There's been a lot of back and forth in cyberland over the winter in regards to the relative merits of the "good glove" player versus the "productive bat". The general concensus has generally been for the big bat -- and the sabristas tend to agree with this assessment - at least partially because offensive stats are more reliable, better understood, and more predictable. In too many cases the defensive arguments collapse under the weight of uncertainty. Range factor is worthless, but UZR is flawed, but RAR for defense doesn't track well -- etc., etc., ad nauseum.

But, I've started noticing more and more "skill" based analysis of hitters, as the numbers for swing and miss - or GB/FB - or pitches taken -- become more readily available for perusal. So, this skill-based analysis is attempting to not only describe WHAT is happening, (which OPS and OPS+ already do pretty well), but WHY it is happening. I applaud these efforts. But, it got me thinking about the concept of skills in regards to defense. Perhaps, if the raw numbers are obscuring rather than revealing for defense, (since outs is a constant, but hits isn't) - maybe there might be some skill-based methodologies that could help strip away the mist that is befogging defensive analysis.

But, my ponderings led me to a strange area - which just happened to collide with another idea that had already been forming in my mind. Ultimately, I see athletic ability breaking down into two foundation categories, (which lead to most everything else). The first is physical control. Here, I am talking about the ability to tell the body to do something, and have the body respond. On the hitting side, this captures the ability to put wood on ball. Swinging and missing is certainly not the INTENT of the batter. The intent is to hit the ball, (though sometimes the intent may be to FOUL the ball off, rather than put it in play). For pitchers, this mostly captures the ability to repeat motions precisely. The ability to throw a curve is nice -- but to succeed in the majors, you have to be able to throw the curve either for a strike, or close enough that the hitter thinks it is going to be a strike.

The second foundation skill is speed. I'm not talking about raw foot speed here. I'm talking about the ability to process data and react quickly. The ability to hit a 95 mph heater is a combo of the physical control - to meet the ball -- and the speed at which the hitter recognizes that pitch and reacts. A player like Bonds has surreal pitch-recognition. He knows BEFORE almost everyone else, where the ball coming in is likely to end up.

These two foundation traits don't really take care of power (for hitting), or raw foot speed. They are intended as a starting point. The idea is to not START by overly complicating things. Start simple, look at the landscape, and then maybe move forward if you think you notice something.

Well, it occurred to me that these two basic foundation traits - speed and control - are equally applicable to defense as to offense. For outfielders, footspeed is an obvious major asset, (though oddly enough, it has historically been the slight and fleet footed fellows who end up in the middle infield, while the bulkier guys end up in the corner OF slots). Clearly, the value of speed in CF is obvious, and selection of potential CFs generally begins with an assessment of above average footspeed. But, there's little reason to think having a 40-steal guy at short is really a major benefit.

Of course, the problem with beginning with a picture that says the SAME foundation skills that make great hitters should also make great fielders is that there are so many exceptions to this rule. Or are there? For anyone who has played sports in school, especially little league, there is one overwhelming truth. The best ATHLETES at that level can do EVERYTHING better than anyone else. The starting pitcher is often the best hitter. And the same kid is probably gonna be the starting QB come football season, and maybe the point guard on the basketball team.

This is, I believe, because the basics are there and are clearly superior to those around him -- his mind processes the input faster, and he's got superior physical control. His body naturally listens to his brain. The uber-athlete is visibly different than those around him. His movements are FLUID. The key here is that these guys don't THINK about the action, they just act.

It is my contention that the best hitters, are in fact, the best fielders. I can hear the snickers, already. We know for certain that the best hitters are often lousy defenders, (at least according to any number of defensive measures). Of course, we'd have to more clearly define "good hitter" -- based on speed and control -- but I really think this is basically true. I know for CERTAIN it was true back in high school.

Even today, we have examples of pitchers or hitters who washed out because they couldn't quite keep up in one arena, who went back, switched tracks, and have succeded on a different course. Rick Ankiel is the ultimate example of pitcher turned hitter -- (well, if you dismiss that guy named Ruth, of course). At the highest level, it becomes too difficult to put in the time and work in both disciplines simultaneously, (though a few pitchers CAN hit in the majors, even with scant little time to work on it). The physical tools ARE maleable -- if you have them.

