Sunday night linkaliciousness

by Adam J. Morris on Nov 11, 2007 8:20 PM CST in News Comment 38 comments

So anyway...

The Phillies signed J.C. Romero to a 3 year, $12 million deal, with a 4th year option for $4.75 million.

Romero is nice and all, but that's pretty hefty. And a good sign for former Ranger Ron Mahay, who looks like he'll get a big payday this offseason, as well...

There's a piece at BP that breaks down the luckiest and unluckiest hitters in the majors last year, in terms of actual average vs. expected average based on the types of balls (line drive, ground ball, fly ball) put into play by the hitter. The #1 unluckiest player was Frank Catalanotto, whose .260 average last year should have been, per the author's calculations, .314.

#3 on the list is Richie Sexson, a player whose bad luck in 2007 I've discussed previously...

The next time some anti-stat-type asks if anyone in baseball actually pays attention to new-fangled stats like VORP, point them here.

John Dewan love Alfonso Soriano's arm in left field.

The Transaction Oracle is underwhelmed by the Lidge/Bourn trade. I like Bourn, and thought the Rangers should have been trying to get him, but obviously, they had nothing to offer to compare to Lidge (although if Akinori Otsuka had been healthy all of 2007, that might have been comparable)...nevertheless, Szymborski doesn't think Bourn's more than a 5th outfielder (although Christina Kahrl is more sanguine about Bourn).

This is one of those situations where the commitment to Carlos Lee is sort of forcing the Astros' hand...with Lee, who can cover about as much space as I can, in left field for the next 5 years, the Astros really need a centerfielder who can cover a lot of ground (and, ideally, a right fielder who can do the same, to allow the CF to cheat towards left). This is exacerbated by the enormous amount of ground the Astro centerfielders have to cover.

I plan on having a post about center field defense and the Rangers up sometime tomorrow, btw...

Dave Cameron talks about "free agent landmines":

Every year, teams wander into free agency with money to spend and a desire to improve a specific area of their teams. Every year, a few teams end up giving huge amounts of money to the best guy available that winter because, well, he was available, and their goal for the winter was to get the best player they could for that position. It's short-sighted thinking and almost always ends in disaster, but this kind of roster building will exist until the end of time.

This crop of players are the group I would consider Free Agent Landmines - players with enough value to appear to be an asset, but who are extremely unlikely to live up to the contracts they're going to get this winter. Previous landmines include Carlos Lee, Barry Zito, Richie Sexson, Mike Hampton, Jarrod Washburn, Carlos Delgado, Pedro Martinez, and Jason Varitek. All good players in their primes, but not good enough to justify the salaries they demand on the open market.

His top 3 this offseason? Torii Hunter, Carlos Silva, and Kyle Lohse, all very reasonable choices.

I am starting to get the feeling, by the way, that Hunter will end up somewhere besides Texas. If I had to guess, right now, I'd say Washington...

Ken Rosenthal has some interesting notes up, including some speculation that Billy Beane may go into full-scale rebuilding mode and deal Danny Haren and Joe Blanton, whose value will likely never be higher, given the scant market for starting pitching right now.

Rosenthal also has this on the ChiSox getting in a possible Miguel Cabrera deal:

For the White Sox to acquire Cabrera, they probably would need the Red Sox to re-sign third baseman Mike Lowell, the Angels to balk at moving second baseman Howie Kendrick and the Dodgers and Yankees to focus on pitching instead.

In the admittedly unlikely event that all of that took place, the White Sox then would need the Marlins to accept a package of, say, left-hander Gio Gonzalez, third baseman Josh Fields and center fielder Jerry Owens.

Such an offer probably would be too light, but perhaps the Sox could acquire additional prospects for right-hander Jon Garland in another deal.

For those clamoring for the Rangers to get in on Cabrera, the equivalent would probably be the Rangers giving up Eric Hurley, Ian Kinsler, and Nelson Cruz. And that's a package Rosenthal thinks is too light, would probably have to be sweetened to get a deal done.

And remember, Cabrera is 2 years away from being a free agent, and I'm guessing he'd ask for ARod circa 2000 money (10 years, $250 million) to sign an extension without testing the waters.

And finally, KSK apparently found Bill Simmons' Friday column as annoying as I did.

0 recs | Comment 38 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I agree with Hurley and Cruz but

Kinsler>Fields IMO

by sprite on Nov 11, 2007 8:23 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I agree

But Kinsler is the closest match to Fields I could find on the Rangers.

