2010 in Review: Left Field

by Ryan on Nov 10, 2010 4:44 AM EST in Analysis

Posts in this series:

Team Offense	Team Pitching	Team Defense
Catcher	First Base	Second Base
Shortstop	Third Base	Designated Hitter
Left Field	Center Field	Right Field
Starting Pitching	Relief Pitching

Part I: Review

Michael Brantley started the season as the left fielder, didn't hit, and was eventually replaced by Austin Kearns. Kearns, who was probably a bad season away from ending his career, stayed healthy and anchored the lineup for a time. The Indians dealt him at the deadline, and playing time at the position was shared by Trevor Crowe and Shelley Duncan since Brantley had replaced an injured Grady Sizemore in center.

Defense

Name	Pos	Inn	ARM	DPR	RngR	ErrR	UZR	UZR/150
Austin Kearns	LF	558	-0.8		-1.3	-0.3	-2.4	-5.7
Trevor Crowe	LF	374	0.8		3.6	0.3	4.7	16.2
Shelley Duncan	LF	309	5.2		-0.8	0.5	4.9	17.7
Michael Brantley	LF	63	1.1		-2	0.1	-0.8	-45.1
Jordan Brown	LF	57	1		-0.4	0.1	0.7	10.3
Matt LaPorta	LF	53	0.2		-1.9	0.1	-1.7	-66
Jayson Nix	LF	14	0		-0.6	0	-0.5	-82.3
Chris Gimenez	LF	2			0	0	0	3
Anderson Hernandez	LF	2
Luis Valbuena	LF	1			-0.1	0	-0.1	0

UZR absolutely adored Kearns as a right fielder, even as recently as 2007 with Washington. But he hadn't played much since that 2007 season, and perhaps age and injuries are catching up with his defense. Or perhaps playing a new position affected his fielding.

Shelley Duncan's positive marks are due mainly to his arm; he had six assists as a left fielder.

Offense

This went a lot better than it looked like it would. Even if Michael Brantley was successful as a hitter, he was going to struggle to slug .400. It turned out the Brantley would play more center field than left field, allowing the Indians to run out left fielders who would hit the ball out the park. And, what do you know? They somehow finished in the top half of the league.

Rk		2B	3B	HR	BB	SO	BA	OBP	SLG	OPS	BAbip	tOPS+	sOPS+
1	TEX	48	3	37	62	103	.336	.393	.595	.988	.353	158	154
2	DET	44	2	24	58	123	.305	.366	.491	.858	.346	128	122
3	TBR	33	14	20	56	117	.298	.354	.482	.837	.335	126	117
4	MIN	49	1	24	35	95	.289	.328	.485	.813	.304	111	110
5	LAA	37	0	24	59	107	.268	.337	.451	.788	.290	124	104
6	CLE	35	2	16	60	152	.273	.344	.418	.762	.339	117	99
7	NYY	22	7	7	76	130	.278	.374	.381	.755	.349	94	99
8	TOR	42	5	20	54	164	.249	.312	.421	.733	.301	93	90
9	KCR	22	6	12	55	121	.281	.336	.391	.727	.326	100	90
10	OAK	29	3	14	54	112	.257	.325	.394	.719	.295	104	88
11	BOS	34	3	18	51	158	.230	.303	.396	.698	.286	77	82
12	SEA	24	3	18	78	167	.218	.318	.375	.693	.280	117	81
13	CHW	19	3	7	51	53	.266	.338	.337	.675	.281	82	78
14	BAL	31	4	13	34	136	.256	.294	.379	.672	.305	91	75
	TOT	469	56	254	783	1738	.273	.338	.430	.768	.314	109	100

Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Original Table
Generated 11/10/2010.

