BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: Marlins Get a Potential Bargain in Jose Reyes

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, December 05, 2011

Marlins Get a Potential Bargain in Jose Reyes | FanGraphs Baseball

Here’s essentially what Reyes would need to produce to justify this contract as fair market price, based on $5 million per win and 5% annual inflation over the life of the contract:

Year WAR $/WAR Value
2012 3.53 $5.00 $17.67
2013 3.37 $5.25 $17.67
2014 3.20 $5.51 $17.67
2015 3.05 $5.79 $17.67
2016 2.91 $6.08 $17.67
2017 2.77 $6.38 $17.67
At that price, the Marlins are essentially paying for a total of +19 WAR over the next six years. What does +19 WAR from a shortstop look like over a six year period?
...
If Reyes manages to stay reasonably healthy for most of the next six years, the Marlins are going to get a lot of surplus value from this contract. They’ve signed an elite player who isn’t yet 30 years old and whose skillset historically ages quite well. He doesn’t have to be the next ironhorse to earn this contract — he just has to stay away from something like a skillset-altering leg injury. Essentially, if he can avoid the Grady Sizemore career path, he’s a pretty good bet to be worth this contract and then some.

Jim Furtado Posted: December 05, 2011 at 08:17 PM | 77 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
Tags: mets, miami

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

1. Famous Original Joe C Posted: December 05, 2011 at 08:41 PM (#4007350)

Essentially, if he can avoid the Grady Sizemore career path, he’s a pretty good bet to be worth this contract and then some....and assuming our dollar valuations of player contracts are right, which they very well might not be.

2. Tom Nawrocki Posted: December 05, 2011 at 08:43 PM (#4007354)

I suppose baseball inflation could average 5 percent over the next six years, but it sure doesn't look like real inflation is going to be anywhere near that.

3. DL from MN Posted: December 05, 2011 at 08:47 PM (#4007360)

Don't you have to take into account that the Marlins already have a good SS? The marginal improvement isn't the full value of Reyes' WAR.

4. Boxkutter Posted: December 05, 2011 at 09:01 PM (#4007370)

Don't you have to take into account that the Marlins already have a good SS? The marginal improvement isn't the full value of Reyes' WAR.

I wouldn't say they had a good SS. They had a good hitter playing SS, but HanRam was terrible defensively. Anything they could do to move him off of SS was a good move. Unless him deciding to hit like a replacement level middle infielder is the new norm for him.

5. AROM Posted: December 05, 2011 at 09:14 PM (#4007379)

Hanley was well below his own standards last year, but an OPS+ of 95 is well above replacement level for a middle infielder. That's only replacement level if you're a 1B or corner OF.

6. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: December 05, 2011 at 09:17 PM (#4007389)

If Reyes only declines by ~5% per year, he will almost certainly be worth his contract. That's a very low rate of decline, though, especially for a player who runs significant blow-up risk. Dumber-than-Marcel projection for Reyes:

+13 Bat +2 Run +15 Rep +5 Pos -3 Def = +32 RAR

That's a $15M player right now. It's not a good thing when a player doesn't project to earn his contract in the first year of a long-term deal. Now, the problem for Reyes is that a weighted, regressed average of his performance puts a weight of 50% on his 2009 and 2010 seasons. If you significantly discount those seasons, as Cameron does when he says, "I don’t think there’s any question that Jose Reyes is legitimately one of the very best players in baseball," then Reyes projects much better, and would probably be a good bet at this price.

What Cameron needs to argue, to get there, is precisely that Reyes is legitimately one of the very best players in baseball. The thing that he needs to argue, however, he simply states as his premise and moves from there.

7. Steve Treder Posted: December 05, 2011 at 09:19 PM (#4007390)

What Cameron needs to argue, to get there, is precisely that Reyes is legitimately one of the very best players in baseball. The thing that he needs to argue, however, he simply states as his premise and moves from there.

Yup.

8. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 05, 2011 at 09:52 PM (#4007437)

9. McCoy Wilfong for Money Posted: December 05, 2011 at 10:08 PM (#4007456)

The #6 post wins the thread.

10. Spivey Posted: December 05, 2011 at 10:16 PM (#4007461)

I actually thought he did a pretty good job of explaining why, using WAR, that he thinks Reyes is an elite player. It does require a level of hand-waving away the 2009 and 2010 seasons, which I'm not crazy about.

I think the problem with the premise is actually the assumption that 5mill/win is the norm. I don't think that's true, and I certainly don't think it will be 6mill/win in a few years.

11. Sam M. Posted: December 05, 2011 at 10:17 PM (#4007463)

If Reyes manages to stay reasonably healthy for most of the next six years, the Marlins are going to get a lot of surplus value from this contract.

Honestly, I don't see how anyone could quarrel with this. In every season after the first full one in which he established himself as a major leaguer and has been healthy, Jose Reyes has been a 5.0+ WAR player. 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2011. The seasons he hasn't were the seasons where he wasn't healthy. The Marlins' gamble here isn't over his quality; it's over his durability. If Reyes is a 5.0 WAR player in his healthy seasons, he should provide enough surplus value to cover the shortfall in any seasons in which he is especially injury-plagued, so long as (in Cameron's terms) Jose is "reasonably healthy." If too much of the next six years are like 2009-10, then they are screwed. But he doesn't have to be in there 155 games a season, every season, for this contract to be fine for Miami.

12. with Glavinesque control and Madduxian poise Posted: December 05, 2011 at 10:18 PM (#4007464)

What Cameron needs to argue, to get there, is precisely that Reyes is legitimately one of the very best players in baseball. The thing that he needs to argue, however, he simply states as his premise and moves from there.

I'm all for trashing on Dave Cameron, guys, but in the article, the three paragraphs following the claim you focus on include arguments like:

The average wRC+ for shortstops in baseball during Reyes’ career is 87 by the way, so you can essentially say that he’s performed at an offensive level 28 percent better than his peers in his career to date. The list of players who can sustain that kind of performance over a nine-year stretch is very small.

Reyes has performed at a similar offensive level to Dunn over the past six years, and he’s done it while playing shortstop.

This kind of offensive performance at a premium position is exceedingly valuable, which is why Reyes has four seasons of at least +5.8 WAR in the past six years.

We can argue about how good these arguments are, but they certainly /look/ like arguments for the claim that Reyes is one of the very best players in baseball.

13. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: December 05, 2011 at 10:21 PM (#4007465)

We can argue about how good these arguments are, but they certainly /look/ like arguments for the claim that Reyes is one of the very best players in baseball.