Plus, with Uggla in place, the value of the packages to the Marlins is probably similar, given that Fields could step in at 3B, and acquiring Kinsler would mean moving him or Uggla.

Also, I think Owens > Cruz, in terms of value.

by Adam J. Morris on Nov 11, 2007 8:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Would

Davis = Fields? Or is Davis still another big minor league season away from that level?

by badradiorules on Nov 12, 2007 11:01 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Fields

.750 OPS at AA at age 22.

Failed to OPS .900+ at AAA, despite spending close to a year and a half there.

Age 24 in MLB, 101 OPS+ over 373 AB's. Whiffs a ton, doesn't get on base (.308).

So, basically, if Davis were to sustain his current pace, he would project to be much better than Fields. Fields is a league average hitter, but he is young enough to improve his OBP skills and cut down on K's. League average at 3B is below average overall. Can't speak to his defense.

Cahill, did you ever make it to the south side last year? He appeared in 11 games ...

Sideshow ... onto 800. You can do it!

by Chase Irwin on Nov 12, 2007 12:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

So

who do you think has more value this offseason?

by badradiorules on Nov 12, 2007 1:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

For me, Davis

It's not real close.

Fields has ML exp and power. That's about it.

Sideshow ... onto 800. You can do it!

by Chase Irwin on Nov 12, 2007 4:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

It's got

to at least be pretty close. I mean they are both pretty flawed, but at least Fields has shown that his power will translate to the big leagues.

Davis has to be looked at as a 1B at this point and surely people want to see if he can put up the same type numbers again.

I don't think its a landslide by any means.

by badradiorules on Nov 12, 2007 5:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

Owens plays center which is a major plus. Cruz has HR power but can't hit for a good enough avg. While Owens can't hit for power, but can slap the ball around pretty good.

If Oak does decide to rebuild, I'd want the Rangers to see what it would take to bring Dan Johnson over here to man 1st. With Barton ready, he should be expendable.

by sprite on Nov 11, 2007 8:43 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

On the Simmons article

I don't underatnd how an objective person could have watched that game and not thought the Patriots were getting the screw job. It was outrageous.

The article was obviously overboard, but his central point was true, the refs worked very hard to give that game to the Colts.

by jthig32 on Nov 11, 2007 9:05 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Simmons

I agree that it was a poorly officiated game, but Simmons needs to change his name from the "Sports Guy" to the "Boston Sports Guy". His recent hyper-homerism on the Sox, Pats, and Celtics has soured his column for those who don't share his bubble.

by Randy Richardson on Nov 11, 2007 10:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You mean

change his name back.

His original blog was Bostonsportsguy

"I promise, if elected, I will crush the state of Georgia" - Stephen Colbert www.colbert08.org

by DJCahill on Nov 12, 2007 7:51 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Huh?

His "recent" homerism? His original name is the Boston Sports Guy. That's his bit.

by jthig32 on Nov 12, 2007 8:25 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

simmons

I said "recent hyper-homerism" because of his euphoria over the new Red Sox dynasty, his crowning of the Pats as the greatest team ever, and the emergence of the lowly Celts as a new eastern power. He's writing like a 13 year old kid with limited objectivity and relevance to anything besides his own teams.

by Randy Richardson on Nov 12, 2007 10:21 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

And?

That's how he's always written. He writes from a fans' perspective.

by jthig32 on Nov 12, 2007 10:56 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

i didn't

get that impression at all. The call on Moss was bad, but he's done that crap his entire career. Reputation thing.

by SteveP on Nov 11, 2007 10:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Covering ground in LF

No Adam, you can't cover the ground Carlos Lee does. Without him even moving. A fly ball normally takes about 4 seconds to land. Neither you, nor I, nor Freddy Guzman at his best can navigate around Carlos Lee in 4 seconds. He is massive. He is his own zip code. And God forbid, if he trundles after a ball, the stadium tilts in the direction he is moving. Seismologists all along the gulf coast can verify this! I'd much rather see you run down a fly ball to LF than Carlos, though. About the only thing he can beat you to is a family buffet table at Big Shoe's BBQ.

'At Georgia Southern, we don't cheat. That costs money and we don't have any.' Erk Russell / Georgia Southern

by Ed Coffin on Nov 11, 2007 9:55 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

LMFAO!!

Look out Baylor Cubbies you will be crying David Keresh after the Sooners get done with you. Boomer Sooner!

by boomer1 on Nov 11, 2007 10:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

reminds me of...

