Position Roundtables: Starting Center Fielder

Dave · February 25, 2006 at 7:09 am · Filed Under 2006 Position Roundtables, Mariners 

Starting Center Fielder: Jeremy Reed

Dave

Like Jose Lopez, we’ve written a lot about Jeremy Reed the past year and a half. Like Lopez, perception of his abilities have been all over the board, as people responded wildly to performance spikes. After he nearly hit .400 in a September trial last year, the public opinion was overly excited, labeling him ready to be an elite player immediately. Following a disappointing rookie season offensively, the fanbase has amassed thousands of broken bones leaping off the bandwagon.

This is a case where perception just hasn’t matched reality. Reed was never the second best prospect in baseball, despite what Baseball Prospectus tried to tell folks. He wasn’t ready for stardom after a streak of singles falling in during his debut in Seattle. And, on the flipside, he’s also not a guy who can’t hit for power, is a poor baserunner, and amasses all his value by being an elite defensive player. The myths of Jeremy Reed have swung from one side to the other, but, astonishingly, few people seem willing to see him for what he really is.

Jeremy Reed is a high contact hitter with gap power, average speed, good instincts on the bases, and a solid understanding of the strike zone. He doesn’t have world class range in center field, and his physical skills are best suited defensively for a corner spot, though he doesn’t really have the arm to play right field regularly.

That’s all been true for three years, but because of extreme performances on either side, he’s become a polarizing player. Hopefully, 2006 is the year where people can finally see Reed for what he truly is; a very solid young player who excels at nothing but has a solid all around game. He’s not a gold glover and he won’t win a batting title, but he’s a talented player making the league minimum and filling a hole at a premium position. Oh, and he’s just 24 years old. We should all be glad the Mariners didn’t deal him.

Derek

Reed demonstrates a larger phenomenon we see a lot in players, which is the “star or scrub” polarizing effect. Few players are allowed to be just good, or okay: they have to have something they do that’s excellent, or they must be vilified. You see this most often with position players: a catcher who doesn’t hit very well will gradually cultivate reputations as defensive wizards, while those that can hit become barely competent glove men.

This is Reed’s problem: he comes in to play center and there’s no way he’ll be as good defensively as Cameron was. At the same time, his hitting was pretty awful, so he ended up being attacked from both sides.

Which means he must totally suck. There’s no room for players who are cheap and help the team out if they’re not definately good one way or the other. And that, really, is Reed’s misfortune. If he hits .280 with better walks, he’ll get out from a lot of the criticism for not helping offensively, but he still won’t be seen as a key contributor, because he’s not going to be a good fielder either. But being average, young, and cheap helps the team a lot.

There’s a way out of this, though — if Reed can do even better making contact, he becomes a quite valuable player quite quickly. He’s fast enough running that if he gets his average up to .300 he’ll hit 30 doubles pretty easily, and then you’d really like to have him hitting in front of some high-average guys (maybe ninth, ahead of Ichiro) to get the most value from that.

But that’s beside the point. Reed, even as an average center fielder, is worth a lot to the team. Adam Jones is great and all, but he’s not going to be here this year for certain (and despite the justified enthusiasm for his performance in the minors, if you look at his five-year forecast, he doesn’t develop into the kind of player Reed is now for a couple of years).

Reed’s here now, and he’s fine. He’s certainly not a problem for the team. He might want to talk to his agent about trying to cultivate an image as a joker, or a dirt dog, or something — if he had some kind of easily-identifiable hook other than (as you note) failed super-prospect, I think he’d be forgiven for not being amazingly awesome. And he deserves that.

Jason

I have no issue with Jeremy Reed. My only issue with his 2005 season? That Mike Hargrove chose to sit him against lefties on a number of occasions — while it’s true Reed struggled mightily against left-handers, the team wasn’t going anywhere anyway and he’s a young player who needs experience. But I digress.

Given his minor league numbers and the tools Dave mentioned earlier — gap power, contact hitter, solid strike zone judgement — Reed appears, to me at least, to be in line for a big step forward in 2006. I’d stick him in the #2 slot in batting order and leave him there for a few months even if he gets off to a slow start, because I can’t imagine he has another .254/.322/.352 season in him. Making nearly the major league minimum, playing solid defense, and hitting .280/.350/.440, he’s the sort of player you’re thrilled to have around.

At least until Adam Jones is ready.

Dave

Adam Jones, by the way, is a good prospect, clearly the second best guy in the organization behind Jeff Clement. But I think as fans we’ve been far too quick to write his name into the 2007 line-up. The guy has played less than a handful of games in center field, and while his offensive performance was solid, he’s still got a ways to go. The potential is definitely there, but he’s not knocking on the door. He’s a ways off, and a lot can go wrong before he hits the show. There’s no way I’d be making any kind of roster decisions in trying to make room for Adam Jones. When he’s ready, they’ll find a spot for him, but he’s still a pretty high risk prospect, and there’s a significant chance that he won’t be ready for quite a while.

