the raindrops
New Site
the raindrops is now powered by Movable Type! Please update your links to http://theraindrops.weblogs.us
Thanks.
Under Construction
The raindrops will probably have a new look pretty soon. Please bear with me as I attempt some changes in this space.
#25
Boy was I surprised when I saw the cover of this week's ESPN the magazine. None other than the Mets' new shortstop takes center stage, with the good ol' blue and orange design making it look like a custom Mets' edition. Gotta admit it made me happy for no apparent reason. If you missed the Matsui press conference, MLB.com provides a nice recap, as well as some video footage (includes Matsui hitting a double off Bartolo Colon).
As Flushing Local points out, "Mets officials repeated yesterday that signing Matsui fit in their plan, though their payroll is expected to drop from $120 million a year ago to $90 million to $100 million on opening day" (Hermoso, NYT). I'm not terribly concerned about the drop in payroll, as this team probably doesn't deserve the additional investment in 2004, but I do want to keep an eye on the figures that are being thrown around at the moment. Its in the clubs and the media's best interest to keep fans uneducated about payroll matters, so they never really go to too much trouble to explain how a contract or trade could impact a teams' budget, and therefore baseball operations (think of the recent Billy Koch for Roger Cedeno or David Weathers rumors).
It's frustrating, as a fan, to know its all about money, and yet not have the best information to understand and analyze the financial side of a team. Thanks to the work of people like Doug Pappas and sites like MLB Player Contracts, as well as the CBA, we have some tools and hints to try and make sense of it on our own. I'm always trying to learn more about the financial side of the game, and that's why I review money matters before analyzing a player, as well as keeping a payroll chart. Its also why I appreciate work like Derek Zumsteg's at U.S.S. Mariner trying to make sense of the Mariners' numbers. It may not seem like much, but teams throw these figures around when they want to justify raising ticket prices or not adding a player (contract) to make a playoff push, and guys like Zumsteg try to keep 'em honest. It aint easy work, and if there was a Zumsteg for every team, baseball's collective fandom would be better off for it.
While your at the U.S.S. Mariner, don't forget to see what David Cameron has to say about various prospects over at the latest Baseball Prospectus chat. Kevin Czerwinski also does some "prospecting" by reporting on Victor Diaz's development in the Dominican Republic, as well as considering what Jim Duquette has on his plate going into the Winter Meetings. I wonder if he and Walt Jocketty will have any discussions?
No really, what's the over/under before opening day? I found Mets Analyst via SaberMets. Stop by and be sure to read the "Dear Jim" letter.
I've added comments because, well, its hard to disagree with this post, found via Baseball Musings.
Jay Horowitz's Day
Not much doing as we await Matsui's big coming out party. According to NYT, the 3 year, $20.1 million contract Matsui signed "can earn an additional $1 million in incentives." Since most incentives are based on quantity as opposed to quality, Matsui will probably make about $7 million per season. Also, it looks like the jersey number matter is settled, with Reyes getting to keep #7. Once everyone has finished smiling and posing for the cameras, Jim Duquette will be off to the winter meetings in New Orleans, where he will be one of the few who can probably take on salary in 2004.
Lastly
Thanks are in order for Dave from Baseball Graphs, who pointed out Baseball Direct Scoreboard by Stats Inc., which shows the NL average grounball/flyball rate was 1.29. The major league average was 1.23. Glavine is the only Mets starter who is above that number, and not by much. The rest of the staff is all flyball all the time, and would be better served with improved outfield defense, though I'm sure they don't mind having a pretty solid double play combo.
Baseball Graphs also took a look at the Matsui contract, and attempts to defend the dollar amount by pointing out "Major League GM's paid $1 million for each incremental Win Share on the free market last year." Dave brings up a valid point, and he's done quite a bit of work during the off-season examining the relationship between production and paycheck, but even if the market were to deem this contract fair because of Matsui's projected win shares, you have to remember that the 9 or so win shares that would separate Kaz from the rest of the pack only translates into 3 wins for the Mets in 2004. I can understand a team that is on the fringes of contention paying top dollar for three extra wins, but for the Mets to pay to get to about 75 wins makes little sense. The article also points out Clay Davenport's recent assertion that Kaz Matsui most closely resembles Orlando Cabrera under his modified Japanese translation system, which will probably be explained in BP2004.
If your looking for reactions to the Matsui signing from non-Mets blogs, stop by Some Calzone For Derek, who thinks the move is suspect, and retarded, among other things, as well as Al's Ramblings, who thinks the Mets are paying too much, and is "offended" by idea of Jose Reyes moving to make room for Kaz. I hope you can understand why Al's Ramblings is one of my favorite blogs out there.
This ESPN acrticle states Matsui has a complete no-trade clause, and will receive his free agency after the contract. I was confused about this at first reading, since all players are stuck with their team for at least six years, if the team is ready to goto arbitration, but I guess the Mets have an agreement to non-tender him? I'll try to get more on this later. Also mentioned are some performance and awards bonuses. I don't have any details, but I'm sure the contract is closer to $7 million per if Matsui plays at least 150 games or thereabouts. Lastly, Vance Wilson, who was eligible for arbitration, signed for one-year $715,000. I'll have add it to the payroll chart later.
Lastly, don't forget to stop by Bronx Banter, where Alex Belth interviews SI's Tom Verducci.
Links
I somehow missed Dan Troy's review of the Mets system last week, be sure to check it out. Don't forget to stop by New York Fan Sites to read an interview with Mets prospect David Wright (reg. req.).
Jeremy Heit pointed out Rob Neyer's take on Kaz Matsui at this blog, while Eric Mcerlain, over at Off Wing Opinion, reviews where all the Mets' bloggers stand on the new import.
Thanks are in order for Roadblock Jones (#45) over at Baseball Primer for pointing out an interesting site, Mets by the Numbers, that thinks Matsui has the inside track on Reyes's #7.
Helping the Asst. GMs
For everyone who loves that up the middle defense, chew on this:
Tom Glavine 1.40 gb/fb in 2003
Al Leiter 0.99
Steve Trachsel 0.85
Jae Seo 0.94
These four pitched 54% of all innings for the Mets in 2003.
The Mets starting pitching needs its defense like few others in the majors, and a look at the numbers above suggests an upgrade in the outfield will probably help more than in the infield. Overpaying for Mike Cameron's defense would probably help more than overpaying for Matsui, but hey, whats done is done. Tune in later this week as the Number 7 Saga unfolds at Shea. I'm sure all the Asst. GMs will have a say on this matter.
I recall reading a 1.2 gb/fb rate is about average, but can't seem to find any documentation to support that number. If anyone has anything on average grounball/flyball rate, I would appreciate a link. Thanks.
Retail
If I had to pick one projection system, PECOTA wins in a landslide, but since its not up yet, and 2004 Diamond Mind ZiPS projections are up, I'll use it to demonstrate some points. Here's what a few infielders project to do in 2004:
Player A (age 28): 281/363/423 with 47/68 and 35xbh (9 hr) in 395 ab.
Player B (age 24): 261/320/377 with 39/87 and 42xbh (8 hr) in 525 ab.
Player C (age 33): 278/330/447 with 40/84 and 54xbh (18 hr) in 546 ab.
Player D (age 22): 308/367/441 with 41/84 and 39xbh (12 hr) in 487 ab.
Player E (age 28): 290/353/462 with 44/126 and 49xbh (16 hr) in 500 ab.
Player D is the Mets very own Victor Diaz. Any player who projects, under any system, to put up an OPS above 800 in his age 22 season, should be something an organization values. With the signing of Matsui, Diaz is in no man's land. He now has to learn to play first base or the outfield, where his 800+ OPS is closer to league average than all-star. Player B is Danny Garcia, who falls behind Diaz on the depth chart, and could still turn into player A, Marco Scutaro, by the time he's 28. Speaking of beloved Marco, he projects to put up that line while making about $305,000. Player E, Kaz Matsui, will make more than 20 times that in 2004 for similar production. Player C is Rich Aurilla, who wasn't offered arbitration by the Giants, and is originally from New York, and could probably be had at second base for one season at $2.5 million.
Matsui might come in and play well beyond those projections, but as of this moment, the Mets are greatly overpaying for production they once had in the system, still have in the system, or could easily add at a tenth of the cost of the Matsui contract. Its the same management that brought us the Stanton contract, and we all love that move right?
Chasing that 75th win...
What's not to like about Kaz Matsui? Let me count the ways:
1.) The Mets have managed to turn one of their few strengths, a still developing and soon to be stud shortstop, into a player who has never played second base. Despite being the youngest player in each league the Mets sent him, Reyes constantly adjusted and developed, both in the field and with the bat, prompting mid-season promotions in both 2002 and 2003. He then turned 20! Reyes will now spend his prime developmental years (age 21-24) first learning a brand spanking new position, followed by relearning his old position once Matsui's contract is up. The Mets could have just cemented him at shortstop and then watched as he blossom into Jose Reyes. He's still going to be an awesome hitter, but why you'd want to throw obstacles in front of "the franchise" is something only Jim Duquette, Fred Wilpon, Jeff Wilpon, Bruce Wilpon, Al Leiter, and Tom Glavine can answer.
2.) Simply put, second base is a more physically demanding position and the chances for injury, as compared to shortstop, are much higher. Now, every time there's a potential groundball double play, I'll hold my breath as I hope Reyes doesn't get hurt trying to hold the bag instead of enjoying my very own shortstop prodigy make an amazing play. I guess the Mets feel this is a more exciting brand of baseball.
3.) Mike Piazza is still a catcher. Jose Reyes is a second basemen. Discuss.
4.) Hi! I'm Victor Diaz. I can hit. I may or may not be able to handle the keystone in the majors, but hey, Ronnie Belliard made it, why can't I? With the acquisition of Matsui, I'll probably be moved to the outfield, where I too will spend my prime developmental years learning a new position instead of just mashing the opposition's pitching.
5.) Hi! I'm Danny Garcia. I will now be labeled a backup at the tender age of 23. Now, regardless of what kind of numbers I put up, I will never be given a chance in this organization. No problem though, I heard Marco got picked up by the A's. Maybe the Jays will claim me a few years from now.
All of the above for a *best case* 300/360/450 and declining for a non-contending team. If your new to the raindrops, check out my review of Kaz Matsui and Tadahito Iguchi from October. Feel free to review the park factors and field dimensions in the Iguchi article before getting all jazzed up about Matsui's "power and speed." Speed being 13/24 in stolen bases in 2003. Its moves like this that lead to sites like Hate the Mets.
Speaking of other Mets' sites, stop by Flushing Local and ducks on the pond, two new blogs covering the Amazins. What's the over under for Mets blogs by opening day?
Revised payroll chart:
The nine above total $65.3 million in 2004, with $67.3 million going towards the cap. A minimum of $4.9 million is needed to complete the major league roster, which will bring the cap figure to $72.2 million. Throw in the $7.5 for pension and health, along with Mo's $4.25, and the Mets already have at least $84 million towards a $120.5 salary cap in 2004, while the actual payroll figure stands at about $75 million.
Reality Check
How bad are the Mets as of this moment? Well, they finished 2003 dead last in the NL East with a 66-95 record. Their Pythagorean W-L, derived from the 642 runs they scored and 754 runs they allowed, say the Mets were closer to a 69-92 team. When your as bad as the Mets, and crazy enough to have illusions about contention in 2004, you celebrate these small victories. The catch is that the runs they scored and allowed have underlying calculations they're based on, and according to Clay Davenport's adjusted standings, the Mets should have scored 610 runs, and allowed 768, giving them a sparkling 64-98 record (rounding up for both). Nothing less than 158 runs, however acquired, are needed to close the run differential gap. And that only gets them to .500! Feel free to add another ten runs for each additional win you want over that all important 81 win number. That's right, Mr. Duquette needs to make up about 250(!) runs to reach 90 wins, which may or may not clinch the wild card.
Its as easy as that folks. The Mets don't need more speed in the field or on the basepaths, they don't need more defense, they don't need a stud right fielder, and they certainly don't need a magical closer to win it all in 2004. What they need is a net gain of 250 runs just to play with the big boys. As if this isn't depressing enough, they already have quite a few commitments for 2004 and beyond (all figures in million dollars):
If the table looks familiar, its because you saw it over at Doug Pappas's wonderful
Business of Baseball blog when he looked at the
long term commitments of the New York Yankees. The Mets are already on the hook for at least $63,785,000 in 2004, with the $58.6 the eight above are due, plus 17 spots at at least the major league minimum of $305,000. Of course they will have quite a few players make more than that, but I want to find out just how much the Mets have to work with, so I'll use salary extremes for now.
Now, the 2004 salary cap for the non-Yankee universe is set at 120.5 million by the
CBA, and all multi-year contracts are averaged, so the Mets have $65,785,000 towards the cap already. Throw in the
$7,552,271 for pension and health, and the figure goes up to about $73.25 million. We can't forget whats due Mo Vaughn, even after insurance picks up 75% of his salary: another $4.25 million, bringing the grand total to at least $77.5 million. That leaves the front office with about $43 million to fill seventeen roster spots and make up at least 250 runs. Good freakin luck.
If the Mets minor league system looked like the Yankees (barren), and their major league commitments projected to break even (run differential) before any acquisitions, I would say go for it all in 2004. The Mets, however, are no Yankees, and even a best case scenario for the eight players listed above would still leave them needing runs to reach .500. Also unlike the Yankees, the Mets actually have some useful pre-arbitration players at the major league level, along with some high upside guys about to enter the high minors.
Furthermore, they have the third pick in each round of the amateur draft in 2004, which will give them seven of the top 200 picks next year. The Mets must hold on to those picks if they want to have a Jason Phillips or Jae Seo type of player to compliment the Jose Reyes, David Wright, Justin Huber, Scott Kazmir, and Aaron Heilman Mets of 2005 and beyond. We all know how much of a crapshoot the draft can be, and that is why the Mets have to stack the odds in their favor by holding on to their picks. I completely agree with
Kevin Tower's thinking:
You've heard the old adage: 'take the guy with the highest ceiling.' But sometimes you never see that freaking ceiling. I'm a big believer in probability. If you give me a player with a 30% chance to be an All-Star, vs. an 80% to 90% shot to be a quality regular player, there's no doubt which way I'm going.
Probability indeed. Want two Jason Phillips or Ty Wigginton type guys for 2005 and beyond? Well, you stand a better chance to do it with seven of the top 200 picks as compared to five or six. While I'm on the topic, I think the Mets would be best served drafting polished college hitters with all those picks. They already have Seo, Heilman, Kazmir, Peterson, DiNardo, Musser, Yates, and Keppel for Rick Peterson to work with while we watch Leiter and Glavine turn gray, and if the Mets manage their resources properly (it would be a first), they can acquire starting pitching via free agency once they're ready to compete.
Also, their high upside hitters: Reyes, Wright, and Huber are all on the right end of the
defensive spectrum, which means they can go after hitters! with an exclaimation point, since their final destination at Shea will be the left end of the same spectrum. Its one thing to have a stockpile of 1B/LF types as your best hitting prospects, but the Mets have the rare oppurtunity of seeing their best hitters reach their peak years while playing the tough spots on the diamond. These kind of opportunties don't come around too often, and it's in the Mets best interest to start working towards a sustained run for 2005 and beyond. If it means a losing season in 2004, so be it. And for those of you harboring thoughts about contending in '04 (I'm looking at you Wilpon), feel free to explain to me how you plan on turning about $40 million and ten roster spots into a net gain of at least 200 runs this off season. While your at it, stop and consider what the moves you suggest will cost Mets teams in 2005 and beyond--there is always a cost--while they "
chase that 75th win."
Young, cheap, good
11. Jason Phillips
2001 AA age 24: 293/365/464 with 31/25 and 32xbh (11 hr) in 317 ab.
2002 AAA age 25: 282/335/477 with 24/29 and 36xbh (13 hr) in 323 ab. .251 MjEQA.
2003 MLB age 26: 298/371/442 with 39/50 and 36xbh (11 hr) in 403 ab. .287
I'm a sucker for players who have more extra base hits than strikeouts, as Phillips did from 2000 to 2002 in the minors for the Mets. He proved he can control the zone and deserved a chance as he entered his prime years. When plans A thru G failed for the Mets at first base in 2003, they finally gave Phillips a shot on a regular basis during the last four months of the season. 2003 was probably the top of the mountain for Phillips, but I'm confident he can put up an OBP around .350 and SLG in the .400 area before hitting arbitration, not bad for a catcher playing half his games at Big Shea. Like Wigginton, Phillips will have his peak years while the Mets wait for someone who might have a higher upside, Justin Huber.
12. Jose Reyes
2001 A age 18: 307/340/472 with 18/71 and 42xbh (5 hr) in 407 ab.
2002 A+ age 19: 288/357/462 with 30/35 and 27xbh (6 hr) in 288 ab.
2002 AA age 19: 287/331/425 with 16/42 and 26xbh (2 hr) in 275 ab.
2003 AAA age 20: 269/333/356 with 15/25 and 10xbh (0 hr) in 160 ab.
2003 MLB age 20: 307/334/434 with 13/36 and 21xbh (5 hr) in 274 ab.
Nineteen year olds don't go around putting up 800+ OPS in the Florida State League. Jose Reyes not only did in 2002, but he played a major league caliber shortstop and stole 31 bases as well. A year later he was booting simple grounders for a last place team in the big leagues, and had me wondering if he was being rushed to the majors. Reyes quickly adapted and showed he belonged. What makes me so optimistic about Reyes's future is not just the numbers he's put up so far, but just the way he looks on the diamond. Watching him in the field, or in the batter's box, or on the bases, his body language exudes confidence. He not only knows he belongs, he knows how good he is, and has a good time showing his stuff. I don't really care what his numbers are in 2004, because in the big picture, its just information Reyes will be processing about playing at the highest level. He has the talents and smarts to turn 600+ plate appearances in 2004 into all-star caliber production for 2005 and beyond, where the sky is the limit. Gun to my head, I say 290/335/440 in 2004.
