2045 BBA Top Shortstops (June 1)
As I am wont to do, I got interested in the best shortstops around the league. Or to be precise, I get interested in the question of whether an “8” range shortstop can put up numbers that will find him in the upper regions of the performance spectrum, and went about looking for some data to answer that question. This is what conversations with Ted do to me, after all. He asks a question or makes a statement, and I ask myself “is that right?” Once I do that, the world shall not feel rested until I’ve answered it.
In this case I’m referring to the statement that the BBA world is shifting again to the use of shortstops (and center fielders, for that matter) with ranges lower than 9. Is that true? And if it’s true, is it working? Defense is relative, after all. An “8” is not a competitive disadvantage if everyone is running an 8 out there.
The TLDR answer to that question is that, yes, an 8 can fiddle around in the upper regions … kind of … or at least almost. Like most everything else, it depends. The real answer is that an 8 does seem to be able to get you league average performances, but don’t be looking for top-tier kinds of numbers.
To show some of my work, here are some numbers (and tables!).
First, let’s just check out the number of innings being played by players of various ranges.
| Range | IP |
|---|---|
| 7 | 270.2 |
| 8 | 4067.5 |
| 9 | 6715.8 |
| 10 | 3505.9 |
| All | 14559.4 |
That’s not surprising, right?
The next question, though, is to wonder if any of those “8” ranges are in the upper regions of the league. I mean, how big of a hit do you take with those “8” guys? Are you banishing any chance of having a decent defense?
To think about this, I took OOTP’s data for routine plays made by each range rating. Routine plays should be those in which range is the least valuable. The conversion of such plays to outs has actually happened along these lines:
| Range | %Made |
|---|---|
| 7 | 0.92 |
| 8 | 0.94 |
| 9 | 0.95 |
| 10 | 0.96 |
But, wait … of course there is more.
Let’s look at the other edge—remote plays
| Range | %Made |
|---|---|
| 7 | 0.29 |
| 8 | 0.25 |
| 9 | 0.31 |
| 10 | 0.44 |
So, yeah, that’s fun. At question though, is what does this mean for individual players and individual teams? Defense is messy. While I’m focused on range, it’s not all about range. I want to look at which shortstops are actually doing well.
So, I took any player with more than 130 innings played at shortstop—that number being arrived at by a quick eyeballing of the data I pulled out of the game as a fairly obvious gap between usage patterns. Then I sorted by both Zone Rating, and by Defensive Efficiency. After thinking about it a little, I added in a junk stat of my own making, that being Zone Rating divided by Total Chances. This last I do on occasion just to convert a counting stat-like stat into more of a rate feel (I’ve sometimes cut WAR by PA or IP, for example). What it means, I don’t know … but I like to do this to give me a feeling if WAR (or in this case ZR) discrepancies are being highly warped by playing time.
Then I tabulated all of the players, in line with their primary defensive ratings.
Simple, right?
Here is the list of the top 15 shortstops in each category:
- It’s too early to be handing out Zimmers, but right now Madison’s Mauro Soto is having a marvelous season with the glove. He sits at the top of every category.
- Dashiell Faireborn is having a bit of a resurgence in Phoenix with a 7.2 ZR—though the fact that he drops on the Efficiency chart, and raises on the ZR/TC chart suggests some of that is simply that he’s the primary focus at SS for the Talons.
- Now that Angel Zalapa is in Montreal, Enrique Hernandez is flashing Top 3 glove in Valencia. I don’t suspect this will continue, but at present Hernandez’s bat has been about the equal to Zalapa, too … so take that with whatever Small Sample Size dose you want to take it with.
- Des Moines’ Luis Cruz is the “8” range shortstop that shows up on the ZR list, and again in the ZR/TC scores. So, yes, an “8” range can perform—though not at the upper regions, which is what you would expect. Note, though, that Cruz’s sidecar ratings are very high.
- Jacksonville’s Daryl Pris is an interesting case, too. He’s on the ZR chart, and would be on the ZR/TC chart if the list went one deeper. But he’s posting a sub-1.000 Defensive Efficiency right now. D-Eff is a stat regulated by league average, so it’s interesting to see his numbers dip from a couple perspectives. First, of course, is that we should remember sample size. The dip could be more cosmetic than anything else. But there’s also the fact that Pris, at 28, is no longer the really young kid on the block. Is this a sign that age is catching up to him in the field?
- Mexico City’s Wagaw Fakihi, at #11 on the ZR chart, is another interesting case for the argument that low arm ratings don’t totally restrict a player’s ability to put up solid numbers at shortstop. More is better, of course, but Fakihi’s 10/4/10/10 rating pattern still has him right in that zone of “upper third” kind of defenders.
- Nashville’s Robert Franklin, at 9/6/10/9 is a guy who also hangs at the bottom of these lists, and is interesting since he’s not got a long row of double-digits in that rating scheme. El Paso’s Jimmy Webb steps into the ZR/TC register—and might well show up in the raw Zone rating list with a tad more playing time.
Final Thoughts
Bottom line to me is that, while we may be changing a bit, it seems pretty clear that the BBA is still the home of the 9+ ranged shortstop. What may be of more interest is the performance variance for ratings outside range, and the idea of a shortstop’s value being made by his overall set. I note most everyone’s TDP value is high…how much does that really matter?
Another item of note
- I added in the “overall” shortstop rating in those charts. I have no idea what OOTP means by their overall defensive ratings, but at present, the scatter of “11” “10” and “9” guys (and Jeremy Webb’s “8”) is intellectually interesting. I don’t look at that scatter and think “wow, and 11 is better than a 10 or a 9. This could be because my data is “bad” due to sample size or due to some other quality issue related to the ratings themselves. I don’t know. But it’s another arrow in my quiver that says OOTP overall ratings are nice to have, but probably should be discounted to at least a bit of a degree when trying to make super-hard decisions.
Well, if I’m smart, of course, I’ll come back to this discussion at the end of the year—or someone else can … the data just comes straight off OOTP. But I think the answer is yeah … if the bat is good enough, an 8 is already playing, so you can make it work. But the full transition (if there will ever be one), is nowhere near complete.
