Evaluating Shortstops/I Covet Adam Everett…
December 13th, 2007 by ubelmann
For a long time, offense has been king amongst statistically-minded baseball fans. I posit that there are two main reasons for this:
1) It is easier to separate individual run production from team run production than it is to separate individual run prevention from team run prevention.
2) The difference between the best hitter and worst hitter in the league in a given year (after adjusting for position) is around 100-120 runs. The difference between the best fielder and worst fielder in the league in a given year (after adjusting for position) is around 50-60 runs. In that sense, offense is what differentiates the elite players from your standard, garden variety player.
So I'm on record as saying that in a limited sense, offense is more important than defense. However, that doesn't mean that defense doesn't matter. Even a 10-20 run difference between two players on defense can make a big difference in their relative value. Defense matters.
In a perfect world, here is how I would evaluate shortstops:
1) Determine accurately each player's defensive worth per expected out and offensive worth per plate appearance.
2) Determine each player's durability by somehow determining how many games he was available to play that year. (Remember, this is an ideal world we are talking about. If someone is sitting on the bench just because management is too dense to play them, or because they are blocked by a very good player, I don't want to count that against them.)
3) Based on each hitter's offensive value per plate appearance, determine where they should hit in a typical lineup. Then, based on that lineup position, determine how many plate appearances per game they should get on average. Also, make an adjustment if the player is so bad defensively that he will lose some at-bats by being replaced at the end of close games.
4) Give each player a standard number of expected plays to make per inning, to determine his defensive worth per game. Make an adjustment here if you expect that he'll be lifted at the end of the game for a pinch hitter.
5) Determine each player's total value per game, to set where league average should be.
6) Look at the group of total value to determine where replacement level should be set.
7) Determine each player's total value above replacement level.
Unfortunately, it is not a perfect world, and I can't do quite all of those things--though I could do many of them given some extra time.
In the absence of a perfect solution, I propose the following approximation.
1) To determine each player's total value, we'll add his defensive contribution above average to his offensive contribution above replacement level. I would rather determine replacement level by combining offense and defense and then setting replacement level (as I described above), but that's not the way it's currently done, so this is the next best thing.
2) To determine roughly their offensive value over the last 3-4 years, I'm going to use their PECOTA-forecasted VORP for 2007. This isn't perfect, but it'll smooth out some of the noise in the data.
3) To determine roughly each player's defensive value, I'll use their runs per 120 games as measured by UZR. Ideally, we'd have an even better way to measure defense, but over large sample sizes, UZR seems to give reasonable answers, and is more or less considered to be the gold standard in defensive statistics. Plus, I have data for UZR from 2003 to mid-2007.
My first cutoff is to take SS with at least 500 expected outs from 2003 to mid-2007. Then, I trimmed the list a little by removing players who are no longer shortstops. (BTW, UZR gave most of them a poor defensive rating.) Then I added a few players of interest--Hanley Ramirez, Brendan Harris, and Nick Punto. If there is interest in a player who isn't on the list, let me know and I can try to add him.