That's fair. The problem with Cameron's argument is that it's based on a cherry-picked six-year time frame, with equal weight given to 2006 and 2010.

14. Sam M. Posted: December 05, 2011 at 10:32 PM (#4007480)

The problem with Cameron's argument is that it's based on a cherry-picked six-year time frame, with equal weight given to 2006 and 2010.

Never mind that Reyes just had his best season in 2011.

And 2010 really comes down to the injury issue: that season doesn't reflect his true talent level. He was coming back from the 2009 lay-off and dealing with the thyroid issue that screwed up his spring training and delayed the start of his season. Reyes was better in the second half than the first.

Again -- Reyes is an injury/health risk. He is not a quality-player risk.

15. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: December 05, 2011 at 10:35 PM (#4007488)

I remember when I was first learning about sabermetrics, there was the notion of "old man skills" and how some players aged better than others, and guys like Reyes wouldn't age well because speed is the first thing to go when you get old, etc. Has that been refuted or is it still believed that players with Reyes' skill set don't age well?

The thought that he won't age well coupled with his injury risk would make me pretty wary of a six year deal. That, and it seems like six year deals don't pan out more often than they do.

16. Dr. Vaux Posted: December 05, 2011 at 10:50 PM (#4007514)

It's been shown time and time again that players dependent on old player skills age more quickly as a rule than players with speed. I guess that's because the former aren't in the kind of physical condition at the same age that the latter are, and it seems natural enough that if you look at two people of the same age, you'd expect the one in better shape at the time to age better.

It's totally different for pitchers, though, because the heavier ones last just as long as the thinner ones, if not longer. On the other hand, it might not be totally different, because being able to pitch while fat indicates leg strength, and being able to run fast must have something to do with leg strength, too.

17. Nasty Nate Posted: December 05, 2011 at 10:56 PM (#4007525)

I remember when I was first learning about sabermetrics, there was the notion of "old man skills" and how some players aged better than others, and guys like Reyes wouldn't age well because speed is the first thing to go when you get old, etc. Has that been refuted or is it still believed that players with Reyes' skill set don't age well?

I think you have the conclusion backwards ... but I don't know if its been refuted/proven either way.

18. BDC

Posted: December 05, 2011 at 11:05 PM (#4007542)

speed is the first thing to go when you get old, etc. Has that been refuted

I don't know if it's been systematically refuted, but we've had some threads listing lots and lots of guys who ran well into their late 30s. My own WAG would be that the skill that you lose with age is bat speed – whether due to coordination, physical fine-tuning, eyesight, whatever. You lose a fraction of a second and suddenly you're hitting 20 points lower, and if you weren't great to start with they're looking for your replacement. Reyes is currently pretty great as a hitter; his main worry is durability.

19. Steve Treder Posted: December 05, 2011 at 11:19 PM (#4007571)

I think it's like this: everyone loses speed as they age. But when you start out being blazing fast, like Reyes, you can lose a hell of a lot of speed and still run quite well. When you start out like Curt Blefary or Phil Plantier, it doesn't take losing much speed to render you immobile.

20. Swoboda is freedom Posted: December 05, 2011 at 11:37 PM (#4007600)

When you start out like Curt Blefary or Phil Plantier, it doesn't take losing much speed to render you immobile.

And when Curt died, he really slowed down.

21. with Glavinesque control and Madduxian poise Posted: December 05, 2011 at 11:39 PM (#4007601)

I think it's like this: everyone loses speed as they age. But when you start out being blazing fast, like Reyes, you can lose a hell of a lot of speed and still run quite well. When you start out like Curt Blefary or Phil Plantier, it doesn't take losing much speed to render you immobile.

The premise you need to make that argument work is the following: moving from very fast to fast (or fast to average) costs more value than moving from slow to very slow (or average to slow).

Is that claim plausible? What do people think?

22. Heinie Mantush (Krusty) Posted: December 05, 2011 at 11:51 PM (#4007621)

It's totally different for pitchers, though, because the heavier ones last just as long as the thinner ones, if not longer. On the other hand, it might not be totally different, because being able to pitch while fat indicates leg strength, and being able to run fast must have something to do with leg strength, too.

Nolan Ryan and Roger Clemens (I know) both attributed their durability to their grueling post-game bike workouts.

23. PreservedFish Posted: December 06, 2011 at 12:01 AM (#4007627)

I remember when I was first learning about sabermetrics, there was the notion of "old man skills" and how some players aged better than others, and guys like Reyes wouldn't age well because speed is the first thing to go when you get old, etc. Has that been refuted or is it still believed that players with Reyes' skill set don't age well?

You remember this wrong. It was the opposite. The speedy players age well.

24. Sam M. Posted: December 06, 2011 at 12:06 AM (#4007632)

And when Curt died, he really slowed down.

This is a good rule of thumb, but there are exceptions. I'm pretty sure no one will notice the difference in Adam Dunn's case, for example. And David Ortiz? That guy's gonna speed up six feet under.

25. PreservedFish Posted: December 06, 2011 at 12:08 AM (#4007633)

I think it's like this: everyone loses speed as they age. But when you start out being blazing fast, like Reyes, you can lose a hell of a lot of speed and still run quite well. When you start out like Curt Blefary or Phil Plantier, it doesn't take losing much speed to render you immobile.

I don't think this is it. I think the important thing is that the young "old players skills" guy has nowhere to go - he's already got the power and plate discipline, so when the rest of his game breaks down it just makes him worse. Reyes, on the other hand, can ameliorate his decline by adding old players' skills.

Also, speedy players are just better athletes in general, and that should count for something.

26. Nasty Nate Posted: December 06, 2011 at 12:10 AM (#4007636)

The premise you need to make that argument work is the following: moving from very fast to fast (or fast to average) costs more value than moving from slow to very slow (or average to slow).

Is that claim plausible? What do people think?

I thought the premise was that moving from very fast to fast allows you to still play major league ball at a high level, but moving from slow to very slow makes you useless unless you can hit like Edgar Martinez or Frank Thomas. So moving from very fast to fast costs less value.

27. Steve Treder Posted: December 06, 2011 at 12:15 AM (#4007637)

The premise you need to make that argument work is the following: moving from very fast to fast (or fast to average) costs more value than moving from slow to very slow (or average to slow).

Why? I'm making no particular claim about value. I'm just reasoning that the reason fast players tend to age better than slow players is that they can deteriorate and still retain a fair amount of talent, while the slow guy gets to useless right away.