Years from now, when I look back at the 2003 season, the one image that will stick in my head is a double play turned by the Mets on August 17th. Its the top of the second, the Senator on the mound facing Jay "Mr. 0-2" Payton, with 6'2" 215 lb. Preston Wilson on first. Payton hit a roller to Scutaro, who flipped it to Reyes at second, who threw to Phillips at first to complete the double play. Mookie's son, who loves to play at 110% against the Mets, tried his best to break up the play at second, but Reyes would have none of it. In one motion, he ran towards the bag, received the throw from Scutaro, leaped over Wilson while throwing to first and got Payton by a mile. Phillips, expecting nothing on the throw, had already gone into his trademark stretch, and was probably as surprised as I was to hear the pop in his mitt as Reyes fired it in there on a line from second.
I've seen quite a few infielders do amazing things turning two, but I can honestly say that I've never seen someone do what Reyes did that day as quickly and gracefully; He made it look ridiculously easy. I still can't get over how much he got on that throw--Reyes is not the kind of shortstop who shows off his arm when Mike Matheny hits a sharp grounder his way--he waits until he needs to use it, and I've never seen a throw that hard come from a player who just finished leaping over a big player as easily as he had. I'll spend more time in 2004 anticipating and appreciating moments like this from Reyes than worrying about his OBP.
13. Jae-Wong Seo
2001 age 24: 133.0 ip, 6.16 k/9, 3.96 k/bb, 0.61 hr/9
2002 age 25: 134.2 ip, 6.28 k/9, 4.09 k/bb, 1.00 hr/9
2003 age 26: 188.1 ip, 5.26 k/9, 2.39 k/bb, 0.86 hr/9
Seo missed all of 2000 after having surgery on his elbow. In 2001, his 24 starts were spread across high A, AA, and AAA. 2002 was all at Norfolk, except one relief appearance in AA, and one on the big club. 2003 was at the major league level.
Lets hope we never again see a day when the Mets have a pitcher entering his age 26 season, after finishing two seasons in AA and AAA compiling a 4 to 1 strikeout to walk ratio, have his path to the major league rotation blocked by David F. Cone. Jae Seo, like Phillips, deserved a chance going into the season, and only got it once a few of the old men couldn't cut it.
The strikeout rate isn't spectacular, but if he can inch his way to a 3 to 1 k/bb ratio while keeping the ball in the park, he'll do fine. He kills lefties, and a marginal improvement against righties in 2004 will ensure better than league average production at nearly the league minimum. I'm confident Seo can do it, though I don't know if he can top his 2003 innings total. Lets hope he comes close. Now that Peterson's on board, we won't be seeing any more 132 pitch outings from young pitchers already past their career high innings pitched in a game that means less than nothing. Seo has the most to gain if the Mets sign Mike Cameron.
Pickin' Machine
Its bad enough I don't post when I say I am, but its even worse when during my procrastination, I fire off a suggestion at Bryan Smith's Wait Til Next Year blog, only to see him do ALOT of work and put together some impressive articles, and I still haven't covered the pickin machine, not to mention the Mets roster. In my defense, since when is it supposed to be in the 60s as we approach Thanksgiving?!? Gotta take advantage of those days when you can. Also, Joe McEwing is still on the 40 man, as is Mike Stanton, and if I were to start focusing on the Mets' negatives, I could put Gleeman to shame, post-length wise. I hope giving it a few days will either settle me down, or give the Mets the chance to do something positive (sign Fick). Of course, they just might compound their problems.
Enough about my laziness. If you don't visit Wait Til Next Year on a regular basis, well...then the terrorists have already won. Excellent work by Bryan, and I'm sure I'll be using his recent posts as a reference throughout the off season. One of the most frustrating things about being a baseball fan is always hearing that its about money first (it is) and not having the proper resources to follow the money. We have more stats than we can handle when it comes to understanding the game on the field, and I think Bryan's work is a big first step towards doing likewise with the money. I hope he continues the work with updates throughout the off season (easy for me to say).
Now, what was Billy Beane thinking when he gave Scott Hatteberg a two year, 4.65 million dollar contract extension this past season? Well, first, lets look at some numbers:
2002: 492 ab, 138 h, 15 hr, 68 bb, 56 so. 1.24 gb/fb ratio
2003: 541 ab, 137 h, 12 hr, 66 bb, 53 so. 1.34
In about 50 more plate appearances in 2003, Hatteberg struck out less, hit a couple less homeruns, and essentially had the same groundball/flyball ratio as 2002. Why am I focusing on these stats? Well, Hatteberg's batting average for balls in play in 2002 was .291. In 2003, that number fell to .259. I'm of the belief that a hitter has far less control over his BABIP, as opposed to his bb/so or p/PA numbers. Could it be that Hatteberg was just unlucky in 2003? I think so. Here's a look at Hatteberg's career BABIP numbers:
1997: .319
1998: .298
1999: .318
2000: .285
2001: .260
2002: .291
2003: .259
Career: .284
The A's picked up Hatteberg when he was most under valued, after the 2001 season, and signed him to an extension when the raw numbers didn't tell the whole story, in 2003. What would have Hatteberg's numbers looked like in 2003 if his BABIP was .284? My calculations say 275/364/416. Those numbers would have placed him at number five in On Base Percentage among American League first basemen in 2003. Only three of those first basemen had a significantly better GPA than Hatteberg:
.340 Delgado
.317 Giambi
.289 Mientkiewicz
------
.275 Millar
.271 Lee
.269 Teixeira
.268 Hatteberg (BABIP adjusted)
.267 Conine
.265 Olerud
Of the second group, only Olerud played in as difficult a hitting environment as Hatteberg. The underlying numbers still show Hatteberg has what it takes to stay in the top half of American League first sackers. But that's only part of the equation when evaluating Hatteberg's contract. Apparently Hatteberg's skill set is easy to replace. I'm not so sure. Free Agents and possible non-tenders:
Tony Clark, Ron Coomer, Wil Cordero, Julio Franco, Matt Franco, Andres Galarraga, Mark Grace, Eric Karros, Travis Lee, Dave McCarty, Fred McGriff, Rafael Palmeiro, J.T. Snow, Scott Spiezio, Robert Fick, Randall Simon, Daryle Ward, Jeremy Giambi, Doug Mientkiewicz, Brian Daubach.
The players above are either not as good as Hatteberg, not as young as Hatteberg, or not projected to be as cheap as Hatteberg. For the A's to have considered some of the more interesting players listed--Fick, Mientkiewicz, Lee--they would have to wait until their respective teams either declined options or non-tendered them. To wait for other teams to decide on those players would have exposed Hatteberg to the open market, where the A's are no longer the only saber front office in town. What's 2 years/6 million to Theo and Co. in Boston to provide some Ortiz/Millar insurance in 2004? Maybe JP decides he can get some more pitching for Josh Phelps, and thinks Hatty is a nice fit for the Jays. Maybe the Orioles want to give him 5 years/25 million.
I can have fun with the possible scenarios, but its something the A's have to seriously consider before leaving themselves unprotected. They already knew they were going to let Tejada walk, and knew they could only recoup so much of his offensive production in the off season. By having Hatteberg wrapped up, it allowed them to move early in the off season to make up some of Tejada's lost production in the lineup with Kielty. Also, the money netted in the Lilly/Kielty deal can be used to sign Durazo and Bradford, or to make another move, instead of trying to outbid others for the pickin' machine. Hatteberg is a good example of a team acquiring cost certainty, as opposed to whatever you acquire when you wrap up Jose Vizcaino and Brad Ausmus. In the big picture for the A's success cycle, Chavez will leave after 2004, followed by Hudson and Mulder in 2005, and Zito in 2006. The A's front office is confident about what to expect over Hatteberg's next 1100 plate appearances (.350+ OBP, 4.0+ p/PA), and felt $4.65 million was a fair price to pay. I agree. Its one thing to take a flyer on a full season of Graham Koonce if your a rebuilding team without your core already in place for a few more seasons, but the A's are not that team. In my opinion, Koonce and Grabowski are solid players for an organization to have, but they're not as good, and certainly not as safe a bet as Hatteberg.
Thanks to Ameer for pointing out an entry at Julien's baseball blog, who looked into this contract back in August. How do you like that, he really is a pickin' machine!
Beane, Beane, the musical fruit...
From Gammons's November 9th column at ESPN:
What most of the clubs are discussing is moving payroll to create flexibility and allowing the market to settle -- with the Dec. 20th non-tenders a major factor in that market. So most of the deals discussed in Phoenix will be dollar, not necessarily talent-related.
I'm sure every front office type in Phoenix was busy telling Gammons that if their organization had just a little more payroll flexibility, they could really make a splash this off season. While I'm sure you'll find the same old "if we only had some wiggle room" company line in the coming weeks and months, the boys in Oakland actually went to the trouble of acquiring payroll flexibility.
Putting aside what the recent Kielty/Lilly trade means between the lines for a moment, lets do what Billy and J.P. have to do, think in terms of money. Bobby Kielty made $325,000 in 2003, and won't make much more than that in 2004 as he finishes his servitude to major league baseball. Ted Lilly made $335,000 in 2003, and there are conflicting reports about his arbitration eligibility. Rob Neyer, in his most recent
column, states the deal is payroll neutral, since neither player is eligible for arbitration. I also checked The Transaction Guy's
list of arb. players, and could not find Lilly. I then went straight to the horse's mouth, the
MLBPA CBA:
F. Salary Arbitration
The following salary arbitration procedure shall be applicable: (1) Eligibility. The issue of a Player's salary may be submitted to final and binding arbitration by any Player or his Club, provided the other party to the arbitration consents thereto. Any Club, or any Player with a total of three or more years of Major League service, however accumulated, but with less than six years of Major League service, may submit the issue of the Player's salary to final and binding arbitration without the consent of the other party, subject to the provisions of paragraph (4) below. In addition, a Player with at least two but less than three years of Major League service shall be eligible for salary arbitration if: (a) he has accumulated at least 86 days of service during the immediately preceding season; and (b) he ranks in the top seventeen percent (17%) (rounded to the nearest whole number) in total service in the class of Players who have at least two but less than three years of Major League service, however accumulated, but with at least 86 days of service accumulated during the immediately preceding season. If two or more Players are tied in ranking, ties shall be broken consecutively based on the number of days of service accumulated in each of the immediately preceding seasons. If the Players remain tied, the final tie breaker will be by lot.
Its clear if a player has three full seasons of service time, like A.J Pierzynski or Alfonso Soriano, they're eligible. Working backwards with Lilly, he has the required 86 days of service in 2003. In fact, he has the whole season. He also has the entire 2002 season as major league service time (time spent on the DL counts). Also, he doesn't have any minor league stats for 2002, and he was already out of options at that point, so I'm 99 percent sure he gets credit for the whole season. In 2001, Lilly was called up on April 22nd, and spent the rest of the season with the Yankees, save a ten day stretch between August 21st and September 1st. Lilly missed the first three weeks, and a ten day stretch in the season, so he gets credit for almost five months in 2001. He also has a few days in 1999 and 2000, though its nothing significant.
All in all, Lilly has two full years, and about another five months. He doesn't qualify at first glance, but he looks like a sure bet to make it via the 17% clause. This by the way, is why teams wait to bring up a Reyes or Harden until after June, so they can get one extra year before having to shell out the big bucks. Business as usual. I'm still waiting to see something "official" concerning Lilly's 2004 salary, but I'm sure the A's are confident in their methods, though they aren't always perfect, ie Jose Guillen's
compensation estimate. As for how much Lilly will make in arbitration, I'd guess anywhere from $1.8 million to 2.4 million. Considering Kielty's meager earnings, the A's look to make anywhere from $1.5 to $2.0 million in this deal. As always, great work from the boys in Oakland. But wait, it gets better.
Its one thing to make $1.5 million available for next year, ask Walt Jocketty, but its another thing altogether to do it while not losing out in terms of production on the field. The Cardinals have some extra money to work with, but didn't get much back in the form of
Evan Rust and a player to be named later. If Rust some how finds himself making the major league minimum for the Redbirds in 2004, the net savings from the deal falls to $1.2 million. For this small chunk of change, 1.76% of the projected 2004 payroll (1.5/85.0), Jocketty has to replace Tino's 70
Runs Created, 11.5
VORP, 11
Win Shares, or
leadership, take your pick, in the lineup. Oakland not only gained more relative payroll flexibility, 2.72% (1.5/55.0), but they did well not to lose as much on the field as the Cards did. Again, choose your metric:
Lilly: 20.5 VORP, 10 Win Shares, 1.8
SNWAR
Kielty: 4.9 VORP, 12 Win Shares, .270
EQA
We already know how loaded the A's are with starting pitching, and how many young, cheap, outfielders the Blue Jays have, so its obvious both teams are dealing from a position of strength, and if an argument can be made in either side's favor on the merits of the talent they traded, then the nearly 3% relative payroll flexibility the A's also attained tips this deal in Beane's favor. He wanted money to work with, and he got it.
Stop by tomorrow as I attempt to make sense of the Scott Hatteberg contract. Don't worry Mets fans, I'll go over the roster stuff on Monday. And if I'm missing something obvious about Lilly's 2004 salary, please leave your
complaints here.
Baseball America continues ranking the top ten prospects in each organization with the
Mets today. Scott Kazmir comes out on top, and in case you missed it, John Sickel's also reviewed
Kazmir after the season. The Baseball Cube has
Doc's minor league numbers, if you want to compare.
Every attempt I make to do a quick write up on Jason Phillips turns into a very long rant on Mets management, and I've already promised to
hold off on that topic until they do something stupid this off-season, like the Mariners with Ibanez. While I delay the Phillips commentary, consider reading up on the trials and tribulations of
Hanse Cronje. I don't think any one link can do the whole affair justice, unless you follow cricket, but if and when Pete Rose is reinstated into baseball, I'll probably bore everyone with some thoughts on Cronje. Just remember, I warned you.
No Loitering
10. Jeff Duncan
2001 A age 22: 217/322/346 with 46/97 and 27xbh (3 hr) in 318 ab.
2002 A age 23: 393/468/600 with 18/34 and 20xbh (4 hr) in 150 ab.
2002 A+ age 23: 343/472/451 with 24/15 and 7xbh (2 hr) in 102 ab.
2003 AA age 24: 288/376/406 with 36/59 and 20xbh (4 hr) in 278 ab.
2003 MLB age 24: 194/291/245 with 17/41 and 3xbh (1 hr) in 139 ab. -.314 MLVr. 94.10 AtR.
A: Duncan steps into the box. He's 0 for 1 today. Duncan was out trying to bunt for a base hit in the first. John Doe winds up and...strike one, looking. Nice fastball on the outside corner.
B: The Mets love Duncan's patience at the plate. Considering his speed, he could be the Mets leadoff hitter of the future.
A: Its not everyday you see a young player with Duncan's batting eye. Doe's got the sign, comes to the plate and...on the inside corner, called strike two.
B: Art Howe just loves Duncan's approach at the plate. He doesn't go after the pitcher's pitch, he waits for his pitch.
A: And once he gets that pitch, watch out, Duncan's already got a homerun after being called up, I'm sure there's more of where that came from. The catcher sets up again on the inside half of the plate. The windup, and the pitch...strike three. Doe left that one over the heart of the plate, and the umpire punches Duncan out of there.
B: He might be 0 for 2 today, but considering his youth, his speed and his exceptional bunting ability, you've gotta like his future.
A: You sure do, the Mets are very high on this guy.
12, if you count the one against Mussina
9. Ty Wigginton
Wiggs won't be arbitration eligible until after the 2005 season. The AAA portions listed below were in Norfolk, a pitcher friendly park in the International League.
2001 AAA age 23: 250/325/377 with 27/66 bb/so and 19xbh (7 hr) in 260 ab.
2002 AAA age 24: 300/372/431 with 43/50 bb/so and 35xbh (6 hr) in 383 ab.
2002 MLB age 24: 302/357/526 with 8/19 bb/so and 14xbh (6 hr) in 116 ab.
2003 MLB age 25: 255/318/396 with 46/124 bb/so and 53xbh (11 hr) in 573 ab. -.024 MLVr. 94.41 AtR.
Ty's position in the organization is directly related to David Wright, who projects to take the hot corner at Shea on a full time basis by the time Wigginton is ready to go to arbitration. In the mean time, Wiggs will enjoy his age 26 and 27 seasons with the Mets, and while he's not going to make any all-star teams, he's a good bet to put up an OPS around 750 for the next few seasons, with an outside chance of going Aaron Boone circa '99-'01 on us. Duquette would be well advised to find a left-handed bat to occasionally spell Wiggs against those nasty sliders. Mark Bellhorn, anyone?
Badges? We don't need any stinkin badges!
~Old baseball men. Steve Keane over at the Kranepool Society and Derek Zumsteg at the U.S.S. Mariner sum up my thoughts exactly. He can't be fired soon enough.
~From Peter Gammon's column at ESPN:
"We want to help ourselves by signing some free agents," said Mets GM Jim Duquette, "but we can't afford to give up draft choices in our rebuilding process."
Let's hope his fingers weren't crossed.
~According to Baseball-Reference, Big Shea now has a
park factor of 99. Baseball-Reference uses a three year park factor, whereas Baseball Prospectus uses a five year sample. BPro rates Shea as a
95. Still a pitchers' park, but not as severe as a few seasons ago.
~I've added a few links to the sidebar: Ben Jacob's
Universal Baseball Blog, Inc, which has an excellent post explaining why the A.J. Pierzynski trade is bad news for Rochester.
Seth Speaks, where Seth Stohs recently expanded his excellent "Bang For the Buck" report. Also, Christian Ruzich, of The Cub Reporter fame, has started a new blog,
The Transaction Guy. While your exploring the new links, be sure to stop by at Rich Lederer's Weekend Baseball BEAT, where he continues his off season
interview series with Bronx Banter's Alex Belth, who knows a thing or two about Q&Aing.
~In this weeks
New Yorker, the cartoon issue, I immediately thought of MLB owners when I saw the cartoon on page 94. I can't be the only one.
