Ibanez. Many of his supporters claimed that Raul wasn’t as bad of a fielder as many claimed because he had a respectable fielding percentage. Forget that the guy had zero range.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 13:48:42 +0000

If this were Sports Illustrated I could accept characterizing Ramirez and Jeter as similar, but we expect a little more insight. Jeter is extraordinarily reliable (sure-handed) on balls he gets to (which isn’t very many) and his range is a disaster. Ramirez has league average range, but gives a lot back with his inconsistency, lack of concentration and poor plays on routine balls.

By: sabernar

sabernar — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 12:43:56 +0000

“The issue with Mike Jacobs is range, and the fact that he, well, does not have any. Over the last three years, his range has cost the team an average of -6.0 runs.”

Not to be picky, but that’s worded wrong. If he “cost his team -6 runs” then he boosted his team by 6 runs.