Or, what # 26 said.

28. Steve Treder Posted: December 06, 2011 at 12:17 AM (#4007640)

I think the important thing is that the young "old players skills" guy has nowhere to go - he's already got the power and plate discipline, so when the rest of his game breaks down it just makes him worse. Reyes, on the other hand, can ameliorate his decline by adding old players' skills.

Also, speedy players are just better athletes in general, and that should count for something.

All likely true, but it's still the case that the fast guy just has a lot more area beneath the curve to work with than the slow guy.

29. Infinite Joost (Voxter)

Posted: December 06, 2011 at 12:22 AM (#4007643)

I think that a reasonably healthy Jose Reyes would be a very good guy to sign to a long contract covering a significant portion of his early and mid-30s.

But the first skill to go is neither speed nor bat speed, it's health. That's why Reyes is a bad risk: just as Adam Dunn goes from slow to immobile, Reyes is likely to go from fragile to faberge over the course of this contract. I could be wrong -- one could always be wrong -- but I would be flat shocked of Reyes was remotely worth his contract, even by Fangraphs' patently ludicrous calculations.

30. Steve Treder Posted: December 06, 2011 at 12:23 AM (#4007646)

But the first skill to go is neither speed nor bat speed, it's health.

Generally true, yes.

31. Brian White Posted: December 06, 2011 at 12:28 AM (#4007653)

When you sign a player whose main problem is injuries to a long-term deal, you also have to consider the quality of the medical staff involved, and how much of a factor that will play in keeping him healthy. I don't know much about how the Marlins handle their player health, but I do know that they aren't the Mets, so there's probably going to be some improvement in that regard.

32. Dr. Vaux Posted: December 06, 2011 at 12:29 AM (#4007655)

What would it take for Reyes to wind up as a borderline HOFer who sabermetricians would champion?

33. PreservedFish Posted: December 06, 2011 at 12:39 AM (#4007669)

What would it take for Reyes to wind up as a borderline HOFer who sabermetricians would champion?

If you just double Reyes' numbers, he's pretty similar to Kenny Lofton.

34. Dr. Vaux Posted: December 06, 2011 at 12:48 AM (#4007675)

That means having 5-6 more seasons the quality of his better seasons so far. He'll be 29 this coming season, so that's certainly possible. And I assume putting up those numbers as a shortstop would be perceived as more special than doing it as a center fielder.

35. Lassus Posted: December 06, 2011 at 12:48 AM (#4007677)

The problem is that what's going to happen now is that Reyes will put up ten more healthy years and enter the HOF as a Marlin. I mean, seriously, that almost seems a given now.

36. Sam M. Posted: December 06, 2011 at 12:55 AM (#4007684)

Reyes is likely to go from fragile to faberge over the course of this contract. I could be wrong -- one could always be wrong -- but I would be flat shocked of Reyes was remotely worth his contract,

This is just so unpredictable. Certainly, his fragility is worrisome. Shocked, though? "Remotely worth his contract"? I think that's just vastly overstating the risk the Marlins are taking here. Don't forget that a healthy Reyes runs up value awfully fast, and if they can put together a team in the right year, flags fly forever.

I'm just torn over this. If I thought for one second that the Mets were not spending this money for the right reasons, based on a valid, considered, defensible judgment about the risks of a long-term investment in Reyes with his injury history, I could live with it. I actually do trust Alderson and the FO team they have right now to make good baseball decisions, and armed with substantial resources I think the future would be in good hands, and bright. I wouldn't sweat this particular decision, though it would make me sad.

But even if this decision can be defended, I don't think that any of the potentially valid reasons were the Mets' reasons, and I don't think the smart guys populating the baseball side have any resources whatsoever to redirect to good uses. They didn't pay Reyes because they couldn't pay Reyes, and that means they couldn't have paid him if it were a no-brainer. And that means they won't be able to do anything else, either. So please don't ask any savvy Mets' fan to be happy about this, even if you're right that a smart Mets' front office would have let him go. Knowing what it really means tells a dark story about where the franchise is, and where it is doomed to stay for a long time to come. And that will be true even if the Fish regret this signing.

37. Jim Wisinski

Posted: December 06, 2011 at 12:58 AM (#4007689)

I think the problem with the premise is actually the assumption that 5mill/win is the norm. I don't think that's true, and I certainly don't think it will be 6mill/win in a few years.

but I would be flat shocked of Reyes was remotely worth his contract, even by Fangraphs' patently ludicrous calculations.

The big issue I have with all these $/win things is that, besides the fact that the values often seem questionable, they reflect something different than what they claim to. It's all well and good to say that teams are paying X number of dollars per win on the open market based on contracts they've given out and whatever else goes into those valuations but it doesn't mean that the production of that value is actually meeting the expectations of the team signing the contract. Will the Marlins really feel that their $106 million was well invested if Reyes actually averages a little over 3 WAR per year? He'd probably be considered fairly overpaid at that level regardless of what some $/win calculation says. $17+ million per year should buy a great performance, not merely pretty well above average.

38. Drew (Primakov, Gungho Iguanas) Posted: December 06, 2011 at 01:06 AM (#4007694)

Then there's the Jerry Hairston signing.

39. ray james Posted: December 06, 2011 at 01:18 AM (#4007699)

Great post in #36, Sam.

40. Steve Treder Posted: December 06, 2011 at 01:33 AM (#4007705)

Amen to that.

41. base ball chick Posted: December 06, 2011 at 01:39 AM (#4007709)

sam m is right

reyes was not re-signed because the wilpons have no money, not because of what he is/is not worth. sandy alderson almost stuttered trying to get out that load of lots of words saying nothing without saying anything.

i wonder if he managed to fool ANYone.

once they get rid of david wright, they'll be sinking as fast as the astros. the difference is that the mets are from NYC, not some tiny little town like the astros, so MLB and the media will actually talk about it. AND bud selig won't pick another piece of crap like jim crane because he needs some guy with no money to blackmail into destroying the team.

i'm not getting why he isn't forcing wilpons to sell, as he is with mccourt. maybe he is just waiting for the dodgers to be sold before he turns the pressure on wilpon.

42. Infinite Joost (Voxter)

Posted: December 06, 2011 at 01:51 AM (#4007715)

Shocked, though?