Cornelius
8. Cliff Floyd
Floyd will make $6.5 million for the next three seasons ('04-'06). He has a limited no-trade clause which allows him to select ten teams after each season that he can't be traded to. The AtRs listed below have been adjusted for intentional walks.
2001 MLB age 28: 317/393/578 with 59/101 bb/so and 79xbh (31 hr) in 555ab. .355 MLVr. 87.93 AtR
2002 MLB age 29: 288/389/533 with 76/106 bb/so and 71xbh (28 hr) in 520ab. .285 MLVr. 93.35
2003 MLB age 30: 290/376/518 with 51/66 bb/so and 45xbh (18 hr) in 365ab. .273 MLVr. 105.07
If he's in the lineup, he'll rake. Of the three seasons remaining on Floyd's contract, we can reasonably expect him to have one season with at least 600 plate appearances, as well as one where he doesn't reach 400. Its what happens in the third year that will determine if Floyd is over or under 1500 plate appearances from '04-'06.
You gotta read the label
7. Roger Cedeno
JLo Cedeno still has $5 million coming his way in both 2004 and 2005. What should be expected?
2001 MLB age 26: 293/340/396 with 36/83 bb/so and 31xbh (6 hr) in 523ab. -.001 MLVr. 92.06 AtR
2002 MLB age 27: 260/319/346 with 42/92 bb/so and 28xbh (7 hr) in 511ab. -.079 MLVr. 93.16
2003 MLB age 28: 267/320/378 with 38/86 bb/so and 36xbh (7 hr) in 484ab. -.036 MLVr. 95.12
Can't hit. Can't run. Can't field. Your grandma could do a better job tracking fly balls. Best case scenario for the duration of the contract is replacement level production at the plate while being a liability in right and a headcase in general. For obvious reasons, I try not to get too involved with the trade rumors that swirl around this time of year, but I must admit I've been keeping a close eye on the Cedeno for Billy Koch story.
Why would the White Sox want Cedeno? They already have 1B, DH, LF, and RF covered, and if ChiSox fans thought Carl Everett was a stretch in center, they're in for a big surprise. Do they need the payroll flexibility that bad? Koch is due $6.375 million in 2004, and the reports I hear say the two teams would split the difference between what's owed on the two contracts, $3.625. If I understand correctly, Williams is willing to take on Cedeno's $5 million in 2005 for an extra $3 million or so to work with in 2004. Sounds like a GM under the gun. The manager gets fired after a disappointing season, and the GM goes short-term high-risk for the following season. Sounds familiar. Duquette is working from a position of strength here, and can attach that $3 million to a string and see how far he can make Williams follow. As if just getting rid of Cedeno in this deal wasn't enough, the Mets would save about $1.8 million over the next two years, and get a guy with some interesting ideas about facial hair:
2001 MLB age 26: 69.1 ip, 7.14 k/9, 1.67 k/bb, 0.91 hr/9, -2.0 ARP
2002 MLB age 27: 93.2 ip, 8.94 k/9, 2.02 k/bb, 0.67 hr/9, 12.4
2003 MLB age 28: 53.0 ip, 7.13 k/9, 1.50 k/bb, 1.70 hr/9, -8.6
Billy Koch has a lot in common with Armando Benitez. They're both big and mean looking on the mound and can bring it with their fastballs. They're both susceptible to the long ball and both have successfully converted baseball's favorite counting stat into multi-million dollar contracts. Heck, the only difference between the two is that Koch doesn't have long dominating stretches between blown saves. His standout 2002 season was in a pitchers' park with Art Howe as manager and Rick Peterson as pitching coach, if that means anything. He was also pitching for a paycheck, which he will be doing again in 2004. The k/9 rate is still good, but your guess is as good as mine in regards to figuring out which Billy Koch will show up in 2004. How bout throwing him into the rotation?
Its not as crazy as it sounds. Koch was the fourth overall pick in the 1996 amateur draft, after a dominating junior year at Clemson University. His teammate on the Tigers, Kris Benson, was the first pick in the same draft. Koch needed Tommy John surgery before seeing regular action as a pro:
1998 A+ age 23: 124.2 ip, 7.80 k/9, 2.63 k/bb, 0.58 hr/9
1999 AAA age 24: 25.0 ip, 7.92 k/9, 2.20 k/bb, 1.08 hr/9
The Blue Jays had an accomplished college starter who did well as a starter in the Florida State League, and was off to a solid start in the Syracuse rotation in '99. At this point they decided they needed a closer on the big club. Its bad enough he skipped Double-A and only had about 30 innings above A ball, but to take such a risk so he can accumulate saves?!! No wonder his slider and change leave so much to be desired. One more thing:
1999 1.94 gb/fb ratio
2000 1.63
2001 1.36
2002 1.29
2003 1.07
Could Koch have been a groundball pitcher as a starter? Was he a flyball pitcher who just needed a larger sample? Paging Rick Peterson.
Closers are overrated, and the Mets won't have much to be closing in 2004. Considering the success they've had with Tyler Yates this year, I hope the Mets at least consider this aspect of Billy Koch's background if they're lucky enough to unload JLo on the ChiSox. By making Koch a starter, Heilman can get some more innings at Norfolk, or Duquette could entertain offers for Steve Trachsel. If the starting gig turns out more Danny Graves than Derek Lowe, Koch can go do whatever it is he does in the bullpen. Worst case scenario, Koch will keep the Mets from signing someone on the open market who will cost them their second round draft pick next year. Anytime your GM is dealing with Kenny Williams, your bound to get the better end of the deal, so I hope Duquette can see this thing through to the end.
On a separate matter, I gotta admit I feel for all the Yankee fans out there. Hearing Nick Johnson in all these trade rumors must be hard to take. I hear Maalox helps.
Thank you for the time and courtesy
News and notes:
~I'm Radium! So says Score Bard's periodic table of bloggers.
~Jay Jaffe, at his wonderful blog, The Futility Infielder, reviewed the 2003 Yankees lineup using attrition rates in his Nov. 9th entry. The guys over at Barry Zito Forever did likewise with their beloved A's. Be sure to click on "comments," where someone went to the trouble of posting 2003 team AtRs. The Milwaukee AtRs were recently posted at Al's Ramblings, while Jeremy Heit figured out Paul Konerko's AtR splits. Great work by everyone.
~Attrition Rate is (was) a Baseball Primer Clutch Hit over the weekend, where tangotiger pointed out some work on the topic done a few months ago. All of it is very good reading. And while I'm on statistics, Eric McErlain, of Off Wing Opinion, recently posted an open letter to the Mets brass concerning the statistical analyst the Mets are searching for. Eric is campaigning for David Pinto of Baseball Musings, who, along with Tango, and some of the guys at Baseball Prospectus, is as good a choice as any. Here's an excerpt from an email I wrote to Eric:
I'm impressed with Duquette so far this offseaon, in regards to assembling the front office, and I'm more concerned with his attitude towards statistical analysis as opposed to the specific person he hires. I mean, what's the point of having a stat guy if you don't really believe, or even understand, what he brings to the table. The Peterson situation is a great sign though, not only did he get the best guy in the business, but he's already taken the necessary steps to implement his progressive techniques, as opposed to hiring him and letting him sit in the dugout. I hope he does likewise in regards to statistics.
And that's what I have to say about that.
~I've been absolutely blown away by the feedback I've received. I want to thank everyone for their enthusiasm, support, and encouragement. Until I make a breakthrough with p/PA or AtR, the raindrops will return to being a Mets blog, though I will slip in an attrition rate note or two every here and there. And since it was the topic (and confusion) of many emails I received, I want to quickly go over IBB in AtR. Using Vlad's 2003 stats:
Simple AtR
1556 / [(394-130) + 5 + 4 + 0 + 18] = 5.35 APPA x 18 = 96.25 AtR
Adjusting for IBB
22 of Vlad's 63 walks in 2003 were of the intentional variety. First, I took out 88 pitches, though the number could be less, considering the times a pitcher might have gone 1-0 or 2-0 before giving him a free pass, as well as taking away 22 plate appearances, and then recalculated p/PA: 3.298. I then roughly estimated what would have happened if he had taken those 22 plate appearances: 2 unintentional walks and 14 outs. After adding it back into his record, along with the 71 pitches I estimate he would have seen, you get: 467 PA, 1539 #PIT, 305 outs, 5.05 APPA, and 90.83 AtR. Andruw Jones's company aint lookin that bad anymore. I decided to not adjust for IBB in AtR to keep things simple. Until something useful comes out of AtR, I don't think its worth the trouble to make this adjustment. Here are a couple anyway:
Rey Ordonez
2001 79.78 AtR 76.54 adjusted
2002 76.30 AtR 74.09
Barry Bonds
2000 119.97 AtR 115.46 adjusted
2001 139.20 AtR 131.69
2002 148.67 AtR 129.91
2003 147.65 AtR 131.24
~Jim Duquette might or might not have nodded at Gregg Clifton at some point this week. Obviously,
this follows.
~Lastly, and sadly, we lost one of the giants of Mets fandom this past weekend, when "Doris from Rego Park" lost her battle with cancer. Anyone who follows the Mets on WFAN is familiar with Doris, a knowledgeable and long time Mets fan. Many a night driving home from Shea, I've heard her astute commentary on the Amazins listening to the post game. First, we lose Bob Murphy and his Happy Recaps, now we lose Doris and her incessant coughs and unremitting love of the Mets. Summer sure will sound different in '04.
2000 AtRs
n=240
Min: 77.55
25th: 92.86
Med: 100.79
75th: 108.40
Max: 138.55
138.55 J. Giambi, Oak
136.60 M. Ramirez, Cle
135.60 C. Delgado, Tor
128.42 J. Edmonds, StL
126.62 A. Rodriguez, Sea
124.38 T. Helton, Col
123.17 R. Becker, Det/Oak
122.96 J. Thome, Cle
122.29 B. Abreu, Phi
122.10 E. Alfonzo, NYM
121.71 F. Thomas, CWS
121.51 E. Martinez, Sea
120.75 L. Castillo, Fla
119.97 B. Bonds, SF
119.29 T. Glaus, Ana
119.28 J. Canseco, NYY/TB
119.05 S. Sosa, ChC
118.83 J. Vander Wal, Pit
118.30 R. Lankford, StL
118.22 T. Salmon, Ana
117.67 B. Giles, Pit
117.09 P. Burrell, Phi
116.79 J. Posada, NYY
116.31 F. Tatis, StL
115.83 G. Sheffield, LA
115.30 J. Bagwell, Hou
115.16 W. Clark, Bal/StL
115.03 R. Furcal, Atl
114.64 J. Frye, Bos/Col
113.96 D. Ortiz, Min
113.85 R. Henderson, Sea/NYM
113.77 J. Kendall, Pit
113.18 B. Higginson, Det
112.87 D. Hocking, Min
112.85 D. Jeter, NYY
112.71 T. Zeile, NYM
112.67 B. Anderson, Bal
112.54 M. Cameron, Sea
112.22 E. Burks, SF
111.64 M. Meluskey, Hou
111.51 J. Bell, Ari
111.46 J. Dye, KC
111.42 J. Kent, SF
111.16 T. Fryman, Cle
111.05 Q. Veras, Atl
110.85 R. Greer, Tex
110.77 J. Drew, StL
110.77 C. Johnson, Bal/CWS
110.76 K. Griffey Jr., Cin
110.74 D. Lee, Fla
110.46 B. Agbayani, NYM
110.32 G. Vaughn, TB
110.24 S. Rolen, Phi
109.72 R. Alomar, Cle
109.58 J. Snow, SF
109.45 D. Erstad, Ana
109.43 D. Justice, Cle/NYY
109.41 J. Burnitz, Mil
109.36 R. Hidalgo, Hou
108.49 R. White, ChC/Mon
108.38 M. Stairs, Oak
108.08 J. Olerud, Sea
107.72 G. Blum, Mon
107.69 M. Lawton, Min
107.55 C. Everett, Bos
107.28 R. Palmeiro, Tex
107.02 T. Nixon, Bos
106.98 R. Sexson, Cle/Mil
106.67 G. Colbrunn, Ari
106.31 J. Buhner, Sea
106.29 L. Berkman, Hou
106.18 M. Vaughn, Ana
106.17 M. Sweeney, KC
106.06 R. Velarde, Oak
105.90 C. Koskie, Min
105.79 K. Lofton, Cle
105.78 C. Biggio, Hou
105.77 M. Benard, SF
105.72 S. Green, LA
105.72 A. Beltre, LA
105.62 C. Hayes, Mil
105.48 B. Estalella, SF
105.39 C. Knoblauch, NYY
104.96 B. Ausmus, Det
104.85 S. Cox, TB
104.73 P. Nevin, SD
104.57 D. Segui, Cle/Tex
104.56 J. Cirillo, Col
104.50 F. McGriff, TB
104.49 O. Vizquel, Cle
104.45 L. Gonzalez, Ari
104.34 C. Floyd, Fla
104.33 R. Durham, CWS
104.25 M. McLemore, Sea
104.23 J. Offerman, Bos
104.15 D. Palmer, Det
104.11 D. Jackson, SD
103.78 D. Relaford, Phi/SD
103.59 M. Grace, ChC
103.28 D. Martinez, Tex/Tor/ChC/TB
103.03 B. Williams, NYY
102.97 T. Goodwin, LA/Col
102.96 R. Gutierrez, ChC
102.80 B. Huskey, Min/Col
102.75 R. Belliard, Mil
102.71 P. Konerko, CWS
102.68 M. Loretta, Mil
102.50 M. Lowell, Fla
102.25 L. Alicea, Tex
102.19 E. Chavez, Oak
102.00 C. Curtis, Tex
101.91 M. Mora, Bal/NYM
101.89 T. Lee, Phi/Ari
101.57 C. Stynes, Cin
101.31 D. DeShields, Bal
101.04 D. Bell, NYM
100.93 B. Boone, SD
100.89 J. Valentin, CWS
100.88 H. Rodriguez, ChC/Fla
100.83 S. Javier, Sea
100.77 J. Vidro, Mon
100.70 D. Buford, ChC
100.62 B. Daubach, Bos
100.58 A. Jones, Atl
100.43 M. Tejada, Oak
100.36 S. Casey, Cin
99.96 C. Jones, Atl
99.93 J. Hernandez, Mil
99.89 R. Klesko, SD
99.87 P. Wilson, Fla
99.47 B. Grieve, Oak
99.32 S. Stewart, Tor
99.32 J. Damon, KC
99.16 P. Reese, Cin
99.14 B. Spiers, Hou
99.08 J. Lugo, Hou
98.95 J. Hammonds, Col
98.84 M. Ordonez, CWS
98.77 M. Piazza, NYM
98.70 S. Finley, Ari
98.69 B. Larkin, Cin
98.21 G. Kapler, Tex
98.20 G. Jenkins, Mil
98.03 T. Long, Oak
98.01 R. Gant, Ana/Phi
98.01 C. Lee, CWS
97.84 D. Bell, Sea
97.63 R. Ledee, Cle/NYY/Tex
97.55 E. Young, ChC
97.53 R. Rivera, SD
97.32 D. Easley, Det
97.18 M. Alou, Hou
97.15 M. Grudzielanek, LA
97.07 M. Bordick, Bal/NYM
96.87 M. Lieberthal, Phi
96.84 L. Walker, Col
96.77 C. Febles, KC
96.51 D. Bichette, Bos/Cin
96.49 T. Martinez, NYY
96.42 J. Varitek, Bos
96.23 E. Karros, LA
96.17 K. Young, Pit
96.07 D. Miller, Ari
96.00 B. Mayne, Col
95.89 L. Stevens, Mon
95.80 A. Galarraga, Atl
95.72 R. Ventura, NYM
95.64 T. Hollandsworth, LA/Col
94.94 K. Stocker, Ana/TB
94.70 T. Batista, Tor
94.33 N. Garciaparra, Bos
94.25 R. Hernandez, Oak
94.25 W. Cordero, Cle/Pit
94.00 B. Mueller, SF
93.90 R. Aurilia, SF
93.74 P. Bergeron, Mon
93.19 M. Morandini, Tor/Phi
93.17 P. O'Neill, NYY
