Early Returns: Polanco's Play At Shortstop

Not sure who you're talking about or what your point is. My point was that a better SS than Polanco was moved off the position. At least as measured by FP and RF/9.

Plouffe. My point is that I believe that the Front Office "assigns" players to positions  more on the basis of "what they want" rather than on any reliable metric of a player's actual skills/and level. The Twins should have been able to ascertain Plouffe's SS skills in less than 5400 innings (plus almost 600 more at the ML level) to conclude that Trevor wasn't going to"clear their bar" at the ML level. Yet in 2900 innings they could reach that conclusion concerning Polanco's skills at SS. 

My take is that if the Twins are planning on Sano at 3B and Polanco at SS, they will need to shift Dozier over to behind 2B in order to mask their deficiencies. Given those two on the left side, the Twins pitching staff, they need to average another run per game in scoring to be a serious contender. That's a tall order. Even taller in the playoffs if/when they get there.

I have no problem with Sano and Polanco working at their real positions in the offseason and improving their defense. The offensive potential is too tantalizing. Polanco won't be there past next year after the Vielma-Gordon ascendance anyway.

Don't be so sure about that...  Vielma cannot hit a volleyball with a bat and Gordon's OPS in the same stop at the same age is 60 (A+), 120 (A), and 201 (Rk+) points lower than Polanco's, plus his fielding percentage this season (.952) is worse than Polanco's (and so is Vielma's, .954)

 

I see no reason that Gordon will be a better player than Polanco, if he makes it to the majors, and Vielma's ceiling is Florimon.

Point that is missed.  Minor league fields are worse than major league fields and major league first basemen save many more errant throws than their minor league counterparts.  You are comparing apples to oranges.

Advanced stats are like magic. I keep reading what a crap defender Dozier is, but when I watch, he seems to make a lot of very good plays. Now I'm seeing the same with Polanco: been watching a fair amount lately. and have actually been impressed with his play at short, especially given the circumstances.

I must need glasses.

Advanced stats are like magic. I keep reading what a crap defender Dozier is, but when I watch, he seems to make a lot of very good plays. Now I'm seeing the same with Polanco: been watching a fair amount lately. and have actually been impressed with his play at short, especially given the circumstances.

 

I must need glasses.

Dozier has +2 DRS this season and his range is tied for 4th out of 21 qualifying 2Bs. Metrics aren't saying he's a crap defender.

Doesn't it really depend on the metric? I know other have cited stats that say Dozier's range is poor. While I don't consider him a gold-glover, I see him as average or at least in the middle range. As for Polanco, I don't think any one factor of his defense at short is excellent, but on the other hand I don't see any factors that are irredeemably bad.

Sometimes people cite stats without actually knowing what they mean or what they are for (like, a lot of people hear/read 'range factor' and think it measures a player's range).

The stat most use for range is RZR and like I said, Dozier is tied for 4th with Kipnis. Interesting to note that it seems range has dropped almost across the board for 2Bs, cause his .807 RZR (even though he's tied for 4th) is categorized between below average and average.  So I guess it depends on if you measure him against starters (making him above average) or all people who play 2B (making him below average and most other starters even farther below average).

'RZR measures a player’s range, taking three things into account: the amount of Balls In Zone (BIZ) a player receives, a player’s total Plays Made, and a player’s total amount of Out Of Zone Plays Made (OOZ).'

But yeah, there are some other decent stats like RngR that measure range which has him below average. How shifting affects this is being worked on, though.  

Don't be so sure about that...  Vielma cannot hit a volleyball with a bat and Gordon's OPS in the same stop at the same age is 60 (A+), 120 (A), and 201 (Rk+) points lower than Polanco's, plus his fielding percentage this season (.952) is worse than Polanco's (and so is Vielma's, .954)

 

I see no reason that Gordon will be a better player than Polanco, if he makes it to the majors, and Vielma's ceiling is Florimon.

I didn't mean to get rid of Polanco, rather, it would be Dozier at that point. Polanco would then be moved to second. I have better expectations for both Vielma and Gordon, though.

It's not the only way to judge a defender, for sure.

 

Very true.  I'll take it a step beyond that and say that FP% should always be Exhibit A when judging defense.  If someone refuses to even look at FP%, he or she will never understand a player's defense.

Essentially, if FP% is far below average for the position, you need not look any further to know the player is bad at the position.  You don't have to bother looking at 'advanced' metrics if the FP% is laughable.  You only need to look at the other metrics if FP% looks fine. 