Absolutely shocked, for more reasons than just his health: Reyes is and always has been an erratic player. Reyes has as many seasons of being worth less than three wins per BR WAR as he does of being worth more than five. The reasons for this are many, but they have to do with his health and the fact that, as an offensive player, he's very dependent on his BA, and he's not a consistent batting title contender. He is also visibly slipping as a defensive player. But chiefly, above all, and without question, the biggest problem, the reason I would be shocked if he came close to being worth this contract, is that he hasn't played a full season in three years, and I see no reason to expect that ever will with any regularity again. He's a part-time player. That's really the core of the problem.

43. Sam M. Posted: December 06, 2011 at 02:04 AM (#4007721)

Reyes has as many seasons of being worth less than three wins per BR WAR as he does of being worth more than five. The reasons for this are many,

Actually, the reasons for this are not many. They are one: health. Every season since 2006 that Reyes has been healthy, he's been a 5.0+ WAR player, and even one (2011) in which he wasn't completely healthy, he was still better than a 5.0 WAR player. IOW, since he established his current talent level, it is only injury or health-related problems (2009-10) that have kept Jose Reyes from being one of the elite shortstops/players in the game.

Now, I take quite seriously the fragility issues, believe me. I don't think any team should have approached Reyes offering a five or six year deal or whatever, expecting to get that many years of healthy, productive, 5.0 WAR play out of him. You've got to discount. But not on ability. His ability, when healthy, is as consistent as pretty much any player in the game. You don't have to look at the flukishly high BA in 2011 to see that.

I don't disagree with most of your post -- I think "part-time player" overstates it, but that's not a big deal. I do wonder how much getting around a better training and medical staff may help Reyes' notorious leg issues, since the Mets' problems in that regard go far beyond Jose Reyes. Get him with the Phoenix Suns' people, and I think you'd see amazing things . . . but of course, that's not going to happen. I wouldn't be shocked if Reyes is perpetually hurt in South Florida, but I also wouldn't be shocked if he does just fine. Either outcome seems perfectly plausible to me -- hence my disagreement with your expression that you would shocked if he stays healthy and produces.

44. Downtown Bookie

Posted: December 06, 2011 at 02:13 AM (#4007725)

i'm not getting why he isn't forcing wilpons to sell, as he is with mccourt. maybe he is just waiting for the dodgers to be sold before he turns the pressure on wilpon.

As a Mets fan, this is my hope: that Selig didn't want to fight two simultaneous wars on opposite coasts. I'm optimistic (perhaps foolishly so) that once the Dodgers mess is straightened out MLB will turn its sights on upgrading the Mets ownership situation.

DB

45. PreservedFish Posted: December 06, 2011 at 02:14 AM (#4007726)

He is also visibly slipping as a defensive player.

I call ######## on this. Reyes looks terrific out there to me, and I heard nothing but good things about his defense from people that were actually watching. I accuse you of looking up his UZR and then pretending that this was an observation on your part.

Reyes is and always has been an erratic player. Reyes has as many seasons of being worth less than three wins per BR WAR as he does of being worth more than five.

I cannot waive away the health issues, they are real and they are significant, and they could turn the deal into an outright disaster. But the quoted part is nonsense. Reyes has been very consistent since his breakout year in 2006. Smooth out the BABIP variations of his last two years and he looks even more so.

46. PreservedFish Posted: December 06, 2011 at 02:21 AM (#4007732)

Also, I keep reading that last year was a BABIP fluke, but how much of it was the fact that he basically stopped striking out? He cut his Ks by over 30%, and got his BB/K ratio over 1.00 for the first time in his career.

Reyes could be a disaster with the Marlins, but it would not surprise me in the slightest to see him have some vintage Robbie Alomar seasons with the bat, and earn every penny.

47. bigglou115 Posted: December 06, 2011 at 02:23 AM (#4007735)

You know, I don't know what all the fuss is about. Let's say the Marlins sign Pujols in addition to Reyes, I don't know that they'd even be that much above average as a unit offensively next year. They'd still be counting on Coughlan and Morrison to bounce back. They'd be praying Reyes and Hanley (who loses some value moving from SS to 3b, though not much since NL third basemen performed so poorly last year) both stay healthy. They'd also have a ton of money committed for the best part of a decade on players with health/age concerns. It looks like a win-now proposition to me, and with the Braves and Phillies in their division I don't know if this is the time. The turnout better be huge at that new stadium, or this is a lot of noise over nothing.

48. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: December 06, 2011 at 02:24 AM (#4007737)

I love Reyes and am sorry to see him go, especially within the division. My main concern about a long-term deal were his health, and the fact that middle infielders have a tendency to drop off a cliff earlier than other players. Anecdotally, the list of middle infielders who dropped off a cliff at 32 or 33 is long and distinguished. Reyes is only going to be 29 this year, but there's a decent chance you'll only get 3 good years out of him even if he stays healthy.

49. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 06, 2011 at 02:54 AM (#4007747)

Anecdotally, the list of middle infielders who dropped off a cliff at 32 or 33 is long and distinguished. Reyes is only going to be 29 this year, but there's a decent chance you'll only get 3 good years out of him even if he stays healthy.

Isn't that more 2B than SS though?

50. Misirlou is bad, he's nationwide Posted: December 06, 2011 at 03:04 AM (#4007752)

You know, I don't know what all the fuss is about. Let's say the Marlins sign Pujols in addition to Reyes, I don't know that they'd even be that much above average as a unit offensively next year. They'd still be counting on Coughlan and Morrison to bounce back. They'd be praying Reyes and Hanley (who loses some value moving from SS to 3b, though not much since NL third basemen performed so poorly last year) both stay healthy.

Well, they've got that Stanton guy, the 21 YO with the 141 OPS+ last year. And if they get Pujols, they have a nice trade chit in Gabby Sanchez, not a superstar, but a league average first baseman who's still a year away from arbitration.

51. base ball chick Posted: December 06, 2011 at 03:26 AM (#4007760)

44 - DB

i hope you are right. i got nothing against the mets. some of my best friends are mets fans. really they are. and just because MY team got life imprisonment doesn't mean i wish it on everyone else's.

52. Something Other Posted: December 06, 2011 at 04:15 AM (#4007776)

Can we please talk with some specificity about Reyes's 2011 BABIP? For just a second? It clocked in at .353, versus his career rate of .314 (which includes that .353). In 2010 his BABIP was .301. In 2009 it was .307.

In 2011, in other words, Reyes's BABIP was entirely out of line with his career rate. If you drop it down to his career BABIP Reyes's 2011 is still a nice little year, but it's roughly a 4 WAR year. That means Reyes has to repeat his best year since 2008 pretty much every year of his new deal for the Marlins to get their money's worth. That's very, very unlikely.

