On Bartlett's Defense

by R.J. Anderson on Dec 5, 2008 1:26 PM EST

Using defensive metrics*:

In 2006, Bartlett saw his first 800+ inning season, and it resulted in a .863 RZR with 26 OOZ plays.863 RZR with 26 OOZ plays. In 2007, his playing time increased while his RZR lowered to .804, but he saw 67 OOZ plays. In 2008, Bartlett's RZR raised to .807, but only had 44 OOZ plays. Interestingly enough, Bartlett actually saw more balls in zone in 2006 (293) than 2008 (285) despite playing in more than 200 less innings, what does that mean? I'm not entirely sure, but it's irrelevant to Bartlett. In 2007, Sean Smith's TotalZone ratings had Bartlett worth six runs, this year Bartlett is worth -8 runs, Brendan Harris was rated at -9. The Fielding Bible had Bartlett +13 (plays) in 2006, +18 in 2007, and -1 in 2008.

Essentially every metric that had a crush on Bartlett prior to 2008 gave him the cold shoulder. That's bad, namely because those same metrics gave us hope that Bartlett was a defensive wizard, and while he looked good, he apparently was not as good as perceived. The problem for us, and the Rays, is deciding whether this is indicative of a true talent change or simply an anomaly. Smith uses the previous five years worth of data to project fielding runs, and while Bartlett projects modestly (0.9 wins), it's not quite as stunning as 2008's projection (1.3 wins). I don't expect Bartlett to be quite that good, instead likely in the 0.0 > x < 0.5 wins range.

Unfortunately, there's no BABIP-type red flags, or obvious fluke measures here. Bartlett did suffer a knee injury later in the year, and that very well could've limited his range. Only one thing is for sure: he wasn't nearly as good defensively in 2008 as he was in 2007 or 2006, and that's worth weighing, how much is to be determined.

*Yes, we all know the weaknesses of defensive metrics, but this isn't the post to debate their merits. What's more likely: the system suddenly didn't like Bartlett, or Bartlett had a down year?

Tweet Comment 23 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

What’s more likely: the system suddenly didn’t like Bartlett, or Bartlett had a down year?

I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle

by Erik Hahmann on Dec 5, 2008 1:29 PM EST reply actions

Why would the system suddenly dislike Bartlett?

by R.J. Anderson on Dec 5, 2008 1:31 PM EST up reply actions

Different person performing the zone scoring for different home teams?

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Dec 5, 2008 2:29 PM EST up reply actions

What about TFB though?

by R.J. Anderson on Dec 5, 2008 2:34 PM EST up reply actions

Not familiar with how they get their numbers

I’m just positing theories. Not saying that any of them are true. Chances are, if all of his defensive stats are worse, then he was at least a little worse this year.

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Dec 5, 2008 2:49 PM EST up reply actions

They watch the games and each + is a play another SS failed to make, each - is the opposite.

Probably not a perfect science, but certainly not one that would lead to that big of a swing.

by R.J. Anderson on Dec 5, 2008 2:52 PM EST up reply actions

If the games are randomly distributed between the guys who do the scoring, then sure

But like I said above, if certain guys do all the home games at certain stadiums, then I can see where there might be a difference simply because someone got traded.

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Dec 5, 2008 2:54 PM EST up reply actions

Or

Longoria and Aki were such an improvement over whoever he played with in Minnesota that he didn’t need to have as many OOZ plays, and they each got some OOZ in his zone?

Also, Maddon’s funky defensive arrangements might have a small part in it.

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Dec 5, 2008 2:30 PM EST up reply actions

Wouldn't this support the notion that Bartlett is replaceable?

by R.J. Anderson on Dec 5, 2008 2:37 PM EST up reply actions

Sure, I suppose

I’m mostly being selfish on the Bartlett/Brignac issue though. I just don’t like having a player in the lineup who hits like Jonny-Gomes lite, when each time the lineup gets to him and there are two outs, you know the drive is going to end right there before he even swings. Brignac in the majors next year could very well be a .230/.270/.380 player with 150 strikeouts. If I actually thought his defense was better than Bartlett’s from what I’ve seen of them and what the stats say, then I might be more in favor of it, but Brignac is just as error-prone as Bartlett but a little slower footed.

