Reds acquire Shin-Soo Choo and Jason Donald for Drew Stubbs and Didi Gregorious

[dunner13]

Originally Posted by jojo

I don't think anyone is suggestng the defense will implode by having a minus defender in centerfield.

The point really is that playing Choo in CF is likely to significantly impact his overall value because it's likely he'll fair poorly so it's important to consider when evaluating a trade and valuing his impact on the team's potential.

That said, assuming he's a -10 defender in CF over the course of a full season (on average a corner outfielder gets dinged 10 runs for moving to center and he's been a slightly minus defender in the corner so this is a conservative estimate that gives him benefit of the doubt for his speed), he'd still be a 3.5 to 4 WAR player (assuming his bat produces along his career lines) despite having a defensive value that would've made him one of the worst qualified defensive centerfielders in the majors last season.

Stubbs was a 1.3 WAR player last year and he's been on a three year downward trend.

Choo makes the Reds significantly better despite the defensive problems his addition seem to present for the outfield. The calculus works on this one. I'm a huge proponent of defense but the goal is to get better and there are a gazillion ways to skin a cat. I think this move makes it more likely that the Reds play in a WS this season.

I have no doubt that Choo makes the reds significantly better I'm just wondering can we somewhat "hide" his below avg defense by having above avg guys in the corners? Mixed with most of his games in a smaller ball park and the possibility of him playing CF better then what were giving him credit for could the hit on defense actually not be that bad?

[REDREAD]

I am pretty sure there's going to be a dropoff in defense going from Stubbs to Choo.

I wonder what the dropoff is going to be betweeen Choo and Heisey?
IMO, Heisey was a notch below Stubbs (although I know others disagree).

In interleague games, would it be worthwhile to DH one of Ludwick/Choo just to get Heisey's glove in there? Let's assume it's a tight divisional race and every win counts. We know that in reality, Dusty will use the DH to give all the bench guys some at bats.. That's not a bad thing.. was just wondering about using Heisey in CF if you wanted to optimize..

[mattfeet]

Originally Posted by REDREAD

I am pretty sure there's going to be a dropoff in defense going from Stubbs to Choo.

I wonder what the dropoff is going to be betweeen Choo and Heisey?
IMO, Heisey was a notch below Stubbs (although I know others disagree).

In interleague games, would it be worthwhile to DH one of Ludwick/Choo just to get Heisey's glove in there? Let's assume it's a tight divisional race and every win counts. We know that in reality, Dusty will use the DH to give all the bench guys some at bats.. That's not a bad thing.. was just wondering about using Heisey in CF if you wanted to optimize..

I almost guarantee that Ludwick will DH with Heisey in LF for interleague games.

[RedsManRick]

Originally Posted by mattfeet

I almost guarantee that Ludwick will DH with Heisey in LF for interleague games.

They wouldn't shift Choo to LF and put Heisey in CF?

[mattfeet]

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

They wouldn't shift Choo to LF and put Heisey in CF?

Well, yea, good point. Heisey in CF, Choo in LF, Luddy DH.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by dunner13

I have no doubt that Choo makes the reds significantly better I'm just wondering can we somewhat "hide" his below avg defense by having above avg guys in the corners? Mixed with most of his games in a smaller ball park and the possibility of him playing CF better then what were giving him credit for could the hit on defense actually not be that bad?

I think they can be creative and find ways to minimize his glove while maximizing his bat.

I don't think the Reds have corner outfielders that can compensate for CF. I've slowly begun to expect less from Bruce's glove.

[WildcatFan]

For reference, the 2012 NL slashes by lineup position (leadoff, second, cleanup, etc.), followed by the assumed Cincinnati lineup's 2012 stats:

1. .261/.324/.391 Choo .283/.373/.441
2. .262/.321/.393 Phillips .281/.321/.429
3. .274/.350/.463 Votto .337/.474/.567
4. .273/.345/.467 Ludwick .275/.346/.531
5. .260/.322/.436 Bruce .252/.327/.514
6. .257/.322/.420 Frazier .273/.331/.498
7. .249/.309/.400 Cozart .246/.288/.399
8. .244/.308/.367 Hanigan .274/.365/.338

They're clearly above average now in all of the top six spots and the 8 hole, unlike last season when they were generally well below average in the top two spots. That's what the Choo trade did almost single-handedly (with help from the Ludwick re-signing).

If Cozart can make any kind of improvement at the plate this season, which, I know he's 27, but is almost a sure thing, he should be able to become a league-average 7-hole hitter, and you pretty much have no holes in the lineup.

[M2]

Originally Posted by jojo

That said, assuming he's a -10 defender in CF over the course of a full season (on average a corner outfielder gets dinged 10 runs for moving to center and he's been a slightly minus defender in the corner so this is a conservative estimate that gives him benefit of the doubt for his speed)

...