| Dude | Defense | Offense | Total |
| Tejada, Miguel | -2 | 47 | 46 |
| Jeter, Derek | -10 | 52 | 42 |
| Rollins, Jimmy | 5 | 35 | 40 |
| Reyes, Jose | -2 | 34 | 33 |
| Bartlett, Jason | 15 | 18 | 33 |
| Greene, Khalil | 7 | 24 | 31 |
| Everett, Adam | 26 | 4 | 30 |
| Uribe, Juan | 13 | 17 | 30 |
| Furcal, Rafael | 2 | 25 | 27 |
| Renteria, Edgar | 3 | 20 | 24 |
| Young, Michael | -13 | 36 | 23 |
| Vizquel, Omar | 6 | 16 | 22 |
| Peralta, Jhonny | -9 | 30 | 21 |
| Lopez, Felipe | -8 | 27 | 19 |
| Barmes, Clint | 11 | 6 | 17 |
| Lugo, Julio | 1 | 16 | 17 |
| Cabrera, Orlando | 4 | 13 | 17 |
| Wilson, Jack | 4 | 12 | 16 |
| Counsell, Craig | 12 | 2 | 14 |
| Eckstein, David | 8 | 6 | 14 |
| Punto, Nick* | 8 | 6 | 14 |
| Crosby, Bobby | 1 | 13 | 13 |
| Gonzalez, Alex (CIN) | 3 | 9 | 12 |
| Ramirez, Hanley* | -18 | 30 | 12 |
| Perez, Neifi | 16 | -5 | 12 |
| Aurilia, Rich | -5 | 12 | 7 |
| Harris, Brendan* | -18 | 25 | 7 |
| Betancourt, Yuniesky | -4 | 11 | 7 |
| Izturis, Cesar | 4 | 2 | 6 |
| Clayton, Royce | 3 | -1 | 3 |
| Gonzalez, Alex (PHI) | 2 | -4 | -3 |
| Cintron, Alex | -3 | -6 | -9 |
| Guzman, Cristian | -10 | -2 | -12 |
| Berroa, Angel | -10 | -2 | -12 |
It's unlikely that you're going to agree with every piece of data in that table, and it doesn't include much input from the 2007 season, so some of those guys would move up/down a bit depending on what they did in 2007, and the nature of any ranking system like this is going to be approximate, but I think it's an instructive table nonetheless.
There are two sorts of players on this list that I think tend to be underrated--players who play defense at an elite level, and players who are good at hitting and fielding, but spectacular at neither. Conversely, I think that the players on this list who can hit but have awful gloves tend to be overrated.
I don't blame the Orioles for valuing Miguel Tejada over Adam Everett, but if I had to choose between Wigginton and Everett, I'd non-tender Wigginton. Wigginton's something like a -20 runs/150G defender at 3B, and maybe a 20-25 VORP player. Wigginton is basically a replacement level player. Everett is going to look pretty bad at the plate, but he's going to bring himself above replacement level with his nearly unparalleled defense. On top of that, you can hide Everett's problem to a degree. If he comes to bat in an important spot, just pinch hit for him. (This was basically the way that Earl Weaver used Mark Belanger, and he was a pretty smart baseball guy.) You can hide Wigginton's glove a bit by replacing him late in close games where you have the lead, but I guess it seems to me that it's more valuable to have a good defender out there for 7-8 innings than it is to have 3-4 better PA.
I doubt that the Twins will see things the way I see them regarding Adam Everett. Maybe they see Plouffe and Casilla as the middle infield of the future and aren't really even looking at outside options for SS right now. But regardless of what the Twins want to do, it seems like the Twins could get Everett for a reasonable price, and I think it's likely that the Twins will play someone less valuable than Everett at SS in 2008.
E-6 replied on December 13, 2007 at 9:48:03 am
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's ass-bats.
Diggity Dino replied on December 13, 2007 at 9:49:19 am
Any concern over Everett's injury? Any limitation to his range would cause his value to drop significantly.
I guess I never realized how dominant his defense is? A full 10 runs better than any other player on the whole list? But his offense is worse than Punto's.
I guess I question some of the numbers. The one that jumps out to me is Eckstein versus Punto. Your list has them exactly the same, both on O and D. I can't speak to their D (and the right D number for Punto at SS seems like it would be hard to get given how little time he spent there overall), but on offense, they really aren't that close. Eckstein last 3 years, OPS+:
99, 81, 93.
Punto, same thing:
68, 90, 52.
(Everett: 70, 64, 56. Yikes.)
Why are their projections so similar?
spycake replied on December 13, 2007 at 10:24:31 am
It appears those offensive projections were for 2007. Meaning Eckstein was coming off of an 81 OPS+, and Punto 90.
On the defensive side, should "runs per 120 according to UZR" bear any relation to BP's defensive runs over average? I was wondering if there was a place we could look at individual years and see what the "normal" range on this figure was, and if there were any trends for particular players.