Two years ago when I was listening to Nadel/Rojas call a Ranger game and Carlos Lee was "charging" a ball in short left and Frank Thomas was "running" from second to third. One of the radio guys made a comment about seismologists, or sink holes, or a thundering herd of buffaloes, or the third base line vibrating or somesuch.

The original call was hilarious and totally spontaneous, my recollection of it - not so much.

Some professionals get better with age and experience. Lawyers, professors, engineers. Hookers? Not so much. -- DJ Cahill

by tricer on Nov 11, 2007 10:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

CF defense

Adam, have you seen Baseball Musings today?
http://www.baseballmusings.com/archives/023939.php

Tomorrow Never Knows

by t ball on Nov 11, 2007 11:55 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Wow

I'm a little wary of defensive stats, but if those are anywhere near accurate you just did a pretty good job of bursting my Corey Patterson bubble.

I always thought of him as a pretty good defensive CF, but that says he's horrible.

My eyes have apparently deceived me.

Ben Franklin. Gandhi. Jackie Robinson. Winston Churchill. Martin Luther King. Jesus Christ. And now... Dwyade!!!

by thedirkatron on Nov 12, 2007 6:46 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Patterson

I've seen comments elsewhere also wondering why Patterson scored so low, lower than last year apparently. That chart certainly seems to bolster the Crisp reputation, Felix Pie looks good in a limited number of plays thus far, and the folks who mentioned Ryan Church look a bit smarter.

Tomorrow Never Knows

by t ball on Nov 12, 2007 6:51 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Until I see

how he calculates predicted outs, I don't buy the ratings.

I do believe CoPa is a crappy defensive CF, but thats from seeing him in a dozen games a few years ago.

"I promise, if elected, I will crush the state of Georgia" - Stephen Colbert www.colbert08.org

by DJCahill on Nov 12, 2007 7:15 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Defensive Stats

Sadly all the best defensive stats are proprietary. Teams are looking to get an advantage when it comes to player evaluation, so they aren't going to share with the general public. As for the hardcore fans, you would need video footage of every ball hit to a particular player, and then you would need an effective way to break down all this footage into some meaniful stats. It sounds like an expensive and time consuming task. No statistic is perfect, especially those defensive ones made available to the general public.

by Excel Hearts Choi on Nov 12, 2007 9:16 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Since they are shrouded in mystery

and not "transparent", I see no reason to value these stats over what I see.

I trust OBP and AVG and SLG to tell me what they say, because I know what the source data is, and how they are calculated, and, if I wanted to, I could calculate them myself.

That's why I am willing to call bullshit on most defensive stats. Because they are proprietary, and may be based on flawed methodology.

"I promise, if elected, I will crush the state of Georgia" - Stephen Colbert www.colbert08.org

by DJCahill on Nov 12, 2007 9:27 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Proprietary != Bad

"...I see no reason to value these stats over what I see."

Hasn't OBP, and to an extent OPS, shown that what we see (a hit) is not always the whole story?

"...because I know what the source data is..."

Well, you do know what the data source is, just turn on the TV.

"...and may be based on flawed methodology."

Every stat is based on a flawed methodology, nobody can properly account for chance.

by Excel Hearts Choi on Nov 12, 2007 9:43 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Proprietary not necessarily = good though

may not be good either.

If you look through enough defensive stats, you realize that they rarely are in agreement on who is the best at a position. For instance.

http://www.baseballmusings.com/archives/023939.php
The Hardball Times on CF

Notice the lack of agreement. If I brought in more defensive stats, I would continue to see what appears to be almost random scatter.

There isn't much reason I see to overly trust defensive rankings. We could probably have Dirkatron run a "Top 30" CF vote off list and generate a listing that was about as valid.

"I promise, if elected, I will crush the state of Georgia" - Stephen Colbert www.colbert08.org

by DJCahill on Nov 12, 2007 9:55 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Strength in numbers / masses

Yeah, I pretty much agree, as usual, Cahill.

I don't trust any defensive stats at all. I'm sure there is probably a more objective way to evaluate defensive outcomes, which the teams are probably already employing as someone mentioned above, it's just too expensive labor (in time, money, opportunity cost, etc.) to release that sort of information for free.

Until the refined metrics come out, we might as well just trust the scouts and our own observations. You can tell if a guy gets good jumps and knows how to read properly, just by watching a dozen or so games, as you mentioned w/r to CoPa. Speed is also overt, typically, just much harder to quantify through observation alone.