Comments

44 Responses to “Position Roundtables: Starting Center Fielder”

  1. Matthew Carruth on February 25th, 2006 8:01 am

    Do we have dependable minor league reports on Reed’s defense? Because Reed’s range in CF last year was at the top of the league. Whether it was SafeCo or not, I don’t see a reason to expect him not to repeat it in 2006.

    I also don’t see Reed as having just average speed. With his range numbers, hardball times baserunning numbers, and previous SB totals, I think it’s clear Reed has good speed.

    And why does he need to hit .300 to amass 30 2Bs? He hit 33 2Bs while hitting just .254

  2. Jerry on February 25th, 2006 8:18 am

    I am a bit suprised by how modest your projections of Reed are.

    Sure, he struggled last year, and he is not likely to ever be an all-star player. But I definitely think that all three of you guys are selling him a bit short, especially his upside.

    I think that a modest projection for Reed is .280/.350/.440. However, early in the season, and in late 2004, you could see him put everything together for stretches. His approach is great, and his minor league numbers clearly support the idea that Reed is better than just solid as a hitter.

    I still think that there is upside here. While .280/.350/.440 may be the type of numbers that he needs to put up to be considered a solid player, I think that his upside is .300/.380/.460 with a lot of 2Bs. That puts him into Derek Jeter range, which is great production from a CFer and would make him an ideal #2 hitter. I don’t see him doing this in 2006, but he could reach that type of production in a year or two. In 2006, I could see him putting up numbers similar to Coco Crisp (.300/.350/.450) with much better power than he showed this year.

    I also think you guys are selling him a bit short defensively. He may not be Mike Cameron, but only 2 or 3 players in MLB are. Mike Cameron isn’t even the same player now that we remember. Reed was very good last year. Very very good. Anyone who watched him play could see that, and most defensive stats back that up. He may not be elite, but he is well above average.

    The only thing that I worry about with Reed is that his style of play in CF will cause him to continue to have lots of nagging injuries, like the wrist problem that he had this year. But this is the worst case scenario. The mid-range projection is what you guys have been suggesting. But there is definitely upside here. He is a young player with a very good track record. Lets not write him off as mediocre too soon.

  3. oNeiRiC232 on February 25th, 2006 10:29 am

    John Dewan and Bill James’ recent book “The Fielding Bible” placed Jeremy Reed as the #2 defensive center fielder in all of baseball last year, behind only Aaron Rowand.

    Peter Gammons’ most recent blog over at ESPN summarizes the book’s rankings for every position.

  4. plivengood on February 25th, 2006 10:48 am

    I am glad Dave put in that note of caution about Adams Jones in the last paragraph. Some of what gets said about Jones reminds me of the (over-)hype Reed got as he was coming up. Jones certainly has great tools, but before last year, his offensive performance could best be described as “streaky.” While Reed doesn’t have the physical tools Jones does, his performance coming up had seasons every bit as exciting and promising as Jones’ 2005 (some might say better), and fewer offensive missteps along the way. I’m not saying Jones isn’t going to turn into a great player . . . just that in the same way it was too early to judge Reed as some sort of uber-prospect, so it is with Jones.

    I also think the evaluation of Reed here is a bit pessimistic. I don’t think he’s an elite defender (and probably would be better suited to playing LF, at least eventually), but he’s certainly better than average or merely passable. I expect that his offensive production will be slightly better than projected here, too — perhaps not this year, but within 2 years.

    We all seem to agree though: it would have been a colossal mistake — maybe even re-signing Ibanez-esque — to trade Reed for the likes of Bronson Arroyo.

  5. Dave on February 25th, 2006 11:04 am

    Do we have dependable minor league reports on Reed’s defense? Because Reed’s range in CF last year was at the top of the league. Whether it was SafeCo or not, I don’t see a reason to expect him not to repeat it in 2006.

    If it was Safeco that made Reed appear much better defensively than he really was, than he doesn’t get credit for it.

    I know I’m not going to convince many people of this, but Reed wasn’t that great defensively last year, and he’s not going to be great going forward. He’s not a problem in center field, not right now anyways, but he’s nothing close to one of the best defensive CF’s in baseball.

  6. Paul Covert on February 25th, 2006 11:06 am

    Wait… .350 OBP and .440 SLG is a modest projection? That’s about a forty-run improvement (projected to 650 PA) over his .254/.322/.352 from last year. That’s as good as Ichiro’s done in two of the past three years (.352/.436 2003 and .350/.436 2005); and even in a down year like 2005, Ichiro still was estimated by VORP as 45 runs above replacement.

    To get .280/.350/.440 in Safeco from a good defensive CF? That’s all-star territory, folks. That’s better than the average subsequent (5-year) performance of BA’s annual “best hitting prospect in baseball” (the average there is about 140 VORP/5 years). I’d be thrilled with .280/.350/.440 out of Reed.

    ******************

    Also, on the topic of lineups: I’ve tinkered around with some lineup ideas, using the formula:

    Team Runs = Sum(1 to 9) {Player PA * Player OBP * (Weighted-average SLG of guys behind him)}.

    (It’s a straightforward extention of Bill James’ basic Runs Created formula, and it’s an awful lot simpler than dealing with Markov models.)

    Anyway, what this tells me is that, assuming Ichiro remains a better hitter than Reed, there would actually be a slight advantage (about 1 run/season) to hitting Reed leadoff and Ichiro #2, rather than the other way around. The advantage is mostly due to slugging rather than OBP; you want Ichiro coming up behind Reed rather than Betancourt if you can help it. The degree of advantage is about 1 run/season for every .025 of slugging differential, as an advantage for having the stronger hitter #2 instead of leadoff.

    (However, I am not seriously arguing that a 1 run/season advantage would justify leaving Ichiro offended, Reed confused and perhaps over-pressured, Hargrove bombarded with silly questions, and you and me unable to open a local sports section without reading highly opinionated columns on the subject by journalists under the mistaken impression that they know something about statistics.)

  7. Matthew Carruth on February 25th, 2006 11:39 am

    “If it was Safeco that made Reed appear much better defensively than he really was, than he doesn’t get credit for it.”

    Does it matter who gets credit for it? My point is that Jeremy Reed rated very high in terms of CF for range. Is there any reason NOT to expect him to be there again in 2006? If that was the result of SafeCo, so what? He’s still playing in SafeCo.

    “I know I’m not going to convince many people of this, but Reed wasn’t that great defensively last year, and he’s not going to be great going forward. He’s not a problem in center field, not right now anyways, but he’s nothing close to one of the best defensive CF’s in baseball.”

    How so? By what measure? The only thing I’ve ever heard contrary is that it’s all the SafeCo effect. How big of an effect is it? Is it enough to take an average defender and make them look like the best in the game? How did you measure it?

  8. terry on February 25th, 2006 11:45 am

    So basically could the USS Mariner roundtable of Reed be summed up as: *we think Reed can develop into Randy Winn without the 20 homer potential while playing at the league minimum for the next few years**?

    I like Reed and I liked Winn. But there were alot of people (especially non-USSM fans) who weren’t all that happy to have Winn around and I doubt they wouldve changed their opinion even if Winn took a pay cut. What Im wondering is does Reed’s value mostly hinge upon the fact he is a cheap stop gap in center for the M’s right now. Stick Reed in a non-premium defensive position (though left field is very important real estate in safeco-hence my fuzziness about Winn) and does the earlier trade discussions about Reed for a pitcher have different conclusions?

  9. CSG on February 25th, 2006 12:35 pm

    I don’t see how .280/.350/.440 can be considered a modest projection for Reed. The BA and OBP numbers are about what I expect, but a jump of over 60 points in isolated power? In the minors he only put up an isolated power of over .160 during his insane half season in birmingham. I expect something closer to the range of a .400-.420 SLG.

  10. Mat on February 25th, 2006 12:52 pm

    “Does it matter who gets credit for it? My point is that Jeremy Reed rated very high in terms of CF for range. Is there any reason NOT to expect him to be there again in 2006? If that was the result of SafeCo, so what? He’s still playing in SafeCo.”

    Sure, Reed will still be in Safeco, but if Safeco is what is boosting his stats, then presumably his replacement in center would also have his range stats boosted in centerfield. Basically, a better player would still be a better player, even though Safeco makes it look like Reed is great in the first place.

    “How so? By what measure? The only thing I’ve ever heard contrary is that it’s all the SafeCo effect. How big of an effect is it? Is it enough to take an average defender and make them look like the best in the game?”

    Just off the top of my head, I would say that it could very well take an average defender and make them look like the best in the game. If you look at team defensive efficiency rankings from year to year, you’ll see a very clear trend–teams that play in pitchers’ parks have good defensive efficiencies and teams that play in hitters’ parks have bad defensive efficiencies. In fact, I would say that this trend is so prominent that comparing team defense with non-park adjusted defensive efficiency is almost meaningless.

    The infield at Safeco doesn’t seem to be particularly unusual, and there’s not a ton of foul ground — it’s a pitcher’s park because there are a lot more flyballs to the outfield that are unplayable (that is, home runs) in other ballparks and that go for outs here. I’d say that has a huge potential to skew Reed’s range stats.

  11. Mr. Egaas on February 25th, 2006 1:53 pm

    I’m glad Reed is around, I like his offensive potential and batting eye. I’d love to see him develop into a Coco Crisp/Johnny Damon/Mark Kotsay type player, which I think he can be, undoubtedly.

