Braves Rewind: 2010 Fan Projections for Braves Infielders

In this post, I'm going to continue my look back at the 2010 FanGraphs Fan Projections. This week, I'll be analyzing the fans' projections for the Braves' infielders. The original projections can be seen in this FanPost from last year. To summarize that post, the Braves' infield was projected to be worth 15.8 WAR overall (FanGraphs' version), which is a very high total but was only projected to be 3rd-best in the division. Here is a table summarizing the projections for individual Braves:

As you can see, these projections were all over the place. The only fan projection that was even close to reality was the one for Eric Hinske. Let's compare to the actual numbers these players put up (plus the numbers for a few other guys who helped out in the IF):

* I know that Hinske spent a lot of time in the OF this year, but I just kept him with the IFs for simplicity's sake.

Glaus, Escobar, and Chipper all underperformed their projections significantly, though for different reasons. Prado and Infante both outperformed their projections handily. The Braves also got nice boosts from Brooks Conrad and Derrek Lee. 

Add all the Braves' figures (plus Freddie Freeman's -0.2 WAR in limited time) and the Braves' infield was worth 14.1 WAR this year, or about 1.7 WAR below their projected value. This may seem disappointing, but it's not. For one thing, the fan projections on average overestimated each regular player's worth by about 0.5 WAR; taking this into account, the Braves did about as well as expected.

(There's more after the jump, including a couple graphs.)

Comparing the Braves' 14.1 infield WAR to the rest of the division (using the same method of simply adding players' WARs based on their projected positions), we get this:

Note: the red-bordered boxes in the Mets' and Phillies' columns indicate that those teams received below-replacement-level performance from their bench infielders. The teams' total infield WAR are even with the bottom of the red-bordered box. I'm sorry if this makes the graph harder to read; I had to come up with some way of displaying negative value.

As you can see, the Braves may have slightly underperformed their projections, but they actually still beat out the Phillies, Mets, and Marlins.

Funnily enough, what makes the difference between these values is not the top-end players but the bench guys and fill-ins. The Nationals had no infielders with a negative WAR, and the Braves had only Freeman's trivial -0.2 WAR figure. The Phillies, on the other hand, were docked -2.1 WAR for horrific performances from Greg Dobbs and Juan Castro. The Marlins had -1.2 WAR from four guys, and the Mets had -1.3 WAR from four guys. If none of these players were below replacement level, all the infields but the Mets would have been worth roughly the same overall value. It pays to have a solid bench (or in the Braves' case, an excellent one).

Finally, let's look at the Braves' infield spider chart. This chart graphs the Braves infielders' performance compared to major league averages in five categories: batting average (BA), isolated power (ISO), walk rate (BB%), strikeout rate (K%), and defense (UZR). On the graph, further from the center and positive values are better. So a +10% in strikeout rate indicates that the team struck out 10% less than league average; this data point will be further from the center than the data point for the league average.

To make the UZR totals easier to work with, I made all the totals positive. Since the lowest UZR in the league was Matt Kemp's -24.0, I just added 24 to each player's UZR. I call this UZR (Above Worst) or UZR (AW). The average UZR (AW) for the league was 24, and the lowest (Kemp) was 0. If a player has a -3.0 UZR according to FanGraphs, I used 21.0 as their UZR (AW) figure (-3 + 24). This is equal to 12.5% below league average. I hope that makes sense. If it doesn't, just trust me.

Green represents the Braves' actual performance. Blue is their projected performance. Anyway, here's the graph:

The Braves hit for a bit better average and a fair amount more power than expected (relative to the league average). Still, they were only about average in ISO and a bit above average in BA. They displayed great plate discipline, striking out 11% less than the league and walking 14% more, both of which more or less conform to the projections.

The biggest difference, however--one that significantly cuts into the good work the Braves did in the other categories--is that the Braves infield defense scored very poorly. The total UZR of the Braves' infielders was -17.1, which means they cost the team nearly 2 wins. This is slightly unfair, as Eric Hinske's -3.9 UZR was mostly acquired in the outfield, but there's no debating that Troy Glaus and Brooks Conrad has some pretty major defensive issues at times. The one position that was consistently solid was shortstop, where Yunel Escobar was excellent and Alex Gonzalez was average. The other infield spots all came in at below average according to UZR, however.

I hope you enjoyed this look back at the Braves' 2010 infield. Looking forward to 2011, the Braves will have some major changes: Dan Uggla replacing Prado at second base, Alex Gonzalez playing full-time at short, and Freddie Freeman taking over for Glaus (and Lee). Omar Infante is gone from the utility infield role, too. Add all that up and I'd say the Braves' infield is probably going to end up a bit short of its 2010 production, but not dramatically so. (Prado replacing the horrible LF combinations from last year should be a huge boost to the outfield production, however.)

What do you guys think? Will the Braves' infield be better or worse in 2011? Which NL East team will get the most value from its infield?