What's going to happen with Jason Varitek?
by Randy Booth on Oct 28, 2008 1:05 AM EDT
in News
89 comments
ST PETERSBURG, FL - OCTOBER 18: Jason Varitek #33 of the Boston Red Sox rounds the bases after hitting a solo home run against the Tampa Bay Rays in the sixth inning of game six of the American League Championship Series during the 2008 MLB playoffs on October 18, 2008 at Tropicana Field in St Petersburg, Florida. (Photo by Doug Pensinger/Getty Images - via d.yimg.com)
There's no doubt that the biggest hole the Red Sox face this offseason may just be the most important one: behind the plate. Jason Varitek -- or Captain, if you prefer -- has been the heart of the Red Sox for many seasons but his bat, as well, hasn't been there for many seasons.
This year was a career-worse for Varitek. He batted just .220 and slugged a measly .359. He was as close to an automatic out or double play as there was on the 2008 Boston Red Sox.
But at the same time, it hurt. I think I can speak for a lot of Red Sox Nation when I say seeing Varitek struggle as much as he did wasn't the best viewing experience. He's not a normal baseball player -- he's our captain. He's the guy you'd buy a beer for any day of the week just because he's our captain. No doubt he'll go down as one of the greatest Red Sox ever.
Now it's time to look at what we have. Varitek's contract is up and a lot of people want to cut 'Tek loose and try to get a young catcher in the system to, hopefully, mold to become a future Varitek. But what is actually out there for catchers and how bad was Varitek -- comparably to other catchers in the AL?
THE KING OF THE CROP
Batting average
When we talk about catchers, the best in the league -- without a doubt -- is the Twins' Joe Mauer. In 2008, Mauer batted .328 in 146 games. The next-best batting average for a catcher in the American League was the Rays' Dioner Navarro at .295. A pretty big gap between No. 1 and 2. The White Sox's A.J. Pierzynski slotted in third with a .281 batting average.
On-base percentage
The only catcher in the AL to have an OBP above .400 was, who else, but Mauer at .413. Navarro, also, came in second with a .349 OBP. Nothing special from the No. 2 spot. The Indians' Kelly Shoppach, a former Red Sox prospect, slots in at the No. 3 spot with a .348 OBP.
Slugging percentage
Shoppach claims the SLG title with a .517 mark on the season. He was the only catcher with a slugging percentage above .500. Mauer came in second at .451 -- another large drop -- and Ivan Rodriguez, when he was with the Tigers in 82 games, came in at .417.
Home runs
Shoppach, who filled in for injured Victor Martinez most of the season, was the best powerbat for a catcher in the AL with 21 home runs. The second most home runs came off the bat of the Orioles' Ramon Hernandez (15) and third was a tie between Pierzynski and our own Varitek (13). (NOTE: Mike Napoli for the Angels belted 20 in a short time, but he isn't on this list because he played less than Jeff Mathis).
WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN?
It means, simply, catchers in the AL aren't that good when it comes to swinging the stick. Mauer is the exception, though, as he's typically in the top of each category and has the potential to show more power later in his career (he will only get better, too). So while the AL has a couple of good ones (Mauer, Navarro) everyone else isn't that good. Managable, really.
Here's how Varitek ranks with AL catchers in these four categories:
HR: 3rd (out of 14)
BA: 12th
OBP: 7th
SLG: 11th
Not the best numbers, but he's basically a little below average. Here's how AL catchers average out:
With Varitek factored in: 115 games, 9.6 HR, .252 BA, .319 OBP, .391 SLG
W/o Varitek factored in: 114 games, 9.3 HR, .254 BA, . 320 OBP, .393 SLG
Varitek 2008 stats: 131 games, 13 HR, .220 BA, .313 OBP, .359 SLG
A couple things jump out at me. His home run numbers aren't that bad. They'll probably drop next year, be he was certainly above average. His .220 batting average is really bad, but it wasn't even the worse in the league: Yankees' Jose Molina batted .216 and the Angels' Jeff Mathis hit .194. And when the league average is .254, that still is pretty bad. Slugging is certainly a problem area for Varitek.
THE FREE AGENT MARKET
If you are looking to replace Varitek with a catcher in the free agent market, keep looking. This year's crop is nothing to get excited about. The complete list, via Cot's Baseball Contracts:
Rod Barajas TOR
Henry Blanco * CHC
Johnny Estrada WAS
Toby Hall * CWS
Adam Melhuse TEX
Ivan Rodriguez NYY
David Ross BOS
Javier Valentin CIN
Jason Varitek BOS
Vance Wilson DET
Gregg Zaun * TOR
See anything you like? Didn't think so. Is anyone interested in Ivan Rodriguez any more? Maybe if it was 1999 again. I just don't see the Red Sox dipping into a free agency unless they are looking for a third catcher, like a David Ross. Who, of course, was the Red Sox's third catcher late in the season. I actually really like Kevin Cash and would be a little upset if he wasn't our backup catcher in 2009.
THE TRADE MARKET
This is where people are intrigued. There have been a million and one names listed in trades where the Sox would acquire a young catcher. Names like Jarrod Saltalamachia, Max Ramirez and Taylor Teagarden have been thrown around quite a lot. It seems like everyone but the Sox has some type of catching depth in the minors
It would make sense for the Red Sox to make an off-season move to bring in a young catcher. What team wouldn't like to have a player like Coco Crisp, for example? The Sox have other young players -- players that are on the fringe of the being every day MLBers -- that would compell other teams. It's all about the right recipe, though.
THE MINORS
Minors leaguers that is. The Sox have a few young catchers in the system that may be able to replace Varitek in the future, but the question remains if it can be done this season. Most regard Dusty Brown as the top catching prospect in the Sox system, but George Kottaras is still kicking and Jon Still showed a pretty powerful swing last year. I see a future in Brown, but I'm not sure we have a 2009 starting catcher in this crop.
