Eric Chavez and Prospect Defense

by D O on May 2, 2007 1:50 PM EDT

When Eric Chavez was shooting through the Oakland system the word on him was "great bat, shaky glove." The stats backed up this assessment: His 1998 season was absolutely sick offensively, but he made 21 errors that year, following up a 32 error efffort in the Cal League the year before.

However, almost as soon as Chavez showed up at camp in 1999 we began to hear very positive things about his hands and range. He continued to improve, and won his first Gold Glove in 2001 at age 23 and has since won five more (and by my estimation has deserved all of them). He may be a tick behind Rolen as far as the best defensive third baseman in the game, but he's panned out nicely with the glove, indeed.

So my question is: How difficult is it to judge a prospect's defense? Obviously the answer is "very hard" as defense is notoriously hard to quantify and we have a great deal of disagreement on the relative defensive values of many established major leaguers (Jeter?). But was the knock on Eric Chavez's defense simply an overreaction to a large error total? Or was it a legitimate concern that he put to rest through hard work and determination? He would tell you that working with Ron Washington turned him around, and certainly good coaching is a crucial part of player development. But still, he must have had the tools to be great, so how did those go unrecognized?

And what of some of today's prospects? Do you trust the defensive reputations of players you've never seen in person (or have seen only a couple of times)? Are there any prospects you think might take a quantum leap forward? Could the DRays eventually have a couple of Gold Glovers in Brignac and Upton? If not for organizational need, are you confident that Brandon Wood could have developed into a plus defender at short? Might Billy Butler be the next Roberto Clemente in the outfield? Okay, I'm getting carried away.

Poll

Golden State Warriors

Totally Awesome

2 votes

Totally Super-Awesome

14 votes

16 votes | Poll has closed

Tweet Comment 17 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Chavez....

had Ron Washington kicking his ass into a great defensive player.

by SenorGato88 on May 2, 2007 2:00 PM EDT reply actions

yeah

i actually mentioned that. wash seemed to have some kind of magic with infielders. he also helped ellis transition from shortstop into a wonderful second baseman. but obviously there was some natural defensive ability there with chavez that seemed to go unrecognized.

and on a second note, do you think we often underestimate the importance of defensive coaching at the minor- and big league level? Pitching coaches get attention because we have this notion of pitchers as finely-tuned machines that might literally explode should anything go wrong. Defense, on the other hand, is often discussed as if it's skill that a player either has, or does not have. The idea that a small change in footwork (eg.) could throw things off, or that the quality of a player's d might fluctuate--and that a coach can help control those things--that just doesn't get nearly as much attention.

"Well I believe in the soul..."

by D O on May 2, 2007 2:23 PM EDT up reply actions

other lesson

Another lesson from Eric Chavez is not every uber prospect who humiliates the minor leagues at a young ARL will settle into the MLB offensive league leaderboards year in and year out.

Proud Hokie, Class of '98

by natsfan2005 @ Minor League Ball on May 2, 2007 2:02 PM EDT reply actions

Chavez

Has been a terrific offensive player so whatever.

I answer to the poster's question: I'd say that the biggest problem is people projecting based on what somebody else said, expanding on the information about a player that THEY haven't seen and , so forth. Shoot, remember, sometimes even the team's that have a player don't know when the have a fine defensive player. As I recall the Orioles wanted to move Ripken to 3b early in his career, didn't they? Or am I wrong? He was a an all-time great with the glove also.

The key if you can't see a player is figuring out who can ACTUALLY SCOUT! A lot of people on here are terrible at it. they will say things like "Micah Owings has a below average fastball" or "Brandon Wood can't play short" or any number of dumb things that aren't true. It gets to be kinda hilarious after a while. Look close, find out who you can trust and listen to them. No substitute for watching a guy play though. If you have an eye for it you'll be surprised how often the conmcensus on a player is WAY OFF.

The Warriors are Super Awesome!

casedog

by casejud on May 2, 2007 2:18 PM EDT up reply actions

wow

this must have been a lot of fun for you -- you got to do your two favorite things:

state with authority that a player who clearly disappointed by not being great, but instead had an unspectacular albeit productive career WAS great, and that everyone's a fool for expecting that player to be better
insult everyone for basing their assessments on anything other than first-hand knowledge

i find your assertion extremely bizarre that there is no source more accurate than you, the viewer, at judging baseball talent, yet you doubt the consensus of professionally-trained scouts who view a lot more players first-hand. unless you view "professional training" as an insurmountable handicap, i don't see how you come to the conclusion that you, casejud, master of all talent evaluation, are more accurate time and again than real scouts (though god knows you're also more accurate than those fools who look at numbers and think they know something).

anyway, i think we're all lucky to have you on this site so that you can come and re-inform us just how f-ing unbelievable Micah Owings is, based mostly on a start against the Nationals that you saw with your own eyes, not with some good-for-nothing scout's.

by bleedjaxblue on May 2, 2007 2:32 PM EDT up reply actions

ARL

eric chavez is certainly an interesting case, but it wasn't just his ARL in the minors that caused statheads to drool over him. it was what he accomplished in the majors at a young age:

age 21: 247/333/427
age 22: 277/355/495
age 23: 288/338/540

that's pretty tasty. the mystery is why he hasn't improved a lick (offensively) since his age-23 season. in fact, that .540 is still his career high in slugging (and in fact seems to be uniformly decreasing since that time), although his OBP has improved.

by jpahk on May 2, 2007 4:20 PM EDT up reply actions

It's easy.

