At 32, Burrell probably has a half-dozen productive slugging years ahead of him. He wound up earning nearly as much salary per year as Drew so far and when you measure their power numbers and games played, it really is no contest. Pat has played nearly two fewer seasons than Drew yet has appeared in 97 more games, hit 59 more homers and driven in 190 more runs. In a lineup tilted toward lefthanded power hitters, Burrell has been the one righthanded bat in the middle of the lineup who pitchers had to get past.

That's some pretty homerific analysis right there. So I'll reply with some homerific defense of Drew...

First of all, the "two fewer seasons" include Drew's first 36 AB "season".

Secondly, HR and RBI's is about the only thing Burrell leads Drew in. No doubt this is aided by the fact that, except for the last 2 years, Burrell played in a vastly more homer-/hitter-friendly park than Drew. Drew leads Burrell 129 to 119 in career OPS+.

Thirdly, Burrell is a statue in left, Drew is at least a decent right fielder. And he's also a much better baserunner.

"No contest" indeed...

It's sad that all the credit for the Eagles' Super Bowl appearance with McNabb goes to an egotistical, maniacal, infantile WR. Especially when he didn't play one snap in the playoffs until the big game - and they lost.

Drew leads Burrell 129 to 119 in career OPS+.

Well, a rate stat is probably as misleading as RBI, given that Drew's major weakness has been an inability to stay on the field.

Since 2000, in 9 full seasons, Burrell has 845 Runs Created.
Since 2000, in what should have been 9 full seasons, Drew has 771.

If you include defense and baserunning, then Drew makes up this gap, but I think Conlin's HR and RBI numbers are in support of the right conclusion. Adjust some for hitting context, but a team still would have got more offensive production out of Burrell over the last 9 years then they would out of Drew.

Since 2000, in 9 full seasons, Burrell has 845 Runs Created. Since 2000, in what should have been 9 full seasons, Drew has 771.

But that's not adjusting for position. Evan just on offense, including Drew's missed playing time, it's still at very least close.

BPro
Since 2000, Burrell has 345 BRAR.
Since 2000, Drew has 351 BRAR.

BRef
Since 2000, Burrell has 142.3 BtRns.
Since 2000, Drew has 188 BtRns.

Once you factor in position, defense and baserunning, it really is no contest...

Well, a rate stat is probably as misleading as RBI, given that Drew's major weakness has been an inability to stay on the field.

And runs created is probably as misleading as a rate stat, given that it doesn't accurately portray the value of the ability to stay on the field.

Quick and dirty (BR's Batting Wins + 2 wins/650 PA), Drew leads Burrell 30.7 to 29.9 over the chosen period, never mind the "better at every other aspect of the game" portion of the analysis.


Edit: Bastard...

wow, a Goreaphobia reference. You've outdone yourself.

At 32, Burrell probably has a half-dozen productive slugging years ahead of him.

The futures of Burrell's B-Ref through age 31 comps paint a somewhat less rosy picture.

B-Ref comps do not have predictive value like that.

The futures of Burrell's B-Ref through age 31 comps paint a somewhat less rosy picture.
I'd be happy with the Frank Howard path. :)
Interesting mix of complete flameouts and wonderful late middle career performances.

B-Ref comps do not have predictive value like that.

Great, now I'm going to read all your posts as if they were voiced by Morbo.

I'd be happy with the Frank Howard path. :)

You mean get fired by the Yankees?

drink.

This thread is a rather telling example of how statistics don't always replace judgment, they just aid it.

Once you factor in position, defense and baserunning, it really is no contest...

Sure, but read Conlin's quote again:

He wound up earning nearly as much salary per year as Drew so far and when you measure their power numbers and games played, it really is no contest.

Colin makes enough mistakes that I don't see the need to invent an entire argument that he doesn't make, and then proceed to pick apart said imaginary argument.

Note: I'm the same guy that posted 3 - not sure how my handle from three years ago made it up there!