Andrew replied on December 13, 2007 at 9:49:56 am
T'is not the season for coveting, ubelmann. How would you like it if Jesus broke one of the Commandments right around your birthday?
spycake replied on December 13, 2007 at 10:48:24 am
Here's a piece from 2006 (stats through 2005) that also seems to confirm Everett's defensive prowess (no mention of offense, though):
http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/dialed_in/discussion/defense_over_the_last_twenty_years_part_two/
And RZR at the Hardball Times shows Everett's 2006 was top-rated among SS qualifiers since 2004, and his 2005 season ranked high too (comparable to Tulowitzki's 2007):
RZR at the Hardball Times
In Everett's shortened 2007, he fell behind Vizquel in this column, and tied with Reyes, although even then, he probably would have topped both considering DPs and plays out of zone.
SethSpeaks replied on December 13, 2007 at 10:56:57 am
Ask and ye shall receive!
twayn replied on December 13, 2007 at 11:39:48 am
Man, that Seth is absolutely wired in. Ken Rosenthal reporting Twins sign Everett to one year deal. No details on the contract other than the term.
Diggity Dino replied on December 13, 2007 at 11:44:57 am
Wow. If Punto can win the 2B job, we could have amazing up the middle defense, but arguably the worst 2 hitters in all of baseball in the lineup.
CarterHayes replied on December 13, 2007 at 11:47:50 am
You know, I saw the link, and I saw the headline, and I still had to read the article to make sure it wasn't Jurassic Carl that the Twins had signed.
CarterHayes replied on December 13, 2007 at 11:50:56 am
From the article twayn linked to:
Given Everett's abilities, and the fact that Twins are almost never charged with errors in the Dome, I'd say Everett should be clearing some space on his mantle.
spycake replied on December 13, 2007 at 12:45:43 pm
A favorite to win a Gold Glove? In the league that gave it to Jeter three years in a row?
spycake replied on December 13, 2007 at 12:01:56 pm
Can we get an administrative subpoena and check Seth's phone records?
AMR replied on December 13, 2007 at 12:13:16 pm
Little-known (possibly untrue) fact...
Seth Strohs and Bill Smith are in-laws.
Cripes, that's two scoops in two days that Seth has had (Tyny and AEv). Next time some newspaper writer disses bloggers, point them to Seth.
brianS replied on December 13, 2007 at 1:02:13 pm
Adam Everett == Juan Castro's reputation in the eyes of the Twins' braintrust. Minus Juanie's prowess at the plate.
Neil replied on December 13, 2007 at 2:10:49 pm
Adam Everett: NOT in the Mitchell Report!
kg2005 replied on December 13, 2007 at 2:38:43 pm
It was kind of funny scrolling through rotoworld looking at all of the names of the people in the report, then coming across Adam Everett. If I didn't know he just signed with the Twins I would have had to do a double take.
CarterHayes replied on December 13, 2007 at 11:34:27 am
Interesting. When I lived in San Diego I always saw a ton of Khalil Greene jerseys, and I always figured he was popular because of his bat and his resemblance to Spicoli. I knew his defense was nothing special, but considering that he's markedly better than Dreamboat, Reyes, or Tejada with the glove, it puts a whole new perspective on Greene's contribution to the Friars.
There are two sorts of players on this list that I think tend to be underrated--players who play defense at an elite level, and players who are good at hitting and fielding, but spectacular at neither.
By this metric, Jason Bartlett's the best all-around SS in the game. That trade keeps getting worse with each new perspective. Considering Juan Uribe's baggage (physical and legal), the Rays did extremely well when they decided not to trade for him and got Bartlett instead.
Interesting that several of these SS are all in the age 25-28 bracket. Forget the turn of the Century Big Three, the golden age of the SS is now.