From now on, I'm not going to type out "+1," just assume that I agree with any of your thoughts until I specify otherwise.

Sideshow ... onto 800. You can do it!

by Chase Irwin on Nov 12, 2007 10:29 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Random Scatter

Well, I'd like to take a look at this so-called random scatter. Firstly, blind allegiance to any singular stat is foolish to say the least. So, DJ, you were right to take a look at more than one stat, but the more the better. If we use five defensive ratings (fielding percentage, Range Factor, Zone Rating, RZR and Probablistic Range) we will get a more accurate (though not perfect) picture of defensive ability. All of the above stats have their flaws, but they are the most readily available (BP might have some stuff, but I am not a suscriber). I should also mention that I modified the Probablistic Range due to the fact that the stat used such small number for eligibility (Erstand and Pie should be involved in such a conversation). I replaced the 1000 minimum with 2000. So here is the breakdown for the top 10 CF'ers for each stat:

Fpct
Suzuki
Crisp
Sizemore
Rowand
Jones
Hunter
Logan
Wells
DeJesus
Patterson

RF
Crisp
Granderson
Cabrera
Logan
Suzuki
GMJ
Beltran
DeJesus
Hunter
Jones

ZR
Sizemore
Wells
Crisp
Granderson
Beltran
Cabrera
Hunter
Rowand
DeJesus
Patterson

RZR
Jones
Granderson
Beltran
Cabrera
DeJesus
Crisp
Patterson
Pierre
Cameron
Suzuki

Prob Range
Crisp
Suzuki
Granderson
Taveras
Jones
Pierre
Beltran
GMJ
Cameron
Logan

Here's a look at the frequency that each player made it to the top 10:

Crisp = 5
Suzuki = 4
Jones = 4
DeJesus = 4
Granderson = 4
Beltran = 4
Hunter = 3
Logan = 3
Patterson = 3
Cabrera = 3
Sizemore = 2
Rowand = 2
Wells = 2
GMJ = 2
Pierre = 2
Cameron = 2
Taveras = 1

Frequency in the top 5:

Crisp = 4
Granderson = 4
Suzuki = 3
Jones = 3
Cabrera = 2
Beltran = 2
Sizemore = 2
Rowand = 1
Wells = 1
Taveras = 1
DeJesus = 1
Logan = 1

This not the most legible format, but I have no idea as to how to insert a spreadsheet. The more stats you add, the clearer the picture becomes; things don't look as random as before. There is a repetition of players (Crisp, Granderson, Suzuki, Jones, DeJesus). Limiting yourself to one or two stats is misleading.

by Excel Hearts Choi on Nov 12, 2007 1:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Quantifying defense

I think with defense you're relying on scouts/coaches a bit more than on offense, but that was a good exercise with surprisingly few surprises, if that makes any sense.

The more I think about Crisp the more I like the idea of him patrolling CF in Arlington. I fear, though, that the price may be too high, especially for the team still smirking over the Gagne deal.

Tomorrow Never Knows

by t ball on Nov 12, 2007 2:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks for the effort

Excel

Sideshow ... onto 800. You can do it!

by Chase Irwin on Nov 12, 2007 6:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Anti-Stat Types

I'm not an anti-stat type. However, I disagree with the one-dimensional stat zealot mindset.

There's a difference between using stats wisely and obsessing over them.

Some people believe in God (yet understand it's still a very mysterious thing). Then some people are simple-minded religious nuts. Some people just watch from the sidelines.

Stat nuts differ from those who uses stats wisely.

by 3Bagger on Nov 12, 2007 8:30 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

God stats

his zone rating is through the roof. Boras is trying to get him a new covenant.

Tomorrow Never Knows

by t ball on Nov 12, 2007 10:22 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Boras is one-dimensional, though

and mysterious at that ...

Sideshow ... onto 800. You can do it!

by Chase Irwin on Nov 12, 2007 10:31 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Certainty

is a holy illusion (perhaps wholly illusion?).

Stats are from the devils toolshed. They induce claims of certainty.

Just because A-Rod has a terrific VORP, etc, does not mean this Boras-wet-dream contract is a wise investment for anyone. Just like Sosa's stats don't tell the whole story either. (Like how marginal fans prefer him to marginal minor league unknowns).

by 3Bagger on Nov 12, 2007 1:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs