*Nerd Alert* - More fuel for the defensive dumpster fire from the fielding bible

[Stradling]

31 minutes ago, Make Angels Great Again said:

 

So if I understand right, to really over simplify it: the team's standard DRS is crap because they're not getting to balls outside the conventional positioning as much as they should, and the IP is good because they're simply having to range far off their crappy positioning fairly often?

What my understanding is they are asked to shift away from the actual tendency of the hitters. 

[Inside Pitch]

36 minutes ago, Make Angels Great Again said:

 

So if I understand right, to really over simplify it: the team's standard DRS is crap because they're not getting to balls outside the conventional positioning as much as they should, and the IP is good because they're simply having to range far off their crappy positioning fairly often?

Easiest way to explain it is that they are consistently starting the play AWAY from the ball....   

[Docwaukee]

5 hours ago, Make Angels Great Again said:

 

So if I understand right, to really over simplify it: the team's standard DRS is crap because they're not getting to balls outside the conventional positioning as much as they should, and the IP is good because they're simply having to range far off their crappy positioning fairly often?

pretty much.   they get to a lot of stuff relative to where they start. But they don't get to much because of where they start.  

[Fish Oil]

This is the first argument I've read that makes me think Maddon may be a bad manager.
Regardless of who is behind this, Maddon is the manager, and he should have put a stop to this nonsense a long time ago. 

[AngelsLakersFan]

I just wonder how many seasons a few of us simple fans will have to sit through before someone in the organization actually addresses it…

[ettin]

13 hours ago, Dochalo said:

I'm actually trying to point out the opposite about shifts.  To me the data shows that the players saved a bunch of run relative to their starting position yet the data was damn ugly if you don't take that into account.  In other words, they did very well relative to where they started.  But they just started in the wrong spot.    

The Cards are a good example of what could have been.  Similar to the halos in almost all aspects of the game.  Vying for a WC.  The big difference is that they're the best defensive team in baseball and the Angels are one of the worst.  I truly believe it's a 10-15 game swing.  

Actually I read that differently, so perhaps I am confused?

To me, Fielding Bible is stating simply that they measure DRS from where the player was positioned whether it was within some defined, standard range (non-shift) or an area outside of the standard range (shift). As an extreme example, if the 2B was out in the LF corner, they would measure the runs saved by that player from their starting point in the LF corner, yes?

So, the way I read it, and admittedly I may be completely incorrect, is that whether it was a shift or non-shift situation, the players, overall, were positioned well and led MLB in DRS in non-shift situations and were ranked 4th in shift situations. This is why I drew the conclusion that the non-shift and shifted positioning was correct and did save runs, but that many of the balls in play still found holes in-between the well-positioned defenders, thus my BABIP comment (of which the Angels had the 2nd worst BABIP in MLB). Also we were 4th worst in LOB%, 5th worst in walked batters, and 7th worst in total number of hits given up.

To me it was saying the defenders were positioned well, thus the good DRS, but that hits were still finding holes, driving in all of the runners we consistently left and/or put on-base.

NOTE: I started this earlier in the day, but then got sidetracked with work and I have to say I think I fried my brain thinking about it this evening. I clearly feel like I am missing something here so I will try to revisit it, tomorrow.

[Docwaukee]

8 minutes ago, ettin said:

Actually I read that differently, so perhaps I am confused?

To me, Fielding Bible is stating simply that they measure DRS from where the player was positioned whether it was within some defined, standard range (non-shift) or an area outside of the standard range (shift). As an extreme example, if the 2B was out in the LF corner, they would measure the runs saved by that player from their starting point in the LF corner, yes?

So, the way I read it, and admittedly I may be completely incorrect, is that whether it was a shift or non-shift situation, the players, overall, were positioned well and led MLB in DRS in non-shift situations and were ranked 4th in shift situations. This is why I drew the conclusion that the non-shift and shifted positioning was correct and did save runs, but that many of the balls in play still found holes in-between the well-positioned defenders, thus my BABIP comment (of which the Angels had the 2nd worst BABIP in MLB). Also we were 4th worst in LOB%, 5th worst in walked batters, and 7th worst in total number of hits given up.

To me it was saying the defenders were positioned well, thus the good DRS, but that hits were still finding holes, driving in all of the runners we consistently left and/or put on-base.

NOTE: I started this earlier in the day, but then got sidetracked with work and I have to say I think I fried my brain thinking about it this evening. I clearly feel like I am missing something here so I will try to revisit it, tomorrow.

