“Additions of Vazquez, Lackey make for close race”. Salfino, latest.
Granderson replaces Damon and has tremendous power upside in Yankee Stadium, where Damon hit 17 of his 24 homers last year. Granderson hit 20 homers on the road, so it’s not crazy to expect him to hit 40 this year with 30 as the floor. He will drive you crazy with the strikeouts (141 last year, 174 in 2006). Also, he wasn’t close to Damon last year on the bases. According to the Bill James Handbook, Damon was plus-18 mostly due to his great stolen base efficiency (12-for-12) while Granderson was just plus-four (he took only 10 bases on hits vs. 20 for Damon).
Winn replaces Cabrera as an extra outfielder, but could be thrust into a bigger role if/when Johnson gets hurt. Winn’s decline at the plate last year (he’s 36 in June) was alarming, with a .671 OPS and just two homers in 538 at-bats.
Vazquez is the key addition, coming off a dominant season in the National League (238 strikeouts vs. 44 walks). He can be lights out when he’s on and, in a testament to New York’s depth, opens the year as the Yankees’ No. 4 starter. Yes, he spit the bit before in New York, but there are all kinds of sample-size problems in the bad second half way back in 2004.
Figure that the Yankees gain an expected win or two from last year and conservatively assume the baseline is their Pythagorean total (95). So that’s 96.5 wins as an over/under. The Red Sox seem much better off but are taking on a lot more risk. Their offense will also be hurt by having to play Victor Martinez at catcher (he hits much better as a first baseman), which also subtracts from their defensive gains elsewhere. Boston at the plate loses most of what Lackey gives them on the mound. So the Red Sox are only plus one or two expected wins, too, and—using their Pythagorean total from last year—get only to an expected win total of 94.5. Close, yes, but no cigar.
Repoz
Posted: February 04, 2010 at 07:59 PM |
54 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Tags:
red sox,
yankees
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. danieljNo, that is crazy.
It's certainly not out of the question that Granderson will hit 40 homers one of these years in Yankee Stadium. A "floor" of tying his career high, even with a move from a pitcher's park to a hitter's park, is not realistic.
I don't quite get this statement. Martinez may be worse as a catcher but he's going to be a lot better than Varitek was offensively so I don't see Martinez the catcher "subtract(ing) from their defensive gains". Between that and the insane Granderson prediction he's a little bit all over the place. In the end, his conclusion that the Yankees are a bit better but not dramatically so seems pretty accurate to me. It's like a math test in 7th grade where you show your work. I don't think he took the right path but I think he got the right answer.
Is he even worse as a catcher at this point? I know that stopping the running game isn't exactly the total contribution of catcher defense, but as bad as Martinez was at that last year, he was still better than Varitek in terms of both CS% and the rate of attempted steals. When Varitek was behind the plate, it seemed like every baserunner was running on every pitch.
The real concern ia that he's a 31-year-old catcher. How long can he keep hitting like he has?
I still think it's unrealistic to project any player to tie his career high in homers unless he is A) young or B) moving to Coors Field. Granderson isn't either.
Given that he's only under contract for the next season, it really shouldn't matter too much to the Red Sox. Besides, even if this is the year that he undergoes an offensive cratering, he's still likely to be better with the bat than Varitek.
I don't quite get this statement. Martinez may be worse as a catcher but he's going to be a lot better than Varitek was offensively so I don't see Martinez the catcher "subtract(ing) from their defensive gains".
The Red Sox should have moved Youk to third and kept Martinez at first and found a real defensive catcher. What's the point of going defense at other positions when you're going to let team run on you at will? They've gone from 13 percent caught (Varitek) to 11 percent. They had a .730 OPS against with Varitek catching, .807 with Martinez. Also, I didn't mean that Martinez because of his defense subtracts from Varitek because of his defense, but he subtracts from the defensive upgrades generally.
Come on guys, this is blocking and tackling! Coors last year 110 park index for lefty homers. New Yankee Stadium -- 182. Let's assume there are sample size problems in the data. But even with that it's very likely at least as good a homer environment for a lefty hitter than is Coors (109 in lefty homers from 2007-2009).
They've also gone from an attempt every 7.5 innings to an attempt every 13.5 innings, which is a big difference if the players involved are throwing out such a low percentage. With Martinez, there's also the recent history of him showing a decent arm - he was over 30% in both 2007 and 2008, whereas Varitek hasn't been at that level ever, despite him typically getting the day off whenever Wakefield is starting.
Okay, fair point. I'm still skeptical, though.
Personally, I'll be watching his pop-up rate/HR rate, rather than the number of homers, for signs of improvement.
An 820 OPS from a decent CF is damn good.
For real? You're going there?
With their current set of outfielders, is Granderson expected to play CF or LF (or a mix of both)? I ask, only because I don't follow the Yankees closely, and it's not clear how they intend to deploy their current mix of Granderson, Swisher, Wynn, and Gardener - my assumption was that it would normally be Granderson/Gardener/Swisher from L to R, with Granderson sliding over to CF when Gardener is on the bench, and Wynn sliding into LF on those days.
