Out Of Position OF'ers

by Excel Hearts Choi on May 12, 2008 10:10 AM CDT

I was browsing BTF this morning, and I came across the story that Manny Ramirez thinks he should be getting a Gold Glove. There was one post that caught my eye. The author came up with a quick and dirty way to see if an OF is playing out of position (you can see his whole post here - it is post #5). The basic idea is this:

Take the number of missed plays in zone, plus plays made out of zone, and divide by innings, to get a sense of how out of position each player might be playing generally. Call it "out of position stat", or OOPS. (A low OOPS means any number of things, but a very high OOPS suggests to me that a player might be out of position, making plays a LF usually doesn't and missing plays a LFer usually gets.)

So I decided to apply this formula to the Rangers OF (note, I did not take into account sample sizes, I used everybody). Here are my findings:

LF	Inn	MIZ	OOZ	OOPS
Boggs	107	1	6	0.065
Murphy	85	2	6	0.094
Duran	14	1	0	0.071
Catalanotto	117	6	0	0.051
Botts	14	1	0	0.071
Bradley	8	2	0	0.250

CF	Inn	MIZ	OOZ	OOPS
Murphy	66	5	4	0.136
Byrd	34	1	0	0.029
Hamilton	246	7	13	0.081

RF	Inn	MIZ	OOZ	OOPS
Hamilton	64	0	3	0.047
Duran	2	0	0	0.000
Murphy	187	0	8	0.043
Bradley	48	2	0	0.042
Byrd	42	3	1	0.095
Boggs	2	N/A	N/A	N/A

In RF, Bradley seems to play way out of position, but that is only eight innings. Other than that, the starters have low enough numbers. Murphy only seems to play out of position in CF, so I wonder if Boggs should be used when Hamilton needs a day off. Of course, this does not mean the Rangers have an outstanding OF defense, but at least they are not playing out of position (if you trust the formula used to create these numbers).

5 recs | Comment 27 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

Nice work

but what I really see is the total innings by Hamilton. Man, that guy has played a lot. Maybe he should get some more rest here pretty soon.

by geetar85 on May 12, 2008 10:25 AM CDT 0 recs

Murphy

...has more innings total, at 338 than Hamilton does total, at 310. Interesting on that article about GMJ…I wonder what his OOPS rating would have been in his last season with Texas where he made all those highlight-reel plays?

"Gabbard's not gonna hit Richie Sexson. You got a guy coming up there who can't hit water if he fell out of a boat. And you think hes gonna throw at HIM?" -TAG

by FuturePants on May 12, 2008 10:54 AM CDT up 0 recs

'07 GMJ

OOPS – 0.073 = 1227 Inn, 310 BIZ, 277 Plays, 56 OOZ

by Excel Hearts Choi on May 12, 2008 11:04 AM CDT up 0 recs

I meant GMJ in 2006

"Gabbard's not gonna hit Richie Sexson. You got a guy coming up there who can't hit water if he fell out of a boat. And you think hes gonna throw at HIM?" -TAG

by FuturePants on May 12, 2008 4:01 PM CDT up 0 recs

Interesting

Speaking of Hammy, I like to go over to MLB stats occasionally and see how awesome he is compared to the rest of the AL hitters. I noticed something weird – Carlos Pena is 2nd in AL HR’s with 8, yet has only a .403 SLG%. 1 measley double!?

Rangers Farm Probables

by shroomer on May 12, 2008 10:41 AM CDT 0 recs

His .209 average isn't really helping his cause...

Definitely one of those 3 outcome type hitters (hr, walk, k)

by slimshadty12 on May 12, 2008 11:42 AM CDT up 0 recs

What an improvement

this group of outfielders is over the outfield that took the field last year. They can hit, run and catch. One is AL Player of the Month, another is AL Rookie of the Month and if Boggs keeps it up, he may win something in May. Byrd is going to have a tough time cracking this lineup. This is a huge step up in just one years time in what was probably the weakest area in the team, although there is a lot of competition for that dubious honor.

by walrus52 on May 12, 2008 11:10 AM CDT 0 recs

True

Byrd will have a tough time getting in the lineup. Boggs is staying put, so it looks like Byrd may be
#4 for a while.

by yankee_h8ter on May 12, 2008 11:43 PM CDT up 0 recs

Hmm

The numbers look odd. Hamilton has 3 OOZ and no MIZ plays in RF but is rated lower than Bradley with 2 MIZ plays and no OOZ plays in 16 less innings? Bradley in RF has less than half the number as Byrd with one less of each MIZ and OOZ in comparable innings?

I’m not sure this stat tells us anything.

--Brian

by BCanfield on May 12, 2008 3:40 PM CDT 0 recs

Yeah, it's a funky statistic.

It doesn’t reward OOZ, because the assumption is that the player is mislocated within the zone (because Manny was playing shallow). As a result, the player gets more balls OOZ but also increases MIZ. The problem arises when a player is really good and located correctly in which case MIZ should be small and increases in OOZ are a good thing.

Hamilton: He good.

by rooster on May 12, 2008 3:51 PM CDT up 0 recs

I don't necessarily agree.

I have not yet seen Hamilton show that he has been good to this point, and the stats would back that up. He certainly seems to have the athletecism to be good, and he gets to balls that I think other centerfielders wouldn’t. But he also doesn’t make a lot of plays that average centerfielders would.

We’ll have a better idea at the end of the season, but to this point I don’t think you can definitively say Hamilton is good or bad, and saying he’s been good so far is a slightly more uphill argument.

by philkid3 on May 12, 2008 11:02 PM CDT up 0 recs

Hamilton has been good-solid defensively

ZR of .905

by Requiem on May 13, 2008 5:35 PM CDT up 0 recs

This is a Goofy Stat...