93.04 T. O'Leary, Bos
92.89 B. Surhoff, Bal/Atl
92.78 J. Encarnacion, Det
92.69 E. Renteria, StL
92.56 A. Gonzalez, Tor
92.51 A. Belle, Bal
92.46 J. Canizaro, Min
92.42 M. Quinn, KC
92.41 A. Cora, LA
92.22 R. Mondesi, Tor
91.96 J. Cruz, Tor
91.94 J. Gonzalez, Det
91.72 J. Conine, Bal
91.46 D. Fletcher, Tor
91.44 T. Womack, Ari
91.36 F. Vina, StL
91.17 H. Perry, CWS/TB
91.17 R. Sanders, Atl
90.86 W. Morris, Pit
90.39 J. Lopez, Atl
90.11 G. Williams, TB
90.05 A. Martin, Sea/SD
89.69 V. Guerrero, Mon
89.60 B. Fullmer, Tor
89.51 E. Owens, SD
89.47 M. Lamb, Tex
89.05 J. Girardi, ChC
88.86 J. Randa, KC
88.64 M. Lansing, Bos/Col
88.21 R. Clayton, Tex
88.15 M. Matheny, StL
88.07 M. Grissom, Mil
87.85 C. Singleton, CWS
87.82 B. Jordan, Atl
87.62 P. Meares, Pit
87.40 C. Paquette, StL
87.30 D. Bautista, Fla/Ari
87.19 S. Brosius, NYY
86.90 D. Glanville, Phi
86.79 L. Polonia, Det/NYY
86.68 J. Jones, Min
85.94 C. Guzman, Min
85.93 D. Young, Cin
85.83 M. Cairo, TB
85.40 A. Kennedy, Ana
85.28 M. Kotsay, Fla
85.26 N. Perez, Col
85.24 J. Payton, NYM
85.05 C. Beltran, KC
84.63 K. Jordan, Phi
83.28 T. Hunter, Min
83.25 S. Alomar Jr., Cle
83.21 I. Rodriguez, Tex
83.17 R. Coomer, Min
82.11 M. Williams, Ari
81.97 J. Flaherty, TB
81.16 O. Cabrera, Mon
80.87 G. Anderson, Ana
80.47 R. Sanchez, KC
78.65 B. Molina, Ana
77.96 A. Gonzalez, Fla
77.55 D. Cruz, Det
2001 AtRs
n=240
Min: 73.09
25th: 89.85
Med: 97.14
75th: 104.43
Max: 139.20
139.20 B. Bonds, SF
129.28 J. Giambi, Oak. Jason
124.88 J. Thome, Cle
124.44 E. Martinez, Sea
122.49 T. Helton, Col
121.96 J. Giambi, Oak. Jeremy
120.53 S. Sosa, ChC
120.00 J. Edmonds, StL
118.35 C. Delgado, Tor
118.22 R. Henderson, SD
117.15 L. Berkman, Hou
115.31 T. Nixon, Bos
114.82 B. Abreu, Phi
114.36 P. Nevin, SD
114.33 J. Bagwell, Hou
114.22 A. Pujols, StL
113.84 L. Walker, Col
113.60 J. Bell, Ari
113.29 R. Alomar, Cle
113.08 M. Ramirez, Bos
113.04 T. Zeile, NYM
112.73 A. Rodriguez, Tex
112.39 L. Gonzalez, Ari
112.29 B. Grieve, TB
111.78 M. McLemore, Sea
111.71 T. Salmon, Ana
111.21 R. Lankford, StL/SD
110.03 S. Rolen, Phi
109.97 T. Glaus, Ana
109.88 T. Clark, Det
109.23 J. Vander Wal, Pit/SF
109.22 D. Mientkiewicz, Min
109.04 F. Menechino, Oak
108.97 M. Cameron, Sea
108.00 B. Williams, NYY
107.72 F. Catalanotto, Tex
107.40 P. Burrell, Phi
107.38 J. Burnitz, Mil
107.38 K. Millar, Fla
107.24 R. Velarde, NYY/Tex
107.23 J. Valentin, CWS
107.21 E. Burks, Cle
107.14 R. Branyan, Cle
107.13 J. Drew, StL
107.07 L. Castillo, Fla
107.04 M. Lawton, Min/NYM
106.92 R. Palmeiro, Tex
106.81 B. Daubach, Bos
106.71 M. Stairs, ChC
106.67 B. Higginson, Det
106.52 G. Sheffield, LA
106.40 E. Alfonzo, NYM
106.30 J. Posada, NYY
105.91 C. Counsell, Ari
105.83 R. Durham, CWS
105.59 D. Jackson, SD
105.33 J. Dye, KC/Oak
105.06 T. Walker, Cin/Col
104.52 M. Grace, Ari
104.52 J. Olerud, Sea
104.40 D. DeShields, Bal/ChC
104.02 F. McGriff, ChC/TB
103.95 B. Giles, Pit
103.81 D. Justice, NYY
103.28 R. Fick, Det
103.28 R. Ventura, NYM
103.19 K. Griffey Jr., Cin
103.03 M. Kotsay, SD
102.66 M. McGwire, StL
102.48 R. Winn, TB
102.47 D. White, Mil
102.35 G. Kapler, Tex
102.30 C. Knoblauch, NYY
102.30 T. Fryman, Cle
102.27 D. Eckstein, Ana
102.22 D. Jeter, NYY
102.00 M. Piazza, NYM
102.00 D. Hocking, Min
101.99 R. Klesko, SD
101.79 J. Offerman, Bos
101.73 B. Boone, Sea
101.60 C. Koskie, Min
101.58 B. Anderson, Bal
101.39 R. Sexson, Mil
101.39 C. Jones, Atl
101.35 M. Ordonez, CWS
100.99 D. Lee, Fla
100.87 C. Beltran, KC
100.78 L. Stevens, Mon
100.74 E. Chavez, Oak
100.19 R. Mondesi, Tor
100.14 J. Kent, SF
99.98 J. Gonzalez, Cle
99.97 C. Guillen, Sea
99.96 M. Sweeney, KC
99.96 M. Loretta, Mil
99.80 A. Ramirez, Pit
99.65 G. Matthews Jr., ChC/Pit
99.63 S. Stewart, Tor
99.55 A. Rios, Pit/SF
99.55 D. Erstad, Ana
99.44 J. Damon, Oak
99.35 C. Biggio, Hou
99.33 K. Young, Pit
99.13 M. Mora, Bal
99.12 S. Green, LA
98.64 G. Blum, Mon
98.45 G. Vaughn, TB
98.18 R. Sanders, Ari
98.11 C. Murray, SF
97.74 A. Jones, Atl
97.73 J. Conine, Bal
97.59 J. Hernandez, Mil
97.57 B. Davis, SD
97.57 C. Everett, Bos
97.39 J. Cruz, Tor
97.38 R. White, ChC
97.27 J. Vidro, Mon
97.21 P. Lo Duca, LA
97.14 T. Lee, Phi
97.14 M. Tucker, ChC/Cin
97.08 S. Finley, Ari
96.90 S. Halter, Det
96.75 P. Konerko, CWS
96.44 P. Reese, Cin
96.37 J. Lugo, Hou
96.33 A. Boone, Cin
96.20 A. Beltre, LA
96.19 M. Lowell, Fla
96.11 A. Galarraga, Tex/SF
95.96 T. Batista, Bal/Tor
95.84 R. Aurilia, SF
95.81 T. Martinez, NYY
95.73 K. Caminiti, Tex/Atl
95.65 D. Miller, Ari
95.53 C. Johnson, Fla
95.44 R. Belliard, Mil
95.22 A. Kennedy, Ana
95.15 S. Cox, TB
95.15 R. Hidalgo, Hou
95.00 O. Vizquel, Cle
94.89 I. Suzuki, Sea
94.84 S. Brosius, NYY
94.71 R. Furcal, Atl
94.70 J. Kendall, Pit
94.65 G. Jenkins, Mil
94.64 T. Long, Oak
94.61 A. Soriano, NYY
94.50 M. Cordova, Cle
94.34 J. Hairston Jr., Bal
93.65 J. Cirillo, Col
93.46 E. Karros, LA
93.44 J. Rollins, Phi
93.33 R. Hernandez, Oak
93.05 T. Womack, Ari
92.77 L. Rivas, Min
92.76 B. Trammell, SD
92.48 J. Randa, KC
92.41 S. Casey, Cin
92.15 A. Gonzalez, Tor
92.06 R. Cedeno, Det
91.94 K. Lofton, Cle
91.91 M. Tejada, Oak
91.78 B. Mayne, KC/Col
91.71 D. Easley, Det
91.55 C. Floyd, Fla
91.51 M. Alou, Hou
91.27 L. Alicea, KC
91.20 M. Benard, SF
91.19 R. Martinez, SF
91.16 D. Wilson, Sea
90.89 R. Sierra, Tex
90.75 C. Lee, CWS
90.69 D. Bell, Sea
90.29 T. Shinjo, NYM
90.14 H. Blanco, Mil
90.06 M. Young, Tex
90.05 J. Jones, Min
89.90 R. Clayton, CWS
89.87 M. Grudzielanek, LA
89.80 B. Surhoff, Atl
89.77 C. Richard, Bal
89.73 M. Anderson, Phi
89.53 C. Singleton, CWS
89.33 J. LaRue, Cin
89.17 S. Spiezio, Ana
89.15 P. O'Neill, NYY
89.09 T. Hunter, Min
88.94 I. Rodriguez, Tex
88.92 C. Guzman, Min
88.63 A. Ochoa, Cin/Col
88.52 P. Bergeron, Mon
88.41 O. Cabrera, Mon
88.37 R. Coomer, ChC
88.28 E. Young, ChC
87.93 J. Encarnacion, Det
87.81 R. Gutierrez, ChC
87.77 E. Owens, Fla
87.74 E. Renteria, StL
87.69 J. Macias, Det
87.26 T. O'Leary, Bos
87.23 B. Jordan, Atl
86.93 D. Glanville, Phi
86.81 J. Lopez, Atl
86.77 M. Grissom, LA
86.77 D. Bichette, Bos
86.50 J. Pierre, Col
86.30 P. Wilson, Fla
86.09 B. Fullmer, Tor
85.96 M. Lansing, Bos
85.96 F. Vina, StL
85.85 M. Matheny, StL
85.69 A. Huff, TB
85.59 M. Williams, Ari
85.32 N. Perez, KC/Col
85.22 G. Anderson, Ana
85.00 A. Gonzalez, Fla
84.65 C. Stynes, Bos
84.59 C. Paquette, StL
84.45 D. Brown, KC
84.17 B. Ausmus, Hou
83.96 A. Cora, LA
83.83 A. Pierzynski, Min
83.83 C. Ripken Jr., Bal
83.83 V. Guerrero, Mon
83.80 J. Wilson, Pit
82.66 M. Quinn, KC
82.50 D. Young, Cin
82.16 J. Tyner, TB
81.93 D. Fletcher, Tor
81.88 E. Diaz, Cle
81.73 P. Polanco, StL
80.71 M. Barrett, Mon
79.78 R. Ordonez, NYM
79.05 B. Santiago, SF
78.44 S. Hillenbrand, Bos
77.82 D. Cruz, Det
77.37 J. Payton, NYM
76.75 V. Castilla, Hou/TB
73.09 R. Sanchez, KC/Atl
2002 AtRs
n=240
Min: 69.28
25th: 90.68
Med: 98.27
75th: 105.44
Max: 148.67
148.67 B. Bonds, SF
135.49 J. Giambi, Oak/Phi. 143.11 with Philly. My kind of leadoff hitter.
129.27 J. Thome, Cle
127.28 J. Giambi, NYY
123.80 B. Abreu, Phi
123.11 A. Dunn, Cin
122.92 M. Ramirez, Bos
122.83 T. Helton, Col
119.18 J. Edmonds, StL
118.87 E. Martinez, Sea
118.12 B. Giles, Pit
117.21 B. Wilkerson, Mon
117.20 F. Thomas, CWS
117.17 S. Sosa, ChC
116.87 M. Bellhorn, ChC
116.51 S. Hatteberg, Oak. Posterchild
115.83 R. Palmeiro, Tex
115.61 A. Kearns, Cin
115.58 D. Lee, Fla
115.50 D. Justice, Oak
114.76 C. Delgado, Tor
114.11 J. Bagwell, Hou
113.77 P. Burrell, Phi
113.76 L. Gonzalez, Ari
113.03 E. Alfonzo, NYM
112.69 L. Berkman, Hou
111.71 T. Zeile, Col
111.57 J. Olerud, Sea
110.89 J. Spivey, Ari
110.48 R. Ventura, NYY
110.27 A. Rodriguez, Tex
110.24 C. Lee, CWS
110.22 M. McLemore, Sea. The Veteran.
110.22 M. Ellis, Oak
110.22 R. Durham, CWS/Oak
110.06 D. Ortiz, Min
108.74 G. Sheffield, Atl
108.26 B. Daubach, Bos
108.00 G. Blum, Hou
107.84 M. Sweeney, KC
107.76 N. Johnson, NYY
107.58 C. Koskie, Min
107.47 R. Branyan, Cle/Cin
107.41 E. Hinske, Tor
107.39 K. Millar, Fla
107.28 J. Posada, NYY
107.08 B. Williams, NYY
106.95 T. Salmon, Ana
106.92 J. Dye, Oak
106.68 C. Jones, Atl
106.56 T. Glaus, Ana
106.42 J. Hernandez, Mil
106.40 M. Cameron, Sea
106.20 J. Vidro, Mon
106.03 Q. McCracken, Ari
106.02 J. Damon, Bos
106.01 D. Mientkiewicz, Min
105.76 D. Jimenez, CWS/SD
105.73 P. Reese, Pit
105.55 S. Rolen, Phi/StL
105.40 T. Nixon, Bos
105.18 R. Ibanez, KC
105.05 J. Burnitz, NYM
104.96 M. Lamb, Tex
104.94 J. Snow, SF
104.92 A. Pujols, StL
104.86 C. Wilson, Pit
104.83 J. Franco, Atl
104.71 R. Winn, TB
104.71 L. Castillo, Fla
104.41 C. Beltran, KC
104.01 R. Klesko, SD
103.94 A. Jones, Atl
103.86 C. Counsell, Ari
103.67 K. Mench, Tex
103.66 R. Alomar, NYM
103.46 O. Vizquel, Cle
103.44 R. Vazquez, SD
103.31 J. Drew, StL
103.27 M. Mora, Bal
103.26 E. Burks, Cle
103.14 S. Finley, Ari
103.01 D. Jeter, NYY
103.01 K. Lofton, CWS/SF
103.00 B. Mueller, ChC/SF
102.98 C. Pena, Det/Oak
102.96 R. Sexson, Mil
102.95 J. Lugo, Hou
102.92 M. Vaughn, NYM
102.91 K. Young, Pit
102.60 E. Chavez, Oak
102.39 C. Everett, Tex
102.28 M. Tejada, Oak
101.81 C. Floyd, Bos/Mon/Fla
101.75 B. Grieve, TB
101.62 L. Walker, Col
100.99 A. Kennedy, Ana
100.95 R. Fick, Det
100.81 J. Sandberg, TB
100.60 M. Lowell, Fla
100.44 T. Batista, Bal
100.38 P. Nevin, SD
100.09 T. Fryman, Cle
100.05 R. Mackowiak, Pit
100.05 M. Ordonez, CWS
99.75 J. Randa, KC
99.63 C. Guillen, Sea
99.63 F. McGriff, ChC
99.19 D. Eckstein, Ana
99.14 D. Roberts, LA
99.05 D. Ward, Hou
99.03 C. Febles, KC
98.98 D. Bell, SF
98.63 M. Young, Tex
98.63 D. Berg, Tor
98.62 M. Piazza, NYM
98.57 M. Tucker, KC
98.47 P. Konerko, CWS
98.34 M. Lawton, Cle
98.28 T. Womack, Ari
98.26 G. Matthews Jr., Bal/NYM
98.09 M. Barrett, Mon
98.02 M. Bordick, Bal
97.84 J. Hairston Jr., Bal
97.84 M. Kotsay, SD
97.80 R. Hidalgo, Hou
97.47 J. Hammonds, Mil
97.38 J. Kendall, Pit
97.23 T. Walker, Cin
97.18 J. Valentin, CWS
97.09 P. Wilson, Fla
97.04 S. Stewart, Tor
96.89 I. Suzuki, Sea
96.61 B. Boone, Sea
96.27 A. Fox, Fla
96.22 B. Jordan, LA
96.20 J. Cruz, Tor
95.93 R. Furcal, Atl
95.91 B. Trammell, SD
95.78 R. Sanders, SF
95.02 S. Green, LA
95.00 F. Tatis, Mon
94.84 D. Mohr, Min
94.83 E. Marrero, StL
94.83 A. Huff, TB
94.81 J. Varitek, Bos
94.76 S. Cox, TB
94.61 B. Higginson, Det
94.60 T. Lee, Phi
94.56 S. Spiezio, Ana
94.53 J. Wilson, Pit
94.52 M. Cordova, Bal
94.38 J. Rollins, Phi
93.86 J. Jones, Min
93.84 S. Halter, Det
93.78 D. Wilson, Sea
93.66 J. Kent, SF
93.19 E. Karros, LA
93.16 R. Cedeno, NYM
93.01 L. Stevens, Cle/Mon
93.00 E. Renteria, StL
92.99 M. Grissom, LA
92.93 R. Hernandez, Oak
92.61 A. Boone, Cin
92.52 R. Mondesi, NYY/Tor
92.44 A. Soriano, NYY
92.40 T. Hollandsworth, Tex/Col
92.37 D. Relaford, Sea
92.25 A. Beltre, LA
92.23 T. Martinez, StL
91.82 P. Lo Duca, LA
91.77 A. Gonzalez, ChC
91.69 M. Lieberthal, Phi
91.66 M. Bradley, Cle
91.25 I. Rodriguez, Tex
91.02 C. Biggio, Hou
90.98 J. Conine, Bal
90.97 T. Hunter, Min
90.80 B. Mayne, KC
90.75 V. Guerrero, Mon
90.46 S. Hillenbrand, Bos
90.30 J. Vizcaino, Hou
90.15 T. Long, Oak
90.06 B. Fullmer, Ana
89.81 J. LaRue, Cin
89.59 H. Perry, Tex
88.99 J. Encarnacion, Cin/Fla
88.83 J. Gibbons, Bal
88.81 T. Shinjo, SF
88.68 O. Cabrera, Mon
88.52 R. Aurilia, SF
87.99 T. Perez, NYM
87.88 R. White, NYY
87.87 S. Casey, Cin
87.70 J. Uribe, Col
87.59 C. Gomez, TB
87.58 R. Gutierrez, Cle
87.49 E. Young, Mil
87.39 C. Singleton, Bal
87.09 W. Magee, Det
87.06 A. Ramirez, Pit
86.93 D. Erstad, Ana
86.71 J. Payton, NYM/Col
86.67 D. Glanville, Phi
86.24 M. Alou, ChC
86.19 J. Cirillo, Sea
85.90 R. Sierra, Sea
85.88 M. Matheny, StL
85.87 M. Anderson, Phi
85.53 E. Owens, Fla
85.33 B. Ausmus, Hou
85.00 A. Sanchez, Mil
84.92 J. Macias, Det/Mon
84.81 B. Larkin, Cin
84.79 V. Wells, Tor
84.57 R. Clayton, CWS
83.39 J. Lopez, Atl
83.35 J. Pierre, Col
83.34 B. Abernathy, TB
82.73 G. Gil, Bal
82.41 F. Vina, StL
82.32 C. Patterson, ChC
81.58 N. Garciaparra, Bos
80.70 M. Grudzielanek, LA
79.92 G. Anderson, Ana
79.66 B. Santiago, SF
79.35 P. Polanco, Phi/StL
79.02 C. Truby, Det/Mon
78.25 T. Hall, TB
77.67 R. Sanchez, Bos
77.03 A. Pierzynski, Min
76.39 C. Guzman, Min
76.30 R. Ordonez, NYM
75.12 D. Cruz, SD
73.27 N. Perez, KC
72.73 V. Castilla, Atl
72.26 B. Molina, Ana
71.02 B. Butler, Col
70.35 C. Izturis, LA
69.28 R. Simon, Det
Game of Attrition
What's better than a good at-bat? Sure a groundball double play at the right time feels priceless, and few things are as exciting as a double that rolls to the wall with a runner on first in a close game. Heck, some people get all worked up after seeing a player hit behind the runner. But me, I take a nice long at-bat every time. There's something about a leadoff hitter working the count full, and then fouling off a couple of two strike pitches on the black that sits well with me. Even if the end result is a grounder to second, or a lazy fly to center, you get the feeling that something important was accomplished, a small victory of sorts. If somehow the long at-bat is turned into a walk, or a single the opposite way, or anything that's not an out, well, its an instant rally, or at least that's the way it feels to me. So what if the leadoff man ends up stranded at third. If his at-bat took eight or nine pitches, and the subsequent hitters, three of which made outs, faced 15 or so additional pitches, well, at least you've made the pitcher work for that goose egg on the board. The thinking goes if a team is always working the count, they'll wear down the starter and get a chance to feast on either a tired pitcher or the middle relief corps. Sounds like a plan to me. How many times this season did it seem the Red Sox had Clemens closing in on 100 pitches before he was out of the fifth? Who can forget Paul O'Neill working Armando Benitez (like I need to mention time and place)? I have a special place in my heart for players, and teams, who always seem to have these good at-bats.