    Didn’t make sense to deal him for pitching this offseason, and I’m glad that didn’t happen. Say what you will about his defense, but he made a number of stellar plays to save hits and potentially runs last year, and several scouts said he took routes as well as Jim Edmonds (a stellar defensive centerfielder in his own right). I don’t know if you can even put a statistic on that. He’s no Mike Cameron, but who is?

    I’d like to see him play daily, including against those tough Lefties, as he needs an opportunity to develop. Sticking Bloomquist in center is a hit to the defense and not much greater potential offensively vs. southpaws. Maybe, just hit him lower in the lineup.

  12. Matthew Carruth on February 25th, 2006 2:01 pm

    How is it measured though? That’s my biggest question. You only have 5.5 season’s of data in SafeCo Field and the Ms CF in that time:
    Griffey, Cameron, Winn, and Reed. So if SafeCo gets a high rating for CFers, how much of it is intrinsic and how much is it based off having good+ CFers for the life of the ballpark? If anyone’s done a statistically correct study of park effects, can someone link it? Otherwise, aren’t we just guessing on the effect?

  13. mandy bot on February 25th, 2006 2:11 pm

    Hi guys. I think Reed’s 2005 defense started out just like his 2004 offense did. In his 2004 call up he put up great offensive numbers and in 2005 his defense looked great too. He is not as great as either numbers, but he is certainly not a problem area on a team with many real weak spots such as starting pitching.

    When I consider the Seattle OF defense I think of two big factors. One – the staff is a flyball staff with the exception of Felix. And two – the Safeco effect you mentioned.

    Now, I remember Mike Cameron being amazing in CF at Seattle. I was just too young to be interested in stats then, so I am just going by spectacular highlights which can be deceptive. Was Mike Cameron considered amazing because of the Safeco effect, or was he really that good? I remember he, Winn, and Ichiro as simply amazing tracking down flyballs when they played together. So my perception is Cameron was very good.

    But… if you guys saying Safeco helps Reed, can it help him alone or did it help Cameron too? They play the same position and the configuration of Safeco is basically the same, so how could Cameron not be aided by Safeco as well? And if Reed is replaced by someone else wouldn’t their defensive ratings be artificially raised by Safeco as well? Now, the left fielder next to Reed these days is not as good as Winn was when playing next to Cameron so that might give Reed more chances making him look better. Or I suppose it might hurt Reed by making himm try for balls he can’t get.

    Anyway, if we say the Safeco effect was the cause of Reed appearing better and Cameron as well and that argument is taken to the very ridiculous extreme then someone might say a good CF is not really need while playing at Safeco, not as bad as for example Everett or WFB of course! But we might say that an average CF could do the job. And Dave, who I respect highly, is saying that Reed is simply not great. Now given all this, how does that fit in with the idea of a flyball pitching staff? Our pitchers serve up flyballs at such a rate that we would appear to need a better than average OF.

    I pretty much agree on the offensive analysis. I see Reed as a guy who does lots of things well but nothing amazing well. Something like “Winn lite” – more contact and less power. Certainly not the number 2 prospect in baseball that year, but maybe the number 2 in terms of major league ready, not in terms of upside. And I think the defense follows the same pattern. He is a good CF, but not great. And that is perhaps simply what Reed is, a good but not great player in basically all phases of the game.

  14. Dave on February 25th, 2006 2:12 pm

    Matthew,

    Its a little more complicated, but its the same idea as offensive park effects. No one doubs that Safeco is a pitchers park, despite “only having 5.5 years of data”, or that Safeco favors LH hitters. Everyone agrees on this. The data and the naked eye support those assertions.

    Over the past year or two, I’ve done a bunch of work trying to figure out ways to evaluate how Safeco effects the defensive numbers. I’ve talked to the creators of pretty much all the different systems. I’ve looked at how they score catchable/uncatchable balls, and looked at the different data feeds. My conclusion, thus far, is that no one has figured out how to adjust for Safeco yet.

    UZR, PMR, DTs, ZR, whatever, they are all based on premises that do not account for the unusual way the air handles balls hit into the LF-CF portion of Safeco field. My assertion is that these balls are fundamentally easier to catch than an average ball hit into the same area at another park, yet these systems have not figured out a way to factor that in. Thus, outfielders playing left or center in Safeco (visitors too, not just Mariners) are going to see an artificial spike in their ratings that does not reflect an actual talent level.

    LF-CF in Safeco might not be the defensive version of Coors Field for hitters, but its probably something like the Ballpark in Arlington. We adjust the numbers downward for Ranger hitters because of their favorable environment; we have to do the same thing for Cameron, Reed, Winn, Ibanez, and whoever else the M’s end up putting out there.

