Article written by

11 comments
Chris
Chris

Yeah, it might be different but the question is "how much does it matter"? Winn is an average CF and Lewis is probably slightly below, but my point was that Rowand wasn't flanked by immobile fielders like Barry Bonds or Carlos Lee, he's playing between two plus-defenders. So, to that extent, it doesn't really matter if they can play CF or not, they are playing their positions quite well. If Rowand looks this bad playing between plus-defenders, I don't like his prospects for the future (as I'm sure you don't either).

MrLomez
MrLomez

So, I think, we're more or less in agreement. Rowand is suspect going forward, the reasons for which (injury-ness or incompatibility with ATT) are moot. Rowand is the CF for the foreseeable future, which is somewhat troubling. I do think it's inaccurate to say that Lewis and Winn are the equivalent of CF's. Lewis certainly not. He has the speed, but oh my, it makes me cringe to imagine him running in circles in center. Minus drastic improvement in reading the ball off the bat, Lewis would be a tragedy in CF. Winn's prowess, I think, is more a consequence of his utter mastery of ATT's RF dimensions and quirks than innate ability. He is probably the most cerebral outfielder I've ever watched, but throw him in the boundless terrain that is CF and all that cerebralness and mastery of angles is negated. Yes Rowand is surrounded by two guys who are good at playing their respective spots in the OF, but it's different than playing with true CF's flanking you, like a Carl Crawford, or Victorino, or Posednik circa 2004.

Chris
Chris

Also, UZR adjusts for park. So, it should make the proper adjustments for playing in a bandbox like Philly.

Chris
Chris

MrLomez, Rowand may have played with some good fielders in the past, but don't forget that he played with two excellent fielders last season. Winn was the best RF in all of baseball by UZR. He's a top-3 RF but other metrics and Lewis was above average in LF, too. The Giants basically had three CF's playing OF last year -- not that I think Lewis can play CF, but he's played the position in the minors. I definitely agree that the Giants need him to play at or around average defense in CF to have good value. I just fear that Rowand is a player-type that might age poorly because he's always hurt it seems. I was going to pull up a list of comparable players off of BP but I think they are down right now.

MrLomez
MrLomez

Like OGC, Rowand worries me. This is all observational, but CF at ATT seems like death for guys who don't have blazing speed (and don't be fooled by his age, even at 41 Trash could fly). I just don't think Rowand has the wheels to cover that kind of turf. In Philly, not only was he playing in a bandbox, he also was basically playing Left-Center since Victorino was able to cover about 3/5 of the outfield. His success in CHI, I think, was a combination of playing with Posednick, who at that point was covering more ground than just about any LF in baseball, and the fact that Rowand was still at peak age. The problem now is that if Rowand can't be an above average defensive CF, he ceases to have any real value. He doesn't have the arm to be an effective RF, and he doesn't hit enough to be a worthwhile LF. I'm still a huge fan of the GAMERness, and yes, I do believe that he provides some "intangibles" that go beyond the numbers, but I'm not optimistic that his defensive numbers will rebound.

baetown415
baetown415

Yeah, I'm worried about those years too. Maybe Sabes unloads him before he falls off dramatically.

Chris
Chris

@Baetown I agree with CHONE, I'm sure that Rowand would be above average in a corner spot but I think he would struggle in RF at AT&T. That makes him a LF if/when he ever gets that bad on defense. I mainly worry about a player like Rowand who has been historically hard on his body and how he'll age.

baetown415
baetown415

Rowand is actually projected to +7 in the corner, 0 in center. Same as Winn.

Chris
Chris

300 innings is just too small to draw conclusions from because of the randomness of BIP distribution. USSM has a nice defensive primer and it touches on sample size for defensive stats: http://ussmariner.com/2006/01/24/evaluating-defen... <cite>Sample Size. The generally accepted principle in defensive statistics is that you need at least two years of data to generate any kind of real conclusion about a player’s abilities, and you’d prefer to have more. With Betancourt, we basically have 1/3 of one season. There are just way too many non-fielding factors that could influence the number over that period of time. Ball in play distribution is a huge factor in small sample defensive numbers, for instance. If Betancourt happened to receive more easy to field grounders than others, his number would be through the roof. If teams were whacking uncatchable balls into the hole, his rating would suffer, and because of the small time frame, the impact of a few extra balls here and there would be magnified greatly.</cite> As for this: >>About Rowand, I have to think that there is either an adjustment period or permanent problem with playing CF in AT&T. Are you saying that CF at AT&T is so hard for Rowand to play, that he went from about a +5-7 run defender all the way down to a -11 run defender? He'd played CF at AT&T before with the Phillies and how many countless games has he played at the position? How many different parks has he played in? Heck, Steve Finely at 41-years-old played an average defensive CF for the Giants in 2006 (UZR of 0.8). Winn was close to average too in '06 and above average in '05. I bet he could play an average CF in '09. If those guys can handle the fielding why can't Rowand? Maybe he lost a step. Maybe it was an injury. I don't know, but with his age, if he continues to play below average defense, the Giants have a problem. UZR data by month would fall to the same problems of small samples, BIP distribution is going to make it useless to draw any conclusion from.

obsessivegiantscompu
obsessivegiantscompu

I am curious, why is Burriss's stats too small to have predictive value? I don't know all the statistical terminology (or the answer), but know that when a value is at an extreme, then the possibility that it represents something predictive improves a lot, the null hypothesis could be calculated and determined to be true N% of the time. Typically, you want to see N to be greater than or equal to 90 or 95 percent, but it would also be significant to know if, say, maybe it was 75-80%, which is still a strong chance, just not the slam dunks 90-95% is. Burriss's UZR is at the opposite end of the spectrum of Winn and Vizquel. He might only have 315 innings but that is half of what Vizquel played. Is there a study that shows at what size the sample has to be? Or a way to analyze sample size with UZR and get a guess at what the true level might be? I know with stats that one can do that, just don't know if that applies to UZR. About Rowand, I have to think that there is either an adjustment period or permanent problem with playing CF in AT&T. Take a look at Winn's numbers for CF after joining the Giants. After years of mildly positive UZR, he comes to the Giants and post negative numbers. Per your point with Burriss, could be small samples, but for him, it is multiple seasons, and always negative. And if hitters have to adjust to hitting there, I would assume that fielders would have to adjust as well, given the odd shape of the ballpark. Too bad we can't see the UZR for each month, see how it jumps around, or by home vs. road.

Chris
Chris

Also, a quick comment on the new FanGraph UZR's is that they are using BIS data instead of STATS data. I believe they each define their zones slightly differently so you might find some variation between the older UZR stuff and the new stuff on FanGraphs. Still, an amazing set of data to be able to browse though freely.