Alright, so I like long at-bats, big deal, what baseball fan doesn't? Well, I started to associate this love of long at-bats with pitches per plate appearances (p/PA) a few years ago, soon after seeing the light of On Base Percentage and unlearning all that stuff McCarver poisoned my mind with on WWOR. Before looking at the actual stats, it seemed to me that players with the highest p/PA would draw the most walks, thus have the highest OBP, and therefore be the best hitters. How wrong I was. For every Rickey Henderson that makes perfect sense, there is a Rich Becker who makes you rethink the whole idea.
Nevertheless, it still seemed important. I started to become obsessed with trying to find a "missing link" after reading about the importance the Oakland A's place on p/PA in Moneyball. Billy Beane would state, "Baseball is a game of attrition, and what's being attrited are pitchers' arms." So I went to work trying to get to the bottom of p/PA. A player who has a high p/PA must be helping his team score runs, right? Well, not necessarily. There isn't a strong correlation between p/PA and On Base Percentage or Slugging Percentage (especially Slugging Percentage). I kept, and still am, trying to find relationships with p/PA and any aspect of run scoring and/or hitter development, among other things. I've learned a few things, and am still working on others, but I haven't found anything terribly useful.
However, I want to share something I call Attrition Rate (AtR?). I know Nate Silver uses this term in PECOTA, but I'm going to use it anyway. I've been calculating AtR for a while now, and was holding out on introducing it to a wider audience because at the moment its only interesting, as opposed to useful, and I was still hoping to find a better understanding and/or use of p/PA, or some p/PA derivative. I was prompted into action when I saw other people taking an interest in p/PA, as Al Bethke did in a recent post over at Al's Ramblings, where he presented two lineups he came up with using an unnamed stat (p/PA), and noted the 100+ pt difference in OPS:
The teams above were chosen solely on pitches per plate appearance. All of the guys on the "best" team took between 4.2 and 4.4 p/PA. The players on the "worst" team took between 3.1 and 3.5 p/PA. That's less than a pitch per PA difference. However, look at the glaring difference in OBP on these two teams. Players that take more pitches get on base at a much higher rate. They take more walks, and they see more mistakes to hit. I've never seen "proof" that taking pitches helps you score more runs (though it's difficult to argue that it helps tire the opposing team's starting pitcher), but taking a look at these two lineups, my theory that patience equals success appears to be an excellent starting point.
In this example, where Al is looking at the two extremes of p/PA, there is a stronger correlation between p/PA and OBP. But the relationship breaks down as soon as you move away from extreme players located outside the 15th and 85th percentile. As soon as I figure out a way to get my Excel charts onto the site, I'll post a graph that demonstrates this point, along with a few others. For now, trust me when I say you can't say anything much about what OBP or OPS any one player would have by looking at his p/PA (this applies to about 75% of the players in my data set, described below).
David Pinto, at
Baseball Musings, seems to agree:
I've watched this stat for a number of years. It's not a be all or an end all; there are good hitters who don't see that many pitches. There are poor hitters who are selective. But I think in general Al is correct that a lineup of selective hitters will do more damage, if for no other reason than they tire out the starter earlier.
Again, I agree, and I think Attrition Rates do a good job of quantifying just how much a hitter can tire out an opposing pitcher. The goal of AtR is to have an actual number to compare Brad Wilkerson's work the count method to Vladimir Guerrero's swing at everything approach. It makes no claims to identifying a more productive hitter or a higher run scoring philosophy. In two easy steps:
1. Calculate Adjusted Pitches per Plate Appearance (APPA):
APPA = #Pitches / [(AB - H) + CS + SF + SH + GDP]
Essentially, its the total number of pitches a hitter saw divided by outs you can attribute to him. It could be fine tuned with adjustments made for intentional walks and outs made on the basepaths not covered by caught stealing, but I want to keep it simple at this point. My thinking behind APPA is that if there is no strong correlation between p/PA and OBP, why not find a way to reward players who do both. I'm sure these are the guys that drive pitchers nuts. APPA tries to give a guy like Mark Ellis, who really works a pitcher (4.07 p/PA in 2003), without much of a payoff (.313 OBP), equal footing with a someone like Derek Jeter, who doesn't wear down the pitcher as much (3.72 p/PA), but isn't so quick to make an out (.393 OBP). Doing the 2003 calculations for these two yields:
Derek Jeter 5.85 APPA
Mark Ellis 5.77
2. Attrition Rate (AtR)
What's the break even point for a starting pitcher, in terms of innings pitched? My understanding of a Quality Start requires six innings, and I think its a good standard. Sure you want more, but I think most pitchers would sign for 18 outs every time they go out there. And doesn't it seem like the first time a broadcaster mentions pitch count is when a starter is approaching this 18 out threshold? Attrition rate, AtR, is just APPA multiplied by 18.
Derek Jeter 105.29 AtR
Mark Ellis 103.86
A pitcher would need to throw 105 pitches to get through six innings against a lineup of nine 2003 vintage Derek Jeters.
Pretty simple, huh? Again, it doesn't make any claims in regards to run scoring, but it does give you a number to attach to a player when you want to see how much he makes a pitcher work. The guys over at U.S.S. Mariner, when
celebrating Edgar Martinez's return for 2004, could have added his AtR to the following line:
There are few things more entertaining in the game than watching Edgar work a pitcher into submission before lining an unhittable pitch into the alley for a double.
Submission is right. Edgar worked pitchers to the tune of a 125 AtR in 2003. Or Baseball Musing's David Pinto, in a recent post
about Don Mattingly:
Mattingly is an example of a successful impatient hitter. For the years STATS kept the stat, 1988-1995, Mattingly saw only 3.34 pitches per plate appearance, a low number (the leaders are usually above four). Since the most important job of the Yankees hitting coach will be to teach Soriano to take a pitch, I'm not sure Don is the right man at the right time.
Mattingly's AtR from 1988-1995 is 89. Soriano sports a career 93 AtR. If I assume Mattingly saw 3.34 pitches per plate appearances from '82-'87, then his career AtR is 90. Considering Mattingly's (BB+SO)/PA before and after STATS kept p/PA numbers, its safe to say his '82-'87 numbers probably weren't too far from 3.34 p/PA (another graph I will post as soon as I get the details squared away). One thing I don't have for Mattingly is the league AtR to provide context. Thanks to
ESPN's sortable statistics, I have a better idea of how Soriano compares to his peers. I took all players who had more than 350 plate appearances in any one season over the past four years (2000-2003) and threw their stats into a spreadsheet. I ran the numbers on the 960 qualifying players to find:
p/PA
n=960
Min: 2.72
25th: 3.56
Med: 3.75
75th: 3.93
Max: 4.52
n is the number of values in the sample, Min is the minimum value in the sample, Max is the maximum value in the sample, Median is the point at which half of the values are lower and half are larger. The 25th percentile is the point where 25% of the values are smaller and 75% are larger, and the 75th percentile is the point where 75% of the values are smaller, and 25% are larger.
50 percent of all qualifying players fell in the 3.56 to 3.93 p/PA range.
OBP
n=960
Min: .229
25th: .321
Med: .344
75th: .371
Max: .582
50 percent fell between .321 and .371
AtR
n=960
Min: 69.28
25th: 91.37
Med: 98.63
75th: 106.01
Max: 148.67
Half of the players in the group fell between 91.37 AtR and 106.01 AtR. I was pleased to see the median was 98.63. Broadcasters are probably bringing up pitch counts at the 18 out threshold because that's usually when the starter is entering three digit territory. On a side note, if anyone has seen the movie
Pi, you'll recall the main character would pause a moment before pressing return on the keyboard for that day's stock picks. I did something similar just before sorting the data set according to AtR, making a mental note of who I thought the high and low points would be (I only noted the players, not the season). Two for two, as God, I mean Barry Bonds, posted a 148.67 AtR in 2002, while none other than Randell Simon hacked his way to a 69.28 AtR, also in 2002.
I plan on doing player to player comparisons, as well as team by team AtR breakdowns, and also track some players' AtRs through their careers, and a few other things in the next couple days. I'll also do a lengthy article in regards to recent Mets team and player AtRs. I'm also putting together an all-time team of sorts. I only have the p/PA stats on ESPN to work with, so its going to be mostly recent players. And if I get the graphs thing figured out, I'll probably spend some time with that, including some stuff on if AtR's inclusion in a modified Runs Created formula helps or hurts the bottom line. In the mean time, take a look at the following 2003 AtRs:
n=240
Min: 74.61
25th: 92.48
Med: 98.50
75th: 105.71
Max: 147.65
147.65 B. Bonds, SF
126.58 N. Johnson, NYY. I guess this makes him AtR Jesus.
126.17 J. Giambi, NYY.
126.09 T. Helton, Col
124.56 E. Martinez, Sea
124.46 B. Abreu, Phi
122.75 M. Mora, Bal
122.49 F. Thomas, CWS.
122.04 C. Delgado, Tor
121.60 B. Wilkerson, Mon. How long before he's in Oakland?
118.31 A. Dunn, Cin
118.22 J. Thome, Phi
117.54 C. Koskie, Min
116.78 L. Berkman, Hou
116.20 M. Stairs, Pit
116.04 M. Ramirez, Bos
115.86 J. Snow, SF
115.65 J. Edmonds, StL
115.64 M. Bradley, Cle
114.73 S. Rolen, StL
113.97 A. Pujols, StL
113.76 K. Ginter, Mil
113.74 J. Posada, NYY. Gotta love Jorge.
113.45 J. Kendall, Pit
112.67 D. Lee, Fla
112.64 D. Ortiz, Bos
112.61 R. Palmeiro, Tex
112.46 J. Vander Wal, Mil
112.35 L. Walker, Col
111.94 T. Nixon, Bos
111.38 E. Durazo, Oak
111.20 L. Gonzalez, Ari
111.19 O. Palmeiro, StL
110.90 R. Durham, SF
110.32 J. Damon, Bos
110.30 G. Sheffield, Atl
109.72 A. Rodriguez, Tex. Above and beyond his peers again.
109.71 B. Mueller, Bos
109.71 C. Beltran, KC
109.48 S. Podsednik, Mil
109.45 D. Mientkiewicz, Min
109.39 R. Sexson, Mil. From now on, they're the Milkwaukee Yosters.
109.01 R. Belliard, Col
108.55 W. Cordero, Mon
108.53 J. Vidro, Mon
108.38 M. Loretta, SD
108.23 S. Sosa, ChC. Who forgot to tell him Cubs hang out around the 25th percentile?
107.73 T. Salmon, Ana
107.42 C. Jones, Atl
107.16 B. Giles, Pit/SD
106.80 A. Guiel, KC
106.77 B. Boone, Sea
106.73 B. Kielty, Min/Tor. I remember his great at-bat against Benitez.
106.69 R. Furcal, Atl
106.68 J. Cruz, SF.
106.59 J. Olerud, Sea. Steve Phillips replaced his attrition, but not his production.
106.52 R. Hidalgo, Hou
105.99 T. Glaus, Ana
105.97 C. Floyd, NYM
105.86 M. Byrd, Phi
105.67 D. Jimenez, CWS/Cin. Better than Alomar here as well.
105.60 M. Lawton, Cle
105.49 E. Hinske, Tor
105.29 D. Jeter, NYY
105.12 K. Millar, Bos
105.03 M. Sweeney, KC
104.95 R. Ibanez, KC
104.87 S. Hatteberg, Oak.
104.78 C. Guillen, Sea
104.72 R. Alomar, CWS/NYM. Refuses to wear out his own arm in the field.
104.45 S. Finley, Ari
104.39 S. Spencer, Cle/Tex
104.12 M. Cameron, Sea
104.07 C. Everett, CWS/Tex
104.01 R. Ventura, NYY/LA
103.90 M. Bordick, Tor
103.88 J. Randa, KC
103.86 M. Ellis, Oak
103.73 G. Jenkins, Mil
103.25 P. Burrell, Phi
103.24 E. Chavez, Oak
103.13 M. Lowell, Fla
102.84 M. Young, Tex
102.72 B. Williams, NYY
102.69 R. Fick, Atl. C'mon Duke, sign him.
102.67 J. Bagwell, Hou
102.61 J. Lugo, Hou/TB
102.57 J. Spivey, Ari
102.56 C. Stynes, Col
102.43 J. Varitek, Bos
102.36 M. Ensberg, Hou
102.29 L. Matos, Bal
102.00 L. Castillo, Fla
101.93 T. Lee, TB
101.73 B. Roberts, Bal
101.71 E. Byrnes, Oak
101.59 C. Wilson, Pit
101.50 R. Vazquez, SD
101.42 D. Young, Det
101.37 J. Valentin, CWS
101.27 M. Tejada, Oak. Billy Beane say if my AtR fall below 100 he send me to Mexico.
100.90 R. Klesko, SD
100.68 D. Roberts, LA
100.52 M. LeCroy, Min
100.16 G. Myers, Tor
100.06 S. Stewart, Min/Tor
99.84 M. Lieberthal, Phi
99.58 F. Catalanotto, Tor
99.55 R. Johnson, Tor
99.53 C. Woodward, Tor
99.48 J. Lopez, Atl
99.31 M. Teixeira, Tex
99.22 M. Ordonez, CWS
99.22 C. Johnson, Col
99.09 M. Giles, Atl
98.92 S. Green, LA
98.91 J. Phelps, Tor
98.90 W. Helms, Mil
98.58 J. Burnitz, LA/NYM. 106.38 with the Mets.
98.56 A. Kennedy, Ana
98.44 C. Pena, Det
98.42 H. Matsui, NYY
98.39 E. Renteria, StL
98.26 D. Eckstein, Ana
98.12 J. DaVanon, Ana
97.74 J. Conine, Bal/Fla
97.53 J. Phillips, NYM
97.38 R. Hernandez, Oak
97.34 C. Lee, CWS
96.95 B. Higginson, Det
96.87 J. LaRue, Cin
96.85 I. Rodriguez, Fla
96.62 R. Mondesi, NYY/Ari
96.56 C. Blake, Cle
96.54 D. Mohr, Min
96.51 D. Miller, ChC
96.50 M. Tucker, KC
96.25 V. Guerrero, Mon. It might be interesting to see how Vlad would do without IBB.
96.23 M. Anderson, TB
96.21 P. Wilson, Col
96.18 C. Biggio, Hou
96.03 O. Hudson, Tor
96.02 R. Sanders, Pit
95.97 H. Blalock, Tex
95.80 R. White, KC/SD
95.73 A. Everett, Hou
95.56 M. Grudzielanek, ChC
95.39 J. Hernandez, ChC/Pit/Col
95.35 M. Kotsay, SD
95.34 O. Cabrera, Mon
95.21 S. Casey, Cin
95.12 R. Cedeno, NYM. Do they make a defensive AtR, for wearing out your own pitchers?
95.10 A. Huff, TB
95.09 J. Guillen, Oak/Cin
95.06 R. Winn, Sea
94.91 B. Inge, Det
94.88 A. Berroa, KC
94.74 I. Suzuki, Sea
94.68 T. Walker, Bos
94.66 S. Burroughs, SD
94.61 J. Gerut, Cle
94.52 D. Rolls, TB
94.46 E. Munson, Det
94.41 T. Wigginton, NYM. Above 100 in April (I was keeping track), and declining from there.
94.38 M. Alou, ChC
94.36 J. Rollins, Phi.
94.18 A. Gonzalez, Fla
94.15 J. Kent, Hou
93.98 E. Young, Mil/SF
93.91 G. Matthews Jr., Bal/SD
93.52 E. Karros, ChC
93.41 A. Soriano, NYY. Have you seen Nomar yet?
93.37 M. Matheny, StL
93.27 B. Schneider, Mon
93.14 A. Beltre, LA
93.02 T. Martinez, StL
92.99 A. Ramirez, ChC/Pit
92.72 A. Cintron, Ari
92.58 B. Mayne, KC
92.49 B. Broussard, Cle
92.47 P. Lo Duca, LA
92.39 C. Monroe, Det
92.37 T. Long, Oak
91.89 A. Boone, NYY/Cin. 87.17 with Yankees. Can't even smell Ventura from here.
91.68 R. Clayton, Mil
91.37 A. Gonzalez, ChC
90.96 K. Lofton, ChC/Pit
90.88 B. Ausmus, Hou
90.87 A. Jones, Atl. Not surrounded by the best company.
90.77 B. Santiago, SF
90.68 J. Wilson, Pit
90.63 J. Pierre, Fla
90.57 S. Spiezio, Ana
90.48 J. Crede, CWS
90.27 J. Cabrera, LA
90.27 E. Alfonzo, SF. A few seasons removed from 120+ AtR.
90.21 T. Batista, Bal
90.15 J. Gibbons, Bal
90.13 B. Fordyce, Bal
90.00 P. Polanco, Phi
90.00 P. Konerko, CWS
89.75 X. Nady, SD
89.46 D. Relaford, KC
89.35 E. Chavez, Mon
89.12 R. Aurilia, SF
88.78 R. Calloway, Mon
88.54 R. Baldelli, TB. Lou loves me.
88.53 T. Hunter, Min
88.50 V. Wells, Tor
88.47 A. Cora, LA
88.03 J. Encarnacion, Fla
87.67 A. Pierzynski, Min
86.70 J. Payton, Col. I would have guessed even lower for Mr. 0-2.
86.61 J. Jones, Min
86.39 G. Anderson, Ana
86.19 S. Halter, Det
86.07 C. Crawford, TB
86.06 C. Guzman, Min
85.63 M. Grissom, SF. Brian Sabean's kind of player.
84.88 W. Morris, Det
84.72 C. Crisp, Cle
84.54 T. Perez, NYM. Who needs
Matt Watson?
