How about trading for Carl Crawford?

[mweb]

I think part of the issue is that Boston is looking at defense as a more complex system with integrated parts whose values can be affected by mixing and matching different combinations. That is, Crawford's pressence was seen as a positive addition not only for his individual production, but also because of the projected impact his presence would have on the defensive production as a whole.

I think CA seems like he has a good grasp of the defensive metrics available to him. I just think some folks in Boston's front office (or formerly in Boston's front office) woudl say he's looking at defense as a whole in too simplistic a manner. Mark Cuban might say that many teams determine the optimal five players to put on the court at any given time is dependent on how those individuals perform as individuals and how they perform together. The Mavericks have an advantage (along with certain other clubs) because they also take into account how their combination of players are affected by the opposing five players on the court.

I think CA feels comfortable drawing some basic conclusions about defense based on the numbers available to him that tell him how a players performance is measured, and how that performance might vary based on home/away performance. I also think Boston has an advantage in that they are considering how that player's performance interacts with and might possitively affect the performance of the rest of their players, specifically within the confines of their home field.

I wonder if anyone has looked into whether, say, Ellsbury's measured defensive performance was any better this year?

That makes total sense for basketball as who is on the court with you clearly affects you. I'm not sure it makes sense in baseball, and if it does, I can't imagine it does to the same degree, or close to it. Can you give examples of why Ellsbury would be better in CF with Crawford in LF?

I'm not attacking this thought, I just am very skeptical of it, and would like it explained further.

[Stotle]

That makes total sense for basketball as who is on the court with you clearly affects you. I'm not sure it makes sense in baseball, and if it does, I can't imagine it does to the same degree, or close to it. Can you give examples of why Ellsbury would be better in CF with Crawford in LF?

I'm not attacking this thought, I just am very skeptical of it, and would like it explained further.

I'm not privy to all the specifics.

Allowing Ellsbury to start a little deeper and a little more to right gives Ellsbury a larger "player portion" (measured potential ground covered for average flyballs, weighted for maximum ground potentially covered) shifting Ellsbury's "player portion" can in turn affect Drew's "player portion" based on where he starts and the ground he's asked to cover. Effects in Fenway can be magnified (supposedly) in certain circumstances because RF/CF has a lot of area in a non-traditional configuration.

[mweb]

I'm not privy to all the specifics.

Allowing Ellsbury to start a little deeper and a little more to right gives Ellsbury a larger "player portion" (measured potential ground covered for average flyballs, weighted for maximum ground potentially covered) shifting Ellsbury's "player portion" can in turn affect Drew's "player portion" based on where he starts and the ground he's asked to cover. Effects in Fenway can be magnified (supposedly) in certain circumstances because RF/CF has a lot of area in a non-traditional configuration.

That makes sense, although for his individual stats I guess it would affect Ellsbury's shallow and going right numbers some. Not that it would matter to the team if Carl got to those balls.

However, having good OF's who individually can cover a lot of ground leading to more ground covered overall isn't exactly a groundbreaking concept. I think that's already pretty well known, now you mention specific park effects that can potentially magnify these effects, so that would interesting to know more about.

[Stotle]

That makes sense, although for his individual stats I guess it would affect Ellsbury's shallow and going right numbers some. Not that it would matter to the team if Carl got to those balls.

However, having good OF's who individually can cover a lot of ground leading to more ground covered overall isn't exactly a groundbreaking concept. I think that's already pretty well known, now you mention specific park effects that can potentially magnify these effects, so that would interesting to know more about.

Right. My understanding is that the value of Crawford's presence is supposedly more evident in overall defensive production (as measured by Boston). Maybe that shows up in Ellsbury's production for the public stuff. I'm not really an expert at interpreting those metrics.

As far as the shallow/right numbers and the balls Carl would be getting to (supposedly/hopefully), I don't know how zones are broken up at Fenway or how the interplay would work. As I said, I've only heard the general explanation, but thought it interesting enough to talk about.

[mweb]

Right. My understanding is that the value of Crawford's presence is supposedly more evident in overall defensive production (as measured by Boston). Maybe that shows up in Ellsbury's production for the public stuff. I'm not really an expert at interpreting those metrics.

As far as the shallow/right numbers and the balls Carl would be getting to (supposedly/hopefully), I don't know how zones are broken up at Fenway or how the interplay would work. As I said, I've only heard the general explanation, but thought it interesting enough to talk about.

Fair enough.

Without seeing their numbers or plenty of other numbers and studies that I am not privy to, I would still much rather have Carl in a park that lets him use his range to get to more balls.

[Stotle]

Fair enough.

Without seeing their numbers or plenty of other numbers and studies that I am not privy to, I would still much rather have Carl in a park that lets him use his range to get to more balls.