THE CONCLUSION (AT LEAST, FOR NOW)
My conclusion is simple: Jason Varitek had a pretty bad season at the plate, but unless the Sox pull of a big trade then there's not really much else we can do. Varitek is our captain, he's the best game-manager in baseball and he won't be too expensive, so why not? Does his bad offense really hold down everything else he does? Free agency obviously isn't the answer for the Sox.
Perhaps this is the way the Sox will approach this situation: wait on Varitek this offseason or offer him a cheap, short contract right off the bat. And No. 1 priority (behind Mark Teixeira, of course) will be to find a young catcher that could be ready very quickly. Have that young catcher be groomed behind Varitek over the course of the season and, ideally, he'd be ready for 2010.
That's the situation, and I'm sticking to it.
(Poll attached!)
1 recs |
89 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Sign VTek
As stated there aren’t any good free agent catchers. Our best hope is to trade for a young stud catcher and groom him. Who is going to groom him? Why not sign Varitek for a 2 year 15mil contract. I am willing to pay 8 mil a year just to have him teach our next in line let alone if even plays.
Varitek is still one of the hardest working players we have, his OBP is still decent and will probably get better. I don’t think he will ever hit 20 hr again but he can still get on base and call a great game.
by drabidea on Oct 28, 2008 8:22 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
New Talent
I agree with signing Tek for the short term while we train someone to fill his shoes. Hopefully we get a good prospect that the ownership has faith in (not George Kottaras or Dusty Brown apparently). I would like to see Tek sit a fair bit more often, and have whichever prospect we get catch on a more regular basis. Tek’s getting old, he needs the rest, especially in the middle and late parts of the season. Hopefully in a year (two at most) we will have a replacement that can fill the shoes of our Captain.
by mightymike on Oct 28, 2008 12:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also
Great Post by the way, it really helps put things in a better perspective.
by drabidea on Oct 28, 2008 8:25 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Great post, BUT
you must take into account Varitek’s faiures DUE TO AGING WHICH IS NOT GETTING BETTER BUT WORSE! I know, life’s a bitch and then you die, but that is just the way it is. Time to move on people and let Varitek go the way of the Timothy McCarvers out there. The security blanket is worn out and must be throw away because the stakes are too high in the big leagues. Even if we go young and don’t get great results, at least we have recognized the reality of life and have tried to deal with it! It is a good thing to do in major league sports!
by NG on Oct 28, 2008 9:11 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Barajas, Zaun, and IRod are all viable options
And I wouldn’t be opposed to Varitek for one more year. As the league-average catchers stats point out, catchers just don’t hit that well as a group. But that doesn’t mean they’re all equally valuable — there are some mediocre hitters and there are some craptastic hitters. Surprisingly, Varitek’s OBP and SLG in 2008 weren’t much below what catchers did as a whole (.006 lower OBP and .032 lower SLG). Part of the reason Red Sox fans are so down on him is that his track record was so good. No, 2008 wasn’t a good year, but it certainly wasn’t near the bottom of the barrel when it comes to catchers.
Here are some decent options at the position, listed with their Marcel projections. Remember, compare these lines to the league-average CATCHER, not a league-average hitter.
Barajas: .309/.416
Zaun: .336/.386
IRod: .307/.411
Benji Molina: .313/.425
The other thing to remember is that Varitek’s 2008 season doesn’t mean he’s done. Given his 2006 and 2007 numbers, he’s probably still a bit better than his 2008 line. Here’s his Marcel:
Varitek: .335/.404
That would be fine as a stand-in for a year, no?
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Oct 28, 2008 10:19 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Tek probably wants more than a year.
And he’s not worth it. I’m not even sure he’s worth being offered arbitration.
"It's just a tiny little nick, but it hurts when I get champagne in there."
- Jason Bay, on getting spiked scoring the winning run in ALDS Game Four.
by 0157H7 on Oct 28, 2008 12:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yup
And with Scott Boras as his agent, it’ll be hard to re-sign Tek to a reasonable, short, contract.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Oct 28, 2008 6:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd re-sign Varitek for 2 years
I’d rather have ‘Tek than one of the free agent catchers mentioned. I’ll cast sentimentality aside if a significant improvement is possible, but I just don’t see it in the free agent pool.
"You know you're having a bad day when the fifth inning rolls around and they drag the warning track." - Mike Flanagan, Baltimore Orioles pitcher, 1992.
by SoxDevil on Oct 29, 2008 12:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What is Marcel?
Just by looking at those predictions, I would not consider this so-called Marcel reliable at all. It really predicts that Tek is going to hit .335? Is that supposed to be .235? because that would be closer to the truth.
by Schulz on Oct 28, 2008 3:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
that's OBP and SLG, no AVG
Marcels: http://www.tangotiger.net/marcel/
it’s a very basic forecasting system that any “real” system should be able to beat. some don’t. and none beat it by all that much.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Oct 28, 2008 4:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
why only AL analysis
Is there something about NL catchers that makes them ill-suited for the AL?
by mlibbey on Oct 28, 2008 1:23 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I wanted to stay in the AL just because I feel the AL and NL are very different when it comes to performances. AL: power pitching, NL: finesse. I just felt it’d be more accurate with AL catchers, as it is considered the tougher league.
by Randy Booth on Oct 28, 2008 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Expletive-Free Discourse on Jason Varitek.
[Believe me, it wasn’t easy.]
Tek: AVG / OBP / SLG, HR
2005 .281 / .366 / .489, 22
2006 .238 / .325 / .400, 12
2007 .255 / .367 / .421, 17
2008 .220 / .313 / .359, 13
The first thing to realize is that Tek has been on the decline for some time. He was phenomenal from 2003-2005. In 2006, he was struck by a severe late-season injury that cost him around 30 games, but he was also very ineffective before the injury. In 2007, Tek’s numbers bounced up a bit. This year he was even worse than in 2006.
