Freddy Galvis, advanced metrics, and the eye test

[Frobby]

Freddy Galvis has started 43 games for us at SS this year.   He’s made only 3 errors, but for the most part, the defensive metrics hate him: -4 Rtot, -6 Rdrs, -4 OAA.   The outlier defensive metric is UZR, which has him at +1.1.

So what is the eye test telling you?  Mine says that while he’s probably lost a step in range, he’s otherwise very solid.   He generally makes the plays he should make and turns in his share of the difficult plays as well.     I’ve seen him make a number of throws from awkward angles and he’s turned some nifty DPs and made a few really good relay throws too.

Overall, to me Galvis has been a bargain and a solid contributor both offensively and defensively.

 

 

[beantownrefugee]

Having survived the Brandon Fahey / Freddie "Boom Boom" Bynum year (2008, IIRC), I'm happy if the SS at least makes the routine plays.  Our pitching is bad enough without giving extra outs.  The eye test suggests to me that Galvis is about on par with JJ Hardy defensively, a notch below Iglesias (who makes highlight reel plays).

[Hazmat]

I agree with this.  He's an MLB quality player and that's clear especially when you contrast his play against what we've seen at 3B and 2B.  Elias deserves credit for bringing in Iglesias and Galvis on cheap, one-year deals.  However, I'd prefer we find a longer term solution rather than continue to go back to the FA pool for these types of deals.

[Sports Guy]

He’s fine.  Easily worth the money they are paying him.

[Aristotelian]

My eye test scouting report would be his arm is not the best but he has good range and quickness to the ball. He has great baseball IQ for making plays such as flipping to an outfielder when he is not in position to throw. I think he is a solid MLB quality shortstop although does not make highlight reel plays like Iglesias.

[spiritof66]

"Solid" is the highest compliment I can muster. With so many holes on the team, it's not a major problem. I think his range is well below average for a major-league SS, though with all the shifting and the infrequency of being shown where the fielders started, it's hard to judge.

The Orioles are last in MLB  in turning ground-ball double plays, with 22.  https://www.mlb.com/stats/team/pitching/grounded-into-double-plays?expanded=true

[sportsfan8703]

58 minutes ago, beantownrefugee said:

Having survived the Brandon Fahey / Freddie "Boom Boom" Bynum year (2008, IIRC), I'm happy if the SS at least makes the routine plays.  Our pitching is bad enough without giving extra outs.  The eye test suggests to me that Galvis is about on par with JJ Hardy defensively, a notch below Iglesias (who makes highlight reel plays).

Don’t get too comfortable. We’ll have Galvis another month or so. Then we’ll be looking at Urias and Martin. IF healthy. 

[SteveA]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

Freddy Galvis has started 43 games for us at SS this year.   He’s made only 3 errors, but for the most part, the defensive metrics hate him: -4 Rtot, -6 Rdrs, -4 OAA.   The outlier defensive metric is UZR, which has him at +1.1.

So what is the eye test telling you?  Mine says that while he’s probably lost a step in range, he’s otherwise very solid.   He generally makes the plays he should make and turns in his share of the difficult plays as well.     I’ve seen him make a number of throws from awkward angles and he’s turned some nifty DPs and made a few really good relay throws too.

Overall, to me Galvis has been a bargain and a solid contributor both offensively and defensively.

 

 

Early on, my "eye test" was unimpressed.   I didn't see him make any difficult plays whatsoever in the first few weeks.   But then he started making some.  I like what I have seen for the past month or so.   All in all, it seems like he has held his own defensively.   We were spoiled for a long time with Hardy and some Manny and some Iglesias.

Also in April, I didn't feel like we were very good at turning DPs as an infield.   That seems to have improved in May, although we will never be as good as the great days of Manny/Hardy/Schoop/Davis.   They used to turn some beautiful DPs.

[SteveA]

50 minutes ago, spiritof66 said:

"Solid" is the highest compliment I can muster. With so many holes on the team, it's not a major problem. I think his range is well below average for a major-league SS, though with all the shifting and the infrequency of being shown where the fielders started, it's hard to judge.

The Orioles are last in MLB  in turning ground-ball double plays, with 22.  https://www.mlb.com/stats/team/pitching/grounded-into-double-plays?expanded=true

Maybe because our pitching is so good there are never men on base?   

 

[Moose Milligan]

He's solid.  He's been a good pickup.  And I think he's pretty good on the DP pivot, quick hands, strong arm.

[DrungoHazewood]

For me Tango has a very high trust factor, but I don't get this one.  He explicitly puts Galvis into an elite fielding category, even though the last few years his Statcast data is below average, his DRS is just okay the last three, and his UZR is good-but-not-great.  Perhaps he's referencing prior to 2019 when he was pretty elite at least for a few years?  But he does say "is one the of the best" not was.

[Frobby]

7 hours ago, beantownrefugee said:

Having survived the Brandon Fahey / Freddie "Boom Boom" Bynum year (2008, IIRC), I'm happy if the SS at least makes the routine plays.  Our pitching is bad enough without giving extra outs.  The eye test suggests to me that Galvis is about on par with JJ Hardy defensively, a notch below Iglesias (who makes highlight reel plays).

I’d definitely say that Galvis is not as good defensively as the version of Hardy who won three Gold Gloves here from 2012-14.    

On the other hand, I would say he’s as good as the “playing on a tender hamstring” version of Iglesias we saw last year.   He was very smooth, but his range was hampered by his bad leg and we never really got to see what a healthy Iglesias is capable of defensively.   Didn’t stop him from hitting .373/.400/.556 though.    Talk about your SSS miracles.   
 

[jabba72]

Defensively definitely not the pre 2019 Galvis version, which OAA had rated as one of the best SS's for a few years. He's probably lost a step with age, like all once great SS"s at 31. But is still our best middle infielder by a mile. 

[SteveA]

30 minutes ago, jabba72 said:

Defensively definitely not the pre 2019 Galvis version, which OAA had rated as one of the best SS's for a few years. He's probably lost a step with age, like all once great SS"s at 31. But is still our best middle infielder by a mile. 

Did Belanger lose a step by 31?   Honestly, I don't know what the metrics say, but most of my memories of him are from his 30s.   And he was darn good in those years.   He turned 31 when I was 12 years old.   I saw him play before I was too young to really pay attention.   If what I saw in his 30s is a step lost, that's pretty darn amazing.

[jabba72]

2 hours ago, SteveA said:

Did Belanger lose a step by 31?   Honestly, I don't know what the metrics say, but most of my memories of him are from his 30s.   And he was darn good in those years.   He turned 31 when I was 12 years old.   I saw him play before I was too young to really pay attention.   If what I saw in his 30s is a step lost, that's pretty darn amazing.

Belanger won GG's every year through his 29 to age 34 season so your memory is right. But doing what Belanger did in his 30's isnt normal and kind of defies the laws of physics. I would love to see some video of him someday.