Here's how the at-bats were distributed:

Rk		G	PA ▾	AB	H	2B	3B	HR	BB	SO	BA	OBP	SLG	OPS	BAbip	tOPS+	sOPS+
1	Austin Kearns	66	273	240	65	16	1	7	29	65	.271	.352	.433	.785	.341	110	105
2	Trevor Crowe	47	166	155	46	9	1	1	8	29	.297	.335	.387	.722	.360	127	89
3	Shelley Duncan	38	146	125	33	6	0	8	17	39	.264	.363	.504	.867	.316	135	124
4	Jordan Brown	7	27	26	10	3	0	0	0	2	.385	.407	.500	.907	.417	211	136
5	Michael Brantley	7	26	22	4	1	0	0	3	8	.182	.280	.227	.507	.286	64	36
6	Matt LaPorta	7	23	20	4	0	0	0	3	6	.200	.304	.200	.504	.286	55	36
7	Jayson Nix	2	8	8	1	0	0	0	0	1	.125	.125	.125	.250	.143	-24	-34
8	Chris Gimenez	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	.000	.000	.000	.000		-100	-100
9	Anderson Hernandez	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	.000	.000	.000	.000		-100	-100
	Team Total	162	671	598	163	35	2	16	60	152	.273	.344	.418	.762	.339	117	99

Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Original Table
Generated 11/10/2010.

A little less Trevor Crowe and a little more Shelley Duncan, and the Indians would have looked even better here. Kearns held down the offensive fort in the first half of the year, and Duncan provided a nice boost in limited action down the stretch. A .500 slugging percentage was a rare thing in 2010, no matter how small the sample size.

Part II: Looking Towards 2011

Not Coming Back

Austin Kearns (Traded, 7-30-2010)

Both the Indians and Kearns benefited from their time together. The Indians got a stretch of fine outfield play for a bargain price and a marginal prospect, and Kearns rejuvenated his major-league career. He'll get a major-league contract from someone, and a lot more money than the $750,000 the Indians and Yankees paid him in 2010.

Anderson Hernandez (Claimed off Waivers, 7-21-2010)

Coming Back

Shelley Duncan (Pre-Arbitraion) - No Arbitration Years Remaining

Duncan was also a nice minor-league signing, perhaps better than the Kearns deal, since he'll be affordable through at least the 2011 season. He finished just two home runs out of second place on the team, and while you wouldn't want to run him out there every day, he'll be a fine complement to Michael Brantley and a nice option to have available off the bench.

Trevor Crowe (Pre-Arbitration) - 1 Option Year Remaining

Sure, he was good defensively, but he only managed a 79 OPS+, barely acceptable for a fourth outfielder, never mind a corner outfielder. He has an option left, and the Indians should use it; he should be injury insurance only.

Jordan Brown (Pre-Arbitration) - 2 Option Years Remaining

Brown had a decent season in Columbus, but with his age (26) and place on the defensive spectrum (LF/1B), he needs to be obliterating minor-league pitching to open eyes. Brown could find his way on the roster as a backup first baseman and fifth outfielder, but it's more likely he goes back to Columbus again.

Michael Brantley (Pre-Arbitration) - 2 Option Years Remaining

With Grady Sizemore theoretically the center fielder next year, Brantley will slide over to left. He hit .284/.335/.371 in the second half, hitting for power but not taking as many walks. If he can manage to push the OBP up to the .360 range with a 80% steal rate, I think the Indians could live with him in left. All this assumes that Grady Sizemore is healthy and can play center field, two things that aren't givens any more.

Matt LaPorta (Pre-Arbitration) - 1 Option Year Remaining

I think LaPorta's played his last game in the outfield, as his glove is a much better fit at first base. Now we'll have to see if his bat is a fit in a major-league lineup.

Jayson Nix (Pre-Arbitration) - No Option Years Remaining

Up in the Air

Chris Gimenez (Pre-Arbitration) - 1 Option Year Remaining (Off 40-Man Roster)

I think Chris will be the backup catcher if the Indians keep him in the organization. He can play the corner infield and outfield spots, which gives your roster a bit more flexibility. Or if the Indians decide to have Marson be Santana's backup, he'll start for Columbus and serve as insurance.