Year, LD, BABIP
2005 22.9, .329
2006 16.8, .280
2007 18, .313
2008 13.6, .276
Since 2005, Tek’s Line Drive % has dropped significantly. His 2008 LD was truly awful. Good hitters usually keep it around 20% (ex. Youk, Pedroia).
Batting Avg on Balls In Play (BABIP) is another area for concern. It generally falls between .280-.300; numbers higher or lower are suggestive of good or bad luck. For instance, Tek’s BABIP in 2004 was a completely unsustainable .372.
By BABIP, Tek was a little lucky in 2007, and not really lucky or unlucky in ‘06 or ’08. In other words, 06 and 08 are probably more indicative of his real skill level. Combined with the normal decline of age, and the lower Line Drive rate, and you have a terrible investment. Tek is not making solid contact, he’s not getting on base, and there is no reason to think that will change.
"It's just a tiny little nick, but it hurts when I get champagne in there."
- Jason Bay, on getting spiked scoring the winning run in ALDS Game Four.
by 0157H7 on Oct 28, 2008 1:48 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
split the difference between Tek's 2006 and 2008 numbers:
.320 OBP and .380 SLG — that’s almost exactly a league-average catcher!
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Oct 28, 2008 1:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So what you're saying is,
he’s due a massive rebound, and will hit an OPS of 1.000 next year.
"no1 has time to read your long comments, are you writing a book?"
by britsoxfan on Oct 28, 2008 5:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Of course.
All you have to do is look at his Innate Natural Talent And Natural Gifts Indexed By Leveraged Evaluative Statistics (INTANGIBLES), which are through the roof.
"It's just a tiny little nick, but it hurts when I get champagne in there."
- Jason Bay, on getting spiked scoring the winning run in ALDS Game Four.
by 0157H7 on Oct 28, 2008 6:10 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
How are fist-pumps incorporated?
"You know you're having a bad day when the fifth inning rolls around and they drag the warning track." - Mike Flanagan, Baltimore Orioles pitcher, 1992.
by SoxDevil on Oct 29, 2008 12:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's complicated, but
you break down the direction of the fist-pump into three quadrants,* and then you chart the motion through the plane. When the fist is drawn downward, you begin at the highest position and record the fall, calculating the velocity as the fist is drawn down.
There is a ballpark effect on fist-pumps, which you have to figure into the equation. For example, at Fenway Park, fist-pumps are exaggerated because of the close confines and thousands of adoring fans. By contrast, at Tropicana Field, fist-pumps are more subdued.
The full equation is:
INTANGIBLES = 10(Fist pump velocity * height * Ballpark Adjustment) + 13 (botched Hit & Runs) + 20 (Leaping Papelbons caught) + 50 (double plays) + 5 (Announcers cavorted with) MINUS (Home runs + Non-intentional Walks + Doubles)
*Only Socialists use four quadrants.
"It's just a tiny little nick, but it hurts when I get champagne in there."
- Jason Bay, on getting spiked scoring the winning run in ALDS Game Four.
by 0157H7 on Oct 29, 2008 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
not to pimp my own stuff...
but I just posted an article on 2008 catcher production — Varitek comes in at #18, about 13 runs above replacement level. Things could DEFINITELY be worse, especially considering all the guys at least 5 runs BELOW replacement level.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Oct 28, 2008 1:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Given that Varitek is declining
the Red Sox need to find his replacement. Given the age and attendant issues with other free agents, the best option is to execute a trade for a high-level catching prospect (ex. Teagarden) or young hitting catcher (Russel Martin). We have the talent, so Theo should be able to make it happen.
It may make sense to offer Tek arbitration, assuming that some other team wants to sign him. Given the crappiness of catchers, Tek might earn Type A status, although I’m expecting Type B. Having Tek accept arbitration would be bad, since he could expect only a slight pay cut (i.e. his award would be around $8 million for 2009).
I’m fine with Tek as the backup catcher on a 1-year deal ($3 million). But he can’t be the starting catcher next year, let alone in 2010. I want to see a young catcher who can put up at least a .330 OBP.
"It's just a tiny little nick, but it hurts when I get champagne in there."
- Jason Bay, on getting spiked scoring the winning run in ALDS Game Four.
by 0157H7 on Oct 28, 2008 2:38 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
if Martin could be had, it would be a no-brainer
three more years of team control from a top-five catcher? yeesh. what would you guys give up? masterson? buchholz?
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Oct 28, 2008 3:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It would take...
Masterson, Buccholz, Lars Anderson, and Jacoby Ellsbury
by Schulz on Oct 28, 2008 3:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
that would be way too much
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Oct 28, 2008 4:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
exactly
i might have exaggerated a little, but i bet 3 of those 4 guys is what the dodgers will ask for. Which is why it won’t happen
by Schulz on Oct 29, 2008 8:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why on Earth would the Dodgers trade Martin
Unless they could secure a king’s ransom for him?
"You know you're having a bad day when the fifth inning rolls around and they drag the warning track." - Mike Flanagan, Baltimore Orioles pitcher, 1992.
by SoxDevil on Oct 29, 2008 12:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think he'd cost that much.
For one thing, the Dodgers don’t need outfielders (much the opposite, actually). I’d say a more realistic deal is Lowrie, Buchh or Masterson, and some lower level pitching prospect.
"It's just a tiny little nick, but it hurts when I get champagne in there."
- Jason Bay, on getting spiked scoring the winning run in ALDS Game Four.
by 0157H7 on Oct 28, 2008 4:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Buchholz should be untouchable
He has a very high ceiling.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Oct 28, 2008 6:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i have to disagree
Buchholz COULD have a very high ceiling or he could be a huge bust.