I'm not sure comparing OPS against is really a reliable way to measure how good Varitek and Martinez are. Martinez has caught some Cy Young award winning pitchers. He knows how to catch just fine, and a defense-first catcher (and who would such a catcher be? I don't even know who's considered a good one these days) who's putting up a 650 OPS would have to be insanely defensey to be in any way a better choice than Martinez.
I'm not sure comparing catchers' OPS is really a reliable way to measure how good Varitek and Martinez are.
Perhaps. It's certainly debatable. James and Dewan decided that they would be leave this type of data "33 percent" in the Fielding Bible II last year.
That's pretty definitive given that he had a 1.6 UZR last year. Previous years 14.1, 12.9 -9.4.
It's really tough to say he's any worse than average.
Let me be clear that I don't think Granderson even at ~35 homers is likely to be a very good player. He'd be good at that though. If he hits 30, I'd rather have 2009 Damon, easy.
You do realize Granderson has had a higher WAR than Damon everyone of the last 4 years, and is 7.5 years younger?
There's no way to prefer Damon to Granderson for 2010, unless you completely ignore defense.
You guys are getting crazy with these microstats.
Goddammit. I knew something looked wrong with that when I typed it out.
I guess 29 is the new 39.
A .327 OBP from a leadoff hitter will get you looking at these kind of things.
He's not going to be leading off for the Yankees.
So there's less people on base to steal in the fist place. But primarily, its to enjoy the gigantic offensive difference between Varitek and Martinez.
Agreed.
But primarily, its to enjoy the gigantic offensive difference between Varitek and Martinez.
Just understand what you're getting. As a catcher, he projects more like a .775 OPS guy. As a first baseman, he's about .900, maybe .950 in that park. And he could crater given that he has so few at bats there the last couple of years and is now at the age where catching is expected to take a greater toll. If the choices are Varitek and Martinez, you have to play Martinez. But it doesn't have to be that. Heck, get Bryan Pena from the Royals, who have no idea what they're doing. Look at Pena's stats (they replaced him basically with Jason Kendell). Pena also throws out about 35 percent of baserunners and is 28 (IIRC, I wrote all these guys up for a Yahoo! magazine back in Oct/Nov).
Fair point, and I appreciate you bringing up an concrete alternative.
Where are you getting that? I mean, I hope you're right (as a Yankees fan) but his career splits are nowhere near that: 828 OPS as a C, 876 as a 1B.
You can't just be going off 2009? That's way too small a sample size.
Salfino, you are the worst of all! You are citing small samples of Catcher opponent OPS - and small samples of positional OPS. Good statheads don't even look at that nonsense, let use them as the foundation for a published article.
Career - .876 at 1B and .828 at C.
2009 he was .942 at 1B and .783 at C but as a Red Sox he was .907 C/.893 1B so the expectation that he was tiring as the season went on doesn't seem to have impacted him there.
2007 - .902 C/.784 1B
2008 was a complete washout but he was much better as a catcher, .732 C/.602 1B.
Long story short, I'll go along with the idea that he's going to hit better as a first baseman but the difference, so far anyway, has not been nearly as great as you suggest unless you put all your eggs in the first half of 2009.
Salfino, you are the worst of all! You are citing small samples of Catcher opponent OPS - and small samples of positional OPS. Good statheads don't even look at that nonsense, let use them as the foundation for a published article.
They weren't even in the article, which you sort of wrote around but surely intimated. Yes, it's small sample. But it's much tougher to hit at catcher than as a first baseman because its much more physically demanding and your hands are always hurt (foul tips), never mind your knees. I don't need large samples of data to prove a point that should be assumed. You have to prove that you can hit as well as a catcher, not that you cannot. His career 1B splits don't have enough data to draw any conclusions. And his career catching stats aren't particularly relevant when he's at an age when most high mileage catchers begin a steep offensive decline. If you owned Martinez in a fantasy league, would you want him playing first base or catching? You seem to be saying it doesn't make a difference, in which case you would be an idiot.
As for the defensive stuff, we know that Martinez is a crappy defensive catcher. The stats just prove the point....
That's a really good one.
This hypothetical has nothing to do with the decision that the Red Sox made.
If I had Martinez, and I could either have him playing catcher and eligible in my league to play catcher, or I could have him playing first and only eligible to play first, I would very strongly prefer him to catch.
We agree. But I assume you agree that it's not really debatable that he's far more likely to significantly better if he didn't have to catch. Ipso facto, he hits worse as a catcher.
As a catcher, he projects more like a .775 OPS guy. As a first baseman, he's about .900, maybe .950 in that park.
is nonsense.
I'm NOT saying that your hypothesis couldn't be correct. It seems a reasonable guess, that catchers will hit better when they play other positions, but at this point it's still just a guess. Further, whether or not it holds generally true, we have no idea until we look at the data whether or not it holds true for Victor Martinez. We may know its likelihood of being true, but we don't know whether or not it is true.
First off, a .775 OPS is about 8 runs above average /150 games, .900 OPS is about 30 (according to CHONE). Figure in the defense, and it's a wash. Second, I'm not at all confident that that split is going to keep going. Has someone looked at that sort of thing on a larger scale? He was better as a catcher in 07 and 08 and for his career the split is: 876/826. I think you're making a big leap.