So, why aren't the best hitters also the best fielders (by the stat book)? My theory is simple -- they don't WANT to be. Actually, that is unfair. Some of the best batters of all time were tremendously gifted defenders, (especially early in their careers). But, it seems that you can't move ten feet in an MLB clubhouse without tripping over a defensive whiz who can't hit his way out of a paper sack. How is that possible?

The difference between average and good defensively (depending on the position), is only an extra play made every couple of days. Your typical corner OF makes two plays per game. Your shortstop makes four. Because defensive outs are spread randomly, and nobody counts them on a daily basis, they are almost impossible to notice, (until you've piled up a year of stats - and this SS has made 700 plays, while that one has only made 600).

But, because no one is really counting, the only really obvious defensive plays are errors. For a century errors were the only stat of note for defense, and to this day, errors and fielding percentage are the primary tool for determining Gold Glove awards. Other than that, it is the ability to make "flashy" plays in the field that gets noticed, (but never the number). In the NFL, before they started publishing tackles and mentioning them, did anyone have any clue as to who the best linebackers were? Sure. You could tell who hit hardest -- and you had a sense that this LB made lots of plays. But, when the numbers came out, there were LOTS of surprises. (Who the heck is Joe Blow? He's averaging more tackles than Urlacher, and I've never even heard of him).

But, I'm of the opinion that what happens in the majors is simple human psychology. When players are fighting to GET a job, they will put out 100% in every facet of the game, trying to win that brass ring. But, AFTER the job is won, and the feeling of comfort sets in, is the same level of effort maintained? Well, on the hitting side, with all the numbers thrown around, it is impossible to fly under the radar. Despite this, we still get LOTS of discussion about "contract year" bumps in production.

Certainly, this does NOT apply to all players. The great players push themselves in all areas, and typically don't know when to give up. (Griffey and his repeated injuries is a guy I would readily throw into this category). The self-motivated superstar doesn't need external motivation to push himself defensively. But, that's not the profile for EVERY pro athlete. When you BELIEVE you are being paid to hit HRs and produce RBI, how hard are you likely to work defensively, (when the only stat that is noted is errors)?

But, let us go back to those hitting-challenged defensive whizzes. How could they POSSIBLY be great defensively, if they have inferior speed and control? The answer is simple. They are putting forth more effort than those great hitters. They are STILL struggling to hold onto a job, and once they get the label of great glove, they know this is their primary key for keeping that job. Endy Chavez isn't a great defender because he's more physically gifted than -- oh, Jose Guillen. He's better defensively, because he *HAS TO BE*.

This is the power of "Or Else". The "Or Else" in this case is, you're selling Lady Kenmore's at Sears. And this is also why defensive ability can be incredibly steady in some players -- and take bizarro turns in others. Andruw Jones was at one time one of the most gifted defensive players in baseball. But I watched as he started concentrating on hitting HRs. He bulked up some, and as his defensive stats receded, the blame was put on the bulk. I think that is an oversimplification. I think it is largely a case that he simply stopped caring about his defense the way he had earlier in his career. (I suspect this is one of the reasons the Braves opted to cut him loose.) Andruw had caught the dreaded disease known as Entitlement.

The really interesting thing about this theory - if it is true - is that it immediately explains skews in defensive performance. Because, if the underlying cause of defensive greatness, (or mediocrity), is MENTAL, rather than physical, then it actually makes sense that players could turn things around in a single year.

Of course, this may all just be whistling at the wind. We cannot know what is actually in a players head in the field. And we are never likely to hear a player, (other than Manny, perhaps), admit that he more or less dogs it in the field, because he's an offensive producer. And it's more likely it's not even concious. It's not a case of DECIDING to lose defensive focus a couple of times a week. It just happens as a result of not caring about defense as much as someone else.

But, the other potential insight, (which could be huge), is what if there are correlations between things like strikeout rates and error rates? What if pitch-recognition skills at the plate ARE an indicator of ball-in-play recognition in the field? Of course, you'll still benefit from speed in the outfield, so not matter how much Giambi might WANT to play CF, it's never going to happen.

But, the idea that DESIRE is the prime defensive trait is one that (for me), explains how Terry Pendleton can come onto a Braves club that was WORST in DER the previous season, and seemingly single-handedly turn the Braves into a DER monster that wouldn't die for a dozen years. The one thing that I am certain of in regards to the 2009 Seattle Mariners -- they better fix their defensive woes -- OR ELSE.