Masterson, Lowrie, Bowden are untouchable, Buchholz is trade bait.
The Sox found out they can rely on Masterson and Lowrie, and Bowden is what Buchholz was last season.
Buchholz gets the Red Sox a young catcher from Texas or in a package for someone of who has proven themselves like a Jake Peavy.
His arm is replaceable by FA, trade or posting from Japan.
by SoxAcumen on Oct 28, 2008 9:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're overreacting to Buchholz struggles this year
Buchholz has MUCH better stuff than either Masterson or Bowden, both of whom project to be mid-rotation starters or relievers. Bowden isn’t close to what Buchholz was last year. Bowden made one decent start.
Buchholz is raw, but has great stuff. He is only 23, and projects to be a top-of-the-rotation starter. Pitchers like that are hard to find. It would be foolish to trade him after one bad season (a season in which he averaged nearly a strike out an inning).
As for Lowrie, he is a decent player. When did he become untouchable? Also, forget Peavy. The is no chance that he will come to Boston or any other AL team.
Of the four players you mentioned—Lowrie, Masterson, Buchholz, and Bowden—Buchholz has the highest ceiling.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Oct 28, 2008 11:33 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Agreed.
People are overreacted to Buchholz’s struggles. A guy by the name of Johan Santana struggled his first year in the Bigs. I’m not saying the Buchholz will be the next Santana, but my point is you never know. Buchholz has dominated at every level until last year. We need to show a little patience and restraint.
"You know you're having a bad day when the fifth inning rolls around and they drag the warning track." - Mike Flanagan, Baltimore Orioles pitcher, 1992.
by SoxDevil on Oct 29, 2008 12:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Masterson and Lowrie
performed in crucial situations in the playoffs.
I do not understand how a pitcher who has only 1 or 2 credible starts has a higher ceiling than two young players who were put into extremely stressful and important playoff situations and came through.
Sorry to keep disagreeing on Buchholz, but I believe people are enticed by his “potential” and fail to look at players with less potential who play better in the bigs.
In fact I will go as far as to say that Lowrie is no longer a prospect he is the Sox starting SS in 09 and Masterson is Papelbon’s setup man in 09, which says to me that both are better players than Buchholz. They have both proven they can handle the majors while Buchholz still cannot get his fastball over in the AFL.
Nope sorry guys, Buchholz is not even in the same conversation as Lowrie or Masterson and I bet anything that is the way Theo and Terry F. look at the situation.
So if the Sox need to make a deal, Buchholz is the low man and gets dealt, IMO.
by SoxAcumen on Oct 29, 2008 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
the same Masterson who posted a 68/40 K/BB ratio this year?
posted a 4.70 FIP/4.30 xFIP as half-starter half-reliever?
Masterson’s BABIP: .243
Buchholtz’s BABIP: .355
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Oct 29, 2008 2:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The one and only.
Btw, there is a ‘T’ in a ‘Team’ but there isn’t one in ‘Buchholz.’
"It's just a tiny little nick, but it hurts when I get champagne in there."
- Jason Bay, on getting spiked scoring the winning run in ALDS Game Four.
by 0157H7 on Oct 29, 2008 3:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you're overrating playoff production.
David Eckstein was the 2006 World Series MVP for the Cardinals. He hasn’t transformed into a superb hitter though.
Also, Lowrie didn’t hit that well in the playoffs. In the ALDS he was .364 / .462 / .364 in 11 AB, but he was .111 / .261 / .167 in the ALCS (18 AB). Combine that, and you have a rather pedestrian line of .207 / .333 / .241 in 29 October at bats.
Masterson was good, but I still think that Buchholz has better raw stuff and a higher ceiling. Sadly, we’ve seen his floor this season.
"It's just a tiny little nick, but it hurts when I get champagne in there."
- Jason Bay, on getting spiked scoring the winning run in ALDS Game Four.
by 0157H7 on Oct 29, 2008 4:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am looking
at the three players and what each has done in important game situations. Masterson and Lowrie have proven their worth. Buchholz had to be sent to AFL and work on his stuff bc it was not MLB quality.
So, IMO Masterson and Lowrie are MLB players which is worth more than a guy who just has “potential.”
you can take the kid with potential, ill take the guy who hit the game winning single in the ALDS and the guy who was our 8th inning setup man and performed well in both the ALDS and ALCS.
by SoxAcumen on Oct 29, 2008 8:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What’s with this hatred of potential? What, because it’s not quantifiable?
We had a pitcher in the past who had great potential who for 2 years would be given starts and yet wasn’t proving himself and would struggle. At the same time within the 2nd year there was another pitcher that given only slightly less starts had good results and was getting us wins, but he wasn’t thought to have the same potential as the first.
So under your line of thinking, during 2007 we should have traded away Lester instead of Gabbard, because potential be damned, Gabbard was actually being successful and had "proven"* he can be successful in the bigs
*not actually, it turned out just to be a case of small sample size
by Realistic on Oct 30, 2008 12:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Oct 30, 2008 6:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with realistic
Hold on to everybody. Our team is good enough that we only have to make some tweaks in the off season. Let’s remember, we were 2 runs away from the world series, despite many issues that I won’t get into.
Our team is pretty much set for now. No need to trade away the future to make the present better than it already is.
by Schulz on Oct 31, 2008 1:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Opposite view is that
the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting different resutls!
There is a reason why they say death and taxes are the only thing you can count on. Organizations always need money and time and aging always go forward. Old players don’t perform well , get hurt quickly, and do not heal fast because of an inviolate reason—-AGING WHICH IS IRREVERSIBLE AT THIS TIME!
by NG on Nov 1, 2008 10:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hmm ...