DRS only takes into account where the batted ball went and how often batted balls to that spot get handled.  There is some shift nuance to the fielding bible.  But suffice to say that whether you start far away from that spot or close to it, making the play gets you the same amount of credit either way and not making the play dings you similarly. 

Their infield positioning stat actually takes into account where the player started so the further you had to go to get the ball, the more credit you get. 

I don't think either one gives a complete sense of the defensive ability of the player but combined you get a sense of how well the player did relative to his position AND whether he was positioned correctly.   It's a combo of the two.   

[TBM-850]

"Prior to the 2020 MLB season, Sports Info Solutions (SIS) announced major upgrades to its flagship defensive metric, Defensive Runs Saved (DRS). These upgrades centered around the incorporation of infielder starting positions in the calculations and the improvements that were consequently able to be made."

...

"Whatever credit the fielder may receive or lose on a play is based on where they were standing when the ball was hit, rather than simply assuming they were standing in a traditional starting location."

https://library.fangraphs.com/tag/fielding-bible/

 

Looking at Team Shift Runs Saved (rTS) it somehow has the Angels at #1. It looks like the same data as the fieldingbible uses, just shift and non-shift added together.

https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=fld&lg=all&qual=0&type=1&season=2021&month=0&season1=2021&ind=0&team=0,ts&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&startdate=2021-01-01&enddate=2021-12-31&sort=10,d

"rTS measures whether a shift is doing what it is supposed to do – get outs on ground balls and short line drives that wouldn’t have been achieved with the traditional infield alignment. The calculation is done at the team level rather than the individual level."

from https://sportsinfosolutionsblog.com/2019/04/01/what-is-team-shift-runs-saved/

 

All of that doesn't mean that the Angels are a good defensive team. They're bad. Now I wonder if every time I witnessed the shift failing it just added to some confirmation bias. Maybe Iglesias (-23 DRS) was really that bad independent of the shift.

 

 

 

 

 

[Docwaukee]

1 hour ago, TBM-850 said:

"Prior to the 2020 MLB season, Sports Info Solutions (SIS) announced major upgrades to its flagship defensive metric, Defensive Runs Saved (DRS). These upgrades centered around the incorporation of infielder starting positions in the calculations and the improvements that were consequently able to be made."

...

"Whatever credit the fielder may receive or lose on a play is based on where they were standing when the ball was hit, rather than simply assuming they were standing in a traditional starting location."

https://library.fangraphs.com/tag/fielding-bible/

 

Looking at Team Shift Runs Saved (rTS) it somehow has the Angels at #1. It looks like the same data as the fieldingbible uses, just shift and non-shift added together.

https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=fld&lg=all&qual=0&type=1&season=2021&month=0&season1=2021&ind=0&team=0,ts&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&startdate=2021-01-01&enddate=2021-12-31&sort=10,d

"rTS measures whether a shift is doing what it is supposed to do – get outs on ground balls and short line drives that wouldn’t have been achieved with the traditional infield alignment. The calculation is done at the team level rather than the individual level."

from https://sportsinfosolutionsblog.com/2019/04/01/what-is-team-shift-runs-saved/

 

All of that doesn't mean that the Angels are a good defensive team. They're bad. Now I wonder if every time I witnessed the shift failing it just added to some confirmation bias. Maybe Iglesias (-23 DRS) was really that bad independent of the shift.

 

 

 

 

 

from the fielding bible

We are transitioning from evaluating “how often did a player make that play?” to “how often did a player make that play given where he was positioned?” We are interested in evaluating an infielder’s range skill from his starting point. Thus, the Positioning component is not included in the player’s Defensive Runs Saved total.

This doesn't totally make sense based on what they are saying but seems to hold true relative to the data.  

Bear in mind that tRS is only used on shifts.  And you should keep reading.  It's still a comparison of whether your team was able to field the ball when shifted vs. what happened in other similar types of batted ball profile situations.  They're taking the position of the fielder into account for this 'in general' but not specifically.  ie, they don't look at each play of where the fielder actually started. 

All this means to me is that when they did shift and got that right, our fielders did a nice job of making the play.  It only tells you what happened when they did shift.  Not whether they should have.  It has nothing to do with whether a hitter would tend to hit the ball to RF vs. RHed pitchers even though we might be shifted to the left.  You wouldn't get dinged if that actually happened because no team that was shifted would have been able to make that type of play IF they were shifted.    