84.36 S. Hillenbrand, Bos/Ari
84.28 E. Perez, Mil
84.11 E. Diaz, Tex
84.00 T. Womack, ChC/Col/Ari
83.07 N. Garciaparra, Bos. What did you guess?
83.06 G. Blum, Hou
82.89 L. Rivas, Min
82.77 T. Hall, TB
82.12 K. Harvey, KC
81.46 R. Sanchez, Sea/NYM
81.08 A. Sanchez, Det/Mil
80.38 V. Castilla, Atl
79.81 B. Molina, Ana
79.73 R. Santiago, Det
79.67 R. Simon, ChC/Pit
77.75 B. Phillips, Cle
77.63 C. Izturis, LA
74.61 D. Cruz, Bal
Keith Woolner's work on length of plate appearance: Pt.
I and
II
Cory Schwartz's take on
p/PA and OBP
I'd love to hear your thoughts on AtR and appreciate any
feedback you can offer.
*****
Thanks are in order for David Pinto at
Baseball Musings, who provided feedback, as well Dave from
baseballgraphs.com for his help with the graphs.
Gimme some more 1-2's, and ease up on the 2-1's
If the Q&A Jonah Keri did over at Baseball Prospectus wasn't enough Rick Peterson for you, click here, here, here, here, here, here, or here for more on the new Mets pitching guru.
This is an excellent move if Peterson does nothing more than just tell Art when to change pitchers, etc. Lets hope the Mets have bigger ideas though. While the talk has been for Duquette to surround himself with old baseball men to evaluate talent, Peterson is probably the guy who will have the largest impact on the organization. Lets hope the Mets go out of their way to incorporate all of Peterson's skills, be it his psychology background, his biomechanics work, his pitching knowledge, prehabing, all of it, to turn Seo, Heilman, Kazmir, Peterson, Yates, DiNardo, Keppel, Musser, and future draft picks into healthy, quality major league pitchers.
Peterson on Mike and the Mad Dog today: He insists on having his system and drills throughout the organization, and he has already spent time with Rick Waits, who he was very impressed with, about current players on the staff, as well as the coaches and drills in the system at the moment. It seems Peterson and Waits will be involved up and down the minors, and I got the feeling he's going to have a large say in the Mets pitching development philosophy. Score one for the Duke.
Mad Dog after Peterson gives a detailed and well thought out answer to a question about his views on biomechanics: "Well, where were Foulke's biomechanics when Ortiz doubled off of him, Rick?" Only in New York.
Two mitts
6. Mike Piazza
Piazza will make $15 million in both 2004 and 2005, after which he will become a free agent. Here are his past four seasons:
2000 MLB age 31: 324/400/614 with 58/69 and 64xbh (38 hr) in 482 ab. .412 MLVr
2001 MLB age 32: 300/385/573 with 67/87 and 65xbh (36 hr) in 503 ab. .321
2002 MLB age 33: 280/361/544 with 57/82 and 58xbh (33 hr) in 478 ab. .273
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003 MLB age 34: 286/381/483 with 35/40 and 24xbh (11 hr) in 234 ab. .222
2003 MLB age 34: 273/355/499 with 51/74 and 46xbh (24 hr) in 418 ab. .126 MLVr (PECOTA forecast)
Mike Piazza's superman exploits finally caught up with him in 2003. After ten full seasons catching at the major league level without missing any significant playing time, Piazza missed three months in 2003 with a severely strained groin. He's a catcher in his 30s, it was bound to happen. He's steadily declined from his 2000 days, but he's still one of the top 20 hitters in the National League, and I'm confident he can provide a MLVr higher than .200 for the remainder of his contract (PECOTA is always going to be hard on catchers past their 30th birthday). However, players who start getting hurt in their mid 30s usually continue to get hurt, and I hope splitting time at first base in 2004 will offset this possibility. The over/under is 1000 plate appearances for the remainder of the contract, as long as more than half the games are at first in 2004.
Persistence
Working on p/pa as I type this. An unamed stat rates both Joe McEwing and Jay Bell higher than Cliff Floyd. No, the stat isn't called Suckiness or Whiteness. Am I going to let this stop me? Of course not.
Stormy
continuing from yesterday...
4. David Weathers
Tackleberry has one year left on his contract, making $3.6 million in 2004. He can earn anywhere from $100,000 to $750,000 more, depending on how many games he appears in, and how many of them he finishes. Here are his past three seasons:
2001 MLB age 31: 86 ip, 6.91 k/9, 1.94 k/bb, 0.63 hr/9, 24.4 ARP
2002 MLB age 32: 77 ip, 7.10 k/9, 1.69 k/bb, 0.70 hr/9, 7.6
2003 MLB age 33: 88 ip, 7.70 k/9, 1.88 k/bb, 0.62 hr/9, 11.0
Like Trachsel, Weathers is a nice guy to have around. His durability and guaranteed 80 innings provide stability to the bullpen, and he has consistently had a positive adjusted runs prevented. His k/9 rate is still strong, and he's a safe bet to provide 80 quality innings out of the pen in 2004. Also like Trachsel, Duquette might be better off trying to turn him into some prospects. Weathers makes sense for a team on the fringes of contention that wants to stabilize the bullpen, not for a team that is rebuilding. According to baseballgraphs.com, Tackleberry's 2003 performance translates to 8 win shares. That's three wins. The difference between a 75 and 78 win Met team in 2004 is not enough to keep him around. And if the 2004 season isn't the time to find out who from the many is going to be on the next contending Met team, than there never will be a time.
Jim Duquette should shop Weathers around in a Beanesque manner, and see if anyone bites (Royals?). Chances are he'll have to pick up some of the contract, but if he can pick up a package similar to what he got for Alomar or Burnitz, I think its worth it. If Weathers starts the season on the Mets roster, he should be given the closer's role. He won't be as valuable in that position, but he can pick up 15-20 empty saves before the trading deadline, and therefore inflate his market value. Duquette can then trade him to whoever needs a "proven closer" for the stretch drive. I'm only in favor of this closer scenario if he can't be unloaded before the season starts. In a perfect world, Weathers is gone before April, and someone like Grant Roberts can be put into the closer role, inflating his "value" by picking up cheap saves, and then being flipped for something more useful during the season.
Again, the Mets are as far from contention in 2004 as the Detroit Tigers are from 500, and a couple extra wins towards mediocrity in 2004 is a small price for some more organizational depth to add behind the Reyes, Wright, Huber, et al Mets of 2005 and beyond.
5. Mike Stanton
No brainer here.
* * * * *
I'll be back tomorrow with more thoughts on Duquette's inheritance. In the mean time, check out a Metsology Online, a new Mets blog. We're this close to entering Red Sox and Cub territory.
Anyone else hoping Ed Wade is GM of the Phillies for a long, long time?
Fork in the road
Jim Duquette begins his official reign as New York Mets GM with quite a bit of work to do. He did well during the season trimming payroll and getting rid of some of the old familiar faces, but the offseason didn't start too well when he let Marco Scutaro and Matt Watson get away for nothing. Here are some of the players and contracts Duquette has inherited for 2004 and beyond:
1. Al Leiter
The Senator is due $8 million in 2004, with a $10 million mutual option for 2005, or a $2 million buyout. In essence, he's due $10 million dollars in 2004, with an outside chance of coming back for a lower price in 2005. Also, Leiter is a 10 and 5 guy, so he can't be traded without his consent, and he's already made it clear that he plans on spending the rest of his career with the Mets. What should the Mets expect for their $10 million from Leiter's age 38 season in 2004?
2001 MLB age 35: 187 ip, 6.82 k/9, 3.09 k/bb, 0.86 hr/9, 3.89 RA
2002 MLB age 36: 204 ip, 7.58 k/9, 2.49 k/bb, 1.01 hr/9, 4.36 RA
2003 MLB age 37: 181 ip, 6.92 k/9, 1.48 k/bb, 0.75 hr/9, 4.13 RA
The strikeout rate is still good, but something about a flag being red comes up in the k/bb column. Best case scenario for Leiter in 2004 is 200 innings at slightly above league average.
2. Tom Glavine
Tom Terrified is due $10.5 million in both 2004 and 2005, with a $6.5 million mutual option for 2006, or a $3 million buyout. 2006 is guaranteed at $10.5 million if Glavine pitches at least 417 innings in '04-'05, or 200 ip in '05. Keep that in mind during the 2005 season when Glavine is such a "gamer" and "leader" for going out there every fifth day despite his sore whatever. If we assume (pray) Glavine won't trigger the 2006 portion of the contract, he is still due (gulp) $24 million for '04 and '05. He would remain unclaimed if Duquette went Manny on him tomorrow. In return the Mets get these trends:
2001 MLB age 35: 219 ip, 4.76 k/9, 1.20 k/bb, 0.98 hr/9, 3.78 RA
2002 MLB age 36: 225 ip, 5.09 k/9, 1.63 k/bb, 0.84 hr/9, 3.41 RA
2003 MLB age 37: 183 ip, 4.03 k/9, 1.24 k/bb, 1.03 hr/9, 4.61 RA
After tormenting the Mets as a Brave all those years, Glavine tormented the Mets as a Met in 2003. That strikeout rate should give you nightmares, and Glavine will be nothing more than an initiator of action for the remainder of his Met days. But hey, he does give the Mets character and leadership and all that other good stuff that shows up in the standings. His "future Hall of Famer" tag is the only thing keeping everyone and their mother from smelling the coffee, just like Alomar after his 2002 campaign. Best case scenario for 2004 is 220 league average innings, which in turn becomes a worst case scenario due to the 2006 contract extension. Lovely.
3. Steve Trachsel
Trachsel will make $5 million in 2004, and 2005 will be guaranteed at $5 million if he pitches at least 155.1 innings in '04.
2001 MLB age 30: 174 ip, 7.46 k/9, 3.06 k/bb, 1.45 hr/9, 4.66 RA
2002 MLB age 31: 174 ip, 5.44 k/9, 1.52 k/bb, 0.83 hr/9, 4.15 RA
2003 MLB age 32: 205 ip, 4.88 k/9, 1.71 k/bb, 1.14 hr/9, 3.96 RA, BABIP .273
I can't say those k/9 rates don't scare me. Trachsel is a nice guy to have around, and is always ready to take his turn, but his trends say he might be in for a big surprise in 2004 and beyond. He's not as old as the two southpaws, so he still might be able turn things around, but his best case scenario for 2004 is anywhere from 180 to 200 league average innings. Also unlike the two lefties, Trachsel can be traded if the Mets decide what he brings back is worth more than what he can be expected to give.
Do I think Duquette should entertain offers for Trachsel? Well, considering the three starting pitchers above, who pitched 40% of all innings in 2003, stand to give you an aggregate performance that is league average at best for 2004, in a pitchers' park no less, than yes. I don't think all three will continue to decline, but at least one of the three will take a hit in 2004, while the other two hold off the inevitable for one more year. If this is supposed to be the team's strength, well, its time to blow the whole thing up.
With Rick Peterson about to enter the picture, and Seo, Heilman, Kazmir, Yates, Peterson, Keppel, and DiNardo knocking on the door, the Mets are better off adding quality organizational depth behind the younger group, instead of feigning contention with the old, expensive men in 2004. The same goes for the position players and relievers, and I'll be back this week with my take on those positions (sign Robert Fick as soon as he is non-tendered, as well as picking up Jose Cruz Jr. Throw in Iguchi, for the right price, and the offense might reach league average heights in 2004). I'll defend this position after I've gone over Duquette's inheritance.
* * * * *
I'm currently obsessing over p/pa. Its a stat I always look at for offensive players, and I'm convinced its more than just an interesting stat, but I don't have any proof (yet?). I've become more obsessed with it since reading about it in Moneyball, and I'm currently trying to figure out if it has any strong predictive qualities, or if it correlates with other aspects of run scoring, among other things. If I come up with anything, I'll be sure to put it up on the site. Even if I don't come up with anything all too useful, I will incorporate a few "weird numbers" I usually calculate for players in my analysis. If your familiar with any work on p/pa, or if you've done any work on p/pa yourself, please do contact me.
Happy New Year
Happy New Year to all those it applies to.
Bobby V works here
I seriously considered retiring from blogging on Monday. I know, I know, its only like 10 posts old, but the raindrops got a plug from David Pinto over at Baseball Musings. What more was there to accomplish? This is no small matter. Baseball Musings was the first blog I ever visited, thanks to a link on Rob Neyer's page during the 2002 season. Up until that point I had no idea who or what a blog was (you remember, back when Prospectus was free). Before you know it, I've got a bunch of bookmarks to all these strange blog thingys, and I, too, wanted to free Johan! Well, now I have one of my own, and David Pinto is partly to blame.
I was originally going to cover Frank Catalanotto, followed by a few names from the suggestion box, all a little more specific than "stopgap". However, in my time examining Kaz Matsui, I wondered what Tadahito Iguchi was up to. Who is Tadahito Iguchi you ask? Well, I first heard his name in a Baseball Primer Game Chatter some time in September, and decided to look at him again while I was looking into Japanese baseball.
Tadahito Iguchi
Born: Dec 4, 1974 H: 5'10" W: 185 B: R T: R Pos: 2B
2001 JPL age 26: 261/347/475 with 61/117 and 57xbh (30 hr) in 552ab
2002 JPL age 27: 259/318/423 with 27/84 and 33xbh (18 hr) in 428ab
2003 JPL age 28: 340/443/573 with 81/81 and 65xbh (27 hr) in 515ab
Tsuyoshi Shinjo he is not. Tadahito Iguchi was the number one pick of the Fukuoka Daiei Hawks in 1997. Originally a shortstop, Iguchi has played second base for the past three seasons. From what I understand, his defense is a plus, and he is exceptionally fast, stealing 107 bases in the past three seasons. He also had some shoulder troubles in 2002, which required surgery after the season. Reports say he will be posted this off season, allowing major league teams to bid for his services.
In between posting on Kaz Matsui and making sense of Tadahito Iguchi's numbers, I stumbled upon some Japanese field dimensions. I also found a meteorologist who had compiled Japanese park factors (take that Selig!). It seems the Tokyo Dome, where Godzilla played his home games in Japan, is a severe hitters park (360 in the gaps). Green Kobe Stadium, Ichiro's home park, is a moderate hitters' park. Kaz Matsui's home stadium, Seibu Lions Kyujo, plays as a neutral park, though its dimensions seem small by MLB standards. Tadahito Iguchi's home stadium, the Fukuoka Dome, is a pitchers' park in the Pacific League, and has some of the larger field dimensions in Japan, including high fences.
In light of these park factors, Hideki Matsui's drop off in power makes more sense. It also means that Iguchi's performance in 2003 is more impressive than at first glance. It seems something clicked in 2003, and I'm in no position to say whether its a peak season, a fluke, or his true level of ability. What I can say is that his discipline numbers improved considerably, and may have led to his breakout season. Not only does he control the zone better than Kaz (81:81 to 55:124), but his power numbers might translate better to the major leagues, considering his more difficult hitting environment. Kaz Matsui, on the other hand, is younger, by ten months, and has produced more consistently over a longer period of time. They are both the same height and weight, and they are both a plus on defense and on the basepaths. Neither one would cost the Mets a draft pick. What should the Mets do?
Well, all the buzz has been for Kaz Matsui, but Iguchi might have the higher upside. He is a bit riskier though, so whether or not the Mets should get involved is directly related to his price tag. Ideally, the Mets only want him for two years, his age 29 and 30 seasons, at not much more than $3 or $4 million per, while they wait on Diaz and/or Garcia. Considering the high PECOTA collapse rates both Ichiro and Matsui had coming into this season, I don't think I want Iguchi's age 31 season wrapped up so soon. Also, the bidding rights that would go to his Japanese team also must be considered. I have no idea what that figure will look like, but if the Mets are intent on spending money this off season, I'd rather they spend it in places where they don't lose any of their draft picks. If the Mets can get Iguchi, they have a guy who might give them a Marcus Giles-lite performance at the major league level, while allowing Diaz and Garcia to develop on the farm.
KAZMAT
Kazuo Matsui is currently the 27 year old shortstop for the Seibu Lions of the Japanese Pacific League, and the best player in Japan with the departures of Ichiro Suzuki and Hideki Matsui. Matsui, if he decides to come to the majors, differs from other players on the market because he has two things in his favor. First, the team signing him would not lose a draft pick in next year's draft. Second, Matsui won't play his age 30 season until 2006. Though he plays shortstop, I'm assuming the Mets can convince him to play second. Is he worth going after?
Before looking at Kaz, let's see how Ichiro and Hideki Matsui have fared making the transition from Japan to the major leagues. BP2001 rates the difficulty of the following leagues, as they played in 2000:
American 1.000
National .961
International .864
Japanese Pacific .849
Japanese Central .849
Pacific Coast .846
Japanese baseball is roughly the equivalent of AAA baseball in North America.