Tweet Comment 45 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I don’t pay a lot of attention to defensive metrics but many others do, and so I’m interested in reading reactions to the UZR ratings above. In my own mind, any system that rates Shelly Duncan as a dramatically better left fielder than Austin Kearns, even an aged Kearns, is faulty. Duncan is a terrible fielder; I’ve seen him miss catches he should easily make, misjudge routes and caroms (many times), and throw to the wrong place in the infield. I like Duncan by the way, as an off the bench bat or fourth outfielder, so I’m not criticizing the idea of keeping him, just saying that the UZR rating is hard to understand.

by MTF on Nov 10, 2010 10:22 AM EST reply actions

His range was below-average, but because he threw out 6 runners (ARM) in the short period of time he was in left, that bumped his total UZR into the positive numbers.

by Ryan on Nov 10, 2010 12:19 PM EST up reply actions

Still, his range is better than Kearns according to this as well.

by Matt in LA on Nov 10, 2010 1:44 PM EST up reply actions

UZR requires large sample sizes to stabilize, which means even complete season data is highly influenced by low frequency events. So a few outs classified as being out of range one way or another, or a few extra outfield assists, can make big differences in the numbers.

by APV on Nov 11, 2010 10:00 AM EST up reply actions

There’s also the coach’s influence on positioning, there’s covering a base on a play, all kinds of stuff that would have a player “out of range” for a play even if he normally would make it.

by Jay on Nov 11, 2010 11:57 AM EST up reply actions

I never, never would’ve guessed Indians LF were in the top half of the league. I had no idea Duncan’s slugging finished that high.

by afh4 on Nov 10, 2010 11:11 AM EST reply actions

Here were Duncan’s total stats on the year:

PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS OPS+
259 229 29 53 10 0 11 36 1 0 26 76 .231 .317 .419 .736 106

Here are his numbers by position; hopefully you can make this out:
Split,G,GS,PA,AB,R,H,2B,3B,HR,RBI,SB,CS,BB,SO,BA,OBP,SLG,OPS,TB,GDP,HBP,SH,SF,IBB,ROE,BAbip,tOPS+,sOPS+
as 1B,3,,9,9,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,6,.111,.111,.111,.222,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,.333,-38,-44
as LF,38,,146,125,18,33,6,0,8,22,1,0,17,39,.264,.363,.504,.867,63,3,3,0,1,1,1,.316,135,124
as RF,8,,26,24,3,7,2,0,0,3,0,0,2,9,.292,.346,.375,.721,9,1,0,0,0,1,0,.467,99,86
as DH,18,,59,53,4,7,2,0,2,6,0,0,6,20,.132,.220,.283,.503,15,0,0,0,0,0,0,.161,37,34
as PH,22,,22,21,3,6,0,0,1,5,0,0,1,3,.286,.318,.429,.747,9,0,0,0,0,0,1,.294,103,133
as PH for DH,3,,3,3,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,.333,.333,.333,.667,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,.500,84,116

Basically he was terrible whenever he played anything except LF, and maybe pinch-hitting.

by Matt Y. on Nov 10, 2010 12:46 PM EST up reply actions

Here it is, the scrap-heap triumphs and player development failures, all in one tidy package.

by Jay on Nov 10, 2010 1:01 PM EST reply actions

You’re being generous. Looks more like ten bums. It’s amazing how hard it has been for the Shapiro regime to find a decent (replacement level?) left fielder.

by odradek on Nov 11, 2010 12:38 AM EST up reply actions

You’re confused. We got league-average performance out of our left fielders — i.e., appropriately above-average hitting given the position — and, as noted above, above the league median.

Kearns and Duncan played two-thirds of the games. Kearns produced 1.4 wins above replacement level over his four months with the team. Duncan had about the same rate of production and racked up 1.0 WAR. The club paid a tad over $1 million for the two — combined. We take away Zach McAllister and the right to keep Duncan for another two years at minimum salary.