[eligrba]

7 hours ago, TBM-850 said:

Maybe Iglesias (-23 DRS) was really that bad independent of the shift

Iglesias was bad on plays he should routinely make. It has nothing to do with positioning.  

[Slegnaac]

On 9/22/2021 at 11:24 PM, Inside Pitch said:

The defense undermines everything they do.  The Yankee series where everyone got excited was built on the play of the defense. The month where it looked like things were turning around, the babip normalized, the pitching dominated again... All driven by the defense.

The injuries were going to screw this team eventually, no question.  The bullpen was awful, again no question... But everything has been made even worse by the defensive issues.  Worst part is they talked about it all winter and yet nothing has changed, same issues exist...  if anything its become an even bigger issue.

How much of that 1B -4 result can we attribute to Albert?

[jsnpritchett]

9 minutes ago, Slegnaac said:

How much of that 1B -4 result can we attribute to Albert?

-37

[Inside Pitch]

26 minutes ago, Slegnaac said:

How much of that 1B -4 result can we attribute to Albert?

 

17 minutes ago, jsnpritchett said:

-37

Yep, pretty much all of it.    That one play this year where he didnt even "Ole" a batted ball.... just watched it... was special.

[AngelsLakersFan]

8 hours ago, Dochalo said:

from the fielding bible

We are transitioning from evaluating “how often did a player make that play?” to “how often did a player make that play given where he was positioned?” We are interested in evaluating an infielder’s range skill from his starting point. Thus, the Positioning component is not included in the player’s Defensive Runs Saved total.

This doesn't totally make sense based on what they are saying but seems to hold true relative to the data.  

Bear in mind that tRS is only used on shifts.  And you should keep reading.  It's still a comparison of whether your team was able to field the ball when shifted vs. what happened in other similar types of batted ball profile situations.  They're taking the position of the fielder into account for this 'in general' but not specifically.  ie, they don't look at each play of where the fielder actually started. 

All this means to me is that when they did shift and got that right, our fielders did a nice job of making the play.  It only tells you what happened when they did shift.  Not whether they should have.  It has nothing to do with whether a hitter would tend to hit the ball to RF vs. RHed pitchers even though we might be shifted to the left.  You wouldn't get dinged if that actually happened because no team that was shifted would have been able to make that type of play IF they were shifted.    

It's all a bit too convoluted for me to draw very specific conclusions from without actually looking at the formulas. That said the way I understand it, the run values at each position are calculated with the fielders starting position included. In other words if the shortstop is playing near the bag and ends up ranging back to the traditional SS position to make a play he will get a huge credit for making that play, rather than the old version that would've considered it routine.

The positioning calculation is then a rough estimate of how much of that value can be attributed to positioning. So using the same example, the shortstop would get huge value for that play but the positioning stat will take a big hit. Using an opposite example, if the shortstop is playing on top of the bag and the ball is hit right to him he will get minimal credit, and the positioning stat will get credited the value the player would've gotten if he had been positioned traditionally. This is recorded in the non-shift positioning stat.

If you notice the aggregate positioning values are positive and the shift values are all positive. Team defense totals are positive for 2/3rds of all teams, the majority of which can be attributed to the shift value. Traditionally you'd expect the average runs saved to be 0, where "Pitching + Defense = Run Prevention," but here they are positive because what we are actually looking at is "Defense + Positioning." The Shift runs saved is ignoring the position declaration for players and is most likely just taking a global run expectancy value for a batted ball and crediting that number to the team. 

Drawing conclusions is a bit difficult because the Angels defense rates out as terrible, meaning they are flat out not making plays at a very high rate. That said, when they aren't shifting the positioning is great based on these statistics. It's harder to pin down value when looking at shifted plays though, because this stat is saying that the team has taken away a lot of high probability hits by being in the right place, but it isn't really clear how much it's docking them for being out of position on low-medium probability hits which they are clearly not making based on the combined results. Since the stat is cumulative it's hard to tell how much of it is due to good positioning or simply shifting a lot, or making a majority of their successful plays while in the shift.

tl:dr: Conclusions we can draw from this data: When not shifting the Angels positioning has rated out as good. The Angels have earned the majority of their defensive value from making traditionally difficult plays while in the shift. The Angels defense has been garbage. The difference comes from shitty defense not related to positioning and from the quantity of plays not made while in the shift.