Old players don’t perform well
Manny Ramirez (36) 37 HR 121 RBI .332 AVG/.430 OBP/.601 SLG
Chipper Jones (36) 22 HR 75 RBI .364 AVG/.470 OBP/.574 SLG
Magglio Ordonez (34) 21 HR 103 RBI 3.17 AVG/.376 OBP/.494 SLG
Ichiro Suzuki (35) 6 HR 42 RBI .310 AVG/.361 OBP/.386 SLG
Johnny Damon (34) 17 HR 71 RBI .303 AVG/.375 OBP/.461 SLG
Alex Rodriguez (33) 35 HR 103 RBI .302 AVG/.392 OBP/.573 SLG
Sure, you’d like to have a young, inexpensive team. But, Damon and Ichiro were better lead-off hitters last year than Ellsbury. Ellsbury has more upside (but, then again, we don’t really want to talk about potential here—do we?).
The Sox don’t really have significant age issues, except at catcher. Ortiz and Drew are 32. Lowell is 34. Every other starting poistion player is 30 or younger.
the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting different resutls!
The Sox won 96 games in 2007 and 95 games in 2008. I like those results. I don’t expect to win the WS every year like MFY fans do.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Nov 1, 2008 11:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It was not due to the elderly Varitek and Wakefield
that they won 95 in 2008. In fact, they would have likely won the WS without these guys, but that is speculation. What is not speculation is that another year will NOT add to the skills of either of these WAY OVER THE HILL players, and will almost certainly damage the sox record even more than this year if they are not removed!
by NG on Nov 1, 2008 5:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm with Drugs
Keep Buchholz.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
by tommy.otm on Oct 28, 2008 10:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
Tek has declined to the point in which you have to do-whatever-you-have -to-do to improve that position, especially in the extremely-competitive (now that TB is very competitive) AL East. It isn’t just numbers; as Sox fans we saw him play all season and it was not easy to watch many times. What disappointed me most was in the playoffs when the announcers remarked that Varitek pouted and complained when Tito pinch hit for him.
Note – Speaking of “watching the game,” too many stats can make one lose some common sense in evaluating a player. I watched almost as many Cardinal games as I did Red Sox and anyone who ranks Yadier Molina 16th (Sky Kalkman’s list) among catchers has little credibility. I could go on and on about Molina’s value to the Cards but what’s the point? Ask people in MLB.
by ccthemovieman on Oct 28, 2008 3:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
"agreement" was with 0157H7's comments
not about Martin, who looked pretty pathetic in the NLCS.
by ccthemovieman on Oct 28, 2008 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
that list is just based on performance THIS YEAR
he was 9th last year. i will fully admit that the defensive contributions of a catcher in regards to working with a pitcher are not yet measurable. however…
one of the advantages you get from NOT watching the games is that you don’t have to listen to announcers and interviews with managers over-hyping things like David Eckstein’s intangibles. those will mess you up.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Oct 28, 2008 4:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes I agree with you there
but, believe me, Molina is a great catcher and, next to Albert, the most most valuable player on the Cardinals. There are some overrated St. Louis players, too.
Anyway, I’m glad you didn’t take it personally and I appreciate all the work you do on your statistics. I was very disappointed in Russell Martin in the playoffs, but maybe he just had a bad series or two. Still, yes, I’d take him over Varitek in a heartbeat, at this stage in their careers.
by ccthemovieman on Oct 28, 2008 4:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sky doesn't do this work himself.
He links to Justin’s numbers (the google spreadsheet) repeatedly. Justin’s numbers are just one measure, and they are flawed, particularly on defense, where they overrate 1Bmen and underrate CFs. According to Justin, Crisp (-12.6 runs??!!) and Ellsbury (-0.5) are both net negative fielders. According to Justin, Sean Casey and Alex Cora both contributed more to the team than Crisp did in “total value.” These findings don’t square with observation, and they don’t square with other metrics either.
"It's just a tiny little nick, but it hurts when I get champagne in there."
- Jason Bay, on getting spiked scoring the winning run in ALDS Game Four.
by 0157H7 on Oct 28, 2008 4:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
the position adjustments do NOT overrate 1Bs and underrate CF
your disagreements are with a few fielding ratings. there are some possible reasons: the metrics don’t properly account for the Green Monster, you are wrong about their actual fielding talents, or the metrics just happen to miss on some players.
1Bs get -12.5 runs per full season just for playing 1B
CFs get +2.5 runs per full season just for playing CF
That’s a 15-run gap. Click on my links to the fielding spectrum for information on how that’s derived.
Also, these ratings are dependent on playing time. Casey was -5 run on defense in only 218 PAs. Ellsbury was -3 in over 600 PAs. Pro-rating Casey’s playing time, he was a -15 defender. This is not solely a measure of quality, but also of quantity.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Oct 28, 2008 9:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That just strikes me as “fudge factor” to skew a flawed metric into looking reasonable. Someone looked at the data and adjusted the coefficients until it matched what his perception was.
"You know you're having a bad day when the fifth inning rolls around and they drag the warning track." - Mike Flanagan, Baltimore Orioles pitcher, 1992.
by SoxDevil on Oct 29, 2008 12:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
that's pretty ignorant considering i don't think you've even looked at how the position adjustments were derived
yes, the numbers were massaged so that there were nice five-run gaps, but the methodology is extremely sound. when we start nit-picking single and half runs, it’s a good sign that the overall results are pretty sound.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Oct 29, 2008 1:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let's not get carried away here
Sky,
I do appreciate the effort that goes into these analyses, and they are always interesting, but it is actually ignorant to use the terms “derived” and “sound” here. By the standards of the physical sciences, all SABR based analysis is very questionable. None of is based on real testable underlying theory. None of it is derived. Partly, as in economics, that is simply the nature of a complex, human-influenced subject. Further, I strongly suspect that some aspects of the statistical analyses themselves are poor. I have mentioned this before in the misuse of Gaussian statistics (as is unfortunately done in economics) which can greatly bias the prediction of otherwise rare events.