twayn replied on December 13, 2007 at 12:22:56 pm
Thinking in context of a potential Santana trade, I'm starting to wonder if Trader Bill will now try to fill all the roster holes and keep Johan for 2008. With Everett at SS, I think Harris becomes an even better bet at 2B considering his bat. That just leaves CF and 3B to fill. Buscher is an option at 3B (I'd kind of like to see us use him as a backup corner infielder so Morneau could get a rest every once in a while), and it would let us use Punto as a utility infielder again. But I'd prefer to see us pick up someone with more of a track record for 3B, and definitely someone who can hit now that Everett's lifetime .248 BA and .299 OBP will be in the lineup. Brandon Inge would be a nice solution, but his average and power numbers were down last year, and how to get him from the division rival Tigers would be an issue. Still, a 3B who could hit 25-30 doubles and 15-20 dingers would be nice. As for CF, I wouldn't be surprised to see us snag Crisp from the Sox in a trade not involving Santana, or possibly pick up Cameron. Rowand would have been nice, but he wanted and got more than he's worth. Taking on Crisp is much more acceptable when you're not giving up Santana as part of the deal (and if the Sox pick up part of his salary), and we apparently did talk to the Sox about him before Santana was offered up as potential trade bait. Either way, I think our CF hole will be filled before the New Year, but 3B could be an ongoing issue. Again, can't we sign Koskie to a minor league deal with a spring training invite and see what he's got? Especially with both Buscher and Punto as potential backups? Just wondering.
Diggity Dino replied on December 13, 2007 at 12:57:29 pm
Based on my rough estimate, filling all unknown spots with league-minimum players, given me an estimated payroll for the year of about $68.5 million.
This is based on:
Contracts signed on Cot's - Johan (13.25), Nathan (6), Crain (1.7), Reyes (1), Mauer (10.5), Young (0.7), Redmond (0.95), Punto (2.4), Monroe (3.82). (40.32 MM for 9 players)
Everett at 2.8 million (2.8 MM for 1 player)
My own estimate of arb salaries for Morneau ($8MM), Cuddyer ($5.5MM), Kubel ($2.5MM), Rincon ($2.5MM), and Guerrier ($1.75MM) (20.25MM for 5 players). These were quick and dirty estimates; somebody with more time might look into this to get better figures.
League minimum at $500k for Baker, Slowey, Bonser, Liriano, Neshek, Harris, Buscher, Pridie (marked as starting CF for now), Tolbert (backup 3B), and G. Jones (as 5th OF) (5MM for 10 players).
Replacing Buscher at starting 3B and/or Pridie as starting CF (which would knock Tolbert and G. Jones off the roster), would increase the payroll by the contract less the 0.5 million.
Assuming a $75 million payroll for the upcoming season, that leaves about $7.5 million ($6.5 million + cutting Tolbert & Jones) for free agents. Obviously, if Santana gets traded, that frees up an additional $12.75 million as well. If Monroe doesn't last through spring training, there's another $2.5 million or so ($3.82 million less his buyout of about $700k less the $500k to replace him on the roster at league minimum). I would cut Monroe, take my $10 million, and give Mike Cameron $6 million to man CF, and Mike Lamb $4.5 million for 3B, and call it a day.
socaltwinsfan replied on December 13, 2007 at 5:56:33 pm
Tell me again why Cuddyer can't play third base? We've got a logjam at COF and a desperate need at third. Cuddyer's agent should be pushing him to make the switch considering the FA market in a couple years. Then the Twins would just need to get a veteran lefty hitter (Tony Clark?) to platoon with Monroe at DH and a CF. Isn't Kenny Lofton still available. The Twins need a leadoff hitter as well.
I'd like this Everett signing a lot better if the Twins didn't have such a flyball heavy staff, especially with Johan still in the fold. Great analysis Ubes.
frightwig replied on December 13, 2007 at 6:24:59 pm
I wish the Twins had given Cuddyer more time to settle in at 3B, but I think that ship has sailed. Gardy seems convinced that Cuddyer couldn't play 3rd, and I'd bet Cuddyer is happy to play a position where he gets praised for his cannon arm, rather than constantly hearing crap about his fielding and worrying about whether his next error will get him benched again.
I believe Lofton announced his retirement near the end of last season.
punmanbowler replied on December 13, 2007 at 6:26:20 pm
I thought we tried Cuddyer at 3B a couple years ago and it wasn't working. However, now that he's got a groove going, maybe he'd end up doing all right. That's not a bad idea. On the other hand, if it messes him up, we could be doubly screwed.
kg2005 replied on December 13, 2007 at 6:30:11 pm
Gleeman has some words to dispell that notion in the comments section today.
frightwig replied on December 13, 2007 at 6:58:49 pm
The numbers posted by Aaron today, in response to some comments that Cuddyer has 'found his groove' at the plate since moving to RF:
Michael Cuddyer, career:
As a third baseman: .263/.329/.442
As a right fielder: .275/.352/.452
In 2007, as a RF: .276/.356/.433
There's a little improvement there, but it could also be that he just happened to reach his prime as the Twins moved him to his latest position (he turned 27 in March 2006). He might have posted the same production in 2006-7 if he'd been at 3B, 1B, or DH, too.