Choo makes the Reds significantly better despite the defensive problems his addition seem to present for the outfield. The calculus works on this one. I'm a huge proponent of defense but the goal is to get better and there are a gazillion ways to skin a cat. I think this move makes it more likely that the Reds play in a WS this season.

I'll start with the last part first: I agree. The bat upgrade is kind of huge. I actually think this is a very Moneyball move. If you look at the CFs who've been signed or traded this winter - Upton, Pagan, Span, Revere - none of them is a true impact bat. They have some moderate offensive ability, but they aren't game changers. Choo is. The market inefficiency in CF is big bats. If you can find a Choo-like bat who can handle the defensive duties well enough, then you're talking about some real separation from the pack. Moving Choo to CF strikes me as the kind of crazy that moved Scott Hatteberg to 1B.

That's probably a fair guesstimate on his defense. One thing I'll add is a RF to CF shift probably isn't all that linear. The reality is very few RFs make a full-time switch to CF. It usually works the other way around and it usually happens while the guy is still a fair defender in CF. Andre Dawson shifts to RF. Vlad Guerrero doesn't shift to CF. So the standard metric adjustment is based largely on a rightward defensive spectrum shift.

I think you touched on something key when you mentioned Choo's speed. Dude is fast. Fast conquers a lot of imperfections in CF. When you look at who the RFs are that can make any kind of permanent shift to CF, the answer would seem to be "the fast ones." This is why I brought up Sr.'s 1981 CF shift earlier in the thread. He wasn't an outstanding RF, but he was fast. As it turned out, he was pretty much the same fielder in CF that he was in RF. He got the job done well enough.

If you're looking for a modern equivalent, Alejandro De Aza seems to be that kind of guy. It doesn't seem to matter where he plays in the OF, you get the same forgettably competent defense out of him. He's a real wherever man. His teammate Alex Rios might be the same sort of cat. Mind you, it's tough to say anything definitive about Rios because he's one of the most maddeningly inconsistent ballplayers of modern times. Some seasons he forgets how to play baseball. Yet in 2010 he was a perfectly acceptable CF.

And there's an argument that CarGo is actually better in CF than he is in the corners.

So the question, and we have no way of knowing the answer, is whether Choo's cut from that mold. Complicating matters is getting a fix on what kind of fielder Choo is in RF. According to his numbers, he was solid from 2009-2011 and then had a dog of a 2012. Was that a tipping point? Was it an anomaly? Do you take his three-year average or should you do four since he was banged up in 2011? His defense is a bit of an ink blot test.

Projecting him as a moderately poor CF is a reasonable starting point. He could be a disaster out there or he could turn out to be furiously average. For now, somewhere in between strikes me as a decent placeholder.

[REDREAD]

Originally Posted by M2

So the question, and we have no way of knowing the answer, is whether Choo's cut from that mold. Complicating matters is getting a fix on what kind of fielder Choo is in RF. According to his numbers, he was solid from 2009-2011 and then had a dog of a 2012. Was that a tipping point? Was it an anomaly? Do you take his three-year average or should you do four since he was banged up in 2011? His defense is a bit of an ink blot test.
.

I'm not at all concerned about Choo's 2012 defensive stats (nor Bruce's)
Both are good athletes.
Choo is an above average RF IMO.
Not sure how that will translate to CF, but I'm not worried about the stats saying he was bad last year. He's a good RF. I'm assuming he's over whatever injury he had. I admit I did not watch him much last year, but it would be unusual for an OF at his age to suddenly lose it defensively.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by M2

I'll start with the last part first: I agree. The bat upgrade is kind of huge. I actually think this is a very Moneyball move. If you look at the CFs who've been signed or traded this winter - Upton, Pagan, Span, Revere - none of them is a true impact bat. They have some moderate offensive ability, but they aren't game changers. Choo is. The market inefficiency in CF is big bats. If you can find a Choo-like bat who can handle the defensive duties well enough, then you're talking about some real separation from the pack. Moving Choo to CF strikes me as the kind of crazy that moved Scott Hatteberg to 1B.

That's probably a fair guesstimate on his defense. One thing I'll add is a RF to CF shift probably isn't all that linear. The reality is very few RFs make a full-time switch to CF. It usually works the other way around and it usually happens while the guy is still a fair defender in CF. Andre Dawson shifts to RF. Vlad Guerrero doesn't shift to CF. So the standard metric adjustment is based largely on a rightward defensive spectrum shift.

I think you touched on something key when you mentioned Choo's speed. Dude is fast. Fast conquers a lot of imperfections in CF. When you look at who the RFs are that can make any kind of permanent shift to CF, the answer would seem to be "the fast ones." This is why I brought up Sr.'s 1981 CF shift earlier in the thread. He wasn't an outstanding RF, but he was fast. As it turned out, he was pretty much the same fielder in CF that he was in RF. He got the job done well enough.