The Marlins just paid a fortune for Reyes's lucky year, lucky to the point of flukish.
You can't ignore that Reyes in 2011 was extremely lucky and project his career from this point on with any accuracy.

edit: "Also, I keep reading that last year was a BABIP fluke, but how much of it was the fact that he basically stopped striking out? He cut his Ks by over 30%, and got his BB/K ratio over 1.00 for the first time in his career." I suppose it's possible that at age 28 he learned to not strike out, but that would be very unusual. Occam tells us he was lucky. Though maybe the Marlins just wisely bet 111 million simoleons that it's a skill.

I should have read the last dozen posts before posting, but I think my point stands. Reyes didn't somehow just return to his peak level of 2006-2008 in 2011. That's gone. It's rare indeed for a player to go from something like a HOF peak to nothing special, then resume that peak or anything very nearly like it. Reyes didn't resume his peak level in 2011 and it's hugely unlikely he's going to in 2012 or after.

53. AJM Posted: December 06, 2011 at 04:20 AM (#4007780)

He appeared to have more line drives and fewer pop-ups last year, that could be a reason for the higher BABIP.

54. Sam M. Posted: December 06, 2011 at 04:30 AM (#4007790)

The Marlins just paid a fortune for Reyes's lucky year, lucky to the point of flukish.
You can't ignore that Reyes in 2011 was extremely lucky and project his career from this point on with any accuracy.

Can we also talk about the extent to which Reyes's 2011 was the product of a very real and significant change in his approach, which shows up in the data and which may very well be affecting those BABIP numbers as well?

Reyes struck out in the following percentage of his ABs from 2006 on:

11.5%
10.2%
10.8%
11.5%
10.5%
7.0%

2011 saw a sharp, and I think quite real, change in Reyes which produced that decline in his K rate. Instead of striking out one every 8.5 ABs or so, Reyes struck out only once every 13.1 ABs -- which led the NL.

Reyes was being more selective, working counts. This did NOT result in anything close to the highest walk rate of Reyes's career -- but it did produce as high a line drive percentage as he has had (tied for his career high). The same change he made that resulted in fewer strikeouts also resulted in not swinging at pitches that produced weaker balls in play. I'm not saying the full measure of .353 from .314 is sustainable, but I am saying that if the plate discipline continues, so will the higher BABIP. It wasn't all luck.

55. PreservedFish Posted: December 06, 2011 at 04:33 AM (#4007791)

Occam tells us he was lucky.

Does he?

56. Something Other Posted: December 06, 2011 at 04:35 AM (#4007794)

I wouldn't necessarily assume Ramirez can play 3B. He hasn't played a single inning major league inning there. It's not a given he can handle it, especially if he's pissed off about making the move.

The Marlins owe $46 million to a player coming off by far the worst year of his career. He's reportedly unhappy about being moved. Unlike fangraphs, I see the upside for the Marlins being Reyes is worth his deal, with a lot of downside. When you add that to what can go wrong with moving Ramirez, well, I'm just sayin', but there's potential for disaster here.

Does he?

In the email I just got, yes.

57. Something Other Posted: December 06, 2011 at 04:46 AM (#4007797)

@54--no offense, but you're dreaming. If you weren't such an honest guy, I'd suspect a little post hoc massaging of the narrative. :) (On the other hand, you are a lawyer...) That's what guys who get lucky look like--they look like guys for whom balls are now jumping off the bat.

If there's anything your list tells us, it's that 2011 was a fluke. I recall no stories from ST about Reyes' new approach at the plate, but hey, maybe I missed something. When players suddenly do something vastly different and better in their baseball middle-age the reason is almost always luck.

Tell you what, though--How about we play for a BBRef sponsorship, $20 maximum? I'm betting Jose can't even reach the midpoint of his career BA through 2010, and his 2011 season. Never mind the midpoint. I'll bet he can't hold on to even one-third of his "gains".

58. Sam M. Posted: December 06, 2011 at 04:51 AM (#4007801)

Not going to bet. I want to have no gaming interest in the success of the Marlins -- not even Jose Reyes individually.

The bottom line is that I don't disagree that some, perhaps even most, of the gains on BABIP were luck. Reyes is who he is. But the fact is that he wouldn't have struck out as little as he did if he had made no changes in design. The pre-2011 Jose Reyes simply wasn't a guy who was going to lead the league in not striking out. If you didn't notice a very clear difference in how he approached handling (i.e., not swinging) at pitches low in the zone (EDIT: I actually mean low and OUT OF THE ZONE), you weren't paying attention. Those were the pitches you knew (and more important, opposing pitchers knew) he was vulnerable to behind in the count. Not in 2011. If his much-improved discipline made that much of a difference in his K rate, I don't think it's that much of a stretch to posit that it also contributed to the difference in his BABIP. Contributed to; not explained. That's all I'm claiming.

59. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: December 06, 2011 at 05:07 AM (#4007812)

I know Carol Crawford is an outfielder (though a Gold Glover), and Reyes is a SS, but check out their careers through age 28 (which would be through 2011 for Reyes, and through 2010 for Crawford):

Crawford: .296/.337/.444/.781, OPS+ of 107
Reyes: .292/.341/.782/.782, OPS+ of 106

162 game averages:
Crawford: 101 RS, 194 H, 29 2Bs, 14 3Bs, 14 HRs, 78 RBIs, 54/12 SB/CS, 39/101 BB/K
Reyes: 113 RS, 201 H, 34 2Bs, 15 3Bs, 12 HRs, 65 RBIs, 57/14 SB/CS, 51/79 BB/K

Crawford is more durable. Reyes has better strike zone judgement. They both can pick it, but SS's are more valuable. They were the same age, and most of their stats are very similar. Crawford's best OPS+ was his walk year...Reyes' was, too...

As a Red Sox fan, I hope this turns out better for Marlins' fans than Crawford has for us - because Carl Crawford is going to suck for us for years to come...

60. bobm Posted: December 06, 2011 at 05:08 AM (#4007813)

[54]

Reyes was being more selective, working counts. This did NOT result in anything close to the highest walk rate of Reyes's career -- but it did produce as high a line drive percentage as he has had (tied for his career high). The same change he made that resulted in fewer strikeouts also resulted in not swinging at pitches that produced weaker balls in play. I'm not saying the full measure of .353 from .314 is sustainable, but I am saying that if the plate discipline continues, so will the higher BABIP. It wasn't all luck.