    Do I have an answer for the problem? No, not yet. But I’m pretty convinced no one else does either, and taking the systems at their word, at this point, isn’t a good idea.

  15. plivengood on February 25th, 2006 2:27 pm

    Dave,

    I’m interested in hearing more about the work you’ve done to support your “assertion . . . that . . . balls [hit into the LF-CF portion of Safeco Field] are easier to catch than an average ball hit into the same area at another park.” It seems to me that that assertion is necessarily an anecdotal and subjective observation, but maybe you have balls-in-play data unavailable to the rest of us that supports your hypothesis. Please share what you can.

    I go to 25-30 games a year, and FWIW, my subjective sense is that you are right (although I don’t have much to compare these observations to, in terms of games watched in other MLB parks — about 7 games total).

  16. John D. on February 25th, 2006 2:37 pm

    (OT) – [deleted, off-topic]

  17. Dave on February 25th, 2006 3:03 pm

    Pete,

    Thanks to the limitations of the data, we can only draw inferences at this point, and yes, there’s a good degree of subjectivity involved. I’m not claiming I know how to evaluate outfielders at Safeco well. I’m simply stating that, in looking under the hood of how balls are scored by the play-by-play metrics, I’m not impressed with how they handle LF-CF in Safeco.

    I don’t have any real data to share. The work I’ve done mostly was looking at a good number of specific plays, how they were judged by the scorer for the data feeds the PBP metrics use, and comparing them to my own intperpetation of reward/penalty for fielding. In my opinion, no one has figured out how to consistently score the balls hit into that part of Safeco well. That pollutes the data to some extent.

    Again, I’m not saying Reed is bad defensively. I’m saying he’s not as good as the numbers say.

  18. Matthew Carruth on February 25th, 2006 4:17 pm

    If the air holds down balls in the LF-CF gap, what is the actual overall effect? Sure it supresses some home runs and makes those catchable balls, but doesn’t it all take normal fly balls and turn them into tough catches because they’ll die quicker and the OFers will have to come in a lot more to make the catch?

    If you look at the dist of fly balls along a vector, isn’t it roughly normal, centered about where the typical OFer plays? If so, and assuming the air has a constant effect, shouldn’t it just shift the dist. curve instead of reducing the std. devs?

    “No one doubs that Safeco is a pitchers park, despite “only having 5.5 years of data”, or that Safeco favors LH hitters. Everyone agrees on this. The data and the naked eye support those assertions.”

    Yes, but to what extent? How much of a pitcher’s park is SafeCo? How much of the rating is due to the crappy Ms offense the last few years? How much of the crappy Ms offense the last few years has to do with SafeCo? It seems to me that the best way to look at park factors is to compare how the road teams him there and toss out the home team’s data. Even then, you have the problem with differing pitching staffs.

  19. Steve Nelson on February 25th, 2006 4:27 pm

    #18:

    Yes, but to what extent? How much of a pitcher’s park is SafeCo? How much of the rating is due to the crappy Ms offense the last few years? How much of the crappy Ms offense the last few years has to do with SafeCo? It seems to me that the best way to look at park factors is to compare how the road teams him there and toss out the home team’s data. Even then, you have the problem with differing pitching staffs.

    I think you’ve misunderstood how park factros are calculated. They are based on the ratio of how the home team scores at home vs. on the road and how much visting teams score at Safeco vs on the road.

    So the crappiness cancels out. In simplified terms, if Safeco suppresses offense by 10%, then the Mariners will generally score 10% fewer runs at home than on the road, regardless of whether it’s a good offense or a bad offense. Similarly, visiting teams will score 10% fewer runs when they visit Safeco as compared with a normal park.

    So just because a team has a crappy offense, that does not cause the park factor to go down. The park factor goes down when that same crappy offense scores more runs on the road than at Safeco.

  20. John D. on February 25th, 2006 4:44 pm

    REED’S MINOR LEAGUE DEFENSE (See # 1) – “Do we have dependable minor league reports on Reed’s defense?” (See # 1) – “dependable”? Anyway, the annual BA ALMANACs list the traditional defensive stats for MLB and most of mlb. (It does not list Range Factor, Zone Rating, etc.)
    FWIW (Reed’s mlb defensive record):

    SEASON CLASS. GAMES PO A E Fielding Percentage

    2002 a 55 119 5 0 1.000
    2003 A 64 135 6 3 .979
    2004 AAA 73* 180 6 1 .995 (and 16 MLB games)

    [Overall mlb fielding percentage (451/455): .993]

    Note: This was so neat when I typed it.

  21. The Ancient Mariner on February 25th, 2006 5:38 pm

    FWIW, I certainly have the subjective sense that Safeco makes at least LF-CF flyballs more catchable (no, it doesn’t “take all normal flyballs and turn them into tough catches”–they’re affected less), just as I’m quite sure from many games in the stands at Nat Bailey in Vancouver that that stadium suppresses flies to all parts of the stadium. I don’t know if it’s wind, PNW marine air, or what, but there’s a real commonality between the Nat and the Safe on this point.