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Dec 5, 2008 2:52 PM EST up reply actions

I understand that.

I just don’t buy that having Longoria and Iwamura make Bartlett obsolete. Otherwise the Mariners would have a great infield defense too, Adrian Beltre is perhaps the best defensive third baseman in the league, and Jose Lopez is at least on par with Iwamura, yet they don’t, and a large part of that is due to Betancourt.

by R.J. Anderson on Dec 5, 2008 6:38 PM EST up reply actions

You're better with the statistics than I am, so I don't know.

Unless his knee really did effect him that much, it’s hard to explain someone declining so much in one season.

by Erik Hahmann on Dec 5, 2008 2:03 PM EST reply actions

We can always put Zobrist at SS.....

Top Josh Paul Pornos- Big Navi Stroking, 2pitchers1cup, BJ to the Balls, Riggans Your Thingans
09: This one is for all the rings.

by SRQman on Dec 5, 2008 3:28 PM EST reply actions

We can always ban you.

by R.J. Anderson on Dec 5, 2008 3:35 PM EST up reply actions

I was kidding.

Top Josh Paul Pornos- Big Navi Stroking, 2pitchers1cup, BJ to the Balls, Riggans Your Thingans
09: This one is for all the rings.

by SRQman on Dec 5, 2008 3:35 PM EST up reply actions

Brignac statistical analysis

Has anyone does any research to give us some insight on what the numbers say?

In just looking at his numbers (with an untrained eye of course), here is what I have concluded. His wOBA seems on line with his OBP, so his power seems to be actual. His LD% was obviously his highest in 06, but was suprisingly 20% in the majors despite never getting a hit. His LD, BB, K% were all down from the year before. His ISOP was down but actually pretty close to every level other than Visalia when he detroyed the ball. His BABIP seemed flukey in 06, below average in 07, and about right in 08. His LD% was oddly low in 06 at Visalia (12), which to me doesnt make much sense, since he had so much success. Consistenly makes 75+ contact. Last year his FB was down and thus his HR/BIA was down, leading to less home runs.

Anyone feel free to correct me on this. if I had to guess I would say that when he gets his comfortable in the majors, he can be a .270/.320/.410 gap hitter with 10+ HR and 10+ SB with slightly above average defense.

by BossmanJunior333 on Dec 5, 2008 5:42 PM EST reply actions

Cork Gaines had an explanation.

http://www.raysindex.com/2008/12/lookin-for-glove-simple-explanantion.html

Longoria. Evan got to more balls hit to his left that Bartlett may have been able to get to. Do you buy this?

by RaysFanAL08 on Dec 5, 2008 7:04 PM EST reply actions

No.

Brad Ziegler had a scoreless inning streak. Brad Ziegler had not met BJ Upton.

by P Brady on Dec 5, 2008 9:34 PM EST up reply actions

Not really.

J.J. Hardy, Jimmy Rollins, Marco Scutaro, Bartlett, and a few others upgraded at third base, only Bartlett got worse, the rest either got better or remained static. At the same time, Vizquel downgraded and was still good. Chipper and Yunel both were good. Glaus and Izturis. Ect. How can those teams along with teams like Toronto and Milwaukee, have good third basemen and shortstops, but not the Rays?

BP at least one study in the past that shows third basemen no effects on shortstop defensive performance, using A-Rod/Jeter as an example. It’s covered in Between the Numbers.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/infield-defense-mdash-back-to-basics/

That goes into great detail about groundball out distribution. Above average third basemen do not make their shortstop counterparts into pumpkins. I mean seriously think about this: if having a good third baseman makes the shortstop irrelevant: then what’s the point of having a no offense, all glove player anyways? That means Bartlett is completely replaceable. Evan may take away a few OOZ plays, but I don’t see him causing Bartlett to decline by a win.

by R.J. Anderson on Dec 5, 2008 10:57 PM EST up reply actions