Edit - To number 5 - RC is a rate stat? Positional adjusted stats are irrelevant to the point. The following statement still stands:

"A team still would have got more offensive production out of Burrell over the last 9 years then they would out of Drew."

Once you factor in position, defense and baserunning, it really is no contest...

Sure, but read Conlin's quote again:

He wound up earning nearly as much salary per year as Drew so far and when you measure their power numbers and games played, it really is no contest.

Now you're taking my quote out of context. I said, evan if you are judgin just on offense, it's close. You can certainly make a case for Burrell, but it's far from 'no contest'.

Also, quick edit:
He wound up earning nearly as much salary per year as Drew

Bringing in salary actually only makes sense when you are comparing total value. You can't say: Player x earned less than player y, but player x was better at this particular part of the game. No contest. QED.

That just doesn't work. It's a dishonest argument.

The futures of Burrell's B-Ref through age 31 comps paint a somewhat less rosy picture.
I'd be happy with the Frank Howard path. :)
Interesting mix of complete flameouts and wonderful late middle career performances.

Except the guys with "wonderful late middle career performances" were all MUCH better than Burrell to begin with- the only guy reasonably close to Burrell in terms of caliber of hitter who was decent for a few years after age 31 was Wertz.

Except the guys with "wonderful late middle career performances" were all MUCH better than Burrell to begin with

Good point -- I always forget how freaking good Howard was. Nothing like playing in Dodger stadium in the 60s to supress your stats. Then he had his best years with the team that time forgot. I mean who paid attention to the pre-Ranger Senators?

I sure hope the Phils offer Burrell arbitration. What's to lose except a couple of million? Either they solve their LF problem expensively for one year if he goes to arb, which is pretty unlikely, or they get nice draft picks.

Burrell in LF in 2009 for 1 year is looking like a better option than a multi-year deal with Baldelli or trading valuable chits for Ibanez or Dye. (or is Ibanez a FA, which would mean multi-years?)

or is Ibanez a FA, which would mean multi-years?

He is indeed. Although entering his age 37 season, and there are a lot of LFers on the market, so it might be possible to get him for a 2-year deal or so...

Or if you overpay for a 1 year deal, he might believe there's a better deal to be had in a years time, when there are fewer LFers on the market...

Offering Burrell arbitration is a no-brainer. If he accepts and the financial hit means we can't re-sign Jamie Moyer, then so be it. (I love Moyer, but the prospect of giving a 46-year-old pitcher a 2-year deal for several million per year frightens the hell out of me.)

Good point -- I always forget how freaking good Howard was. Nothing like playing in Dodger stadium in the 60s to supress your stats.

BBREF comps might be more "useful" if they were based upon neutralized numbers rather than raw numbers.
The current era in MLB is a very high offense era- a lot of times a guy today might have as BBREF comps several guys who were MUCH BETTER but played in a lower offense era.
Howard v. Burrell is a good comp. to illustrate that- they had similar raw total through age 31- but Howard played in 1960s Dodger Stadium-
League Average for Howard's career (park adjusted) was .251/.319/.379
League average for Burrell's career is: .270/.342/.435

(It's like the difference between the FSL and the Calif League (.290/.360/.490 in the FSL is MORE impressive than .315/.390/.555 in the Cal.)

To number 5 - RC is a rate stat?

"...as misleading as a rate stat."

It's a dishonest argument.


I think we basically agree about the relative merits of Burrell and Drew, but Conlin was in no way being dishonest. He clearly stated the criteria he was choosing. If he wanted to say Burrell was a better 'player', he would have said that.

Sometimes writers just make stupid arguments, but sometimes they just make 'different' argumets than the ones we want to see made.

Also, I'll be very surprised if Burrell isn't offered arb, and even more surprised if he accepted. For a team comming off a World Series win, a one-year contract can be absorbed even if it puts the team over budget.