  22. Matthew Carruth on February 25th, 2006 6:58 pm

    “I think you’ve misunderstood how park factros are calculated. They are based on the ratio of how the home team scores at home vs. on the road and how much visting teams score at Safeco vs on the road.

    So the crappiness cancels out. In simplified terms, if Safeco suppresses offense by 10%, then the Mariners will generally score 10% fewer runs at home than on the road, regardless of whether it’s a good offense or a bad offense. Similarly, visiting teams will score 10% fewer runs when they visit Safeco as compared with a normal park.

    So just because a team has a crappy offense, that does not cause the park factor to go down. The park factor goes down when that same crappy offense scores more runs on the road than at Safeco. ”

    No, I’m perfectly aware of how park factors are usually done, and they’re wrong. Home teams could score less on the road because of home field advantage. Road teams could score more/less at that one stadium because of the pitching staff rather than the park.

    Imagine a Red Sox lineup full of hitters who only hit balls 320 to LF. In Fenway, these bounce off the wall for hits and the lineup score infinity runs. On the road, those are caught, they score 0 runs. The “park factors” became heightened because teams build lineups around quirks in their ballpark (see need for LH pull slugger, SafeCo).

    Imagine facing the 05 Astros rotation of Clemens, Pettitte, Oswalt. You aren’t going to score many runs against them. But you’ll score runs against the Cubs and Pirates on your road trip. Does that make Houston a pitcher’s park or a park that happens to house good pitching?

  23. DMZ on February 25th, 2006 7:04 pm

    No, it does not.

    You’re completely misunderstanding how park factors work.

  24. Steve Nelson on February 25th, 2006 7:05 pm

    #21: It wouldn’t be marine air; it would be cool air. Cool air is more dense, which means that flyballs will die quicker. Then the prevailing wind appears to come into the stadium over the left field wall.

    Hard hit flyballs will lose speed and won’t carry as far. routine flies won’t carry as far. The higher the loft on the ball, the greater will be the effects.

    Since routine flyballs typically don’t have the loft of hard high drives, they are less affected. And since fielders have plenty of time to reach those balls anyway, any wind effects that do occur don’t influence the outcome much. Line drives into the gap also would be less affected. But long high flies with distance will be inordinately affected, and will lose distance. That should make more of them playable by the outfielders.

  25. DMZ on February 25th, 2006 7:06 pm

    Also, I have no idea why this page is formatting weirdly.

  26. BelaXadux on February 25th, 2006 8:10 pm

    I’m quite sure that Safeco helps LFers and CFers substantially, and gives their stats a skew. Steve Nelson sums this up well, but: the prevailing wind is WSW, and pushes a dense cool bank of air in over the LF bleachers. This does not tend to effect linedrives much to any part of the park. Fly balls to LF and CF ‘stall’ in the fog, and hold up short of the wall for the fielders to run under them, which wouldn’t happen for comparable batted balls in other parks. Fly balls to RF may stall a bit, too, but they also get an outward boost from the breeze which furthermore carries them away from the RCF alley toward the shorter wall in straight away RF; if anything, the prevailing conditions help fly balls to RF go deep(-er). The devensive numbers for Winn, Reed, Ibanez have always seemed better than their intrinsic defensive performances. I don’t know whether this is as big a factor as the offensive boost of TBPAA, but since Dave has done a close study of it and that’s his read I’m inclined to take his word on it as the most accurate take out there.

    Jeremy Reed is not an elite defensive CFer. His tools are only just good. His footspeed is no more than good; Winn > Cameron > Gipson > McLemore > Boccachica > Reed > Bloomquist, just as a basis of comparison of guys we’ve all seen in the same park. Reed’s turn-and-go first step is, if anything, below average. His body positioning at the wall or coming in short is nothing special. In the absolute sense, Reed’s range is only average. Reed’s _skills_, however, are quite good. He gets a good read on the ball; not as good as Mike Cameron, but Mike was fabulous. Reed takes a good angle on the ball consistently. Reed’s leather when he gets there is reliable. Above all, Jeremey Reed totally hustles on everything hit into his zone; he gets to everything he possibly can with this tools. Reed _plays_ himself into a somewhat above average CFer, and Safeco takes that base and tacks on a homefield multiplier.

    I don’t see Adam Jones penciled in for ’07 at all, either. If he takes well to center and makes appropriate progress with the bat, a mid-season call-up in ’07 to stay is quite possible, rather like Jose Lopez and Betancourt. But Adam would have to really tear it up this season to play his way into an earlier arrival, to me.

  27. Matthew Carruth on February 25th, 2006 8:43 pm

    “No, it does not.

    You’re completely misunderstanding how park factors work.”

