From Jinaz: Is the 2009 Reds opening day outfield worse than last year's?

[OnBaseMachine]

Is the 2009 Reds opening day outfield worse than last year's?

The Reds are a faster team this year, most notably in the outfield where they might open the year with Dickerson/Taveras/Bruce after beginning last season with Dunn/Patterson/Griffey. Offensively, the latter combination is better than we we have this season. But can the speed of the 2009 trio make up for this loss in offense?

Here's a quick study to that end, inspired by an e-mail exchange.

Hitting

2008:
Dunn: +28.2 runs/150 g
Patterson: -38.9 runs/150 g
Griffey: + 4.6 runs/150 g
Total: -6.1 runs

Granted, I'm counting one of the worst seasons in recent memory here with Patterson. But he was the opening day center fielder, and for all intents and purposes was the CF starter for much of 2008. Who else should we use here?

2009 projected:
Dickerson: -15 runs/150 g
Taveras: -22 runs/150 g
Bruce: +4 runs/150 g
Total: -33 runs/150 g

Obviously, we're losing a lot of sock this year, even taking into account the pure misery of Patterson's season.

Baserunning

2008 baserunning using Dan Fox's stats:

Dunn: -2.5 runs/150 g
Patterson: +1.0 runs/150 g
Griffey: -5.4 runs/150 g
Total: -6.9 runs/150 g

2009 "projections" (average of 2007 & 2008 stats/150 g for Taveras...For Bruce and Dickerson I extrapolated from their 2008 performances, but then regressed half-way to zero in recognition of the small sample sizes on both of them) using Dan Fox's stats:

Dickerson: -1.1 runs/150 g
Taveras: +9.8 runs/150 g
Bruce: -0.1 runs/150 g
Total: +8.6 runs/150 g

That's a difference of 15.5 runs per 150 g in baserunning.

Fielding

Here is the projected runs per 150 games for the 2009 trio of outfielders vs. what the 2008 Reds did according to bUZR:

2008:
Dunn: -19.8 runs/150 g in LF
Patterson: -1.4 runs/150 g in CF
Griffey: -20.6 runs/150 g in RF
Total: -41.8 runs/150 g

2009 projected:
Dickerson: +3 runs/150 g in LF
Taveras: +3 runs/150 g in CF
Bruce: +2 runs/150 g in RF
Total: +8 runs/150 g

That's a difference of almost exactly 50 runs, due to the change in defense in the outfield between opening day last year and opening day this year. Staggering.

Hitting + Baserunning+Fielding:

For the 2008 opening day squad, I have them as -6.1 runs on offense, -6.9 runs in baserunning, and a mind-blowing -41.8 runs in the field for a total production of 55 runs below average.

For the 2009 opening day squad (assuming Dickerson is in LF), I have them as a miserable -33 runs/150g on offense, +8.6 runs/150 g baserunning, and +8 runs per season in the field for a total projected production of 16 runs below average.

...

So, what these data indicate is that our speed-focused outfield combination of Dickerson/Taveras/Bruce is projected to more productive--on the order of 40 runs and ~4 wins--than the combination we started with last season of Dunn/Patterson/Griffey. I certainly didn't expect the difference to be this large, and wasn't sure it would even be in this direction.

There are all kinds of potential critiques you might levy here, of course. The biggest is that 2008 saw Patterson have one of the worst seasons in reent memory, far below his 2008 projection. And therefore, what we got from our 2008 outfielders might be below their true talent levels.

So let's make Patterson a replacement player and take 20 runs off the difference. Even then, we're talking about a projected 2-win improvement over last year's opening day squad, despite the substantial offensive dropoff.

Maybe there are other changes that you'd make...but can you come up with reasons to subjectively shift the data another 20 runs toward the 2008 team's ledger? Even at that point, you'd only make the 2008 outfield the equals of the 2009 outfield.

If you ask the typical saber-leaning fan, I doubt you'll find many that would believe that our outfield might be at least as good, if not demonstrably better, than it was opening day last season. But that's what these data indicate, and I'm finding the numbers pretty compelling. It's all about improved baserunning and (especially) improved fielding. It makes a huge difference.

http://jinaz-reds.blogspot.com/2009/...eld-worse.html

Good stuff from Justin. I enjoy reading his work.

[Hoosier Red]

Hmmm. Speed and Defense. Its' almost as if the people putting the roster together aren't complete buffoons.

[BRM]

Taveras is a better defender in CF than Patterson? I'm having a hard time buying that one. He doesn't think much of Dickerson offensively either. Other than that, it's interesting analysis at least.

[_Sir_Charles_]

I'm quite skeptical of the negative attribute to Patterson's defensive number. But overall, I agree with that for the most part. I don't think the 2009 trio will be as bad offensively as he's suggesting, but I do see substantial improvement in the other areas.

[WMR]

Originally Posted by Hoosier Red

Hmmm. Speed and Defense. Its' almost as if the people putting the roster together aren't complete buffoons.

