Andruw Jones ‘99 Defense ?

K

Krgrecw

**NOT ACTUALLY RACIST
Regarding Andruw Jones... can we do a 'deep dive' on 1999? On Baseball Reference, it's listed as his best defensive year at 36 runs above average. This is playing behind Maddux, Smoltz and Glavine (granted, not at the peak of their greatness) plus Kevin Milwood's best year of his life. And by the way, Atlanta's RF's that year were 22 runs above average, and LF 3 above average. But Atlanta had the 3rd highest Ground Ball to Fly Ball ratio in the league. On the surface it doesn't look like Atlanta outfielders would save a massive amount of runs compared to average given that pitching staff.

I can share more of what I see in the stats, but I think it makes for a good case study.
Asked by: rtayatay
Answered: 2/7/2023
It might. I dunno.

Whether this is a deep dive or a shallow dive, I'm not sure; it kind of seems like a deep dive ought to require more than one paragraph. But I endorse your general approach to the issue, in this sense. The average National League team in 1999 allowed 802 runs, I think, and the Park Adjustment for Atlanta was probably .94, based on that season alone (which we woudn't do in a serious analysis, since one-year park effects are highly unreliable.) But just outlining the problem, if the NL average was 802 runs allowed and the park adjustment was .94, then the team would be expected to allow about 753 runs.

They actually allowed 661. So the team's pitching and defense, combined, is about 92 runs better than average.

If we then say that Andruw Jones is 36 runs better than average and the right fielders on the team were 22 runs better than average, that's 58 runs. That means that the REST of the team is 34 runs better than average, defensively.

Well, it seems to me to be very deeply problematic to argue that MOST of the credit for the run prevention success of the 1999 Braves--more than 60% of it--belongs to Jones and whoever was in right field, Brian Jordan I guess. That leaves 34 runs to be shared among three Hall of Fame starting pitchers, Kevin Millwood having his career year, the bullpen and the infielders. If we assume that Chipper was probably -10 runs at third base, then maybe it is 44 runs. That seems like a problem, to me. It doesn't seem to make sense.

The 1999 Braves were +122 compared to the league in (pitchers) strikeouts, +92 in in walks (meaning 92 fewer walks than average), and +40 in homers (meanng 40 fewer homers allowed. Some of that's probably a park effect.) But it seems really problematic to me. 36 runs AGAINST AVERAGE just seems to me to be significantly too many. But maybe there is some way to make it add up; I just don't understand what it is.
 
I'm sure I'm biased but Druw had 493 putouts which is 6th most since WW2 among CFers and had 13 assists that year. Haters gonna hate.
 
I don’t know much, but does this sound about right? I saw Druw running down and catching balls in the gap that no one - and I mean no one- could even think about getting to. And the camera would then go back to showing Larry Walker - or whatever hitter - with a beyond stunned look on the their face like “how in the Fbomb did that fatass possibly make that catch?” And it happened a LOT.
 
thewupk said:
I'm sure I'm biased but Druw had 493 putouts which is 6th most since WW2 among CFers and had 13 assists that year. Haters gonna hate.
Click to expand...

An all time great pitching staff that pitched to contact and didn’t give up homeruns will serve you plenty of opportunities.
 
With regard to the 1999 Braves: baseball-reference's WAR rates their whole infield as terrible, not just Chipper Jones. They rate Klesko as -11, mostly at first base. He had other bad seasons in his career, although that's one of his worst by their ratings. They rate Brett Boone at -9, which was pretty similar to the years he had in Cincinnati in 1998 and in San Diego in 2000. They had Walt Weiss as -6, which is out of line with the rest of his career, but he was 35, and he missed about half the season. I don't remember why he missed that time, but if it was a leg injury, that might explain it. The breakdown gives Braves fielders only 43 runs of credit. Whether they overrated Jones and underrated the infielders is a separate question, but they do give a lot more credit to the pitchers than you had guessed.
Asked by: tjmaccarone
Answered: 2/9/2023
OK, but where are we going with this? I'm just really, really tired of talking about WAR and their suspect defensive ratings. . .seem suspect to me, at least. It's jsut a tiresome discussion. The REAL questions are:

1) Do things HAVE to add up,
2) Do they add up? and
3) Do they add up in a way that makes sense?

Unless you have answers to the first two questions, you can't get to the third. And I know you are sincere and you want to help, but I don't see how this kind of stuff advances the discussion. It seems like we're marching in mud here, and I'm just trying to get to solid ground somewhere. Like one of those dreams where you're just walking and walking and walking, but you never get anywhere.
 
Hulavol said:
I don’t know much, but does this sound about right? I saw Druw running down and catching balls in the gap that no one - and I mean no one- could even think about getting to. And the camera would then go back to showing Larry Walker - or whatever hitter - with a beyond stunned look on the their face like “how in the Fbomb did that fatass possibly make that catch?” And it happened a LOT.
Click to expand...

All one has to do is watch this video and know Andruw was that dude. And he did this on the reg. Gap to gap. Back or in. He's the best I've ever seen.

 
thewupk said:
All one has to do is watch this video and know Andruw was that dude. And he did this on the reg. Gap to gap. Back or in. He's the best I've ever seen.

Click to expand...

But you see, he had pitchers who pitched to contact, so of course he's gonna have more putouts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top