Basically all of these metrics are based on empirical observation, which is fine and necessary here. However, you can subdivide these into testable and (largely) untestable metrics. An example of a testable metric is Pythagorean WL. You simply can test it vs. actual record and analyze the deviations. Essentially all of the fielding metrics are the untestable variety. What I mean here is more than just saying they are not good. What I mean is it is nearly impossible to determine if they can be good which is a much stronger statement. This fact arises simply from the very nature of what you are trying to do, which is determine relative worth based on a skill that is complex and not marked by simple statistic. You may argue that assigning +/- runs per position in one way is better than another, but you cannot test it.
My feeling is that much of these metrics simply quantify what an astute observer notices by eye-namely I don’t need complicated metrics to know that Jeter is a poor SS, while much more than that is unclear. While interesting, I am highly suspicious of the utility above and beyond direct observation for untestable metrics. The “untestable” metrics are interesting, but nothing more.
by Buzzy on Oct 29, 2008 8:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
An imperfect science
Hits, errors, and other common statistics are judged by human officials that figure in many complex aspects into their decision. Those aspects include such arbitrary aspects as difficulty of a play, and so forth.
Range metrics are inherently flawed. What constitutes “in range” for a particular player? Based on speed and fielding ability, a guy’s teammates may play in a zone that varies from the average. There are metrics that attempt to account for that, but it’s difficult.
When a person watches a play his or her evaluation is based on countless similar plays that ended well or poorly.
The effort to analyze reams of data is admirable and helpful to fans and front offices. However, it’s an imperfect science that can only go so far before you’d have to record everything numerically and run algorithms on the data with the result of the play figured in. As such, people show resistance when the information is put forward as gospel.
"You know you're having a bad day when the fifth inning rolls around and they drag the warning track." - Mike Flanagan, Baltimore Orioles pitcher, 1992.
by SoxDevil on Oct 30, 2008 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes
I agree. You can basically break this down on several levels.
1)There is an inherent difficulty in the forcasting. The subject is complex, the statistical markers are interpretive, and the metrics are often not testable (see above).
2)On top of this the analysis is bad.
“SABR science” is new, and one might say that one should not be critical. Indeed, precisely what is so irksome about Kalkman’s attitude above is a sort of defensive postering against questioning. This is bad, and bad news. This leads to what Feynman called “cargo cult” science, where untested and incorrect things become dogma. This has plagued fields like economics, which, ironically, have had an influx of former mathematicians and physicists applying standards and models that go against what they learned in their original fields, with very bad results. In the hard sciences, you are supposed to question and doubt such dogma. That is what leads to progress, and is the only way to eliminate point (2) above. There may never be a way to eliminate point (1).
by Buzzy on Oct 30, 2008 2:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
With regard to #1
You could go batsh*t crazy and make the field pressure-sensitive to record movement data, such as position, stride length, speed, etc. Compare that with reaction time (movement starting from when the bat hits the ball) and play outcome, and I think you’d be able to come up with a fairly good fielding metric.
"You know you're having a bad day when the fifth inning rolls around and they drag the warning track." - Mike Flanagan, Baltimore Orioles pitcher, 1992.
by SoxDevil on Oct 31, 2008 9:55 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i'd like to hear how you think the methodolog Justin uses isn't as good as something else out there
offense, position, or fielding…
fielding i’ll help you with - i’d rather have something like UZR averaged with Dewan’s +/, but UZR isn’t available and +/- isn’t free. Win Shares, BPro’s stats, fielding percentage, range factor, and most others don’t use play-by-play data, making them much worse options.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Oct 28, 2008 9:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If RZR was invented to improve upon zone rating, why would someone scrunch the two together (and throw in FSR for more fun)? That’s like putting a rocket engine on a chariot.
I’m fine with using RZR and other THT stats to evaluate fielding. When I write about defense, I’m very up-front about what I’m using, and I usually preface my remarks by saying that this stat says or suggests this conclusion. I don’t pretend to have the final word on the subject.
You seem to have some faith in Justin’s numbers above and beyond what is scientifically justified. They are hardly the best system out there, and I’ve found flaws in the fielding methodology, which I’ve pointed out. Your defensiveness when the numbers’ accuracy is challenged is rather surprising.
"It's just a tiny little nick, but it hurts when I get champagne in there."
- Jason Bay, on getting spiked scoring the winning run in ALDS Game Four.
by 0157H7 on Oct 28, 2008 10:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
two points
One, the offensive numbers and positional adjustments ARE better than anything else out there. I feel very confident in that. The linear weights are BaseRuns-derived, park adjusted, and league-adjusted. The replacement-level is set correctly. For the position adjustments, they are based on relative defensive value/abilities of each position instead of relative offensive levels, which is just incorrect. Win Shares, BPro’s VORP (or WARP), or anything else you’ll find addressing offense and position just don’t stack up. I’m happy to address any specific points you wan to raise.
Two, I agree the fielding metrics aren’t perfect and could be better. I’d love to have a combination of Dewan’s +/- and UZR instead — more granular data and more advanced analysis of the data. But the first requires money and the second isn’t available. Also, RZR is NOT an “improvement” on zone rating. It is a zone rating — it’s just what THT calls theirs. Adding in OOZ plays is a small upgrade, but less than one might think. The other zone rating Justin averages into the fielding metric is STATS’ zone rating, which is the same thing as RZR, but from a different stats company (RZR is from Baseball Info Solutions data). The reason they are averaged is to attempt to eliminate the quirkiness of either data set. The two companies use different zones.