They aren't?

Love to see his projections for a Dunn-Dickerson-Bruce OF.

[WMR]

Originally Posted by BRM

Taveras is a better defender in CF than Patterson? I'm having a hard time buying that one. He doesn't think much of Dickerson offensively either. Other than that, it's interesting analysis at least.

There's no way in the world that Taveras is a better defensive CFer than Patterson. I don't believe he's a better CFer than CD either.

[OnBaseMachine]

UZR/150 has Patterson as a career +8.6 defender while Taveras is a +5.4 defender. Patterson is better but not by much.

[BRM]

Granted, I'm counting one of the worst seasons in recent memory here with Patterson. But he was the opening day center fielder, and for all intents and purposes was the CF starter for much of 2008. Who else should we use here?

Patterson logged about 52% of the team's CF at-bats. The rest were taken by the group of Bruce, Freel, Hopper, Hairston and Dickerson. Is 52% "much of 2008"? I guess it could be.

[Kc61]

You get the impression, listening to the Reds, that they think Taveras is at least as good as Patterson in CF. I thought Patterson was very good in CF last year defensively, but I can't measure the relative speed of the two players. Perhaps it's just a matter of footspeed. It would be interesting to hear the Reds' thinking on this..

[bucksfan2]

Originally Posted by BRM

Patterson logged about 52% of the team's CF at-bats. The rest were taken by the group of Bruce, Freel, Hopper, Hairston and Dickerson. Is 52% "much of 2008"? I guess it could be.

Fair enough. I found it interesting to see Dickersons offensive projection. Last season in 30 some games he put up an OPS over 1.000. Its not going to happen again, but it would be nice.

I was also surprised to see Patterson get a positive base running ranking last year. Seemed like he got picked off the base quite often. He may have been the worst offensive player I have ever seen play.

When I look back at last years outfield when you take the bat out of Dunn and Jr's hands they were pretty poor players. Jr couldn't catch his shadow and Dunn wasn't much better defensively. I had always thought Dunn could be a very good base runner he just continued to get worse as the years wore on.

[BRM]

Originally Posted by Kc61

You get the impression, listening to the Reds, that they think Taveras is at least as good as Patterson in CF. I thought Patterson was very good in CF last year defensively, but I can't measure the relative speed of the two players. Perhaps it's just a matter of footspeed. It would be interesting to hear the Reds' thinking on this..

I agree. The Reds obviously think Willy is, at minumum, equal to Patterson defensively. They may even feel he is better. I don't personally agree but it certainly seems the Reds think so.

[JinAZ]

Originally Posted by BRM

I agree. The Reds obviously think Willy is, at minumum, equal to Patterson defensively. They may even feel he is better. I don't personally agree but it certainly seems the Reds think so.

I used 2008 bUZR for Patterson's rating. CHONE's defensive projections, which I consider the best indication of true talent available (based on multiple sources, and regressed to fans' scouting report data), have Patterson at +7 in CF and Taveras at +3 in CF entering 2009. So if you want to switch Patterson from -1 in CF to +7 in CF, I have no problem with this.

That doesn't negate the finding that the 2009 Reds' opening day outfielders are likely to be better than the 2008 Reds' opening day outfielders turned out to be.

One thing I'll point out, as was alluded to above, is that this is NOT a comparison of total 2008 outfield production to total projectable 2009 outfield production. It's strictly a comparison of 150 games worth of the 2008 OD outfield vs. 150 games worth of the 2009 OD outfield.
-j

[WMR]

Originally Posted by JinAZ

I used 2008 bUZR for Patterson's rating. CHONE's defensive projections, which I consider the best indication of true talent available (based on multiple sources, and regressed to fans' scouting report data), have Patterson at +7 in CF and Taveras at +3 in CF entering 2009. So if you want to switch Patterson from -1 in CF to +7 in CF, I have no problem with this.

That doesn't negate the finding that the 2009 Reds' opening day outfielders are likely to be better than the 2008 Reds' opening day outfielders turned out to be.

One thing I'll point out, as was alluded to above, is that this is NOT a comparison of total 2008 outfield production to total projectable 2009 outfield production. It's strictly a comparison of 150 games worth of the 2008 OD outfield vs. 150 games worth of the 2009 OD outfield.
-j

Who's the better defensive centerfielder in YOUR mind, Chris Dickerson or Willy Taveras?

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by WilyMoROCKS

They aren't?

Love to see his projections for a Dunn-Dickerson-Bruce OF.

Looks like Dunn is "worth" around 15 runs more than Taveras, if the calculations and projections are correct. Is that worth the millions that Dunn would have cost more than Taveras? How about when you consider where those millions can be used to help in other areas?

[Falls City Beer]

Originally Posted by Hoosier Red

Hmmm. Speed and Defense. Its' almost as if the people putting the roster together aren't complete buffoons.

To think. I agree with Jinaz' conclusions. I think the effect is going to be much greater than most expect. I still think their infield's going to be mess however.