When looking at what the Phillies “need” in the second half, perhaps an analytical view of the team’s defense could be used – and not the analytics you’re thinking of!
Philadelphia Phillies beat writer Scott Lauber began his second half with an essay today (July 20) involving somewhat standard suggestions about what his team needs. His list is not wrong in any way, but with minor adjustments in specifics, most of it could serve for just about any MLB team: Will a big bat be added (specifically, at third base or shortstop)? Will a pitcher be added (starter or reliever)? And so forth.
Lauber makes sensible observations about all five of the “questions” he feels the Phillies must address. (Nick Castellanos for third base or right field, anyone?) However, only one of his questions is a bit out of the ordinary and intriguing: “Can the Phillies get defensive?” About that he writes, among other things, “he Phillies rank last in the league with minus-74 defensive runs saved.”
Yikes. And this team’s in first place?
The Phillies came late to embracing computer-driven analytics, and manager Gabe Kapler’s almost romantic attachment to them has been at times problematic. Even casual observers of the NL East probably recall pitcher Jake Arrieta’s modest meltdown in San Francisco over the Phillies ineffective defensive shifts up until early June, and his “picking on” rookie shortstop Scott Kingery, who made an error on the night in question.
Of course, most sensible Phillies fans have surely noticed their team’s defensive shifts have worked sometimes. Computers now allow MLB managers to position fielders so they don’t even have to move a step to catch line drives – sometimes. Likewise, Phillies fans more than others can point to moments when shifts didn’t work this season.
I have a reminder on my phone about that sort of thing, a notice from a friend who liked a tweet I emitted April 11: “The Phillies were just stupid enough to shift on Votto in a tie game.” A little research indicates I could have added “in extra innings.” (The team survived Joey Votto’s single to left in the tenth inning and won in the twelfth.)
Statistics could be heaped into these observations at this point – Kingery’s errors against those made by available shortstops, such as Adeiny Hechavarria; Maikel Franco’s against Castellano’s or Adrian Beltre’s.
A trade for an analytics guru could be suggested. Why not? Maybe Sam Fuld, the Phillies “Player Information Coordinator” isn’t doing his job. How would we know? Maybe someone on the actual numbers crunching crew isn’t doing his job. What are their names?
Who knows?
Here’s something that bunch of Phillies deep thinkers might consider – two new stats (created this very morning): Fielder-Failed Shifts (FFS) and Fielding-Independent Failed Shifts (FIFS). FFS figures would reveal the percentage of defensive shifts done in, failed, by a fielder who made an error or what should have been scored an error, and who those failing fielders were. FIFS figures would reveal the percentage of shifts failing without botched plays, or more accurately, because the batter was simply able to find a hole in the new and improved defense.
There’s something to chew on.
Wait, maybe they’re already doing that.
I guess we’ll never know. If they already are, the resulting data is, to borrow from Johnny Carson’s old Carnac the Magnificent sketches, surely in envelopes “hermetically sealed” and “kept in a mayonnaise jar on Funk and Wagnalls’ porch since noon today.”
Next: CTTP's midseason top 150 prospects
If Phillies analysts aren’t considering FFS and FIFS, maybe it’s time to do so. They don’t have to tell us. They can just get another mayonnaise jar.