In between, we plugged in the fairly awful Trevor Crowe as a low-cost stopgap. It was, overall, a very well managed position for the club this year.

by Jay on Nov 11, 2010 1:28 AM EST up reply actions

I stand corrected. League average left fielders must explain why the Indians had such a powerful offense in 2010.

by odradek on Nov 11, 2010 1:42 AM EST up reply actions

It may not explain why the rest of the offense underperformed, but somehow the Indians did manage to squeeze league-average production from a position that didn’t look very good coming into the season.

by Ryan on Nov 11, 2010 11:25 AM EST up reply actions

I believe it if that’s what you tell me, and if the Tribe has somehow managed to cobble together league-average production in this aggregation of outfielders, good for them. It still would be preferable to have league-average come from one player, rather than eight. The roster implications surely override the value of a composite player, don’t they?

by odradek on Nov 11, 2010 5:10 PM EST up reply actions

Yes, but we didn’t have them all on the roster at the same time. Duncan wasn’t even on the 40-man at the start of the year. Both he and Crowe were stashed in the minors, off the 25-man, and Kearns was removed from both of course when he was traded.

So they weren’t really taking up that many roster spots at any given point in the season, especially if you consider that they were reasonably good backup options in center. Would I rather get league-average production out of Coco Crisp playing 150 games there? Of course.

But we got a better deal than that. We bought low on Zach McAllister, man! Feast your eyes on that age-21 season in 2009!

by Jay on Nov 11, 2010 5:18 PM EST up reply actions

That’s an awesome season in Trenton.

by odradek on Nov 11, 2010 5:49 PM EST up reply actions

You suggested we had trouble getting replacement-level performance. That was not true. I am not bragging about the results, only the results relative to the resources there devoted.

by Jay on Nov 11, 2010 11:58 AM EST up reply actions

I’m deciding to stick with my belief that everyone here understands what “league average” means.

by dgcambridge on Nov 11, 2010 12:06 PM EST up reply actions

Another “Looking Towards 2011” possibility not mentioned (unless my vision is failing) is Sizemore in LF and Brantley in CF.

by kov on Nov 10, 2010 2:22 PM EST reply actions

I believe this has been oversold by the chattering class.

by Jay on Nov 10, 2010 6:36 PM EST up reply actions

We shall see. And who is this “chattering class”?

by odradek on Nov 10, 2010 9:21 PM EST up reply actions

You know, bloggers.

by Jay on Nov 10, 2010 9:42 PM EST up reply actions

Hate those guys.

Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile

by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Nov 11, 2010 6:09 AM EST up reply actions

The bigger issue is how close to 100% will his knee be, whether he plays LF or CF.

by kov on Nov 11, 2010 8:31 AM EST up reply actions

Over/Under on Sizemore’s starts in CF for 2011 is 40.
I’ll take the under and hope I’m wrong.

by The DiaTriber on Nov 11, 2010 8:05 AM EST up reply actions

Over. It’s time for a good surprise.

by emd2k3 on Nov 11, 2010 11:22 AM EST up reply actions

Wow. Care to expand on that? Or do I have to wait until Sunday?

by Jay on Nov 11, 2010 11:58 AM EST up reply actions

His surgery is still one that I haven’t seen all that clearly defined and the only comp that I’ve seen is the Beltran microfracture surgery, with the Indians going out of their way to say that it wasn’t the same thing.

So what was it?
Given that we’ve dealt with this kind of stuff before (“debridement” of a certain shoulder), we have no idea what kind of shape he’s going to come back in, other than they vagaries laid out every other month or so in updates from Soloff.

Past that, I think that they’re going to have to protect him from his own frenetic style of play, and that while they’ll defer to him to start in CF, but that he’ll eventually slide over to LF, where he can do much less damage to himself. They still hold an option on him for 2012 at a price that is a bargain for Sizemore, as his former self. That “former self” is what I think they’re going to attempt to unearth and limiting the wear and tear on his body is a good step towards that.