    As amazingly constructive as that is, do you think you could elaborate just a touch more and perhaps explain how they work then? Because everywhere I’ve looked (ESPN, BP, BR) have some sort of version based on runs scored and runs allowed for the home and away teams.

    ESPN -> PF = ((homeRS + homeRA)/(homeG)) / ((roadRS + roadRA)/(roadG))
    BP and BR are more slightly complicated, but they all have their root right there and its folly.

  28. DMZ on February 25th, 2006 9:15 pm

    It’s right there!

    Okay, I’ll go really slowly. Let’s take an example and walk through it.

    Home team pitching: 4.00 ERA at home, 4.5 ERA away
    Home team hitting: 4 r/g at home, 4.5 r/g away
    Away team pitching: 4 ERA at this park, 4.5 era at all other parks
    Away team hitting: 4 r/g at that park, 4.5 r/g at all other parks

    That’s a pitcher’s park.

    Now, to your arguments: what if the home team has good pitchers? Doesn’t that make the park look good?

    No it does not. They appear be good at home and less good on the road. Also, since they play another team every game, you get a fairly vast sample of how all other pitching performs in every other park you compare to how it performs in that park.

    What if the home team has good pitchers who take advantage of the home park’s characteristics?

    Even if that effect was fairly dramatic in a way we haven’t ever really seen, and visiting pitchers were totally unable to do the same things, it would be hard to slant park factors severly because half the outcomes occur with pitchers who aren’t tailored to the park.

    What if the home team has good hitters? Doesn’t that make the park look like a hitter’s park?

    No it does not. They appear be bad at home and less bad on the road. Also, since they play another team every game, you get a fairly vast sample of how all other hitting performs in every other park you compare to how it performs in that park.

    What if the home team has good hitters who take advantage of the home park’s characteristics?

    Even if that effect was fairly dramatic in a way we haven’t ever really seen, and visiting hitters were totally unable to do the same things, it would be hard to slant park factors severly because half the outcomes occur with hitters who aren’t tailored to the park.

  29. Matthew Carruth on February 25th, 2006 10:13 pm

    The fact remains that teams enjoy a home field advantage and these things can skew the park factor numbers. Just go look at ESPN’s 2005 factors for evidence. Does anyone really think that Oakland is the third best hitting park? That Jacob’s Field is more conducive to giving up runs than Coors? That Minute Maid park is the ultimate pitching park?

    Furthermore, my only point in the manner of measuring park factors was that I think it’s statistically better to only measure the road teams output. i.e. if you want to see what SafeCo field is like, you compare how the Red Sox hit and pitch at Seattle against how the Red Sox hit and pitch in all other road games. It removes any home team bias in the factors.

  30. Dave on February 25th, 2006 10:17 pm

    ESPN’s park factors are insane. No one disputes this.

    That doesn’t make legitimate park factors any less credible.

  31. The Ancient Mariner on February 26th, 2006 7:58 am

    Re #24–I realize the effects of cool air, yes, but it ain’t just cool air. I can testify to this more from games at the Nat than from games at Safeco, but even when it’s warm, high flies still hang up there. April, June, October, August, whatever, it’s just harder to hit a flyball out in those stadia than it is most places.

  32. Steve Nelson on February 26th, 2006 8:25 am

    Once the ball leaves the bat it’s spin, velocity, and trajectory are established.

    The only two atmospheric forces that inluence the flight of the ball are the densitry of the air and air flow patterns. If balls actually do hang in the air an unusually high amount, it’s probably because of air flow.

    An additional thought regarding Safeco left-centerfield winds after a night of sleep.

    The dominant wind flow pattern at Safeco seems to flow into into the stadium along the the left field foul line. In the infield area this flow turns 90 degrees heads out to right field. This accounts for Safeco’s favorable treatment of balls hit to right field.

    Now, if air is flowing into the stadium in the left-center field area as well, somewhere over the field that air will encounters the air stream that is heading out to right field. The addiitional air coming in over left field would then likely rise over the right field air stream, whle maintainging its southerly flow momentun. Fly balls getting into that air flow field will then tend to both hang and lose distance.

  33. JAS on February 26th, 2006 1:26 pm

    Moist air is less dense. Warmer air has a higher moisture capacity. Therefore, if any correlation can be made to seasonal or park effects on ball trajectory, you would say that spring and fall are worse for HRs in general. However, because SAFECO is a sea-level park right on the water, daily wind patterns are probably the dominant atmospheric effect, as Steve Nelson alludes to. His explanation make sense for night games, but not necessarily for day games. During the warm months, the land is much warmer than the water, but cools much faster in the evening, creating an onshore wind. The onshore wind would be responsible for Nelson’s observation of wind entering the stadium in LF, and curving around to RF.