Ichiro's last three seasons in Japan:
1998 JPL age 24: 358/414/518 with 43/35 and 52xbh (13 hr) in 506ab
1999 JPL age 25: 343/412/572 with 45/46 and 50xbh (21 hr) in 411ab
2000 JPL age 26: 387/460/539 with 54/36 and 35xbh (12 hr) in 395ab
And his three seasons in Seattle:
2001 MLB age 27: 350/384/457 with 30/53 and 50xbh (8 hr) in 692ab. .219 MLVr
2002 MLB age 28: 321/390/425 with 68/62 and 43xbh (8 hr) in 647ab. .179
2003 MLB age 29: 312/352/436 with 36/69 and 50xbh (13 hr) in 679ab. .146
Hideki Matsui's last three seasons in Japan:
2000 JCL age 26: 316/443/654 with 106/108 and 75xbh (42 hr) in 474ab
2001 JCL age 27: 333/466/617 with 120/96 and 62xbh (36 hr) in 481ab
2002 JCL age 28: 334/458/692 with 114/104 and 78xbh (50 hr) in 500ab
With the Bronx Bombers:
2003 MLB age 29 287/356/435 with 63/86 and 59xbh (16 hr) in 623ab. .083 MLVr
Ichiro's style of play (more speed and contact, less ISO) made the better transition, but they both held their own after dominating in Japan. If anyone has Japanese park factors that might help make better sense of these figures, please do pass them along.
Kaz Matsui's last three seasons in Japan:
2001 JPL age 25: 308/365/496 with 46/83 and 54xbh (24hr) in 552 ab
2002 JPL age 26: 332/389/617 with 53/112 and 88xbh (36hr) in 582 ab
2003 JPL age 27: 305/368/549 with 55/124 and 73xbh (33hr) in 587 ab
2002 was probably his peak season, while 2001 and 2003 are probably more indicative of his true abilities. That said, he would probably struggle to SLG much more than .450 in the big leagues. And if he doesn't put up a .400 OBP in Japan, chances are he'll top out at .350 in the US. This is all assuming he sticks to what he's been doing all these years in Japan. If he realizes that he won't hit for too much power, and instead focuses on making more contact and using his speed, he might be able to hit .320 and put up an OBP closer to .400. Of course, his ISO will take a hit if he attempts to become Ichiro II.
All of this is guess work on my part, but Jim Albright over at The Baseball Guru has translated Japanese stats into major league equivalents. Again, its hard to predict what Kaz will do in the majors, but after looking at Ichiro and Hideki at The Baseball Guru, its safe to say that Matsui's AVG and OBP will take at least a small hit, and his SLG will take a big hit. He could very well put up a 800+ OPS in 2004, but considering Ichiro's slow decline, and both Ichiro's and Hideki Matsui's high PECOTA collapse rates in BP2003, its not unreasonable to think 2004 will be Kaz's best season in the majors.
Ichiro Suzuki received a 3 yr/$14 million contract, and Hideki Matsui 3 yr/$21 million, so Kaz Matsui will probably get something in the 3 yr/$15 million range. He isn't as accomplished a hitter as the previous two Japanese imports, but he does play a more difficult position. He makes sense for a team that is close to contention and can afford to sign him, but the Mets should pass. He may not fall off a cliff in '05 and '06, but he doesn't project to be a difference maker, either. The Mets are better off waiting on Diaz, who very well could give similar production (on offense) at a fraction of the price, and for a longer period of time. In my opinion, Kaz Matsui isn't good enough to block off Diaz and/or Garcia. Check out what the guys over at U.S.S. Mariner have to say about Matsui.
Speaking of Victor Diaz, Baseball America had this to say about him:
If Diaz keeps his weight in check, the best-case scenario for him is becoming a Carlos Baerga type of player, a second baseman with offensive upside. Diaz has some power and a knack for making consistent contact. But Baerga's body went bad in a hurry, and scouts and managers have the same fears for Diaz, who doesn't have the power to move to first base.
Check out how they compare:
Victor Diaz/
Carlos Baerga. Feel free to interpret the number under "age" in Baerga's profile as you please. With a slight age adjustment, both players do seem similar, and I'd sign right now for Diaz to put up Baerga's production over his first six seasons in Cleveland. That kind of offense is worth any kind of defense Diaz can provide.
The same Baseball America article also addresses draft pick compensation the Mets might have to give up to sign a Type A free agent this off season. Because the Mets are in the first half of the draft, they won't lose their first round pick, number three overall. However, they would lose their second round pick, which could be as high as number forty overall. It would be a disastrous strategy for the Mets to lose that pick for a mediocre player on a non-contending 2004 team (and trust me, they won't be contending). The Mets must keep that pick and start adding quality organizational depth for the Reyes/Wright/Huber Mets. Wright, by the way, was the 38th overall pick in the 2000 draft.
In other news, for everyone debating the
Rick Peterson/compensation issue, feel free to check out the
Q&A in the Must Reads section on the sidebar to get a feel for just how involved this guy is in Oakland, and
click here to read the best take yet on the whole issue, provided by none other than Elephants in Oakland. What, you thought the tabs were going to bother looking at this thing in depth and objectively?
Luis Castillo
Luis Castillo is apparently a certified "leadoff hitter". This label allows him to be judged on a different scale than other players. Its ludicrous to do this, but it happens all the time. Any time you read about him, its all about his speed and how he puts the ball in play and all that other good stuff. I could not care less that Luis Castillo is by popular accounts a perfect leadoff hitter and I don't think a team necessarily needs speed at the top of the lineup. What the Mets, or any team, needs are players who's offensive performance translates into runs. The more runs, the better. Thats it. Always be wary of anything more complicated than that. With that in mind, lets see what Castillo provides to a major league lineup.
Luis Castillo
2000 MLB age 24: 334/418/388 with 78/86 bb/so and 22xbh (2 hr) in 539ab. 62/22 sb/cs.
2001 MLB age 25: 263/344/341 with 67/90 bb/so and 28xbh (2 hr) in 537ab. 33/16
2002 MLB age 26: 305/365/361 with 55/76 bb/so and 25xbh (2 hr) in 606ab. 48/15
2003 MLB age 27: 314/381/397 with 63/60 bb/so and 31xbh (6 hr) in 595ab. 21/19
Way too much value stored in his batting average.
Anyone else notice how fast that Pro Player Stadium infield seems? The FOX guys did a good job pointing this out during the NLCS. Its not astroturf, but if you had to pick a place to hit a groundball, it's not the worst place in the world. Shea on the other hand...Alright, I'm not going to go down that road. My eyes tell me Shea has a slow infield, and those same eyes say the Florida track is relatively fast, but I have no objective measures, and have yet to see someone do any research on the topic. However, BP2003 did point out that Castillo's success seems to correlate with his gb/fb rates.
2000 4.74 gb/fb .117 MLVr
2001 2.59 gb/fb -.109
2002 3.39 gb/fb .043
2003 2.81 gb/fb .134
For those of you unfamiliar with MLVr, its yet another indispensable Baseball Prospectus concoction, calculating a player's marginal lineup value. For example, imagine you have a team comprised of nine league average hitters at each position. This team would score the league average in runs. Now, lets say you replace the left fielder with the 2002 version Barry Bonds, how many more runs does this new lineup score? Well, Bonds' 2002 MLVr is .955. That means he is worth .955 runs for each game he is in the lineup. If he were to play 162 games at that rate, he is worth 162 x .955 = 154.71 runs. He would take an average offense of 750 runs to a top offense of 905 runs. Yeh, he's that good. Mere mortals like Castillo have a MLVr closer to either side of .000 (league average). Using the same league average lineup and replacing the second basemen with the 2003 Castillo, you get an extra 22 runs (162 x .134 = 21.71). That's a couple of wins. I thought it was strange that Castillo's 2003 MLVr was higher than in 2000. I went over to Baseball-Reference and noted that a 2000 National League game averaged 10.00 runs per contest. In 2003, its 9.28 runs per game. How's that for league context! By the way, I'm all about sticking to free resources for baseball, and don't register for any pay services, but even I shell out for the Prospectus Annual. There are few better ways to spend $21.95 (and I picked up the 2001 edition for $3 in some bargain bin).
Alright, so we know what he's done, how about what he's going to do. Let's look at some home/road splits.
2000 (4.74 gb/fb)
H: 372/471/434. 905 OPS
R: 299/367/345. 712
2001 (2.59 gb/fb)
H: 267/345/364. 709
R: 359/342/321. 663
2002 (3.39 gb/fb)
H: 307/375/376. 751
R: 303/353/347. 700
2003 (2.81 gb/fb)
H: 326/398/406. 804
R: 303/365/388. 753
No small sample size issues here. Castillo outside of Pro Player Stadium is closer to Roger Cedeno than he is Ichiro Sazuki. Any team, not just the Mets, should keep this in mind when they seek out his services. Castillo's skills are too narrow for my liking. He has to keep putting nearly every ball into play, on the ground, with his speed, and then and only then he might be worth 20 marginal runs. If he loses half a step, or starts to struggle fighting off those two strike breaking balls, his production will take a huge hit. He has nothing to fall back on. Furthermore, Nate Silver, in analyzing PECOTA, noted a couple things that are relevant in Castillo's case. I quote straight from BP2003:
1. Position has a significant effect on hitter career paths. Players at more difficult defensive positions don't age as well, and second basemen do especially poorly.
5. Different player attributes should be considered in combination with one another. For example, players with both speed and power age very well, but players with one and not the other often age poorly.
If, and its a big if considering the above evidence, everything works out well for Castillo in 2004, and he continues to produce at .100+ MLVr, he brings 20 runs above league average to the table, not bad for a second baseman. However, if he falls off slightly, and I ask you to look at those stolen base numbers as a possible speed indicator, he will struggle to put up a 700 OPS. Anyone who gives Castillo a multi year contract this off season is crossing their fingers, not making an astute baseball decision. The Mets, if they sign Castillo, would once again prove they have no idea what their up to. I haven't even mentioned that signing Castillo would cost the Mets their 2nd round draft pick in 2004. This pick could be as high as #40, considering the Mets high drafting position. Even if there were no compensation issues, Castillo is a risky move for whoever signs him.
The Keystone, part II
2003 performance on the big club:
Roberto Alomar: .257 EQA
Marco Scutaro: .255
Danny Garcia: .224
Joe McEwing: .221
Jay Bell: .198
Rey Sanchez: .157
MLB second basemen aggregate: .259 EQA.
The situation is not pretty. Both Diaz and Garcia project to put up something between Joe McEwing and Roberto Alomar if they're thrown into the deep end in 2004. However, they both stand to benefit with some more minor league at bats. Garcia's 2003 campaign is disappointing, but with some more seasoning he may still one day become Marco Scutaro. Diaz has a higher ceiling, but apparently he's no great shakes with the glove. I really don't know how good or bad he is. And I've been skeptical of popular reports, if only because I'm convinced a scout who sees a bulky 6'0" 200lb second basemen with a bad defensive rep will see that and nothing more. I blame Michael Lewis for this distrust of traditional scouts. Joe Morgan blames Billy Beane.
Nevertheless, Diaz can hit. His offensive potential looks above average at second. In the outfield, he's only average. And hey, if Ronnie Belliard can make it to the big show at the keystone, why can't Diaz? If it were up to me, I'd start Diaz off at AA in 2004 at second base. In his 700 AA plate appearances so far, Diaz has shown steady improvement, and there is room for more improvement, despite the shiny batting average. Make it clear to him that as soon as his bb/so and bb/pa numbers go up, so does he. Garcia can start the season at Norfolk. I'm confident he can make the necessary adjustments and continue to develop, but when is anyone's guess. It might serve the Mets well to let him get a spot start in the outfield as well. This way, if Diaz forces his way into AAA, Garcia doesn't need to be sent directly to Shea. This isn't Jorge Velandia we're talking about, both these guys can make good use of those minor league at bats. Both players are rule 5 eligible, so the Mets have to keep them on the 40 man this offseason.
What to do at the major league level? Find a stopgap. In one years time the Mets will have a better idea about what Victor Diaz and Danny Garcia project to be at the MLB level (along with many, many, many other parts in the organization). If both Diaz and Garcia regress in 2004, then try to find another stopgap or even a long term solution next year. And remember, the Mets are as far from competing next year as the Tigers are from .500, and to think otherwise is not only foolish, but dangerous. The front office has to realize that any long term commitments they continue to make for the Piazza/Leiter nucleus is at the cost of a possible Reyes/Wright/Huber core. There is no middle ground. Whether its a draft pick, a roster spot, money, or a prospect, something that can be beneficial to that latter core will be lost if the Mets fool themselves and try to compete with the current group. They have to keep that in mind when constructing their roster this offseason.
With that, on to the candidates. I plan on covering Luis Castillo, Frank Catalanotto, and Kazuo Matsui, since they seem to be the names most often heard when the question is posed. If you can think of something more specific than "stopgap", feel free to remind me.
The Keystone, part I
I'd like to thank Steve over at The Eddie Kranepool Society, Michael at Michael's Mets Ramblings, and Jeremy over at Jeremy Heit's Blog for sending some readers over to the raindrops. All three have been doing a bang up job during the season covering the Mets and I hope I can provide yet another angle for fellow Met fans. I also want to thank Pete at Baseball News Blog for the link on his wonderful blog. Last, but not least, I want to thank everyone who has sent me emails in the past few days. Your feedback is extremely helpful and encouraging. Please feel free to drop me a line at any time.
I, like Jeremy, am excited by all the Mets writing out there, and only hope more people take the plunge and share their ideas. The more the merrier! I don't, however, agree with Jeremy's recent conclusion on what the Mets should do with second base in 2004. I think every Met blogger out there was on record in favor of giving Marco Scutaro that job, but he is no longer an option. Lets take a look at what the Mets have in house before looking at alternatives.
Danny Garcia
Born: Apr 12, 1980 H: 6'1" W: 175 B: R T: R Pos: 2B
2001 R+ age 21: 321/387/411 with a 4/10 bb/so ratio and 3xbh (1 hr) in 56ab
2001 A age 21: 301/419/495 with a 15/18 bb/so ratio and 15xbh (2 hr) in 103ab
2002 A+ age 22: 273/372/403 with a 53/77 bb/so ratio and 43xbh (4 hr) in 432ab
2003 AA age 23: 333/400/530 with a 10/20 bb/so ratio and 16xbh (3 hr) in 117ab. 243 MjEQA
2003 AAA age 23: 263/317/369 with a 22/60 bb/so ratio and 30xbh (4 hr) in 388ab. 221 MjEQA
2003 MLB age 23: only 56ab
Garcia was a fifth round draft pick, 162nd overall, in the 2001 draft out of Pepperdine University, where he played both second base and center field, and was an offensive force in the West Coast Conference. A polished college hitter, Garcia had no problems handling either the New York Penn League or the South Atlantic League right out of school. He was a little old for the Florida State League in 2002 to be considered a top prospect, but impressive none the less. Check out Michael's Mets Ramblings excellent post on the FSL and you'll gain a greater appreciation for Garcia's 2002 production. He ranked fourth in the league in doubles and continued to show discipline at the plate, a nice combo for any young middle infielder.
Things got a bit trickier in 2003, however. As good as that AA line looks, Binghamton is a hitter's haven and though its a small sample, his discipline numbers did take a small hit. The AAA portion is worse across the board even after adjusting for Norfolk's run depressing ways, as MjEQA does. His major league stats, or any isolated 56 at bat sample, are essentially useless.
At this point an obvious question presents itself: Why, in 2003, did Danny Garcia have only 130 plate appearances in AA, while acquiring more than 400 in AAA? Its frightening to think the Mets might not have a firm grip on the park effects at their minor league affiliates in their respective leagues. That can't be it. Maybe they don't understand the dangers of small sample sizes? Nah, everyone knows that. Victor Diaz didn't prompt this move. He wouldn't arrive for another seven weeks or so, and even then, both Garcia and Diaz could have shared playing time (they both share a need for AA at bats as their highest priority), what with Garcia's outfield experiences in college, and word about Diaz's suspect defense and rumblings about a possible position change. That can't be it. This article points out that injuries at the major league level and at Triple A prompted the promotion (I'm not sure if I completely believe this), and Garcia's immediate production upon arrival kept him in Norfolk. If I've got this right, a small sample size warranted a promotion and an even smaller one kept the Mets from keeping their eyes on the big picture. Oh, the horror.
I'm certain that there is someone in the organization who understands the park effects, and quite a few people must understand the importance of sample size. I'm not so naive as to believe there aren't people in the front office who understood that the Jay Bells, Joe McEwings, Tsyoshi Shinjos, and Rodney Nyes of the world are around for injury related problems like this that pop up over the course of the year.
I don't know exactly what the reasoning behind Danny Garcia's 2003 path is, but I can assure you, neither do the Mets. One thing I've learned following the Mets in excruciating detail is that the sloppiness that is evident in the decision making process at the major league level is present throughout the organization. While the tabloids, talk show hosts, and John Q. Fairweather will continue to judge management solely on the latest free agent acquisition and/or trade with a goal no higher than short term contention, the organization is littered with small inefficiencies that go unquestioned. The Mets must recognize they have much bigger organizational problems than the W-L record of the big league team and who should be given millions of dollars this off season.
I'll save the front office manifesto post for another day, probably after they make some bonehead move this off season. For now, back to the keystone question.
Victor Diaz
Born: Dec 10, 1981 H: 6'0" W: 200 B: R T: R Pos: 2B?
2001 R age 19: 354/403/533 with 16/23 and 27xbh (3) in 195ab
2002 A age 20: 350/412/521 with 27/69 and 38xbh (10) in 349ab
2002 AA age 20: 211/259/336 with 7/42 and 11xbh (4) in 152ab
2003 AA age 21: 291/358/462 with 27/60 and 32xbh (10) in 316ab. 224 MjEQA
2003 AA age 21: 354/386/520 with 8/32 and 17xbh (6) in 175ab. 236 MjEQA
Diaz was a draft-and-follow selected in the 37th round, 1107th overall, in the 2000 draft by the Dodgers.