Like I said, I hope I’m wrong.

by The DiaTriber on Nov 11, 2010 12:22 PM EST up reply actions

Another precedent, cited by Chuck, is Amare Stoudemire.

by odradek on Nov 11, 2010 4:35 PM EST up reply actions

Maybe I’m alone in this, and I offer no evidence, but I don’t see LF as “much less” potentially damaging than CF. A whole lot of balls get hit to left field, and Sizemore isn’t going to be deferring to the likes of Mike Brantley.

Unless you can change the player’s mentality, I don’t think you can mitigate the risk more than slightly. And here’s the rub: In their heart of hearts, the Indians brass and coaches don’t really want him to change his mentality.

by Jay on Nov 11, 2010 7:03 PM EST up reply actions

I don’t think it will be done to protect Grady from his wall-banging ways. I think it will be necessitated by his physical limitations. He won’t be able to cover as much ground. He won’t be able to play center. And he doesn’t have the arm to play right, and we already have a top-five rightfielder.

by odradek on Nov 11, 2010 8:12 PM EST up reply actions

Interesting. Ideally, your LF would have almost as much range as a CF anyway, but obviously that is not a typical situation.

by Jay on Nov 11, 2010 9:38 PM EST up reply actions

Added to this, I’m pretty sure Will Carroll puts change of position as an injury risk into his system, for whatever that’s worth. Seems intuitive enough, I suppose.

Apart from being skeptical of Grady moving to left benefiting his health, there appears to be a couple reasons for his staying put.

For one, Grady is nearing the time of his contract where the brass is going to consider flipping him, (Not likely till next offseason because the ’12 option switches to a player option if traded) therefore they would likely want to maximize his value. In other words, they want him out in center proving to other teams that he can still handle it.

For another, Grady in center makes the Indians a better team. I am not sure Brantley is a major leaguer and I am pretty sure nobody wants Crowe starting out in center everyday.

by ClarkM on Nov 11, 2010 8:45 PM EST up reply actions

I can’t think of a centerfielder who returns from major knee surgery to be a good centerfielder. Everyone acts as if it’s a foregone conclusion that Sizemore could play center if he wants to. I question whether he will be able to play center, whether he wants to or the Tribe wants him to. I think many people are not considering the extent of his injuries.

Of course the Tribe would prefer him to Brantley or, heaven forbid, Crowe. But preferences may not enter into it.

by odradek on Nov 11, 2010 9:04 PM EST up reply actions

Jim Edmonds, maybe? He had a series of surgeries, and came back. But his skills were diminished.

by odradek on Nov 11, 2010 9:07 PM EST up reply actions

I don’t see it as a foregone conclusion, but rather default assumption. Although Paul’s points to the contrary are certainly worth considering.

by Jay on Nov 11, 2010 9:39 PM EST up reply actions

I have no basis for saying this, but the way I see it is that he either comes back from the injury or not. I don’t see it as a likely scenario that he comes back healthy enough to play left or even dh, but not center.

by ClarkM on Nov 11, 2010 9:43 PM EST up reply actions

That makes sense. But if he can’t come back from the injury, wouldn’t they still try to find a spot for him, just as they are trying to adapt to a limited Hafner?

by odradek on Nov 12, 2010 1:37 AM EST up reply actions

Everyone acts as if it’s a foregone conclusion that Sizemore could play center if he wants to.

I don’t know, I think the Sizemore-to-left-field idea is pretty popular, possibly the majority view.

by dgcambridge on Nov 12, 2010 11:11 AM EST up reply actions

I would guess that CF-to-LF is a smaller adjustment on Will’s actuarial tables than the typical position switch. SS-to-2B, for example, involves a significantly new set of physical actions to learn, and that’s where the injury risk comes from.

by Jay on Nov 11, 2010 9:30 PM EST up reply actions