The hype machine is fully engaged.

Proclaiming the Rockies the best defensive team ever is, shall we say, just a tiny little bit over the top. Among other things, you might want to provide a comparison to some other great defensive teams, rather than making blanket assertions.

Consider, for instance, the Baltimore Orioles of the late 1960s and early 1970s, with Brooks Robinson, Mark Belanger and Paul Blair, who collectively won 22 Gold Gloves from 1967 to 1975, plus two different second basemen (Davey Johnson and Bobby Grich) who won 6 more between them. Robinson holds the record for the most Gold Gloves won by any player (tied with two pitchers), Belanger is 4th on the all-time list for shortstops and Blair is tied for 6th among outfielders.

Or, you might want to ponder the mid-1980s Cardinals, which featured Ozzie Smith (13 Gold Gloves), Willie McGee (3) and Andy Van Slyke (5), plus Terry Pendleton (3) and, for a time, Keith Hernandez (11), who often is thought of as the best defensive first baseman ever. You might remember Ozzie as the guy who figured out how to make a throw reach first quicker by bouncing it, and Hernandez as the guy who perfected the throw to second on a sacrifice bunt.

There are many other examples, of course. That's why it would be nice to have seen even the briefest explanation of why this team could be the best defensive team ever other than that they catch more balls in Coors than the average team.

I'd also be a bit more patient about suggesting that the Rockies' emphasis on defense could change the game. For one thing, if the Red Sox win the Series, GMs are likely to draw the opposite conclusion, particularly if Ramirez turns out to be a key player. For another, a one-time event generally is not enough to change anyone's mind. After all, if the Rockies had lost even one more game in September, they wouldn't be here now.

Gold gloves mean nothing. They are voted upon, and mostly rewarded by reputation.

Hey, the Rockies set an all-time record for fielding efficiency and fewest errors. Those teams you mentioned didn't.

Finally, those teams didn't compete in the information era, where everyone has access to these stats at the edge of their fingertips. I think it's fair to suggest that the Rockies' emphasis on defense COULD be noticed and change some minds in baseball.

concepcion began the purposeful bounce to first.

The wealth of stats in the information era is great, but you have to use them correctly. In this case there is a simple but egregious error in the article - 3 win shares equal 1 win, so Tulo's 10.9 Win Shares is worth between 3 and 4 wins, not 11. I'm also not absolutely sure but I don't believe that's relative to a replacement player - meaning if you put a freely available shortstop in his place, he'd get fewer than 11 win shares, but more than 0.

I'm curious if you ever saw either of the two teams I mentioned. I saw them both, and if you think that, in particular, Robinson, Belanger, Smith and Hernandez got Gold Gloves based on their reputations (particularly at those points in their careers), then I'm pretty confident you are mistaken.

As for the statistics, the truth of the matter is that defensive analysis is in its infancy, and it's hard to know what statistics mean much. There is a consensus, though, that errors and fielding percentage actually don't mean much at all, as neither one accurately measures the number of balls a player reaches. (A player who stood still and caught everything would have no errors and a 1.000 fielding percentage, but would be a huge defensive liability.) Also, as it happens, total errors and fielding percentage effectively measure the same thing.

If you want to use the new age statistics, in whatever imperfect form they now exist, the Rockies don't do that well. The article points out that they finished 4th this year in the zone numbers. I don't have the comparable numbers for either of the teams I mentioned above, but I do have the range factor data (from Baseball Reference). If you compare this year's Rockies to the 1969 Orioles, you will discover that the Orioles had above-average range factors for all positions except pitcher (and catcher, where a range factor is not calculated) that year, while the Rockies had above-average range factors for 4 positions, below-average range factors for 3 positions and one right about at the average. In other words, by that measure, the 1969 Orioles were meaningfully better than the Rockies. The 1985 Cardinals did better than the average for 6 of the 8 positions, and were right about at the average for one other, again better than the Rockies did this year.

You can't just count how many players have above-average range factors and how many don't. Some positions are more influential on the field than others. A great fielding SS is a lot more important than a great fielding 1b. A great fielding CF is a lot more important than a great fielding LF. Haven't compared the two teams side-by-side, but did the Orioles have a better pitching staff than the Rockies? Did they play in such a hitters ballpark? The Rockies certainly were asked to do a lot this year. And both teams did well on the season. The Orioles got to the World Series that year, no? Defense counts. Isn't that the main point?

jasonargot:

Defense counts. Isn't that the main point?

