Evaluating someone based on fourteen at bats, even if they are in the World Series, is making a poor evaluation based on a ridiculously small sample size (aside from the fact that he has 65 postseason appearances).

The same problem exist in evaluating someone based on a contract he signed 6 years ago- you don’t know whether or not it’s a complete coincidence.

As for “well, you don’t know”… I think it’s pretty clear you can make a solid objective argument that the Phillies overpaid for Raul. When we signed him and a lot of Internet commentary though it was a bad deal, Raul was at something like 4-5 million a year, and was NOT purchased at a big premium to other comparable players. Now, Raul will be making MORE than Burrell, not half as much.

Maybe so, but am I really wrong in thinking that Raul would see better pitches if the bases weren’t empty, or if he had some protection?

Yes, you are.

The entire point of protecting a batter is to improve his offensive output (wOBA) by forcing the opposing pitcher to pitch to him. And indeed, we saw above that opposing pitchers pitch to protected hitters, something that is evidenced by the fewer walks. However, when the ball is put into play, we see no significant difference between how the two sets of hitters perform. The unprotected hitters have a wOBA of .395 (counting only balls that are hit), compared with .391 for protected hitters. The difference of .004 is not statistically significant.

So a better batter hitting behind Raul wouldn’t give him “better pitches to hit.” Tango also addresses potential intentional walk situations (ie when there’s bases open):

However, what we hoped to find was that, when pitchers pitch around the corners, batters tend to make worse contact (if they make contact at all). And we don’t see this. Instead, we again find that, if walks are ignored, the two types of hitters perform equivalently in wOBA. (The slight increase in strikeouts is compensated by a slight increase in the fraction of balls hit well when contact is made.) In short, we simply cannot find any evidence to suggest that the pitcher’s approach has any significant impact on the batter’s stats, aside from the obvious changes in walks and strikeouts.

In other words, with the bases empty he may see more balls (and thus more walks) but he won’t see “better pitches to hit.”

It’s really a fascinating piece of work. I had to read through it a couple of times to fully digest it, but it’s worth it.

Tango doesn’t address it in the article, but there’s actually some evidence (at times) for “reverse protection” — a batter may see better pitches to hit when there better batters in front of him, because if the bases are loaded the pitcher is compelled to throw strikes.

As for Raul’s fielding, I shouldn’t try to defend at all. He’s pretty awful, but hey, so is Burrell!

I dunno, I’m clearly in the minority thinking Raul could be a smart move. I just feel like the Phils were thinking his performance would jump to an above-Burrell level with the benefit of a good lineup around him, and that Burrell did so incredibly bad last time they gave him a new contract.

I respect your opinion, but I think you came out of your shoes swinging and missing at mine.

Yes, obviously Bradley’s a switch hitter which nullifies Raul’s lefty bat as an advantage, but you could have noticed that I also mentioned how he’s had only one 500 AB season, which seems to me like a clear disadvantage compared to Ibanez who’s had 500 or more each of the last seven seasons, and 600 or more each of the last four. Bradley’s also hit 20 homers only once in his career, something that Raul’s done each of the last four seasons. Finally, as we all know, Bradley’s psyche has always been a concern.

As for Burrell, to a common observer who happens to have an inexplicable urge to quickly tear apart my argument, he might seem like an obviously superior choice, and hell, maybe he woulda been. However, shoudn’t we give a World Series winning club more credit than to confidently assume that they’re acting out of stupidity? Maybe the Phillies don’t like the fact that he was 1 for 14 in the World Series last year. OR, maybe they shied away from him because the last time they gave him a big contract, he hit .209 the subsequent season.

Also, how does Raul hitting in a horrible lineup have absolutely nothing to do with his individual numbers? Doesn’t he need guys on base in order to rack up RBIs? (see Mariners’ terible OBP) Wouldn’t he see more pitches to hit if the bases weren’t perpeturally empty, or if he had someone better than Vidro or Sexson or Lopez hitting behind him?

Finally, I think those who are ripping Raul’s defense to such a great extent are letting the memory of a few appalling plays cloud their opinion. He’s not Willie Mays out there, but his fielding percentage was exactly the same as the league average for LFs last year.

Again, even I don’t think that the Raul signing was definitely the right one, but I certainly don’t think it’s as clear cut as some others do. And Eponymus, you might be the smartest guy (or gal) in the world and are completely equipped and prepared to tear this argument a new one. I just felt compelled to respond since you totally dismissed my first argument so effortlessly.

So in any event, should we mention that it’s a lot of money every time we include a salary in a story? What’s the desired solution here?

Nah, but maybe a giant banner of starving
Papua New Guinean children at the top of the page would be nice.

No, but regarding the pay rate in 1969, some generals made over 20,000$ a year. A Major with 15 years of service could expect to make about 12-15,000$. And I think there were also allowances for housing, if you didn’t live on a base, plus other pay, not to mention pension, medical, etc.

So in any event, should we mention that it’s a lot of money every time we include a salary in a story? What’s the desired solution here?

Nah, but maybe a giant banner of starving
Papua New Guinean children at the top of the page would be nice.

No, but regarding the pay rate in 1969, some generals made over 20,000$ a year. A Major with 15 years of service could expect to make about 12-15,000$. And I think there were also allowances for housing, if you didn’t live on a base, plus other pay, not to mention pension, medical, etc.

So in any event, should we mention that it’s a lot of money every time we include a salary in a story? What’s the desired solution here?

a wacky emoticon of a giant pile of money appended to the story?

I’d argue that Burrell is worth $8 million a year. The past four years he’s been worth roughly $14M, $9M, $8M and $12M, according to Fangraphs’ calculations. And he’s so bad in the field that moving to DH should actually improve his value.

Crawford and Longoria combined can’t be making anything near these three.

Crawford and Burrell will make about the same amount this year. Longoria, on the other hand, will be underpaid for a long, long time.