Very true.  I'll take it a step beyond that and say that FP% should always be Exhibit A when judging defense.  If someone refuses to even look at FP%, he or she will never understand a player's defense.

 

Essentially, if FP% is far below average for the position, you need not look any further to know the player is bad at the position.  You don't have to bother looking at 'advanced' metrics if the FP% is laughable.  You only need to look at the other metrics if FP% looks fine. 

So, you're saying FP% is the best stat to look at when judging defense?  I just want to make sure I'm reading your post right.

Not trying to squash anyone's arguments here, because I think fielding percentage is important, but using it to evaluate defense is probably something like using batting average to evaluate offense, in my opinion. It gives you a general idea. A player got a lot of hits and hits are good.

It won't tell you if a player got off to a cold start, like how Mauer was hitting below .300 in June 2006 and then a month later was at .392 or how Dozier got off to such a cold start this season. Average won't tell you how much speed or power a guy has. It won't tell you a player's injury history. It won't tell you how old he is. Also, to summon Moneyball, it won't even tell you his OBP necessarily. Fielding percentage gets a chair at the table for sure, but that's about it. Not the head chair by any stretch. IMO.

http://www.fangraphs.com/library/the-beginners-guide-to-measuring-defense/

So, you're saying FP% is the best stat to look at when judging defense?  I just want to make sure I'm reading your post right.

Not necessarily.  But I am saying that if someones FP% is terrible, you don't have to bother looking at anything else.  You know by that alone that he is terrible.

You only need to look at other things like Total Zone or UZR if the player's FP% is near average or better.  You can't completely discount FP%.  

We get it. You hate Polanco and Sano. What's your solution?

I think Sano and Polanco are the future stars of this team -- over Buxton and everyone else.  Not sure where you're getting that from.  

Can Polanco play short for the Twins? Sure he can. Will he embarrass himself, or the team? Doubtful. His bat is not in question, but his glove is a variation of Nunez, EE, Santana, and likely below Florimons. Maybe the real question is not whether Polanco can play SS for this team, it's whether he should? Don't get me wrong, I like Polanco as a baseball player. But the reason I would roll the dice, and put what many say are better glove men at SS like Gordon or Vielma is that Polanco isn't the kind of SS that will contribute to a winning team. Move him to second next year, audition him there, and the others at SS. Another thought. On how many other MLB teams, would he replace the incumbent?

The Twins have to start playing people at their best positions if the defense is ever going to improve. Polanco needs to play second base and let a real ss play short.

Dozey to 3rd.  Polanco to 2nd.  Sano, occasionally 3rd, and DH.  Vargas DH/1B, and maybe Park can shake some of those cobwebs and do a spell at 1B, too.

There.  Fixed the infield, now getting to work on the starting pitching.

----let me just ask my consultant, Sysiphus, and get back to you on that.

I see your point - and I think a terrible FP% is usually a good indicator a player isn't polished/good at the position - but I believe it's a bit more complex than that. Some guys have a bad run of errors and it's hard to recover from a number that start abysmally low. Some guys are harshly judged or another player contributes to an error(s).

 

Then there's the fact that if a player is super-athletic and gets to the play but fumbles it, that *could* be ruled an error, even though another guy doesn't even get leather on the ball.

 

And that's the problem with fielding percentage. What's worse, a guy who occasionally kicks the ball but makes stellar plays at a 1:1 rate with his errors? Or the guy who almost never kicks the ball but doesn't ever get to those stellar plays?

 

The net result could easily be zero between those two players but advanced metrics try to factor in those differences while FP% is "eh, whatever, it's the judge's call".

 

And I'm not even bringing up how erratically errors are given/withheld in today's game. It's basically nonsensical. Some plays are required to give someone an error because a runner advanced on the play. What if no one is deserving of the error? Who gets saddled with that drop in FP%?

What you are saying is that FP% can suffer from sample size issues.  The thing is, so do all analytics, esp. defensive ones.  If FP% is indicating a guy is rubbish, very likely anything advanced is saying the same thing.  However, FP% normalizes faster than UZR.  I have never seen anyone suggest that you need three years of FP% to trust it.  *THIS* is where FP% can be misleading -- it might show someone is a good fielder when he is not.  If FP% shows a player sucks, he does.  Anything more advanced is going to simply back that up.  And if it doesn't, don't trust it.  The real issue is that sample is too small for the more advanced metric.