SSS and all that, but Reyes' K/PA ratio was virtually unchanged from 1st Half 2011 (6.8%) to 2nd Half 2011 (7.3%), yet his BAbip dropped 60 points.

Add in drop-off in triples and stolen base attempts from 1st Half to 2nd Half, and injuries and luck seem to me to be significant factors in the BAbip results, regardless of his new approach at the plate.



Split           G GS   PA  AB  R   H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO     BA  OBP  SLG  OPS  TB GDP HBP SH SF IBB ROE BAbip tOPS+ sOPS+

1st Half   80 80 380 350 65 124 22 15  3    32 30   6 27 26 .354 .398 .529 .927 185     4   0  1  2   7   4 .375     111 160

2nd Half   46 44 206 187 36   57  9  1 4    12  9  1 16 15 .305 .356 .428 .784   80   1   0  1  2   2   1 .312       80 115

61. Nate Posted: December 06, 2011 at 05:49 AM (#4007831)

I must have missed when we came to a groupthink on this, but what's the problem with Fangraphs' valuations? They seem high, sure, but A) the methodology always seemed fine to me (focusing on the $s, not WAR), and B) the numbers have to add up somewhere. Maybe the linear scale isn't right, or the top talents are overpaid, or something, but I don't see how the $5M/W isn't just a fact -- it's just accounting.

62. Sam M. Posted: December 06, 2011 at 05:50 AM (#4007833)

SSS and all that, but Reyes' K/PA ratio was virtually unchanged from 1st Half 2011 (6.8%) to 2nd Half 2011 (7.3%), yet his BAbip dropped 60 points.

Add in drop-off in triples and stolen base attempts from 1st Half to 2nd Half, and injuries and luck seem to me to be significant factors in the BAbip results, regardless of his new approach at the plate.

Someone would have to have a lot of time and access to game videos to look at Reyes' ABs, but given that Reyes clearly wasn't running nearly as well in the second half once he came back (the drop in triples and SB attempts tells you that, right?) I have to suspect that there was also a drop-off in his infield hits and his bunt attempts. Aside from the famous last AB of the season, Jose wasn't doing some of the things that got him speed-based hits in the second half, some intentional and some just because he beat out squibbers. So that would have had an impact on the BABIP, too.

As I said, someplace in between his pre-2011 career norm, and where he ended up 2011 seems reasonable to me. A player who strikes out that much less -- and I think Reyes is apt to sustain a good portion of that gain -- should tend to have a somewhat higher BABIP.

63. base ball chick Posted: December 06, 2011 at 06:00 AM (#4007841)

wonder how hanley the prima donna-est prima donna ballplayer in the major leagues, is gonna take it. i mean, he's gotten managers fired, GOOD ballplayers sent down for daring to do/say ANYthing he didn't like. and now he's getting sent to play a position he's never played? after a really BAD year?

ooooooooooooh

64. Something Other Posted: December 06, 2011 at 06:08 AM (#4007844)

...you weren't paying attention.

Ooh. Fightin' words! We're going to have to agree to disagree. I simply did not see a different player at the plate during the 2011 season.

65. Elvis Posted: December 06, 2011 at 06:48 AM (#4007857)

FanGraphs has IFH% and here are Reyes' totals by month:

April - 9.3%
May - 9.3 %
June - 6.7%
July - 16.7%
August - 0.0%
Sept - 5.1%

IFH% is infield hits/ground balls

April - 43 GB * 9.3% = 4 infield hits
May - 43 GB * 9.3% = 4 infield hits
June - 45 GB * 6.7% = 3 infield hits
July - 30 * 16.7% = 5 infield hits
August - 7 GB * 0.0% = 0 infield hits
September - 39 GB * 5.1% = 2 infield hits

Reyes played 15 games in July and 13 of those were after the All-Star break. In the games before the break, Reyes had three hits and two were infield singles.

Before the AS break, 13 of Reyes' 124 hits were infield hits (10.5%). He had 350 ABs so his IFH/AB ratio was 3.7%

After the AS break, 5 of Reyes' 57 hits were infield hits (8.8%). He had 187 ABs so his IFH/AB ratio was 2.7%

66. Something Other Posted: December 06, 2011 at 06:52 AM (#4007858)

wonder how hanley the prima donna-est prima donna ballplayer in the major leagues, is gonna take it. i mean, he's gotten managers fired, GOOD ballplayers sent down for daring to do/say ANYthing he didn't like. and now he's getting sent to play a position he's never played? after a really BAD year?

ooooooooooooh

Your reading comprehension remains... what it is, but I suspect even with the fog you perpetually squint through that if a guy doesn't want to learn a position he's never played before--as the early reports suggest of Ramirez--that that doesn't bode well, and adds something to the cost of the Reyes deal.

67. cardsfanboy

Posted: December 06, 2011 at 07:07 AM (#4007861)

I remember when I was first learning about sabermetrics, there was the notion of "old man skills" and how some players aged better than others, and guys like Reyes wouldn't age well because speed is the first thing to go when you get old, etc. Has that been refuted or is it still believed that players with Reyes' skill set don't age well?

That is kinda the opposite of what they mean by old player skills, players with old player skills as a youth(batting eye, power, lack of speed) had a tendency to not age well, players with physical skills, or young skills aged better, they developed old player skills to compensate for their aging, young player with old player skills tended to crater sooner because when they lost something, they didn't have anything to fall back on.

edit: or as post 23, and 17 among others pointed out.

68. PreservedFish Posted: December 06, 2011 at 07:31 AM (#4007866)

Ooh. Fightin' words! We're going to have to agree to disagree. I simply did not see a different player at the plate during the 2011 season.

I'm curious about what you saw, or how much of this is just your reading of his Fangraphs page masquerading as a scouting report. Reyes was hitting the ball like Ty ####### Cobb before he got injured, and it was most certainly not a matter of just some extra bloops falling in.

69. Something Other Posted: December 06, 2011 at 08:04 AM (#4007872)

@67: That's my recollection. Walks, power, slow, the kind of player who loses a little and can no longer play the field. 'Course, the DH fouls that theory up some. I think James imagined a certain speed score being necessary to play a position. Something like an "8" for CF, and a "4" for 1B. If a guy has a speed score of 9 he has a way to go before he's out of the game, but if he's already at 4, if he slips just a little, he's gone. It does omit some things, of course. If a CFer has a speed score of 8 and not enough of a bat to play a corner OF spot, even if he only slips to a 7 and is still one of the faster guys in the game, he's still out of a job.