I have faith in the methods Justin uses and I had faith in them before Justin started posting his numbers. They are almost exactly the methods I used to calculate my own value numbers last year, although none of the original ideas are mine. Patriot provided the linear weights method and park factors. Tango provided the defensive spectrum and replacement-level methodology. MGL provided the league-adjustment. Chris Dial and others are responsible for the zone rating converted to runs methodology. I’m not following blindly here. I made decisions on what methods are correct and then found the numbers based on those methods. Justin happens to be the one posting them.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Oct 29, 2008 10:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i'll call BS on Molina as second most valuable player
How about Ludwick? Glaus? Kennedy? Ankiel? Schumaker, whos’ a very good defender?
One of the reasons St. Louis pitchers seemed so good this year is that the defense was outstanding, one of the best in the league, at about +40 runs relative to average.
and, no offense, but what reason do I (or anyone else here) have to “believe you”?
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Oct 28, 2008 9:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You might want to get your head
out of your statistical butt and watch a few Cardinal games and perhaps listen to manager Tony LaRussa and ptiching coach Dave Duncan who MIGHT know a little more basebal than you. For instance, La Russa (a notorious control freak) and Duncan estimate that Molina is responsible for calling over 75% of all pitches thrown during a game. That’s pretty “valuable.”
Handling pitchers and being a team leader (as he is) is one reason Jason Varitek has kept his job the past few seasons, despite much less productivity than Molina. That sort of thing is “valuable,” but doesn’t show up on stat sheets.
Molina also hit .304 and was one of the league leaders with only 29 strikeouts in 475+ at bats. I’m sure there are many other stats to back up his value to the Cards but that gets boring.
No offense, but you might want to watch some games here and there……maybe next year.
by ccthemovieman on Nov 1, 2008 10:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Not yet measurable?"
cERA, anyone? Not ideal, by any means, but that IS a measurement of the catcher’s impact on the pitcher (and/or the pitcher’s comfort level with them).
"It's just a tiny little nick, but it hurts when I get champagne in there."
- Jason Bay, on getting spiked scoring the winning run in ALDS Game Four.
by 0157H7 on Oct 28, 2008 4:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, check out
how well a bunch of mediocre pitchers have done with Molina as their catcher, as opposed to others (and Dave Duncan, of course, as the pitching coach.)
What do you guys think of Boston’s pitching and hitting coaches?
by ccthemovieman on Oct 28, 2008 4:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What is clutch? Rate the Red Sox...
Hi!
I’m Kristin, a University of Pennsylvania psychology student. I am currently conducting an honors thesis study on clutch ability and psychological characteristics of Major league baseball players. I made a survey asking fans to rate players from various teams on certain characteristics. One of these teams is the Red Sox and it would be great to have some people who read this blog, since you are huge Red Sox fans, to fill out my survey. Here is some background info:
What is "clutch"? What players are considered "clutch" performers? What players are "gritty" or have natural talent? Are these players also "clutch"? These frequently cited terms in the game of baseball have never been objectively studied, but I am trying to change that. I have created a survey asking about some Major League players’ characteristics and it would be great if some of you, being huge baseball fans, could fill it out! It should only take a maximum of 15 minutes. Also, I would love to hear any comments that you have about my survey! Thanks so much for all your help!
Here is the website for my survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=VUWValhJzb65tk1lZoMMEQ_3d_3d
Kristin
by baseballkristin on Oct 28, 2008 3:14 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I only casted one vote: Dustin Pedroia, EXTREMELY GRITTY!
by Randy Booth on Oct 28, 2008 4:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is the Grit:dirt-on-the-uniform ratio 1:1?
"You know you're having a bad day when the fifth inning rolls around and they drag the warning track." - Mike Flanagan, Baltimore Orioles pitcher, 1992.
by SoxDevil on Oct 29, 2008 12:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I voted "other."
I don’t know much about the management structures in baseball, or with the Red Sox. But I do believe Varitek has a place with the Red Sox even if he doesn’t play for us. He’s the Captain because he leads the players and he leads the games. We have a lot of youth in the organization, and I believe that they would listen to a coach who they’ve watched win the World Series more than someone who might have a name but isn’t anyone these young players have seen win. Varitek’s leadership can happen off the field. He can groom catchers—and pitchers with their strategies—even if he doesn’t play on the field anymore. I’d love to see him have another year to see if he can pick up his stats or at least keep his numbers above a potential replacement; and I wouldn’t mind seeing him not play if the Sox find or create a better replacement; what would piss me off, though, is if the Red Sox toss out all of Varitek’s skills just because one or two of them aren’t up to par. If he isn’t the best player for the position, then he shouldn’t play; but if he wants to stay with the Sox, let him be a manager, or a coach, or a consultant, and we’d all be better off for it.
by JonB on Oct 28, 2008 3:49 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Those are good points.
I felt the same way about Schilling, that he could offer the pitching staff valuable knowledge.
by ccthemovieman on Oct 28, 2008 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think he’s ready to retire as a player yet. I’d guess 1-3 years, with several years off from the game proper. I wouldn’t be surprised if he does work for NESN on the side if he stays in the area. He could return in a coaching capacity some day, but I doubt immediately.
"You know you're having a bad day when the fifth inning rolls around and they drag the warning track." - Mike Flanagan, Baltimore Orioles pitcher, 1992.
by SoxDevil on Oct 29, 2008 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
sign tek
I say sign tek, but the price should be low. No way does the team pay 10 million a year.
by spinz on Oct 28, 2008 5:34 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I can think of one reason why the price won't be low
Scott Boras.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Oct 28, 2008 6:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Anyone really think Tek is coming back?
For a few days I have thought that if Tek wants to come back, the Sox will sign him, but in reality there is no way Tek is back.
