Diamondbacks Bullpen

levski · Veteran Presence Joined: 10 Aug 2006 Posts: 2014

And I don't mean Tracey Lords's cup size here...

Shoewiz and I had a lond discussion about Chad Tracy's future in AZ. Shoe was convinced that Tracy would be shopped out, probably traded, or maybe moved to LF next year. In sum, shoewiz thinks that Tracy is horrible with the glove at 3B.

Now, I looked at Dial's rankings on D, which went through Aug. 27th, and he had Tracy at -2 runs per 150 games at 3B. Below average, but not horrible.

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/dialed_in/discussion/defensive_rankings_by_position_nl_aug_27/

Shoewiz's love boy, Pedro Feliz, a brain dead caribbean swinging at slop, was at +9 over 150 games, or about a win difference over a season over Tracy.

Ensberg, a desired trade candidate by me, was at +8 over 150 games, again about a win over Tracy on D. Of the two, Ensberg is by far the better hitter, while Tracy is a better hitter than Feliz, imho.

***

Now, a poster on btf has his defensive projections for 2007

http://lanaheimangelfan.blogspot.com/2006/09/defensive-projections.html

From there, we can see the projected D at 3B:

shoewizard · Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 7:30 pm Post subject:

I think you confused "should" with "would" in our conversation. I didn't say they WOULD shop him,.....I said they SHOULD.

My comment was they should sign or trade for a better defensive third baseman, and then shop BOTH Byrnes and Tracy, and see who brings the biggest return, and stick the one that doesn't get traded in left.

After talking to you, I also went back to that thread, and pointed out that I messed up on Feliz by not noting his age.

So.......just to clarify those points....

Another thing about Tracy's defense....twice recently I have seen him double clutch on routine double play grounders, and because of the delay, they were only able to make one out.....even though they should have turned two.

Thats just another example of how I don't think Zone Rating is quite capturing Tracy's deficiency.

I also pointed out in our conversation that Jackson has saved Tracy COUNTLESS errors this season by perfecting the catch and tag move on the throw up the line. Jackson got really good at that move, THANKS TO LOTS OF PRACTICE....and only got nailed doing it once, by Prince Fielder.

Tracy could have EASILY had 5 more errors just on that type of throw alone. Thats not going to show up in EITHER Tracy's or Jackson's zone rating, but everyone watching every night will attest to the same things.

I defended Tracy's defense early in the season...he looked ok in April, and was making the throws. He had only one error the first month of the season. From May on he was TERRIBLE.

You asked if the knee could have had something to do with that. I don't know. When did it start hurting? How bad is it? we just don't know.

This team definitely needs better defense at 3rd base. The question is whether Tracy can supply it, or if it will have to come from somewhere else.

McCray · Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 7:34 pm Post subject:

okay, everyone here knows what i voted and they know my motives. but hear me out:

tracy SUCKED this year. he was k-tastic, and he threw a LOT of balls into the stands or the visitor's dugout. BUT... he gets to the balls, at least from what i've seen. so it's not his range that's bad -- that's probably averagish to slightly under. it's his throws. he rushes his footwork and throws up the line.

this, IMO, is not a fatal flaw. he's not a natural at 3b, but the throwing errors are most likely correctable. and if that happens, we have avg 3b defense.

tracy showed in 2005 that he's capable of a monster offensive season, even if some of it was a fluke. and i think some of 05 was a fluke. but, i also think 06 was a fluke offensively. his minor league numbers don't suggest a k rate like this. so again, i think it's most likely fixable. i doubt he'll approach his 05 levels again, but i think he will be better, both offensively and defensively.

as for trading him, could we really get anything of value for him right now? it isn't as if he's dirt cheap -- he's cheap now, but he's got that contract, so he won't be for too long. what could we realistically get for chad tracy this offseason, coming off his 4,312 strikeouts?

i doubt we could get much.

but, if he rebounds somewhat on d and somewhat on o (i'm not saying he's going to be a gold glover, over he's going to be tracy05 again -- just he gets closer to an acceptable level), THEN he's valuable as a trade.

it isn't like barden is really torching AAA and demanding for advancement like q was. and if his defense is really costing AZ around a game, and he's got upside, then i just don't see the logic in trading him away now.

it isn't like this team is going to win the WS next year, and all that stands in the way is chad tracy. next year the team gets to evaluate their young talent and see what they've got in them. why not do that with tracy next year too, instead of giving up on him so soon?
_________________
Hank, you're dead to me.

shoewizard · Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 7:38 pm Post subject:

Tracy played 3rd all through the minors and his rookie year and this year. Last year was the only year of his professional career he wasn't at 3rd.

