Shortstop ATG

Posted: November 8th, 2007 | Filed under: Baseball | 12 Comments »

Gold Glove (NL): Jimmy Rollins
Gold Glove (AL): Orlando Cabrera
Fielding Bible: Troy Tulowitzki.

Well, I think most of us are just glad that Derek Jeter did not win his fourth straight Gold Glove. It was getting silly already. In 2007 — for the third year in a row (and John Dewan has only been scoring players for three years) — Jeter ranked LOWER THAN 30TH among shortstops on the Dewan Score. When you consider that there are only 30 teams in baseball, that does not seem to be an overwhelming Gold Glove endorsement.

In 2007, Jeter scored 32nd in the league — a big, fat -34 for the season. That’s so bad it’s scary — that means once or twice every week of the entire season Derek Jeter botched a play that an AVERAGE defensive shortstop would have made And the scarier thing is that Jeter was staggeringly consistent. He botched all the plays.

On balls hit to his left: -13.
On balls hit to his right: -13.
On balls hit straight at him: -6.

His problems with balls hit straight at him was a new twist — the last couple of years, yes, Jeter was (by the Dewan Score anyway) a brutal defensive shortstop, but at least he was better than average on balls hit at him. He was +3 on those balls in 2005 and +1 in 2006. The one play Jeter had always been able to make consistently was the charge-and-pick-and-throw-on-the-run play. Apparently, he’s not so good on those anymore either.

There is plenty of other statistical noise, visual evidence and rumblings that point to Jeter’s defensive liabilities, so at this point when it comes to Jeter, as the old line goes, you can either believe me or your lyin’ eyes. But there’s another point I want to make here. This year’s winner Orlando Cabrera, while a more worthy Gold Glove winner than Jeter (he’s actually very good going to his left), is not a particularly inspired choice either. Cabrera’s Dewan Score was a thoroughly dreary -1, which ranked him 20th overall. His range factor was blah, his zone rating not significantly better than blah, and he appears to have won the Gold Glove based on a good defensive reputation, his team’s success and his relatively consistent work (he made only 11 errors).

Also, this: There is simply not a great everyday defensive shortstop in the American League, and there has not been for quite some time. I ponder sometimes what the biggest change in baseball has been since I became a fan in the 1970s. Money? Training? Steroids? Cable television? The disappearance of the complete game? I don’t know. But I think it’s possible that the biggest difference is the way managers, especially in the American League, view what a shortstop is supposed to do.

Here’s an AFLAC trivia question for you: In 1977, which every day shortstop in the American League hit the most home runs? While you think about it, I’ll give you something else to consider:

Home runs hit by regular AL shortstops in 1977: 56.
Home runs hit by regular AL shortstops in 2007: 154

This was actually something of a down year for shortstop power. Go back to 2003, when the American League was bursting with bright young shortstops (including the Rookie of the Year and soon-to-be-lamentable Angel Berroa), and regular AL shortstops cranked 212 home runs. It’s no secret, of course, that priorities have changed. The 2003 group of gifted young shortstops — A-Rod, Jeter, Nomah, Tejada — all could bang. And while people argued about their individual defensive prowess (hey, even now Jeter has his defenders who claim his defense is superior), the truth is that defense was, mostly, beside the point. They were getting paid to hit. Everyone figured they’d scoop enough grounders.

My feeling is this: In life, you usually have to give up something to get something. You want a great hitter, you will probably need to give up defense. And vice versa. Not always, of course. There have been a few immortals — Willie Mays, Roberto Clemente, Johnny Bench, Honus Wagner — who could play offense and defense brilliantly. There are others.

Most of the time, though, it just doesn’t work that way. God doesn’t hand out gifts the freely. Frank White, Bill Mazeroski, Jim Hegan, Mark Belanger, Clete Boyer, Billy Cox, Gary Pettis, Gary Maddox, even Phil Rizzuto and Brooks Robinson and Luis Aparico and Ozzie Smith — these weren’t great hitters or, generally speaking, good hitters. They had occasional great hitting years, but their genius was in the field, and in order to get that genius you had to give up the bat.

Ted Williams, meanwhile, was by almost all accounts a brutal left fielder.

I think that the best defensive shortstop in the game right now (and the best defensive player) is almost certainly Adam Everett. He would have certainly won his second Fielding Bible Award except he only played 63 games (some Fielding Bibleheads STILL voted for him). Everett has a .299 lifetime on-base percentage. You want his glove, OK, put up with that bat. I think these are the choices you have to make. It’s like the immortal question: Why isn’t chocolate cake good for you? Because it just isn’t. It doesn’t work that way.

In 1977, you wanted a glove at shortstop. Games were lower scoring. Players were not as strong. Pitching ruled. There are, certainly, defensive players out there who are every bit as good or better than those 1970s guys, as good or better than the Belangers, Burlesons, Campenarises and Concepcions. John McDonald in Toronto can really pick it (he would have won the Fielding Bible American League award despite only getting 300-some at-bats). Tony Pena Jr., once he stops having those occasional mental lapses, has a chance to win a Gold Glove. Yuniesky Betancourt is slick and inconsistent and fun to watch (he made 65 good fielding plays, most in baseball).

But will they hit enough? That’s the question in today’s game. In 1977, more than half the every day shortstops hit less than .250, and three of them (Belanger, Tom Veryzer, Rob Piccolo) hit .206 or worse. Nobody hit with power — not one shortstop had even a .400 slugging percentage (we owe you an answer on our AFLAC Trivla question- Buddy Dent led all AL shortstops with eight home runs. Bucky Dent. Yeah. AFLAC. Ask about it at work). I have no proof that shortstops played better defense then, but I suspect they did, because it was the priority. You got to the big leagues and stayed in the big leagues with your glove.

I’m not saying it was, technically speaking, “better” then — I suspect a 30-homer, .875 OPS shortstop who plays even decent defense is a whole lot more valuable than a 3-homer, .700 OPS shortstop who plays exceptional defense. It may be true that Jhonny Peralta circa 2007 helps you more than Ozzie Smith in 1983. I don’t know. But I do think the game has more homogenized. I do feel like a fabulous defensive play is a lot more fun to watch than another home run — even if it isn’t as valuable.

This leads to one other point about Jeter before we move on — he’s still, in my opinion, the best overall shortstop in the American League. When you look at how often he gets on base, the 40 doubles he hits, the stolen bases (although those were down), the consistency and endurance, his base running — the guy’s terrific. Every time I bring up Jeter’s defensive problems, people think I hate the guy. I don’t. He’s one of my favorite players. He’s a below average defensive shortstop — that’s all. I liked Marlon Brando, but the guy sucked in Guys and Dolls. He could act. He couldn’t sing.

In the National League: Troy Tulowitzki, by the numbers, had a better defensive year than Jimmy Rollins . Tulowitzki was +31 to Rollins’ +9 on the Dewan, and most other statistics are similarly weighted. Tulowitzki was much more of a high-risk, high-reward shortstop — he made 62 good fielding plays (fourth in baseball) and made 39 defensive misplays (second in baseball) while Rollins was a steadier 50-21.

Anyway, Rollins had a fabulous year and he is a very good defensive shortstop — he certainly wasn’t a bad choice.

---