Another thing is, with Carl Crawford, his bat isn't impressive for a LFer, so even if his speed only slips a little, suddenly his CS makes his SB worthless, and instead of being a genuine GGer he's merely above average. In other words, not worth close to 20m a year. He may have had a long way to fall, but seven years is a long time to fall in.

@68: I've learned the hard way that people who start out with this kind of innuendo and bad faith have no interest in a real discussion. Good luck baiting that hook, though.

I mean, seriously? Your line is a scarcely veiled, "Did you get your head out of a spreadsheet long enough to actually watch a game?" Hilarious.

70. DFA Posted: December 06, 2011 at 08:14 AM (#4007875)

My main concern about a long-term deal were his health, and the fact that middle infielders have a tendency to drop off a cliff earlier than other players. Anecdotally, the list of middle infielders who dropped off a cliff at 32 or 33 is long and distinguished. Reyes is only going to be 29 this year, but there's a decent chance you'll only get 3 good years out of him even if he stays healthy.

This would be my concern as well. Reyes is no doubt a tremendous player, but I'm not sure I would want my team to take this risk given his age, injury history and position.

71. PreservedFish Posted: December 06, 2011 at 08:28 AM (#4007876)

Your line is a scarcely veiled, "Did you get your head out of a spreadsheet long enough to actually watch a game?" Hilarious.

No, it's not. That's not my argument.

I am honestly doubtful that anyone watching Reyes this year would have thought to themselves, "This is the same exact hitter as he always is." The only way you're going to think that is if you're already aware of the advanced metrics that suggest otherwise.

Doesn't mean that you're wrong - he may in fact be the same hitter he's always been, and, as you noted, sometimes players that are riding pure BABIP flukes still look like they're hitting the snot out of the ball - I'm just calling BS on your little scouting report.

72. Something Other Posted: December 06, 2011 at 08:42 AM (#4007878)

Almost everyone tinkers with their swing a little during the season, but Reyes really looked no different than he always has. Everyone looks great during the stretches they're hitting .370. I call BS on your BS.

If you'd said something meaningful like "This year he seemed to be staying on his back foot a little longer," or "I thought he shortened his stride and made his swing more compact", anything, really, that suggested you were being other than contrarian, I might have engaged a bit more. But I didn't see real changes and I don't think you did, either.

I honestly doubt anyone who really thought Reyes' swing had changed wouldn't have more meat in their argument.

73. Obi One Kenobi Nil

Posted: December 06, 2011 at 11:11 AM (#4007886)

Take the last three years he was healthy, average them and then make an "injury caveat" and some normal aging. That will be accurate enough and doesn't require a whole bunch of subjective false precision over month-by-month BABIP.

74. Karl from NY Posted: December 07, 2011 at 03:34 AM (#4008778)

or the top talents are overpaid, or something, but I don't see how the $5M/W isn't just a fact -- it's just accounting.

It's overpayments, not to the top talent, but to the likes of Carl Crawford and Jason Bay and Alfonso Soriano. All the money going to them raises the numerator in the league-wide $/W calculation, but these players represent virtually zero wins, so the money shows up in everybody else's $/W value.

In other words, the league-wide $/W number gets inflated over what seems reasonable by the fact that sometimes you spend a lot of $ and don't get any W. It is indeed an accounting fact.

75. nick swisher hygiene Posted: December 07, 2011 at 03:51 AM (#4008796)

67 has it right--the career arc of this dude, with its brief last stage, was one of James' examples, iirc...

76. ray james Posted: December 07, 2011 at 04:11 AM (#4008816)

It was on MLB radio today that Hanley Ramirez doesn't want to move over to the hot corner. If I interpreted the chatter correctly, he's actually refusing to move.

Interesting problem developing. Maybe the Mets would be willing to trade for Ramirez?

77. bobm Posted: December 07, 2011 at 05:14 AM (#4008899)

[48] Anecdotally, the list of middle infielders who dropped off a cliff at 32 or 33 is long and distinguished. Reyes is only going to be 29 this year, but there's a decent chance you'll only get 3 good years out of him even if he stays healthy.

TFA figures on ~3 WAR / year in seasons age 32-34. While there are some shortstops who failed to achieve this, I would not call the list "long and distinguished." It is interesting to see that much of the value must come from fielding, based on looking at the OPS+ values esp of the sub-3 WAR/year players.

Spanning Multiple Seasons or entire Careers, From 1947 to 2011, From Age 32 to 34, Played 50% of games at SS, sorted by greatest WAR Position Players

                                                            

