How Much Better Is The Dodgers' Defense?

The addition of Orlando Hudson to the Dodgers led many to proclaim that the 2009 defense would be a vastly superior unit to the 2008 version. But is it really better? And if so, by how much? Well, let's take a look.

As the chart shows, the difference between the 2009 and 2008 defensive units is estimated to be around 25 runs. However, it's never just that simple, so for those who want more detail, or for those who are just generally confused, I have some notes that should help create a deeper understanding of the numbers.

Catcher

For those of you who are shocked at Martin's positive defensive value: don't be. As i've said before, Martin's defense is insanely underrated by those who go purely on CS% and errors. Yes, his CS% is low, but the Dodgers' staff over the past few years has been atrocious at holding runners. Martin is also good at wild pitch prevention, and the bump upwards in 2009 value assumes less errors and a slightly better CS% as well.

I don't think his defense will be much more valuable than the projected 7 runs or so, but I doubt it dips too much below that level either.

First Base

Loney's defense was highly questionable in 2008, and I worry about the downward trend in his value as his playing time sample size gets larger. The only reason his projection for 2009 shows improvement is because it factors in his performance from past years as well. Still, Loney has only one full season under his belt, and he has a reputation as a smooth fielder, so I don't think there's any reason he can't be a league average first baseman.

Loney's a bit of a wild card though, mainly because I could easily see him becoming an above-average option worth about 2-3 runs in 2009, but I could also see the downward trend leveling out around -3 runs or so. His defensive play will be something to monitor closely.

Second Base

Hudson's defense trended downward significantly in 2008, but his past levels seem to suggest that a bounce back is likely. Assuming he's healthy, he should at least be an above-average defensive option based on his past levels. Even if Hudson continues to regress, there's probably no way he's as terrible as Jeff Kent was in 2008, so there's going to be a huge improvement at second base regardless.

I'm not convinced Hudson is healthy, but if he is, I think he could be a solid 6-7 runs above average. Conversely, if his health continues to be a problem, he could be the same defender he was last year, and end up somewhere around -2 runs or so. I guess it all depends on how optimistic you feel about his health.

Third Base

Blake was surprisingly average at third base for the Dodgers last year, but taking a larger sample size of his skill paints a much more grim picture.

His status as a well below-average defensive option is well established, and there's little wiggle room for him to get better. If you're praying for upside, maybe he can ring in at -4 runs or so, but there's a much greater chance his skills continue to deteriorate and he ends up closer to -7 or so.

Shortstop

Fielding metrics say that Furcal has never been as good defensively as his reputation would suggest. Now before you overreact to this negative rating, I will say that i've personally always thought he was around average, but I can also see why metrics would rate him lower. I think what hurts him is the fact that he boots an awful lot of routine balls, and he will often fail to complete a seemingly routine play because of his erratic arm. These are balls that a great majority of shortstops will convert into outs, but Furcal fails to do so, thus he takes a larger hit than most.

There's an outside chance that he attains a much higher defensive level if healthy, so his upside would be around 1-2 runs above-average. However, there's also a chance that he'll decline further after major back surgery, or that injuries will hinder him during the season, so there's always a chance for downside around -5 runs or so.

Left Field

I actually think Manny's projection is very reasonable. He was about 10 runs below average away from Fenway, but that's still a lot better than hovering around -20 runs below average in Fenway. A part of me believes that the fielding metrics still haven't corrected for the quirks of that park, so I already factored this immense difference into his fielding projection.

Because of the way I did my projection for him, the upside isn't much higher than what i've input there. Maybe -10 runs is the best case scenario, but the fact remains that Manny is a well below average defender. Of course, the downside is potentially finding out that Fenway actually had less of an impact than I thought, and Manny still ends up around -18 runs defensively.

Center Field

Right now, Kemp's range is about fringe-average, but his excellent arm more than makes up that difference. There's potential for him to be a great defensive center fielder, because his problems with range aren't tied to a lack of speed, but rather inexperience and jumps on the ball.

At worst, Kemp remains right around league average for center fielders and is worth about 0 runs. At best, Kemp improves his range to slightly above average and retains his strong throwing arm, thus putting him in the range of 5 runs or so. Either way, there's little doubt in my mind that he belongs in center for now.

Right Field

Ethier is one confusing case, and he's perhaps the best example of sample size playing tricks on us. The metrics say he was excellent in right field during the 2007 season, but was absolutely horrific there in 2008. So what's the truth? Like everything else, it probably lies somewhere in between the two extremes, which is why taking a larger sample size is important.

I actually don't see Ethier being that much better than the projection, as putting him down for an above-average season is generous enough based on what he did last year. The downside is that Ethier's 2008 could be a closer indication of his true talent and he might end up around -3 runs or so. Personally, i'm leaning toward the positive side of things.

Bench And Pitchers

Ausmus is barely above average as a defensive catcher anymore, but that's still a whole lot better than what the Ellis/Ardoin/Bennett three-headed monster provided in 2008.

Mientkiewicz is a significant improvement at first base over Garciaparra, and he helps the 2009 projection significantly.

Loretta is not a very good defensive replacement for Hudson, but Hu is. Regardless, they are both better than DeWitt/Ozuna/Maza/Young were in 2008.

DeWitt is a huge boon to the 2008 defensive numbers because of his excellent play at third base during his time there. For 2009, Blake's backup is a mystery, but unless it's DeWitt, the reserve will probably be below average.

The shortstop reserves were atrocious last year, as Maza/Garciaparra/Berroa absolutely killed the Dodgers with their bad defense. With backup duties slated to fall to Hu in 2009, that projects to get significantly better. However, if DeWitt wins those duties, there's significant downside.

In the outfield, Juan Pierre is the primary backup, and that creates some problems. His range is above-average, but his throwing is so terrible that it completely negates any range value he has. If the Dodgers keep him and Young as the primary reserves, the defense doesn't project to get better, but it doesn't project to get worse either. There is some upside, however, if the Dodgers bring up Paul as a reserve.

Overall, if Torre makes the right roster decisions and the reserves play well, I could see the reserves being better than the projection by about 4 or 5 runs. On the flip side though, if Torre misuses players and they don't play as expected, then the downside is easily -6 runs or so. I think Torre is a terrible game manager so i'm leaning more towards the downside than the upside.

Conclusion

Optimistically, the 2009 defensive unit could prevent around 14 runs above the league average. Pessimistically, they could be as bad as 41 runs below the league average. Most importantly though, realistic expectations probably lie somewhere between -19 and -4 runs below the league average.

Basically, the Dodgers are still not a very good defensive team, and I don't think that should surprise you, especially considering that only Hudson and Martin have ever had established positive defensive reputations. Still, the Dodgers seem to have a virtual lock on being a much improved defensive team unless everything breaks bad for them.