Not with Boras as his agent. Boras has already stated the Tigers are interested for 2 years. So unless, the Sox give 3 years or more money, neither an option Theo wants, Tek is gone.
This is only my opinion from reading articles….so don’t take it as gospel.
by SoxAcumen on Oct 28, 2008 9:42 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Sounds fine to me.
If he’s Type B or A, we offer him arbitration and get some draft picks; and save several million bucks.
"It's just a tiny little nick, but it hurts when I get champagne in there."
- Jason Bay, on getting spiked scoring the winning run in ALDS Game Four.
by 0157H7 on Oct 28, 2008 9:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let's remember
Boras works for Varitek, not the other way around. In the end, it’s gonna be Tek’s call, and there’s no way in hell he is going to the tigers for slightly more money.
Yes, baseball is a business, but in the end, the sox are a classy organization and varitek is a classy guy. Theo will give him a respectful offer (something like 2 yeas, $15MM) and Varitek will accept.
by Schulz on Oct 29, 2008 2:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'll take Tek on a two year deal.
He can be a part-timer.
He started pretty strong last season, only to completely wear out in June. He doesn’t have the legs to be an everyday player.
But he can be an excellent part-time warrior/full-time mentor. Think this guy.
Then when Brad Mills leaves to manage the A’s, Tek can become our bench coach, keep some of the perks of being a player, and eventual take over for Tito.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
by tommy.otm on Oct 28, 2008 10:38 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Nice idea.
But why would Tek do this? Out of loyalty to the organization? Maybe. But I expect him to demand a full-time playing role, and leave if the Sox don’t offer one.
This could be a very bitter process, and I expect Boras to use the media to inflame it. Most serious Red Sox fans probably realize that Tek’s best years are behind him, and from a business standpoint it’ll be necessary to move on.
"It's just a tiny little nick, but it hurts when I get champagne in there."
- Jason Bay, on getting spiked scoring the winning run in ALDS Game Four.
by 0157H7 on Oct 28, 2008 11:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I give Tek more credit.
He’s got to know he’s no longer an everyday player.
Jason – stay in Boston, keep the moderately hot blonde, eventually make more money managing than you’ll get in extra season or two in Detroit er wherever.
But I agree, if Boras starts flaming this through the media, demanding retahded years and money, then let him walk.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
by tommy.otm on Oct 28, 2008 11:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tek may be Type A
Blogger Tigers-Thoughts ran some numbers and tried to predict what the Elias Type ratings will be. [The Elias bureau determines whether a free agent is Type A, Type B or no type. Type As result in first-round draft pick compensation if they leave to sign with another team, generally; Bs in second round. Players without a type generate no compensation.]
I can’t vouch for the methodology, but it’s worth a look. According to the list for catchers, Jason Varitek would be a Type A. If the Sox offer arbitration, they could get a pretty nice pick if Tek signs elsewhere. If he signs with the Tigers, who may be interested but whose 1st round pick is protected (for finishing so poorly), the Sox would get a 2nd round pick.
"It's just a tiny little nick, but it hurts when I get champagne in there."
- Jason Bay, on getting spiked scoring the winning run in ALDS Game Four.
by 0157H7 on Oct 29, 2008 9:38 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
2/15
That’s max to give Tek. The man is a carcass, not only at the plate but behind the plate. Sure he may call a good game, but stopping the running game was non-existent this year. What 20% thrown out(too lazy to look up stats). Sure some of that is on the pitcher, but 20% is weak.
by sydneysox on Oct 29, 2008 11:06 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Tek is toast. The problem is that the only thing the Sox can get right now on the free agent market is even more burnt toast, and the only other option is trading stuff to Texas to get some very expensive fresh-made bread.
Or they could go with Cash and Brown and Kottaras or re-sign David Ross or some such.
Is Wake coming back? That’s another factor in the catching situation.
by morineko on Oct 31, 2008 1:56 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
MLB trade rumors seems to think so.
Regarding Wake that is.
by Schulz on Oct 31, 2008 1:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Soto from Cubs to Sox for Youk?
What about this scenario? The Cubs trade you Geo Soto, a young catcher who is strong both offensively and defensively, and will be the NL ROY, for Youk? I know you don’t want to see Youk go, but this would be the chance to solve a problem for many years to come.
by rememberthecoop on Oct 31, 2008 1:46 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
wow, that's pretty interesting
No doubt Youk is the better player, by a win or two. But Soto is cheaper and signed longer. And there’s a highly productive free agent 1B worth signing, whereas the catcher market is empty.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Oct 31, 2008 2:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Cubs are looking for a leadoff hitter and left handed RF
Why not trade the Cubs Jacoby Ellsbury/Coco Crisp and JD Drew and a prospect for Geovanny Soto and Mike Fontenot ( a 2b with pop)
What do you think about that? If we shed JD Drew’s and Coco Crisp contract, we can go after Matt Holliday or someone else
by MrShowtime on Oct 31, 2008 2:42 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
DO NOT WANT HOLLIDAY.
Coors got him drunk on hitting. We don’t need a 2B w/ pop, we got one with more that enough soda. And JD is good when healthy.
Clutch: A measurement of how much better or worse a player does in high leverage situations than he would have done in a context neutral environment. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/glossary/
by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Nov 1, 2008 9:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Cubs have no place for Kevin Youk as they have Aramis Ramirez at 3rd and Derrek Lee at 1B and both have full no trade protection
by MrShowtime on Oct 31, 2008 2:43 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
They were looking to trade Lee as recently as a week ago.
I doubt he’d turn down a trade to a title-contending team if they offer him a long contract. And yes, the Cubs could offer him that contract, but I think the curse is starting to get to some players. He helped extend it with the Marlins too.
Clutch: A measurement of how much better or worse a player does in high leverage situations than he would have done in a context neutral environment. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/glossary/
by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Nov 1, 2008 9:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