I agree though that 30 HRs is a very reasonable projection for Granderson. Both Chone and ZIPS have him for 26 and are likely heavily regressed on park factors. I assume you've seen a lot of games at NYS, so it's not crazy to think you're in a position to say whether that 182 PF is close to the truth.
He hits 43 points of OPS better, almost all of that in slg, and that's on a 380 AB sample at first (last three years)...not very good analysis there. Or else both a total lack of understanding of both the underlying data and projection theory.
What's worse, given the 'versus last year' structure selected (not a good choice, imo) the question is his catching numbers relative to last year's catcher not his first base numbers, anyway. That's a very significant upgrade and unlike a lot of the rest of the stuff in there, almost surely statistically significant difference.
Catcher OPS against? Really?
Weak stuff...this is the kind of article that gives sabermetric analysis a bad name. I often like Salfino, but this is just terrible use of the data.
Come on guys, this is blocking and tackling! Coors last year 110 park index for lefty homers. New Yankee Stadium -- 182. Let's assume there are sample size problems in the data. But even with that it's very likely at least as good a homer environment for a lefty hitter than is Coors (109 in lefty homers from 2007-2009).
How did doubling the road numbers for Coors hitters work out historically?
Cashman have hinted that they'll consider it, and the Granderson camps have said that he'll do whatever the team ask them to.
http://www.nj.com/yankees/index.ssf/2010/01/ny_yankees_gm_brian_cashman_ca.html
http://www.nj.com/yankees/index.ssf/2010/01/agent_if_needed_ny_yankees_cur.html
Personally, I think I see a little Jacoby Ellsbury in Gardner from time to time, in that he sometimes take awkward routs to the ball (then again, as a outfielder in amature ball who once let a flyball hit my legs during little league, I'm in no position to criticize anyone on that :P), but did seem to show a lot more consistency later on in the season,
Granderson's mostly projected at .360-.370 ish .WOBA, that's just fine. they basically say he'll hit like Damon 06 or around the same as Nick Swisher going foward.
Most talks seem to be that they'll bat Granderson around 6th , or 5th. especially against right handers . and probably 8th or 9th against lefties. and Nick Johnson will bat 2nd.
I didn't say anything about catcher OPS in the article. I said he's a poor defensive catcher and thus runs counter to the Red Sox obvious emphasis on defense elsewhere; it was a minor point. You can't hold me to article standards on a message board. But I'm glad you often like me. Thanks. (Seriously.)
How did doubling the road numbers for Coors hitters work out historically?
And you're lecturing me about sample size problems. I did not double his road homers. I said it wasn't crazy to think he could hit 40 homers. If the consensus here is that 30 is a reasonable over/under (as it seems to be), then 40 is certainly possible, if not probable (which I never said it was). In a fantasy sense, I'd pay for 30 and reasonably hope for 35.
I don't understand this at all, especially the "easy" part. Granderson, at 30 homers, might not be the hitter Damon was in 2009 (because of OBP considerations), but Damon was brutal in the field last season. Even if you think Granderson is below-average in center, he's not nearly as awful out there as Damon was in left. So immediately he provides more defensive value than Damon and the offensive disparity is not as pronounced because Granderson would be a CF. Or the Yanks could play Granderson in left, and fielding probably makes up for the offensive difference and then some.
Yes, because the total sample of players I referred to is about 20 times larger than the one player you approached this way. That's a major difference, sample-size wise.
If you go back and read what you wrote, you in fact began by saying 'Granderson hit 20 homers on the road, so it’s not crazy to expect him to hit 40 this year' That's where your analysis began, it is doubling the road numbers and it's not a good foundation to be building on.
Whenever the Yanks trade for someone in the offseason, a few notables around these parts immediately ignore their projections and their history except for that player's worst recent season. Then, through some special insight, they manage to stand firm on the opinion that not only are they more likely to repeat their bad season than meet their projections, they are likely in a free-fall decline and will be a lousy player/worse than what the Yanks got out of the position last year. The same thing happens anytime the Yanks sign anyone over 30.
That's the kind of reasoning that leads someone to say that Curtis Granderson, who is 29, will be worse than Johnny Damon, who will be 37. Even though Granderson has been better each of the last four years. And even though Johnny Damon is still a free agent because nobody wants to sign him for two years.
Agreed. And as noted clearly, the part quoted IS 'doubling the road numbers'
Based on what he's said here I think where Salfino went wrong is the use of the word "expect." Speaking for myself that sounds like something to be counted on rather than a possibility. I think it would be fair to expect 30 and consider 40 a possibility. I realize he used the qualifier "it's not crazy to..." but I think the wording of it suggested that he was sort of penciling it in like Jeter hitting .300 or something of that nature.
His comments here suggest to me that he's not quite as bullish on Granderson hitting 40 as the piece suggested (again, based on my interpretation of what he wrote).
the part quoted IS 'doubling the road numbers'
but you get the same answer if you hold the road numbers constant and double the home numbers instead.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main