Well, it's not the main point of the article. Personally, I think defense is underrated by most GMs, and I'm really happy that the sabremetricians have been thinking about how to evaluate it more accurately, but the article has the same kind of sloppy analysis that I'd like to see disappear forever.

As for the rest, it's certainly true that shortstop is more important than first base and center is more important than left (generally - there are exceptions on specific teams in this case). But when you're talking about overall team defense, I think it's reasonable to do the kind of comparison I did because it gives you a better picture of the whole team, and certainly a better picture than team errors or fielding percentage, the two statistics quoted in the article.

By the way, I don't disagree that there are significant limitations on the usefulness of range factor, notably that it depends in part on the styles of the team's pitchers, particularly whether they get a lot of strikeouts (and not so much on the ballpark, actually). But it's a much better tool than fielding percentage in looking at how good a player is in the field.

Eriq Gardner: Would other organizations have the guts to trade their best pitcher for...a solid gloveman like Kaz Matsui, who was a gigantic flop with the bat in New York?

Me, a Mets fan: Kaz Matsui was not a flop with the bat in New York. In 2004, his first year with the team, he set his Major League career highs in hits (125), doubles (32), home runs (7) and total bases (182), and posted a .272 average with 44 RBI in 460 ABs. That's respectable. The Mets traded him to the Rockies in early 2006 in part because he was slumping but mostly because of his ghastly play at shortstop, a position the team had handed him after moving Jose Reyes to second base. Problem was, Matsui's arm was so weak that it turned routine plays into hair's-breath calls and hard plays into hits. The trade was good for both teams: Reyes now provides excellent defense at his natural position of shortstop; Matzui has shifted to 2B, where the overcooked noodle that is his right arm has a better chance of throwing out runners.

If fielding percentage were an ideal indicator, wouldn't Boston's corner infielders be the best in baseball? Lowell's career fielding percentage is the best in history for a third baseman, and Youk is on an impressive streak of errorless games at first.

That said, Colorado obvously has the superior defense, but that is the only actegory where they best the Red Sox. Boston is a better team in every other facet of the game, and will win this World series easily.

You're completely wrong, Mr. Khan.

Your assertion a particular team is one of the all time greats because they had X number of gold-glovers on that team is flawed logic. Gold Gloves, with certain exceptions (Ozzie Smith, Hernandez, etc.) are usually little more than popularity contests. Often older stars past their prime still get GG's, because they are fan and media favorites. (This is particularly true with big-market teams like Boston and New York.)

The numbers do not lie. Colorado has the major league record for fewest errors in a season and highest fielding percentage in a season. Add to this that they play in an outfield as big as a shopping mall parking lot, and this feat is even more impressive.

I can't state this as a fact, but I suspect you are yet another so-called "purist" who has a prejudice against newer expansion teams just because, well, because. You probably also drive a Model-T, hate cell phones and look fondly back at the "good old days", whenever that was.

Colorado in 4 games. Take it to the bank.

MrHarleyDude, you might want to read the whole thread.

The Rockies may be one of the best fielding teams of all time, but that article is not the way to prove it, and neither are errors or fielding percentage. (The size of the park has no effect on either of those stats, by the way.)

And no prejudice against expansion teams here - I was rooting for Diamondbacks in the NLCS. Actually, as it happens, I picked two teams I rooted against as my examples. (And from that clue, you probably can figure out that I am a longtime fan of an expansion team, albeit not one of the same vintage as your Rockies.)

Meanwhile, there's no defense against leadoff homers, but the play to end the first was quite nice (if not as nice as Mr. Buck said it was).

"Colorado in 4 games. Take it to the bank."

That's ballsy, but I see you posted b4 last night's game.

But even b4 watching the game, I'd take that action.

Maybe the Rockies' pitchers will do better at home, they sure sucked in Fenway.

Obviously written before a National League Team in the body of a new franchise from a non-baseball town took the field with real baseball players. Teams that walk runs in have no business being in the World Series. Boston in 4. Meet you at the teller window.

Did I say "Colorado in 4 - take it to the bank"? Must have been a typo. What I MEANT to say was "Colorado in 5 - take it to the bank". :-)

Mr Khan: although I disagree with your point, I admire the amount of research you did to make that point.

Gblakney: I have no idea what you're talking about, but I am guessing you're yet another Dead Sox bandwagon jumper.

Colorado in 5 games - take it to the bank. :-)