We have defensive stats now for the minors.

Defensive stats are never wrong, or subject to a wide error bar.

by templeUsox on May 2, 2007 2:13 PM EDT reply actions

They can be misleading

If they are looked at wrong but, I agree for the most part. For instance errors/Dp's for a 3b in any league will tell you about a 3b skill level. bad 3b cant turn dps.

casedog

by casejud on May 2, 2007 2:20 PM EDT up reply actions

Wow...

this really sounds a lot like The Great Jewish Hope, mssr. Braun. Come to think of it, Braun reminds me a lot of Chavvy...maybe Braun will show us what Chavvy could've done if injuries hadn't screwed him all up. (I'm not saying he will be a historically great defensive 3B, but people say that Braun has the tools).

Ballllllly Sta®

by uga007 on May 2, 2007 5:26 PM EDT reply actions

Chavez

Was considered being very good defensively, it was the bat that was the question.

From baseball prospectus 1998:

Chavez is a relatively slick fielder who might be able to play a more demanding defensive position. [Keep in mind that he won't -- but he might be able to.]

and:

Year Team Lge AB H DB TP HR BB R RBI SB CS Out BA OBA SA EQA
1997 Visalia Cal 512 118 18 0 15 28 46 53 7 4 398 .230 .270 .354 .215
1998 Huntsvil Sou 213 66 11 1 12 21 37 45 5 1 148 .310 .372 .540 .308

In BP 1998, I wrote that if Chavez can learn to walk, he's a monster, or something along those lines. Well, early returns indicate that not only has he learned to walk, he's developed even more power.

by pedrophile on May 3, 2007 1:41 AM EDT reply actions

re:

Chavez 1998 was his age 20 season. He had 335 ABs at AA, 194 in AAA, and 45 for Oakland. He batted .326-33-126 with 45 doubles and a 54/93 BB/K ratio.

Proud Hokie, Class of '98

by natsfan2005 @ Minor League Ball on May 3, 2007 7:41 AM EDT up reply actions

the article

was written while he was in the minors in the middle of the 98 season. Even then he was considered a slick fielding player. Initially there were worries about his bat but then he learned plate discipline and we see the rest.

by pedrophile on May 3, 2007 9:49 AM EDT up reply actions

there you have it

though that assessment definitely differs from the story i remember getting from mainstream media outlets. sounds like bp had the resources/insight to look beyond the error totals. it makes sense really, since chavez was a converted short stop with good athleticism etc. perhaps this was not much more than an example of beat writers not knowing what they're talking about. it would be interesting to know the organization's opinion of chavez's d at this point as well.

it's funny, chavez was also said to be a bit cocky coming into the league. as it's turned out, if anything he lacks confidence in himself... oh well. in any case, he's been a very good player.

i still wonder about guys improving their defense dramatically. is it something that might happen in the same way that a guy like brandon wood jumps from skinny teenager to 100 xbh guy? maybe, given ample athletic ability etc...

"Well I believe in the soul..."

by D O on May 3, 2007 3:33 PM EDT up reply actions

Wood is another excellent example

Any of the writers that watched him or talked with scouts said that there was no way they saw him being forced off SS unless his size became far too much.

But a few sources suggested 3B because of Cabrera at short.

Bingo - the beat writers start saying he can't play SS and will have to be forced off SS.

And there you have it - he can't play SS. LOL.

I think 3B is where many/most difficulties come in. Well, other than catcher. Because a scout can see a 3B react well and have a good arm but unless they see him a lot how do they know his lateral movement? Many times they predict with work on their footwork they can improve enough. I typically think most people can not improve their footwork. This is very difficult to improve.

by pedrophile on May 3, 2007 4:15 PM EDT up reply actions

yeah

in fact, since you mentioned chavez's bp blurb, i seem to remember bp saying good things about wood's defense prior to his offensive breakout as well.

i actually brought wood up in reference to his offensive explosion in 2005. i'm wondering what's to prevent a guy from taking a momumental step forward like that on the defensive side. a great example would be a guy like b.j. upton. he's got the tools to be a good shortstop. if he could refine his footwork, learn some tricks of the trade to help improve his first step and get him into better position to throw the ball, would these improvements not be somewhat analogous to a hitter improving his pitch recognition, strike zone judgement etc.?

i just think people often think of defense as something that is fixed--that, short of a knoblauchian meltdown, a good fielder is a good fielder, and a bad one is a bad one. it's like they'll move a guy down the defensive spectrum til his skills reach an equilibrium with the demands of the position, and then they work on his hitting. i'm reaching past the chavez question with that, and frankly i'm beginning to bore myself a little. that's all i got.

"Well I believe in the soul..."

by D O on May 3, 2007 6:09 PM EDT up reply actions

Upton

The biggest problem I saw with him was a lack of focus. I've already seen about 3 errors (that were not scored as errors) where the OF threw the ball back into the outfield and he was completely flat-footed.

This lack of focus and not being in the right place at the right time is what bothers me with his defence. When it's a bang bang play his athleticism is fine.

by pedrophile on May 4, 2007 11:03 AM EDT up reply actions

Re:

Upton didn't cover first base on a bunt by Tyner during Edwin Jackson's start on Tuesday. Edwin fielded it, saw no one was covering 1st then tried to force the issue at 3B resulting in a five (2+2+1) base error. If Upton had just covered 1st base it's a totally different inning.

Proud Hokie, Class of '98

by natsfan2005 @ Minor League Ball on May 4, 2007 12:25 PM EDT up reply actions