I'll get to that "?" in a moment, but first, the good news. Diaz immediately won a batting crown in the Gulf Coast League, and was leading the South Atlantic League in the same category before being promoted in 2002. The Dodgers took a risk by having him completely skip high-A ball, and Diaz didn't seem prepared for the Southern League. 42 strikeouts in 152 at bats, ouch! But the Dodgers must have seen something in Diaz, because they sent him out there again in 2003, and boy did he make them look smart. He made the necessary adjustments and showed much better discipline at the plate while continuing to hit line drives into the gaps. After coming over to the Mets along with Kole Strayhorn and Joselo Diaz (no relation) in the Jeromy Burnitz trade, he quickly found a liking to Binghamton's cozy confines. His cumulative line for 2003, spread across the Southern and Eastern Leagues:
2003 AA age 21: 314/368/483 with 35/92 and 49xbh (16) in 491 ab.
Not too bad. Of course you want to see those discipline numbers improve, but he's already taken big strides compared to his first go round in AA, and at 21, further development is not out of the question. However, the Mets need to be proactive with Diaz. They can't get fooled by the .354 average, as impressive as it is. They must instill the virtue of patience in him and make sure he understands the most important thing for him right now is to get into good hitting counts. His talent will take over once he's done that hard work.
As for his defense, well, lets just say he's a good hitter. I'm going to hold off writing about Diaz's defense in the hopes of Baseball America doing it for me. Next up on their team-by-team wrap-ups are the Dodgers. If you haven't already, check out the completed wrap-ups and see how the Mets compare with other teams. Michael's Mets Ramblings has already done an exceptional job of reviewing the Mets system, so be sure to check that out while we wait for Baseball America's take.
I'll try to come to some sort of conclusion about Garcia and Diaz in part II, and see if the Mets might be better off getting someone in the hot stove league to man second base in 2004. Either way, Luis Castillo is not the answer.
Mike Stanton, sunk cost
What's a sunk cost?
I want to give the Mets front office the benefit of the doubt and assume they understand the volatile nature of a major league bullpen's year to year performance, as most every saberfan understands, and Peter Gammons so wonderfully demonstrates. Jim Duquette spent his first month on the job collecting the very thing a smart organization does in light of the unpredictable nature of bullpens, that is, a bunch of young, cheap, and interchangeable arms with good predictive indicators, i.e. strikeout rates. You then mix and match until you find something that works. While the slower to adapt among us will continue to covet a "Proven Closer" or "Reliable Veteran" in the Shea pen, the nature of the beast suggests you don't tie up too many resources, be it multi-million dollar contracts or guaranteed roster spots, in a venture where salaries and success are defined by a useless stat and players who at most toss sixty or seventy innings.
Which brings me to Mike Stanton. Here's what he had on his resume before going job hunting last winter:
2000 MLB age 33: 68 ip, 9.93 k/9, 3.13 k/bb, 0.66 hr/9
2001 MLB age 34: 80 ip, 8.74 k/9, 2.69 k/bb, 0.45 hr/9
2002 MLB age 35: 78 ip, 5.08 k/9, 1.57 k/bb, 0.46 hr/9
Some definite trends emerged in 2002. Not only had his strikeout rate dropped off substantially, but he was also walking twice as many batters per strikeout compared to just two years earlier. Those are two huge red flags and it takes a certain kind of stubbornness to not acknowledge them. Here's what PECOTA forecasted:
2003 MLB age 36: 56 ip, 6.43 k/9, 1.90 k/bb, 0.80 hr/9. b/i/c: 23/63/19
PECOTA picked up the declining strikeout rate along with the number next to age and figured Stanton would "improve", but he would perform well below pre-2002 levels. Furthermore, what little improvements he would make in the strike zone would be at the cost of more long balls, even in Big Shea. Its also scary to think that the chances of Stanton returning to 2001 form, 23%, were about as likely as him drastically declining again, 19%. None of this kept Steve Phillips from carrying out Operation Consequences Be Damned. Instead, he used ERA to judge a relief pitcher, and gave Stanton a 3 year/$9 million contract with a complete no-trade clause. To no ones surprise except Fred Wilpon, here's what Stanton did in front of the Flushing Faithful:
2003 MLB age 36: 45 ip, 6.75 k/9, 1.79 k/bb, 1.19 hr/9.
How freakin' cool is Nate Silver and PECOTA. Stanton did all this while pitching in a home stadium with a 5 year park factor of 935, compared to 995 at Yankee Stadium. I wish that home run rate was just a matter of some bad luck, but a look at Stanton's groundball/flyball ratio over the past few seasons unearths something interesting:
1997: 1.37 gb/fb ratio, first year as a Yankee
1998: 1.12
1999: 1.07
2000: 1.06
2001: 0.96
2002: 0.96
2003: 0.73
Were the signs there all along for even his 2002 drop-off? I doubt it, at least not by looking at gb/fb rates. Nevertheless, along with poorer control of the strike zone and the declining strikeout rates, Stanton has slowly lost any ability he might or might not have had to induce a groundball. And before you cry "Its all Cedeno's fault!" for the subsequent results, take a look at his BABIP: .230. Considering the Mets as a team allowed a .294 batting average for balls in play, and the National League .290, you'd have to say Stanton was pretty lucky. As hard as it is to believe, the results could have been much, much worse for Stanton in 2003.
Mike Stanton is finished pitching effectively at the major league level. Long gone are the days when Joe Torre brought him and his curve into high leverage situations against the likes of Jim Thome and Rafael Palmeiro. If it wasn't for his contract, he wouldn't have survived the season, and there's no way he would be in the bullpen mix this off season. The Mets front office can do one of two things:
(a) Pay Stanton 7 million dollars over the next two years while he occupies a spot on the 40 man roster and pours gasoline on the fire in between trips to the DL, or
(b) Pay Stanton 7 million dollars over the next two years and kindly ask him to leave.
Option (b) will cost the Mets at least $305,000 more than option (a) since they would have to replace him at at least the major league minimum, but its money well spent considering there's already a logjam of players who can all perform better than Stanton in 2004 and beyond. Even better is that some of those guys just might perform considerably better than Stanton. Either way, this is a no brainer.
What happens with Mike Stanton is a good way to measure whether or not the Mets have changed their ways or just their words. Lets see if Fred Wilpon puts his money where his mouth is.
Bullpen Spots
Well, two solid players who stayed below the radar through no fault of their own have already been snapped up by a smarter organization, and I'm afraid a few more might be joining them. With David Weathers and Mike Stanton already signed to expensive contracts, Scott Strickland coming back from an elbow injury, and John Franco itching for another season, bullpen spots on the 2004 Mets will be hard to come by. Joining the usual suspects are Jim Duquette's Bullpen Bloc: Edwin Almonte, Jason Anderson, Ryan Bicondoa, Joselo Diaz, Jeremy Hill, Royce Ring, and Kole Strayhorn. Throw in the solid 2003 efforts of players like Dan Wheeler, Pedro Feliciano, and Grant Roberts, and you've got a pretty crowded situation.
All the players listed above have something working in their favor. David Weathers has some of that all important "veteran stability" on what looks to be a younger Mets team. Mike Stanton has a contract with the official Steve Phillip's stamp of approval on it. John Franco has Fred Wilpon. Actually, anyone above 35 has Fred Wilpon, but I'll get to that in another post. Scott Strickland provides familiarity and is one season away from his official "proven reliever" distinction. Dan Wheeler, Pedro Feliciano, and Grant Roberts have some solid innings fresh in the minds of management, the media, and the fans. Meanwhile, the Bullpen Bloc is made up of players the current regime brought in, and they all have that shiny aura any player gets when traded for a "proven veteran."
The players listed below only have their solid performance records going for them. Oh yeh, their young and cheap, too.
Jamie Cerda
Born: Oct 26, 1978 H: 6'0" W: 175 B: L T: L Pos: P
2000: R+ age 21: 20 g, 47 ip, 33 h, 0 hr, 6/51 bb/so, 0.00 ERA.
2001: A+ age 22: 28 g, 56 ip, 40 h, 3 hr, 12/53 bb/so, 0.49 ERA.
2001: AA age 22: 12 g, 20 ip, 17 h, 1 hr, 6/22 bb/so, 0.44 ERA. 3 games in AAA to end season
2002: AA age 23: 14 g, 32 ip, 21 h, 0 hr, 10/33 bb/so, 2.27 ERA.
2002: AAA age 23: 12 g, 21 ip, 10 h, 0 hr, 7/17 bb/so, 0.43 ERA.
2002: MLB age 23: 32 g, 26 ip, 22 h, 0 hr, 14/21 bb/so, 2.45 ERA.
2003: AAA age 24: 22 g, 32 ip, 29 h, 3 hr, 10/35 bb/so, 1.67 ERA.
2003: MLB age 24: 27 g, 32 ip, 32 h, 4 hr, 20/19 bb/so, 5.85 ERA.
The numbers above are the whole of Jamie Cerda's professional record. The minor league portion adds up to 210 ip, 53/215 bb/so, 4 hr, and a 0.81 ERA in 111 appearances. Those ERA numbers look good, but what's really important is the 4 to 1 strikeout to walk ratio, while giving up just 4 homeruns. The guy can flat out pitch and fared well in his first taste of the big leagues in 2002, with the resulting numbers falling in line with his previous performance. His first hiccup was this season when he struggled in the Mets pen. However, it's only a 32 inning sample, and it shouldn't negate his sparkling numbers up to that point. He will be 25 next year and has nothing left to prove in the minors. The Mets should make it a priority in 2004 to get Cerda 60-80 innings of work, high leverage whenever possible. Someone should also tell Art Howe that he's not a LOOGY, but rather, a guy who could very well become an ace reliever. Worst case scenario, he isn't an ace, but rather, a better option than either Mike Stanton or John Franco. Furthermore, he has his age 25-27 seasons ahead of him at very close to the major league minimum.
P.J. Bevis
Born: July 28, 1980 H: 6'3" W: 180 B: R T: R Pos: P
2001: R+ age 20: 12 g, 14 ip, 9 h, 0 hr, 7/22 bb/so, 0.64 ERA.
2001: AA age 20: 14 g, 17 ip, 11 h, 2 hr, 6/19 bb/so, 2.16 ERA.
2002: AA age 21: 49 g, 64 ip, 50 h, 3 hr, 29/62 bb/so, 2.83 ERA.
2002: AA age 21: 4 g, 7 ip, 5 h, 0 hr, 3/14 bb/so, 1.29 ERA.
2003: AA age 22: 46 g, 71 ip, 55 h, 4 hr, 30/100 bb/so, 4.18 ERA.
2003: AAA age 22: 4 g, 8 ip, 2 h, 0 hr, 2/8 bb/so, 0.00 ERA.
Nice move by Steve Phillips getting Bevis for Mark Little from the Arizona Diamondbacks. As good as those numbers look, they're even better when you realize the 2001 and 2002 portions were in El Paso in the Texas League, a severe hitter's park (1088 five year park factor) in a hitter's league, after completely skipping A ball. Those last 4 games in 2002 and the AA part of 2003 were in Binghamton, the best hitter's park in the Eastern League.
Forget the ERA, he's got a 2.9 k/bb ratio and 10.94 k/9 in his 167 AA and AAA innings. He is equally effective versus both left handed and right handed batsmen. Whats not to like? He needs to fine tune his control a little if he wants to flourish right away at the major league level, but the guy could be an effective reliever right now if given the chance. And he's an Aussie to boot! Aussies win points in my book like players Fred Wilpon's age win points (and contracts) with him. Speaking of Aussies, congrats are in order for Matty Hayden. Well done!
Orber Moreno
Born: Apr 27, 1977 H: 6'2" W: 190 B: R T: R Pos: P
Orber Moreno gets hurt. Its in his nature. He has one good season, gets hurt, starts again. He has another half season, and then gets hurt again. It goes on and on like this, and will continue until he either breaks the cycle or gets cut from the Devil Rays. In between injuries, he's put up nice numbers out of the bullpen. Feel free to check out his whole record to see what he's doing in between these small samples:
1998 A+ age 21: 23 g, 33 ip, 10/50 bb/so
1998 AA age 21: 24 g, 34 ip, 12/40 bb/so
1999 AAA age 22: 16 g, 26 ip, 4/30 bb/so
2001 AAA age 24: 17 g, 21 ip, 8/25 bb/so
2003 AAA age 26: 38 g, 52 ip, 17/58 bb/so
Maybe he'll be lights out for someone in 2005. The Royals, like the Mets, have never been known for keeping their young pitchers healthy, and Moreno is a good example. From what little I saw of him in September, he didn't have a perfect delivery, but its not like he's all over the place either. Maybe after all those injuries and rehabs he's made changes to his mechanics that resulted in the 2003 delivery. Or its the same thing he's been doing all these years and he won't make it out of spring training next year. Maybe he's finally reached an age where his elbow and shoulder can handle the physical strains required to throw a baseball. I don't know, but whenever he has been able to take the mound, he has taken care of business. Rick Peterson could probably advise the future GM on whether or not to keep Moreno.
It wouldn't break my heart if Moreno doesn't survive this off-season's roster shuffling, but Cerda and Bevis are keepers. Weathers, Franco, Stanton, Roberts, and the Bullpen Bloc should not interfere with keeping those two on the 40 man.
Steve's unavailable, wanna talk to Jimmy?
Matt Watson
Born: Sep 5, 1978 H: 5'11" W: 190 B: L T: R Pos: LF
2001: A+ age 22: 330/419/455 with a 63/45 bb/so ratio and 42xbh (5 hr) in 446ab.
2002: AA age 23: 279/342/416 with a 39/52 bb/so ratio and 38xbh (10 hr) in 437ab.
2003: AAA age 24: 295/372/504 with a 23/23 bb/so ratio and 30xbh (11 hr) in 254ab. 264 MjEQA
2001 was Watson's second attempt at the Florida State League with the Expos. 2002 was in Binghamton, the most favorable hitters park in the Eastern League. 2003 was in Norfolk, a pitchers park in the International League. Watson has also battled injuries throughout his career. He was acquired from the Expos in the same trade that brought over Scott Strickland.
Sure, he's a little old for each of those leagues and he doesn't have enough power (yet) for a corner outfielder. But he has demonstrated good command of the strike zone, as evident by his bb/so ratios as much as by his bb/pa ratios. Watson also had more extra base hits than strike outs in 2003, after coming close in 2001 and 2002. Oh yeh, he's looking forward to his age 25-27 seasons before becoming arbitration eligible.
Does he project to be an all-star outfielder? Of course not. Could be become a league average regular? He deserves the chance. In a good organization, Watson is a good fourth or fifth outfielder who has an outside chance of becoming a solid regular, or a regular in AAA that gives the team good organizational depth at minimal cost and risk. On the Mets, he loses out against the likes of Roger Cedeno, Timo Perez, and Jeff Duncan.
Free Marco Scutaro?
Well, that didn't take long. While I'm learning the finer points of blogging, the Oakland A's have claimed Marco Scutaro and Matt Watson off waivers. So while the Mets front office will say things like:
"We made mistakes in evaluating, there's no question about it. You never know when the time comes when all of the sudden that unbelievable talent diminishes just a little. It's certainly a clear indication that just throwing money at a situation doesn't guarantee success. We're not going to make the same mistakes again."
Their actions speak volumes. Marco Scutaro and Matt Watson are not players you build a team around, nor are they going to be major league stars, however, they're both young, cheap, and have enough in their respective performance records to suggest they could contribute favorably to a major league lineup if given the chance. But its not like the Mets need those qualities at second base or in the outfield, right?
Here's what the Mets knew about Marco Scutaro coming into the 2003 season:
2000 AAA age 24: 275/378/381 with a 61/53 bb/so ratio and 30xbh (5 hr) in 425ab
2001 AAA age 25: 295/384/432 with a 62/83 bb/so ratio and 43xbh (11 hr) in 495ab
2002 AAA age 26: 319/376/475 with a 30/61 bb/so ratio and 35xbh (7 hr) in 354ab
2002 MLB age 26: only 36 ab
2000 was with Cleveland, 2001 with Milwaukee, and 2002 with the Mets. He spent the last 3 seasons and 1400+ plate appearences in AAA showing good plate discipline and increasing his power numbers each year. It should be noted that Norfolk, where he played most of the 2002 season, is the most pitcher-friendly park in the International League.
PECOTA predicted for 2003: 257/333/371 with 22/36 and 15xbh (4 hr) in 205ab. b/i/c: 9/29/40
That's a scary collapse number, but he had good trends throughout his
pro record. Here's what happened in 2003:
2003 AAA age 27: 311/406/520 with 33/34 and 30xbh (9hr) in 244ab. 279 MjEQA
Either the Mets didn't understand what they had in Scutaro, an infielder making the major league minimum entering his age 27 season who has solid plate discipline and was developing some pop, or they knew and opted for Robbie Alomar's contract to start the season, and Joe McEwing's "hustle" after the trade. Whereas the Mets saw Jason Phillips breakout after Mo Vaughn and Mike Piazza went down with injuries, Marco had his power spike in AAA while Roberto Alomar, Jay Bell, Rey Sanchez, and Joe McEwing stayed healthy and stunk it up on the Shea infield.
2003 MLB age 27: 213/337/347 with 13/14 and 6xbh (2hr) in 75ab. 4.10 pitches/pa
Though his 2003 major league stats don't impress all that much, you have to hand it to Scutaro for sticking to whats got him this far. He kept on working the count when he probably needed to hit an empty .300 to catch the attention of the front office, the fans, or clueless Art. That last
stat would have ranked Scutaro in the top ten in the majors if he had enough plate appearences to qualify.
The Mets didn't appreciate what they had in Marco Scutaro. Someone in Oakland noticed.
Let the madness begin
It seems the Mets brass has gathered in St. Lucie this week to prepare for what should be a very busy hot stove league. At some point a GM will be named, followed by a new pitching coach, and then the fun begins. The front office will have to evaluate the organization top to bottom before planning and than executing on an off-season plan. I'll be evaluating everyone from the expensive old men on the roster to the 2003 draftees, and everyone in between in this space until the Mets start wheelin and dealin.
Just what the world needs, another Mets blog.