Doesn’t make much sense to me. If a player has 0 MIZ plays, then the OOZ plays should be an asset and work in his favor, and not be a detriment to his rating. Seems to say that a player who makes all the plays in his zone and some possibly spectacular plays out of his zone has less defensive utility than a player who makes plays in zone, but doesn’t add outs by making plays he shouldnt make. Really, really a stretch of a stat if you ask me. Which you didn’t, so I digress.

by Topgun22 on May 12, 2008 4:41 PM CDT 0 recs

The stat wasn't designed to measure how much a player is contributing.

Or how much potential he has, or anything else like that. It’s designed to measure how often he’s out of position. The argument should be about whether or not it does that well, not whether or not it measure how good a fielder has been well.

by philkid3 on May 12, 2008 11:04 PM CDT up 0 recs

OK, But...

The same argument applies. “Out of Position” is a subjective term. If a player is making all plays in his zone and some out of zone, then I would argue he is in good “position”. But this stat says that a guy who makes the plays in his zone and no out of zone plays is in “better position”. I disagree with the assessment, that’s all.

by Topgun22 on May 13, 2008 11:56 AM CDT up 0 recs

To Be Fair

Even the author of the formula I used said that this is not an exact measurement at all:

Were I to take this seriously, I’d have come up with something less junky than this.

I don’t live in the Dallas area, so I can’t see the Rangers very often on TV. Even then, seeing in person is much more reliable than on the TV. I was just interested in OF defense, even if the conclusions are somewhat suspect.

by Excel Hearts Choi on May 13, 2008 12:50 PM CDT up 0 recs

Of Course.

And I wasn’t trying to shoot the messenger, it just seems that this stat is a little counterintuitive and misleading in determining defensive utility (if in fact that is what it is trying to do). But I enjoy learning about new and objective methods to assess a players value, this just doesn’t seem like one of the better ways, thats all.

by Topgun22 on May 13, 2008 1:50 PM CDT up 0 recs

I agree

This is really a tell-nothing stat.

Not sure if the original intent of the original “creator” was, but I feel there are enough crap stats out there, that unless there’s a reasonable thought-process behind it, we shouldn’t be going out of our way to make up new stats.

by Requiem on May 13, 2008 5:38 PM CDT up 0 recs

Very Interesting

I’ve often compared MIZ and OOZ just as a point of interest, I’ve never thought of applying and interpretting it like that.

by philkid3 on May 12, 2008 10:57 PM CDT 0 recs

OOPS?

this is absolutely the most useless stat i’ve ever heard of. you know when a guy’s out of position by watching him. the rangers have a fantastic outfield whether it’s hamilton in center or murphy, murphy in right or bradley, and even DURAN has gotten some time there. if anyone’s out of place it’s duran, but he’s played a solid outfield, and it’s his bat that keeps getting him in the lineup with blalock out anyway. OOPS? give me a break. WE’RE WINNING GAMES!!!

by yankee_h8ter on May 12, 2008 11:41 PM CDT 0 recs

“you know when a guy’s out of position by watching him.”

Most of us don’t get to watch every play of every game, though. You’re absolutely right, that would be the best way.

by philkid3 on May 13, 2008 1:25 AM CDT up 0 recs

i think you are interpreting this incorrectly

if a guy has 0 OOZ and 2 MIZ, then he is not playing out of zone, he just sucks at the zone he is playing

Rare Gnats Sex

by ab03 on May 13, 2008 2:03 PM CDT 0 recs

even Hamilton

while he has a pretty good number for both columns, (just from memory) his MIZ seem to be from misplays, not from him being in the wrong position.

Also, does MIZ take into consideration errors. Because a good way to correct the stat would be to get rid of fielding errors. Then, you have a better chance of counting MIZ’s where the guy was lined up in the wrong spot to begin with, rather than misplays that result from human error. And that still wouldn’t account for misplays not counted as errors, like bad reads on the ball (which I think Hamilton has had a few).

Rare Gnats Sex

by ab03 on May 13, 2008 2:07 PM CDT up 0 recs

Hamilton = Glorified Ian Kinsler

Both make bonehead plays but also spectacular ones. Hamilton takes a lot less flak because he makes fewer bonehead plays (still a lot for his position), and more spectacular spectacular ones. That said, I consider both to be above-average defenders because of plus range. It’s a lot easier to teach a guy to make the routine plays than to to teach him to make the tough ones.

by Telegraph on May 13, 2008 2:22 PM CDT 0 recs

Hamilton also takes way less flak for his defensive lapses

because he’s a really, really good hitter.

And if you don’t believe a guy’s offense influences the perception of his defense, Derek Jeter has some Gold Gloves he’d like to show you…

"If we where [sic] gonna trade them Salty, I would want a helluva lot more than just Joba though." -lonestarJon

by thedirkatron on May 13, 2008 4:05 PM CDT up 0 recs

take last night

defensive lapse leads to a big inning but then a few innings later all you remember is that the ball hit the umbrellas.

i’m gonna go watch that home run again

Rare Gnats Sex

by ab03 on May 13, 2008 4:28 PM CDT up 0 recs

Not really related

but it is on the topic of out of place wrist bands. Does anyone know why Josh Hamilton wears #9 on his wrist bands? Is in memory of Hank Blalock the Third Baseman.

Ephesians 1:3-10

by kwellborn on May 20, 2008 10:18 PM CDT 0 recs