• 2012 Yankees OPS Split By Defensive Position

    Posted by on February 20th, 2013 · Comments (8)

    Here are the numbers:

    Rk Split Year G OPS PA HR RBI SB BB SO BA OBP SLG BAbip
    1 NYY as PH for DH 2012 19 1.474 19 2 9 0 0 2 .526 .526 .947 .533
    2 NYY as 2B 2012 162 .911 702 31 92 6 57 105 .311 .372 .539 .332
    3 NYY as DH 2012 153 .860 657 29 100 10 62 132 .293 .362 .497 .331
    4 NYY as CF 2012 162 .835 709 45 118 9 75 193 .242 .325 .510 .270
    5 NYY as 1B 2012 162 .824 693 29 107 3 85 117 .262 .355 .469 .275
    6 NYY as 3B 2012 162 .817 664 26 72 13 62 131 .278 .353 .464 .315
    7 NYY as Infield 2012 162 .800 3409 123 392 35 304 552 .275 .346 .454 .299
    8 NYY at Def. Pos. 2012 162 .799 2761 113 331 26 232 497 .269 .337 .462 .295
    9 NYY at Off. Pos. 2012 162 .783 2659 99 334 43 260 493 .260 .338 .445 .287
    10 NYY as Outfield 2012 162 .775 2011 89 273 24 188 438 .247 .323 .453 .277
    11 NYY as RF 2012 162 .759 674 22 85 8 61 130 .258 .330 .430 .293
    12 NYY as SS 2012 162 .744 731 15 57 13 39 93 .295 .338 .406 .324
    13 NYY as LF 2012 162 .727 628 22 70 14 52 115 .241 .312 .415 .266
    14 NYY as C 2012 162 .695 619 22 64 7 61 106 .220 .308 .387 .233
    15 NYY as PH 2012 89 .643 148 6 18 2 11 43 .201 .270 .373 .244
    16 NYY as P 2012 9 .190 24 0 0 0 0 12 .095 .095 .095 .222
    17 NYY Other 2012 1 .000 1 0 0 17 0 1 .000 .000 .000
    Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool Used
    Generated 2/20/2013.

    .
    Last year, DH and 2B were huge for the Yankees – and, LF and catcher were not so much. I suspect that catcher will be weak again in 2013. And, I doubt that LF could be much worse this year. The bigger question is DH. Will that be a plus for the Yankees this season or a minus?

    Comments on 2012 Yankees OPS Split By Defensive Position

    1. MJ Recanati
      February 20th, 2013 | 2:49 pm

      Actually, as much as you might hate to admit it, DH, 2B and CF were huge for the Yankees last year if we’re sorting by OPS.

      Granderson posted the 9th highest OPS among qualified CF’ers in the majors last year (out of 23 qualified players) and that goes up to 6th highest in the American League (out of 14 qualified players).

      By that measure, it would appear that the Yankees got very good production at that third position as well.

    2. February 20th, 2013 | 2:51 pm

      @ MJ Recanati:
      CF, in terms of SLG, yes, was great. But, in terms of OBP and BABIP, not so great. He was, all or nothing.

    3. MJ Recanati
      February 20th, 2013 | 3:15 pm

      Steve L. wrote:

      CF, in terms of SLG, yes, was great. But, in terms of OBP and BABIP, not so great. He was, all or nothing.

      First, this is an example of a moving goalpost. You, not I, sorted the table (and even named the blog post) by OPS. SLG is one of the two equal components of OPS, the other being OBP. Irrespective of whether Granderson had a high or low OBP, he nevertheless had the 9th highest OPS in the majors among qualified CF’ers and the 6th highest OPS in the American League among qualified CF’ers.

      Second, who cares what his BABIP was? Considering the formula isolates balls in play by its very name, it would be expected that Granderson’s BABIP would be low since homeruns are not balls put into play.

    4. February 20th, 2013 | 3:21 pm

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      Second, who cares what his BABIP was?

      Just shows that he hits homeruns. But, in the rare times where he makes contact, he rarely reaches base.

    5. MJ Recanati
      February 20th, 2013 | 3:57 pm

      Steve L. wrote:

      Just shows that he hits homeruns. But, in the rare times where he makes contact, he rarely reaches base.

      Contact is necessary but not sufficient for HR production. I’ll take the productivity Granderson provides over a high contact guy that does nothing productive with his contact.

      Is Granderson a perfect player? No, clearly not. He strikes out a lot and hits for a low average. But no matter how much you move the goalposts, the fact remains that this blog post shows that the Yankees benefited from Granderson, as well as Cano and the DH last year.

    6. Evan3457
      February 20th, 2013 | 5:34 pm

      Steve L. wrote:
      CF, in terms of SLG, yes, was great. But, in terms of OBP and BABIP, not so great. He was, all or nothing.

      Actually, a low BABIP, if the underlying GB%/LD%/FB% percentages haven’t changed much since the previous year, are a leading indicator in improvement in BAVG and, therefore, OBP as well.

      In Granderson’s case, the indicator is even more extreme, because his FB% dropped by 4% from 2011 to 2012, and his LD% increased by 4.4%. His GB% dropped slightly, 0.7%. His K%, however, rose by 4%, and this has a large negative impact on BAVG.

      Putting that altogether is a stat called XBA, compiled by a fantasy pay website that I subscribe to. In 2011, Granderson’s XBA was .272, but his actual BAVG was .262. Last season, his XBA was .251, and his actual BAVG was .232. So a small rise in BAVG is indicated by a minor amount of relative bad luck. In fact the website lists his projected XBA as .259, and his projected BAVG as .242.

    7. February 20th, 2013 | 5:57 pm

      @ Evan3457:
      Shandler?

    8. Evan3457
      February 21st, 2013 | 9:30 pm

      Steve L. wrote:

      @ Evan3457:
      Shandler?

      Yup. Just one source I use. An oldie but a goodie.

    Leave a reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.