How many times have you seen Tracy lay out down the line and snare a ball and come up throwing to first and get the runner? In the hole between short and third? diving stop? throw the runner out?

I don't mean a dive on a ball thats hit right at you. I've seen that play. I mean the lpay where he takes one or two steps, dives, out stretched, and makes the play and throws out the runner?

i can't remember one.

TAP · Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 7:43 pm Post subject:

shoewizard · Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 7:48 pm Post subject:

I must have missed that one.

Baseball Prospectus tells us Tracy really sucked this year.

.260 Eqa,

-19 FRAA !!

1.5 WARP1

Basically everything BUT Zone Rating tells us tracy was not good.

Fielding Percentage, Range Factor, FRAA....all bad.

I will bet ALOT of money that Tracy comes out unfavorably in TangoTigers scouting reports.

There is no question in my mind whatsoever that for whatever reason, Zone Rating and zone rating based metrics are overating him. He was much worse than -2

The only question is whether or not he will improve. That is a question for the scouts and coaches amongst I guess.

shoewizard · Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 7:51 pm Post subject:

By the way....just for the hell of it, I voted KEEP him, but don't expect much.

Maybe I don't have the guts to pull the trigger on trading him....but I would shop him just to see what he might fetch.

You never know.

TAP · Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 7:58 pm Post subject:

McCray · Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 7:59 pm Post subject:

by all means, see what tracy will get on the market. but i'm really not expecting him to bring much in return at all right now. he's got nowhere to go but up in terms of his value.
_________________
Hank, you're dead to me.

jimbo4net · Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 8:29 pm Post subject:

I voted for the first option, even though you never know what you're going to get production wise from him. Gotta get better. Current trade value is low so hope for improvement coming into spring training. Groom Callaspo as a back-up to fill the role at third in case he's still not getting the job done.

stu · Everyday Player Joined: 12 Aug 2006 Posts: 598

I vote none of the above. Unless there is a very good offer for him (which I doubt since his performance should make his value at its lowest) let's wait and let Tracy decide. If he plays well we have a good player. If not, let's go to one of the other plans.

FWIW wins shares has Tracy as one of the worst defensive 3b and one of the worst overall on a pro rata bais.

The disparity in the numbers further shows the questionablity of fielding stats. After around May Tracy was poor in the field. No range. Every throw was an adventure. I'd say -9 runs is close.

One option may to be to platoon him. His splits this year were 298/367/477 versus 231/281/346. His 2003-05 splits were 315/368/514 versus 224/282/352.

For many players poor hitting affects fielding and vice versa. In fact, I think it is the rare player that it does not.

I suggested around mid season that they shiould sit Tracy at least against some lh. I don't think this would destroy his confidence---just the opposite). I don't think that his numbers are improving against lh as shown by the stats above. I don't see an increase in 7 ba points, 1 obp and 6 slugging points as a big difference. It seems to me we have enough data to question Tracy's ability to hit lh.

At this stage, I'd say platoon him and Callaspo and let them decide. Maybe give Tracy some starts in lf depending on what is happening there although Byrnes usually starts like a house on fire. Still you could have a mini platoon there. The Dbacks ned to remember that they don;t have to finish the season with the team that started and you don't have to have a completely set roster or roles at the start of the season.

shoewizard · Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 9:14 pm Post subject:

Stu....were you referring to FRAA when you typed -9?
If so, it's -19

I forgot to post the Win Shares fielding, although I knew that already. I think WinShares fielding is based more or less on range factor, right?

In this case, ALL the metrics EXCEPT the Zone Rating based Metrics capture Tracy's defense as well below average, and Zone rating has him as slightly below average....and observation , at least in my case, has him as well below average.

