Two Subtractions & One Addition = Better “D”?
I received an e-mail earlier today where the sender shared that the Yankees team Ultimate Zone Rating (UZR) last season was -44.5, the third worst in the league. And, according to their note, this year, New York’s UZR is -12.9, right around the middle of the pack (16th in the big leagues, specifically).
So, what’s behind the improvement? I looked into the stats a bit and believe that the difference between this season and last year is that Nick Swisher – while just a somewhat average right fielder – is a huge improvement over Bobby Abreu (who was terrible in terms of UZR), Mark Teixiera is an improvement over Jason Giambi at first base, and that Derek Jeter has greatly improved his UZR mark (this season compared to last year).
But, while looking into UZR, I found that it’s creator did admit to the following: If one fielder is better at positioning than another, then he will likely have a better UZR even if he has the same or worse range. And, seeing this, I have to think back to all those reports about Mick Kelleher helping Derek Jeter with his positioning this season.
So, maybe the answer here, in terms of why the Yankees are a better defensive team in 2009 (compared to 2008), is: New York got rid of Bobby Abreu and Jason Giambi – and they also brought in Mick Kelleher. What do you think?
Makes sense to me- Kelleher getting Jeter to stop playing so shallow was huge.
It would be even better if some other things went according to plan. A-Rod’s UZR has dropped big time because of his hip injury, and Damon’s UZR has gone way down after being very good last year. More games of Gardner in CF would have also helped if he had not been hurt…all little things. Can’t complain too much when you’re 30+ games over .500
YankCrank wrote:
Good calls there. The Yanks might actually be plus runs as a team in UZR if not for those three. Damon could be expected, he’s been sliding the last couple of years; the other two, not so much, they’re just bad luck.
This reminds me of something Bill James once wrote about, which I believe he referred to as “invisible range” – the ability of some fielders to position themselves in places where they can make routine stops without having to run and/or dive at balls. A player who makes a great run and leap appears to be a great fielder, while a player who studies and reads the opposition and positions himself so that he is always close to where the ball is likely to be hit may seem to be just average. Obviously it doesn’t have to be an either/or sort of thing, and we’d all love fielders who had both great apparent range as well as terrific positioning skills. It’s just that the former is what people usually talk about when they bring up range, and the latter is almost always ignored.