Edit - Thanks Greg; it still seems confusing though. RC does factor in the ability to stay on the field in a way that rate stats simply dont.

3/35 for Burrell? Is there really a chance he'll go that cheaply? Is there a chance that the Phillies would pass up that price?

RC does factor in the ability to stay on the field in a way that rate stats simply dont.

It factors it in, but it goes too far and ends up being wrong in the other direction.

3/35 for Burrell? Is there really a chance he'll go that cheaply?

That sounds about right to me, considering how many corner outfielders are available. Maybe 3/36, just to even it out at 12 per.

Burrell declined a 2 year $22 million offer from the Phils, in case that hasn't been pointed out already. I think he's looking for something like 3/$45.

I think we basically agree about the relative merits of Burrell and Drew, but Conlin was in no way being dishonest. He clearly stated the criteria he was choosing. If he wanted to say Burrell was a better 'player', he would have said that.

Sometimes writers just make stupid arguments, but sometimes they just make 'different' argumets than the ones we want to see made.

He does state his criteria, but it is still a dishonest argument (or at least a wrong one). He makes the link between raw offensive production, and salary, and declares a winner.

It's either dishonest or wrong. If you want to argue that it's the latter, then fine. But it really has nothing to do with personal preferences. It clearly crosses that line.

If Burrell ends up at 3/35-45, that's got to be an indication that the world market is pulling down the baseball market big time. In this May Sox Therapy thread, I suggested that either Burrell or Dunn could end up getting 3/40-50, but several posters made very convincing cases that 6/100 or more was far more likely. Carlos Lee was the oft-cited example.

If Burrell (and Dunn?) is getting 3/40 or less, I'd have to seriously reconsider what to Tex is worth.

And whither Abreu?

Carlos Lee was the oft-cited example.

If Burrell (and Dunn?) is getting 3/40 or less, I'd have to seriously reconsider what to Tex is worth.

To be fair, I should point out up front that I'm taking the under on just about everyone. That said, Lee's contract is widely seen as a terrible one, right? Same with Soriano. Now, MLB owners/GMs are obviously not above repeating the mistakes of their peers, but I just don't see those 2 contracts as market-setting deals (you can throw in Zito, too).

I don't think they're great deals (though I think the Lee deal is treated a bit too harshly), but Lee and Soriano are the most recent corner OF/slugger types to be on the FA market. If you want to extend it to CF, you could also throw in Torii Hunter at 5/90.

Some of it is the global economy, some of it is that there are a ton of very good hitting, (mostly) poor defensive players available this offseason. The year Lee and Soriano were out there, they were the best hitters on the FA market. This year you've got Manny, Tex, Dunn, Burrell, Bradley, Giambi, Ibanez and Dye (via trade). And Holliday, Swisher, Willingham and Jacobs (he kinda belongs) have already been traded mostly not bringing much in return. Of that group of 8, Tex is the only one who should be of serious interest to NL teams.

Look at the options. If Manny wants $30 M, you go talk to Tex. If you don't want the risk of signing Tex for 6-8 years, you see if Dunn or Burrell will sign for 3-4 years. If that's still too much commitment for you, try for Giambi, Ibanez or Dye for a year or two. (Bradley's a wild card -- I have no idea if he can stay healthy enough to play the field, no idea how many years or what kind of money he can really expect)

Were I a GM, I think I'd only be interested in shopping at the top (Tex) or the bottom of this market ... though Burrell for 3/$35 looks pretty good unless the economy has really killed revenue projections. I just can't see those other guys returning good value on the dollar.

Hasn't this fat windbag had enough time in Philly? Or is he destined to die there since modern technology hasn't invented a vehicle powerful enough to move him somewhere else?

Hasn't this fat windbag had enough time in Philly? Or is he destined to die there since modern technology hasn't invented a vehicle powerful enough to move him somewhere else?

Are you talking about Burrell?