I thought we tried Cuddyer at 3B a couple years ago and it wasn't working.
They didn't even give him a full season to learn the position. He had a rough start in 2005, both at the plate and in the field, but he was one of the team's best hitters over the last 5 months of the season and I thought he showed improvement at 3B after the first month or two, as well. By August, however, he'd been benched in favor of Glenn Williams, then Punto/Rodriguez, and returned to the Super Utility role before getting some consideration as a replacement for Rivas at 2B near the end of the season.
Going into the 2006 season, Gardy publicly declared that Cuddyer 'had his chance' but failed as an everyday player; he planned to use Cuddyer as a reserve OF, until Kubel and Ford got off to lousy starts, and then Stewart got hurt. So Cuddyer got one more chance to play every day, and finally made the most of it that year.
spycake replied on December 14, 2007 at 1:34:59 pm
They didn't even give him a full season to learn the position.
I think he already knew the position, having come up through the minors as a 3B.
I wanted him to get a longer shot there, and it would be cool to move him back, but with the "deaf in the left ear" thing, I'm willing to give the Twins brass some benefit of the doubt. I don't think the situation is quite so simple as "one of Gardy's crazy hunches."
It would be interesting if/when Cuddyer hits the market, if any other teams were willing to move him back to third. As someone mentioned above, he'd certainly benefit from the switch to a more premium defensive position. I wonder if he has ever been pursued in trade talks for such a purpose? Some team could get a third baseman at a right-fielder rate, although that rate still may have been prohibitively high under TR. The longer Trader Bill Smith is at helm, though, and Cuddyer continues to get more expensive and closer to free agency, the lack of trade interest in him could be seen as a sign that most other ML clubs don't see him as a third baseman either. About as definitive as the Mitchell Report, but it may be the closest thing to closure we ever get.
frightwig replied on December 14, 2007 at 5:03:32 pm
I think he already knew the position, having come up through the minors as a 3B.
I think there's a big difference between playing a position in the minors and playing in the majors, and especially when a player is trying to go back to it fulltime after a few years of being cycled through several other positions.
As Aaron noted this week, the young Corey Koskie initially struggled to get into the regular lineup because Tom Kelly didn't like his defense, but of course, given time to settle in and improve himself, Koskie worked to become one of the better defensive 3B in the league. Why wasn't Cuddyer given a similar chance to develop at the same position?
I thought I recalled Cuddyer getting a chance to show what he could do from April to August of 2005, but now that I check the game log I see that Glenn Williams started to get regular starts at 3B in late June; in July, the position was usually manned by a utility player. Cuddyer was the regular 3B again in August, but in September he most often played RF. Anyway, that was the extent of his opportunity to show whether he could be an everyday 3rd baseman that year. Gardy gave him 10 weeks before jerking him around, then one more month after he'd been sitting out or playing other positions for 6 weeks, and then he was sent to the OF before the season was up.
It would be one thing if they had a clearly better alternative at the position in mind, but they gave up on him so quickly only to replace him with career minor leaguers like Glenn Williams and Terry Tiffee and utilitymen like Nick Punto and Luis Rodriguez. And then their plan for 2006 was to bring a washed-up Tony Batista back from Japan. I'll never understand that.
The longer Trader Bill Smith is at helm, though, and Cuddyer continues to get more expensive and closer to free agency, the lack of trade interest in him could be seen as a sign that most other ML clubs don't see him as a third baseman either.