If you're looking for a modern equivalent, Alejandro De Aza seems to be that kind of guy. It doesn't seem to matter where he plays in the OF, you get the same forgettably competent defense out of him. He's a real wherever man. His teammate Alex Rios might be the same sort of cat. Mind you, it's tough to say anything definitive about Rios because he's one of the most maddeningly inconsistent ballplayers of modern times. Some seasons he forgets how to play baseball. Yet in 2010 he was a perfectly acceptable CF.

And there's an argument that CarGo is actually better in CF than he is in the corners.

So the question, and we have no way of knowing the answer, is whether Choo's cut from that mold. Complicating matters is getting a fix on what kind of fielder Choo is in RF. According to his numbers, he was solid from 2009-2011 and then had a dog of a 2012. Was that a tipping point? Was it an anomaly? Do you take his three-year average or should you do four since he was banged up in 2011? His defense is a bit of an ink blot test.

Projecting him as a moderately poor CF is a reasonable starting point. He could be a disaster out there or he could turn out to be furiously average. For now, somewhere in between strikes me as a decent placeholder.

My take on Choo's defense is that he's "fast not natural" so he can compensate. I wouldn't fixate on 2012 unless there is an underlying, compelling reason to believe his trueskill has deterioratated (injury etc). His poor numbers were almost entirely due to range. But the top of the heep of RF defense last year was populated with some excellent defenders-there were a bunch of gold glove awards on the the walls of the guys above him. I think Choo's 2012 defensive numbers are skewed a bit by "cohort" bias.

Probably a good place to start with estimating his defensive worth is to look at his career UZR/150 in RF (-2.7 in 5067 innings). If someone wanted to argue he looked worse due to the talent distribution in right during 2012 (he wasn't dinged for a change in his talent but rather he was dinged by a change in the distribution of talent he was comapred to), I wouldn't quibble with characterizing him as a neutral corner defender.

I get why Walt did what he did.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by bucksfan2

Doug tell me why Cozart can't improve? You have pigeon holed Cozart because of one season in the bigs and his old age of 27. Players can improve no? Players can adjust, right? Do you take into consideration that he was put in a situation where he wasn't all together comfortable during his first season?

I wouldn't be shocked if Cozart put up a .330 OBP. I wouldn't be surprised if after his first season in the bigs he was able to adjust. I wouldn't be surprised if moving him down in the order helped out his batting this season.

It isn't that he can't, it is that he isn't all that likely to do so. Offensively and defensively, players tend to work on a bell curve. For offense, the bell tops out at age 27 or 28. Cozart is there, right now. Defensively, the bell tops out around 24-25. Cozart is already on the wrong side of that. Historically speaking, players at his age simply don't show dramatic improvements.

[marcshoe]

Very limited knowledge on my part, but does a bell curve work when you're talking about progression? I've tended to see it used to explain distribution among a common demographic, thus accounting for deviation. I may be being a little too literal, though, I get what you mean.

[M2]

Originally Posted by REDREAD

I'm not at all concerned about Choo's 2012 defensive stats (nor Bruce's)

One thing to consider with Reds OFs and defensive stats is if you put capable fielders in multiple positions, they're likely robbing outs from each other given the relatively narrow power alleys at the GAB.

When you look at the 2012 Reds' defense as whole, it grades out as pretty darn good (4th in the NL in DER, TZ and DRS ranked the Reds defense 2nd overall in the league). Only 4.9% of their opponents PAs resulted in doubles or triples, which is better than average. The opposing BA of .247 was 4th in the NL. Clearly plays were being made at the macro level.

My guess is if Bruce plays next to a lesser flychaser, he'll get more of those either/or balls at the GAB, making his personal stats shinier while not particularly affecting the team's overall defensive profile.

[traderumor]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

It isn't that he can't, it is that he isn't all that likely to do so. Offensively and defensively, players tend to work on a bell curve. For offense, the bell tops out at age 27 or 28. Cozart is there, right now. Defensively, the bell tops out around 24-25. Cozart is already on the wrong side of that. Historically speaking, players at his age simply don't show dramatic improvements.

Begging the question on several fronts.

Was 2012 his norm? Was it in line with his major league/minor league projections? How much of 2012 numbers are attributed to randomness and could fluctuate positively without any additional "improvement"?

Who says a player regresses defensively post 25? While I can see the physical peak aspect, that doesn't mean a late 20s to early 30s player doesn't keep his defensive play in tact, or even improve, by knowing the game better, i.e. positioning, anticipation. It is counter intuitive to say a guy has done as well as he is going to do defensively by the time he is 25.

[M2]

Originally Posted by jojo

I think Choo's 2012 defensive numbers are skewed a bit by "cohort" bias.

Excellent point. I tend to view noisy CF numbers as a reflection of general defensive wizardry at that position, some years a guy looks brilliant and others not so much. Hadn't much considered the +/- effects of increasing RF excellence.

And the use of "cohort" would normally set me off on a Quinta del Buitre jag, but this would be the wrong forum for that.