    As far as his last paragraph goes, that is highly speculative. In general, you would expect mixing zones to be turbulent, with variable effects on ball trajectory.

  34. DMZ on February 26th, 2006 1:35 pm

    What I think is particularly interesting about that, too, is that it seems like the kind of thing the Mariners would absolutely want to figure out: if I were running the team, I’d have some multi-year study done with all kinds of atmospheric sciences students from the UW running little instrument stations and whatever else. If you could in any reasonable fashion know how the wind in the stadium was moving that game, it’d be a huge advantage for the home team’s ability to position their outfielders. Even if you just knew in general what the effects of different conditions were (day/night hot/cold) that’d be helpful.

    If the Mariners have done anything of that scope, we haven’t heard about it.

  35. Steve Nelson on February 26th, 2006 2:24 pm

    #33:

    At the scale of a single bulidng, wind patters are much more influenced by local phenomea (such as buildings) than by regional flow patterrns. So, while sea breezes may differ between night and day, that doesn’t necessarily translate

    Re mimixing xones being turbulent. One my areas of professional areas of expertise is modeling dispersion and mixing of pollutants in the atmosphers, with much of the work involving building wake and downwash effects. Suffice it to say, there are many situations in which converging air streams don’t immediately mix. I have many clients who would have a much easier time managing air emissions were that always true.

    My last paragraph in #32 is speculative, but completely plausible. Further, it’s consistent with observarions at Safeco. If air flow over the bleachers in left center were mixing into the air current flowing up the right field line, that mixing would kill the air current traveling to right field. We wouldn’t see the (presumably wind-aided) favorable right field power pattern that seems to be in evidence.

  36. kenshin on February 26th, 2006 2:46 pm

    Re: 33 and 35. Guys let’s keep this civil. We all know that the fall from calling each other’s argument “speculative” to a science geek death match is extremely short. (NB. I’m a biological sciences nerd, so I am permitted to scoff at those physics people)

  37. JAS on February 26th, 2006 3:34 pm

    Just for fun, use Google Earth and search for SAFECO Field. The aerial phot is 1/4 M per pixel, which is amazing resolution (the Cougars are playing at Seahawks stadium, and you can see individual players in formation!)

    Anyhow, you can see that although there is no obstruction between SAFECO and the Sound, the building alignments don’t offer a simple explanation for wind patterns. This stuff is hard to model, but easy to measure, so there really isn’t any reason why the M’s shouldn’t have all the data. But as both a scientist and a former intel analyst, if I did have the info, I’d keep it to myself.

  38. Steve Nelson on February 26th, 2006 4:51 pm

    #7: This stuff is hard to model, but easy to measure, .

    No, it’s pretty easy to model, but very hard to measure. That’s why people model it instead of measuring it.

    BTW – because the Puget Sound lowland is a north-south valley, sea-land breezes tend to run north-south. It’s similar to the SF Bay area. All along the SF Bay, through eastern San Mateo and western Alameda Counties and into Santa Clara County, the land and sea breezes flow north-south; i.e., along the axis of he valley, not east-west.

    If you go here you can see wind roses for Sea-Tac showing that air flows in the Seattle area are overwhelmingly north and south. Occasionally NNW, SW, and SSW. but seldom W. Similar data in this table, which provides monthly comparisons and conveniently includes both Boeing Field (lowland Duwamish) and SeaTac (Highline). Boeing Field in the summer months has more of NW flow in the summer months than does the Highline area – but that’s probably because air flow in the Duwamish gets channeled by the hills.

    Folks in the South Park area of Seattle, directly downwind of the Duwamish and Port of Seattle industrial areas – are quite aware that prevailing summertime winds are from the north.

  39. JAS on February 26th, 2006 5:15 pm

    kenshin certainly called it, didn’t he. From speculation to science geek death match in four posts.

  40. Steve Nelson on February 26th, 2006 6:20 pm

    Yep. And after all of that discussion the prevailing wind almost all summer is a sea breese from the north, coming into Safeco over the left field bleachers, and knocking down fly balls hit to left field.

  41. eric on February 27th, 2006 11:37 am

    #34,

    DMZ, If they did do that they wouldn’t want anyone to know would they? Isn’t the point to have info that no-ones else does as an advatage?

  42. DMZ on February 27th, 2006 11:39 am

    Yes, but more the data than the fact that they’d done the work. My point was more that if they employed a ton of UW atmospheric sciences students or otherwise put serious work into this, word hasn’t gotten out, which is unusual.

  43. eric on February 27th, 2006 12:05 pm

    True I doubt they have done it. Which is pretty stupid, for teams that pay millions for untility infielders stuff like this would be a rounding error on the office supplies budget.

  44. Brian Rust on February 27th, 2006 2:18 pm

    Actually, detection of atmospheric currents has been a high priority for the Mariners since they moved to The Safe. That’s what those garlic fries are all about.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.