Fair enough. I wouldn't try to convince you otherwise. If I were a left-handed power hitter I'd prefer to play in a park with a right field fence 315 ft away. But that doesn't mean my skillset couldn't be utilized to my team's advantage if the proportions of the field appear to limit my value at a rudimentary level.

[Lucky Jim]

I think part of the issue is that Boston is looking at defense as a more complex system with integrated parts whose values can be affected by mixing and matching different combinations. That is, Crawford's pressence was seen as a positive addition not only for his individual production, but also because of the projected impact his presence would have on the defensive production as a whole.

I think CA seems like he has a good grasp of the defensive metrics available to him. I just think some folks in Boston's front office (or formerly in Boston's front office) woudl say he's looking at defense as a whole in too simplistic a manner. Mark Cuban might say that many teams determine the optimal five players to put on the court at any given time is dependent on how those individuals perform as individuals and how they perform together. The Mavericks have an advantage (along with certain other clubs) because they also take into account how their combination of players are affected by the opposing five players on the court.

I think CA feels comfortable drawing some basic conclusions about defense based on the numbers available to him that tell him how a players performance is measured, and how that performance might vary based on home/away performance. I also think Boston has an advantage in that they are considering how that player's performance interacts with and might possitively affect the performance of the rest of their players, specifically within the confines of their home field.

I wonder if anyone has looked into whether, say, Ellsbury's measured defensive performance was any better this year?

Right - that was my earlier point as well: to the extent I'm using available metrics and then judging value according to those metrics, I run the risk of obsolescence if those metrics are out the window.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Right. My understanding is that the value of Crawford's presence is supposedly more evident in overall defensive production (as measured by Boston). Maybe that shows up in Ellsbury's production for the public stuff. I'm not really an expert at interpreting those metrics.

As far as the shallow/right numbers and the balls Carl would be getting to (supposedly/hopefully), I don't know how zones are broken up at Fenway or how the interplay would work. As I said, I've only heard the general explanation, but thought it interesting enough to talk about.

And that's a perfectly valid point. I didn't quote Crawfords UZR in this thread because I obviously know it was ridiculous last year. As probably was Ellsbury's on the other side of the spectrum. I don't discount the concept of synergy at all, nor that defense functions as a system to some level and may vary by team/circumstances. As you have pointed out, the OF is probably where this would have the greater effect as you can vary position widely and utilize time and speed to a greater advantage than in the IF. That being said, improving Defensive Efficiency has a limited margin and you can easily reach a point of diminishing returns. Separating Crawford's skill contribution from his synergetic contribution would involve some seriously complicated mathematical models. I'm quite sure BOS has them, and is in fact as cutting edge on this stuff than anybody, but I have no idea what they showed and in the end I doubt they are that significant when looking at the overall factors involved here.

[Stotle]

And that's a perfectly valid point. I didn't quote Crawfords UZR in this thread because I obviously know it was ridiculous last year. As probably was Ellsbury's on the other side of the spectrum. I don't discount the concept of synergy at all, nor that defense functions as a system to some level and may vary by team/circumstances. As you have pointed out, the OF is probably where this would have the greater effect as you can vary position widely and utilize time and speed to a greater advantage than in the IF. That being said, improving Defensive Efficiency has a limited margin and you can easily reach a point of diminishing returns. Separating Crawford's skill contribution from his synergetic contribution would involve some seriously complicated mathematical models. I'm quite sure BOS has them, and is in fact as cutting edge on this stuff than anybody, but I have no idea what they showed and in the end I doubt they are that significant when looking at the overall factors involved here.

The only questions I'd have for your would be:

What leads you to believe that defensive efficiency has limited margin that can easily reach a point of diminishing return?

As far as the bolded, I think it's odd you can say "you have no idea what [boston's research] showed" and then immediately say that "you doubt they are significant". Your comfort level with my question above is probably what allows you to make this jump -- I honestly don't know enough about advanced defensive metrics (and certainly not any of the proprietary stuff) to say one way or the other.

[CA-ORIOLE]

The only questions I'd have for your would be:

What leads you to believe that defensive efficiency has limited margin that can easily reach a point of diminishing return?

As far as the bolded, I think it's odd you can say "you have no idea what [boston's research] showed" and then immediately say that "you doubt they are significant". Your comfort level with my question above is probably what allows you to make this jump -- I honestly don't know enough about advanced defensive metrics (and certainly not any of the proprietary stuff) to say one way or the other.

I can look at the variation in DER and consider there is a very finite window for improvement. I can further infer that any incremental improvement associated with synergy is going to be relatively small based on that finite window. I absoloutely don't discount the point though. I think it's a great point.