I guess it's possible that ALL the other Metrics completely "miss" on Tracy, and that my eyes deceive me as well. But I don't use the Metrics that way.

If all the metrics say more or less the same thing, then I think the accumulative data is credible. You just have to look at ALL of it, and use your own subjective observations, and make your judgement.

I have never espoused any ONE metric as the be all and end all of defensive performance analysis.....I am just not willing to dismiss them all, including zone rating based metrics, out of hand as being useless and irrelevant. They ALL have something to tell us, and if we are objective enough, we can figure it out most of the time.

stu · Everyday Player Joined: 12 Aug 2006 Posts: 598

The -9 was my own number based on what I saw. The value of the various metrics to me is that they confirmed my horseback numbers as to the runs a good fielder will save and a bad fielder will cost. I just don't think they capture the individual players very well.

Win Shares, as I understand it, uses range factor but that adjusts for handedness of pitchers, quality, and a bunch of other things so that it is way beyond range factor (which James acknowledges is severely flawed).

Zone rating (or the data on which it is based) is the foundation for most of the so called adavance metrics such as UZR and Dial's numbers. Dewan, I think, uses a different source for his numbers. My guess is that UZR shows Tracy around a -3 like DSial's numbers.

So the metrics that most of the stat heads use as their basis shows Tracy in the -2 range. If you lump all of those metrics that have some sort of ZR data into one then I guess you can say evereyone but one, but you have BP and Win Shares versus the ones most recognized.

I think the numbers are so flawed (GIGO) that even if they agree, they don't tell you much, but I know we disagree on this and I respect your right to disagree. You could be right.

farmfan · A-Ball Kid Joined: 30 Sep 2006 Posts: 10

Unfortunately his error total this year is pretty much what is always has been. Tracy had 25 errors at third in 2002, 20 in 2003, 25 in 2004 and 25 this year. It dose not give me a lot of hope for improvement in the future.

shoewizard · Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 9:40 pm Post subject:

stu · Everyday Player Joined: 12 Aug 2006 Posts: 598

here is a link that purports to explain fielding win shares I say "purports" because it is so beyond me that I can't if it does or not. I have no reason to believe it is not a valid explanation. It looks like what I remember from James' book.

The book so upset my cat (she is one those rare creatures who is a Earlite, but not a Jamesian) that she pissed on it. Talk about your direct statements.

Or maybe she just had to pee.

B. O. N. D. · Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 9:56 pm Post subject:

Don't give up on Tracy bat-wise.

Give up on him being the 3b of the future.

Hello Callaspo. Give him a chance. He deserves to be on the team.

Problem is, they're NOT going to trade Byrnes. Mad

And I like Byrnes. But not THAT much.
_________________
Oops in the 2 hole!

shoewizard · Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 9:57 pm Post subject:

ROFLMFAO!!

In response to Stu's Cat's bladder issues.

B. O. N. D. · Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 9:58 pm Post subject:

stu · Everyday Player Joined: 12 Aug 2006 Posts: 598

On the old board I made a comment that mentioned "we" and I said "that is, me and my cat". My cat then became a running joke that we have not revisted for a while.

TAP · Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:04 pm Post subject:

levski · Veteran Presence Joined: 10 Aug 2006 Posts: 2014

I personally think the DBacks should keep Tracy at 3b. And Stu's cat in the LF bleachers.
_________________
Old school Hollywood baseball,
Joe Girardi is ten feet tall,
Old school Hollywood baseball,
Me and Frenchy walk a ton.

And Tony Pena cuts in line...

McCray · Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 7:44 pm Post subject:

we talked about tracy tonight at the game. i think he's going to rebound offensively, and stay about the same or so defensively. probably a little bit better, but not much.

and dylan was guessing his trade value right now is about a 4/5th starter. if that's right, i see no reason to trade him. we have those. but if tracy rebounds at all, THEN we can trade him for something of real value.

and if he doesn't, fuck, we lost out on a 4/5th starter. not that big of a deal.
_________________
Hank, you're dead to me.

moviegeekjn · Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 9:22 pm Post subject:

McCray · Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 9:39 pm Post subject:

if that's the case, he ought to play all of 2007 with his eyes shut.

can't be much worse.
_________________
Hank, you're dead to me.