It wouldn't surprise me if everyone around baseball agrees that Cuddyer is a RF, not a 3B, since he's now "proven himself" in RF and it's conventional wisdom that "he had his chance" at 3B and failed. Like I said before, Cuddyer probably prefers to stay at a position where everyone praises him for his cannon arm, too. But I don't think that's going to result in a lack of trade interest in him if Smith ever puts him on the market, as long as Cuddyer is an above-average hitter. If Smith wants to shop him around as a 3B, though, he should push Gardy to prove the point by giving Cuddyer another chance at the position next year. Not gonna happen, I know.
spycake replied on December 14, 2007 at 7:47:10 pm
It wouldn't surprise me if everyone around baseball agrees that Cuddyer is a RF, not a 3B, since he's now "proven himself" in RF and it's conventional wisdom that "he had his chance" at 3B and failed.
That would surprise me. It's not as if the other 29 teams are living in caves. We may never get to test this proposition for various reasons, but if Gardy really jerked the kid around without warrant, I don't think everyone in baseball would accept it as a final judgement, especially if they could derive a competitive advantage by doing otherwise. In fact, there are several GM's whose bread-and-butter seems to be identifying players and situations exactly like this.
Like I said, I'm mostly on your side. But time has mostly softened my concern. And Bill Smith seems to be doing an adequate job of patching our holes, so hopefully we won't have to deal with any dramatic positional switches in the near future.
Moss replied on December 13, 2007 at 7:56:27 pm
Nostra-ubelmann.
GreekHouse replied on December 14, 2007 at 1:48:19 am
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Smith reads this blog and waits to see what ubelmann thinks before making any moves.
Jeff A replied on December 14, 2007 at 7:50:17 am
WWuD
E-6 replied on December 14, 2007 at 10:42:35 am
WWuD on an SBG-blue rubberband? Someone needs to make this happen. You could sell tens of them.
I'd wear one.
SBG replied on December 14, 2007 at 10:49:23 am
If people want one, e-mail me at sbg at stickandballguy dot com. If I can get ten, I will make it happen! (@ 10, the price is $2.50 each).
Algonad replied on December 14, 2007 at 8:34:01 am
Everett for $2.8MM or Eckstein for $4.5MM? Which is better? I'd have to lean towards Eckstein.
zooomx replied on December 14, 2007 at 8:47:32 am
I disagree. I have been fretting over who will man the 9th spot in the lineup. It is a very vital part of the lineup and we now have a rock solid choice there. This will give Gardy the opportunity to bat Punto in one of the top two spots whenever he is getting a start. Then, we will have more opportunity to rip Gardy week in and week out.
Actually, I do love the signing if Billy (antiBeane) Smith can pull the trigger on a couple of decent bats to fill our needs at 3B and CF. Defense at SS is vital, especially at the Dome. It's like having Greg Gagne again except Everett is a better glove. I think we managed to win a few games with GG entrenched in that Short Left Centerfield position.
If we dont add any bats, I will worry about a lineup that includes Everett, Pridie, Buscher/Punto, Punto/Casilla/Harris, and the inconsistency of Monroe and Young.
Mauer, Morneau, Cuddy, Kubel and Young should be able to score us some runs, but you need the other 4-5 guys in the lineup to be able to pick it up when the studs are cold. (Something we failed to do last year)
Algonad replied on December 14, 2007 at 9:36:32 am
I'm afraid that we'll see either Harris or Punto or Buscher at 3B this year.
Jeff A replied on December 14, 2007 at 9:41:55 am
My guess is Punto is at second and Harris is at third. I'm not saying I like that idea, but I'd be surprised if Casilla or Buscher are in the lineup, at least to start the season. I'd also be suprised if the Twins acquired a player to fill one of those spots who is actually good.
But then, I've been suprised before.
Diggity Dino replied on December 14, 2007 at 10:05:45 am
I would also be shocked to see a new addition. I think we're going into the season with Everett at 2B, and a revolving door full of Harris/Buscher/Punto/Casilla to man the other two spots, with Punto having the upper hand at one of them.
Rhubarb_Runner replied on December 14, 2007 at 11:21:33 am
Even Gardy/Smith wouldn't put the best fielding SS in the majors at 2B.
Diggity Dino replied on December 14, 2007 at 12:53:39 pm
Of course, you are right... I meant Everett at SS.