Rk              Player WAR/pos OPS+ From   To   Age   G   PA



5+ WAR / year

1           Ozzie Smith    18.9  100 1987 1989 32-34 466 2039

2         Barry Larkin    16.4  143 1996 1998 32-34 370 1529

3         Phil Rizzuto    16.1  103 1950 1952 32-34 451 2037



4-5 WAR / year

4          Pee Wee Reese    14.7  103 1951 1953 32-34 443 1996

5              Derek Jeter    13.6  119 2006 2008 32-34 460 2097

6          Marco Scutaro    12.1   96 2008 2010 32-34 439 1967

7      Bert Campaneris    12.1   97 1974 1976 32-34 420 1806



3-4 WAR / year

8             Eddie Joost    11.9  114 1948 1950 32-34 410 1911

9               Cal Ripken    11.5   98 1993 1995 32-34 418 1815

10             Dick Groat    11.1   98 1963 1965 32-34 472 2055

11       Alan Trammell    10.7  114 1990 1992 32-34 276 1178

12       Mark Belanger    10.7   76 1976 1978 32-34 432 1455

13       Jose Valentin    10.3   99 2002 2004 32-34 404 1600

14         Mike Bordick     9.2   95 1998 2000 32-34 467 1885

15           Maury Wills     9.1   92 1965 1967 32-34 450 2017

33       Jimmy Rollins     3.7  101 2011 2011 32-32 142  631



2-3 WAR / year

16           Omar Vizquel     8.5   92 1999 2001 32-34 455 2074

17     Dave Concepcion     7.4   97 1980 1982 32-34 409 1759

18         Miguel Tejada     7.3  109 2006 2008 32-34 453 1943

19                     Al Dark     7.0   89 1954 1956 32-34 417 1865

20         Luis Aparicio     6.7   86 1966 1968 32-34 442 1958

21               Larry Bowa     6.7   79 1978 1980 32-34 450 1888

22             Rey Sanchez     6.6   65 2000 2002 32-34 399 1520

23       Eddie Bressoud     6.3  102 1964 1966 32-34 398 1435

24               Walt Weiss     6.1   87 1996 1998 32-34 372 1516

30         Rafael Furcal     4.6  105 2010 2011 32-33 184  797

36           Clint Barmes     2.9   93 2011 2011 32-32 123  495





1-2 WAR / year

25               Greg Gagne     5.9   83 1994 1996 32-34 355 1378

26           Mike Gallego     5.5   90 1993 1995 32-34 251  954

27     Orlando Cabrera     5.5   88 2007 2009 32-34 476 2139

28       Jose Hernandez     5.4   97 2002 2004 32-34 397 1391

29           Bill Russell     5.3   79 1981 1983 32-34 366 1368

31           Johnny Logan     4.6   94 1959 1961 32-34 319 1153

32         Alex Gonzalez     4.2   81 2009 2011 32-34 418 1662

34             Dickie Thon     3.1   81 1990 1992 32-34 390 1468

35       Shawon Dunston     3.0  101 1995 1997 32-34 341 1321

42             Jack Wilson     2.2   64 2010 2011 32-33 140  443

43       Tony Fernandez     2.1   90 1994 1995 32-33 212  860

54                 Sam Dente     1.1   74 1954 1955 32-33 141  315



0-1 WAR / year

37         Freddie Patek     2.8   77 1977 1979 32-34 398 1397

38       Craig Reynolds     2.4   81 1985 1987 32-34 356 1141

39             Tony Womack     2.3   71 2002 2004 32-34 401 1622

40           Leo Cardenas     2.3   82 1971 1973 32-34 375 1438

41           Lou Boudreau     2.2   87 1950 1952 32-34 167  611

44         Bud Harrelson     2.0   65 1976 1978 32-34 296  864

45             Eddie Kasko     2.0   70 1964 1966 32-34 259  879

46           Roy McMillan     1.7   71 1962 1964 32-34 358 1308

47           Alex Grammas     1.7   68 1958 1960 32-34 338  887

48       Ron Washington     1.5   97 1984 1986 32-34 206  436

49     Garry Templeton     1.4   80 1988 1990 32-34 396 1469

50               Jose Uribe     1.3   76 1991 1993 32-34 201  499

51         John McDonald     1.3   58 2007 2009 32-34 280  716

52         Royce Clayton     1.2   74 2002 2004 32-34 404 1571

53       Dick Tracewski     1.1   56 1967 1969 32-34 230  454

55           Marty Marion     1.0   72 1950 1952 32-34 173  630

56           Chris Speier     0.8   80 1982 1984 32-34 319 1092

57             Ed Brinkman     0.8   71 1974 1975 32-33 227  701

58       Gary Disarcina     0.6  138 2000 2000 32-32  12   42

59             Rey Ordonez     0.6   80 2003 2004 32-33  57  191

60             Dal Maxvill     0.4   55 1971 1973 32-34 377 1027

61           Jeff Blauser     0.4   79 1998 1999 32-33 223  673

62               Stan Rojek     0.3   71 1951 1952 32-33  68  228

63       Edgar Renteria     0.3   76 2009 2011 32-34 292 1110

64         Don Kessinger     0.2   74 1975 1977 32-34 397 1553

65         Granny Hamner     0.2   65 1959 1959 32-32  48  138

66           Kevin Elster     0.1   79 1997 1998 32-33 123  500

67             Luis Rivera     0.1   58 1997 1998 33-34  49  113

68             Dick Culler     0.1   51 1947 1949 32-34 132  348



Replacement Level or Below

69         Neifi Perez     0.0   62 2005 2007 32-34 295  996

70        Billy Ripken     0.0   70 1997 1998 32-33  98  299

71      Dick Schofield     0.0   41 1995 1996 32-33  34   54

72          Neil Berry     0.0  -10 1954 1954 32-32   5   10

73      Rafael Santana    -0.1   90 1990 1990 32-32   7   13

74      U L Washington    -0.1   52 1986 1987 32-33  82  169

75          Bucky Dent    -0.1  106 1984 1984 32-32  11   10

76       Joe DeMaestri    -0.1  -20 1961 1961 32-32  30   41

77      Buddy Peterson    -0.1   57 1957 1957 32-32   7   19

78       Mike Phillips    -0.2 -100 1983 1983 32-32   5    2

79          Pepe Frias    -0.2   62 1981 1981 32-32  25   39

80          Gene Alley    -0.2   62 1973 1973 32-32  76  181

81    Jackie Hernandez    -0.2   68 1973 1973 32-32  54   78

82         Roy Smalley    -0.2 -100 1958 1958 32-32   1    2

83       Rick Burleson    -0.3   87 1983 1984 32-33  40  139

84        Adam Everett    -0.3   53 2009 2011 32-34 183  546

85          Rod Booker    -0.3   37 1991 1991 32-32  28   56

86           Tim Bogar    -0.4   64 1999 2001 32-34 228  722

87        Gene Michael    -0.4   65 1970 1972 32-34 399 1437

88          Merl Combs    -0.5   29 1952 1952 32-32  52  155

89          Julio Lugo    -0.5   80 2008 2010 32-34 263  864

90       Frank Taveras    -0.8   29 1982 1982 32-32  48   98

91        Fred Stanley    -1.1   49 1980 1982 32-34 216  522

92       Willy Miranda    -1.2   35 1958 1959 32-33 168  326

93        Roberto Pena    -1.6   69 1969 1971 32-34 392 1309

94          Bobby Wine    -1.7   40 1971 1972 32-33 153  397

95          Bob Lillis    -1.8   58 1962 1964 32-34 384 1338

96           Alex Cora    -1.8   69 2008 2010 32-34 223  681

97     Rafael Belliard    -1.8   27 1994 1996 32-34 207  467

98         Juan Castro    -1.9   68 2004 2006 32-34 312  872

99            Tim Foli    -2.1   57 1983 1985 32-34 168  562

100   Chico Carrasquel    -2.2   68 1958 1959 32-33 222  746

101     Rafael Ramirez    -2.7   72 1990 1992 32-34 306  914

102     Mark Christman    -2.8   64 1947 1948 33-34 230  852

103      Ozzie Guillen    -3.0   66 1996 1998 32-34 387 1368

104    Alfredo Griffin    -3.2   51 1990 1992 32-34 313 1051

Source: B-R PI

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Monday, December 05, 2011

Marlins Get a Potential Bargain in Jose Reyes | FanGraphs Baseball

Reader Comments and Retorts

BBTF Sponsor

Support BBTF

Bookmarks

Hot Topics