Position Roundtables: Starting Left Field
Dave: Starting Left Field: Randy Winn, Jeremy Reed, or Raul Ibanez
This is the first position where we don’t really have a clear cut
favorite for the position. Winn makes the most sense and goes along
with everything the M’s have said to date, but he’s also the most
likely to be traded. Continuing with the organizations historical
trend, left field is not a position of stability for the 2005
Mariners.
Read more
Position Roundtables: Starting Third Base
Dave: We’ve talked about Beltre’s contract at length, and obviously, we were
all big fans of the signing. The organization needed a franchise
player on the right side of 30, a young player that they can
theoretically build around for the next decade. With one signing,
they went a long ways to addressing the problems in the middle of the
lineup, while simultaneously adding one of the best defensive third
baseman in the game. In 2004, only Barry Bonds was a better player
than Beltre, and I argued before the offseason began that Beltre might
be the best player for the Mariners on the market, a better fit than
even Carlos Beltran.
So, we’re glad he’s here. Three cheers for the signing. But what do
we think he’s going to do in 2005?
You just can’t realistically expect a repeat of 2004. It was a career
year in every sense of the word, an enormous leap over reasonable
preseason expectations. Keep in mind his 90th percentile PECOTA
projection for 2004 was .281/.336/.512. He hit .334/.388/.629. That
means he exceeded the most optimistic projection possible by 18
percent in batting average, 15 percent in on base percentage, and 23
percent in slugging percentage. It was an improvement of historic
proportions, and the few players in the history of the game who have
made leaps of even remotely similar proportions have a portion of
those back in future years. Thinking he’s going to be that good again
is unrealistic.
But, as I’ve argued before, Beltre’s a weird case, a super talent who
was something of a minor star by age 22 and had shown all the signs of
future greatness. The apendectomy that nearly took his life and
robbed him of needed development isn’t something that any statistical
based projection can account for. He’s got a pretty severe case of
extenuating circumstances. In his case, I don’t believe his offensive
performance from 2001-2003 accurately reflects the skills Beltre has,
and they carry less weight than they would in a normal circumstance.
But they do carry some weight, and we’d be remiss to not admit that
Beltre’s got some downside, a risk of falling back to levels where
he’s not a great hitter.
He’s also a right-handed pull hitter in Safeco Field. He has enough
power to drive it out to right field, but historically, about 75
percent of his bombs have been hit to left or left center. Safeco’s
probably not going to be his favorite place to hit, as it has been
tough on hitters with his profile through the years.
What am I expecting from Beltre in 2005? Probably something in the
.290/.350/.530 range, which may look like a disappointment on the
surface. But in Safeco, that’s a pretty strong offensive performance,
and added with his defense, he’ll be a legitimate all-star. I think a
realistic expectation is that he’ll be worth 6-7 wins above
replacement and be the best player on the team. And, as we saw last
year, there is a chance that he exceeds our expectation and
establishes himself as one of the best few players in the game.
Jeff: If you Google “Adrian Beltre” and “disappointment,” you’ll get
over 600 results. That’s a lesson in patience and in perspective: because he’s been
around forever, it’s difficult to remember that Beltre won’t turn 26 until April.
Since his breakout year was 2004, I’ll be interested to see the changes to his
PECOTA card when the comparable players section is updated. I think you will see less
Aurelio Rodriguez, more Mike Schmidt. Who, by the way, hit .249/.367/.523 and
.262/.376/.524 is his age 25 and age 26 seasons.
Dave’s crystal ball is more predicto-riffic than mine, and think his reasoning is solid, so
let’s assume Beltre finishes with a line in the neighborhood he suggests (290/.350/.530).
If Adrian Beltre had put up those numbers in 2004, he would still have been fifth in
baseball in OPS among third basemen. All of the others that would have been ahead
of him — Scott Rolen, Aramis Ramirez, Melvin Mora and Alex Rodriguez — play in
home parks that are at least marginally more favorable to hitters than either Dodger
Stadium or Safeco.
Beltre is a pull hitter (hitting chart here, but it’s important to note that he also had success
as a right-handed power bat in spacious Dodger Stadium. This bodes well for the
transition to Safeco. That’s not to say his home park didn’t depress Beltre’s numbers a bit —
his road OPS is .60-.100 points higher over the past three years — but to point out that he
was able to be productive despite a pitcher-friendly environment. I think we’d all be thrilled
if he put up his Dodger Stadium line last year (.326/.371/.611) for the whole season.
This is an excellent signing because, even if he doesn’t deliver another season like last year,
Beltre is likely to be among the very best at his position. Welcome to Seattle.
Derek: Well, if you put “Jeff Shaw Funkadelic” into Google, you get about 700
references, so I don’t take that as any particular sign.
I fight over PECOTA all the time, and I want to make this point one more
time: PECOTA forecasts, by themselves, mean nothing. Players don’t
struggle against them. They don’t over-achieve because they do better
than the weighted mean forecast, or struggle because they do worse.
PECOTA attempts, using limited criteria, to make a guess at a player’s
performance the next year. Because it only uses statistical lines from
the last three years, it wears blinders that we do not. We can look at
Beltre and see the early stardom, know about the surgery. We don’t know
that that’s the cause of the two down years, but we see a wider picture
than PECOTA can. If a projection system sees two down years and a fluke
MVP-caliber performance, of course it’s going to be down on next year’s
chances.
Anyway. Beltre’s an encouraging sign for a couple of reasons. Not only
because he’s young, and he’s awesome, and whatever else, but because
it’s a departure from the modest-cost stop-gap measure. He’s a huge
expensive risk with potentially huge returns for the team, instead of
the kind of Gillick-era modest-cost filler we got for 2004. Guys like
Ibanez, Spiezio… we saw the upside, and now the team’s trying to
figure out what they do with these guys.
Beltre… man. He’s going to be a huge boon to this team, and good for
them for taking the chance.
Jason: When was the last time the M’s signed someone and you said “Wow, I have no
complaints about this signing”? And I mean a real signing, not something
like giving Dan Reichert a minor league contract. It’s always something —
the contract’s too long, they gave him too much money, he’s too old, he
hasn’t been good in three years, his arm is about to fall off, and so on.
Adrian Beltre? I have no complaints.
The biggest knock on Beltre is that he only hit well last season, his free
agent year. But that’s being unkind to his 1999 and 2000 seasons, when he
hit .275/.352/.428 and .290/.360/.475… as a 20- and 21-year old in
pitcher-friendly Dodger Stadium. You don’t do that without having
legitimate skills.
His 2004 season was an absolute monster, one he isn’t likely to repeat next
season (or over the course of his contract, for that matter). Still, though,
even a step back from that will place him among the best in the game at his
position and earning his considerable paycheck. That he plays good defense
is simply icing on the cake.
Best of all, he won’t turn 26 until the first week of the season. This isn’t
quite up there with a 25-year old Alex Rodriguez becoming a free agent after
the 2000 season, but Beltre remains one of the youngest (and best) free
agents ever to hit the open market. And now he’s in a Seattle Mariners
uniform. Again, no complaints.
Peter: All I want to know is why I can STILL buy a Kaz
Sasaki jersey from MLB.com but no Beltre.
I want my Beltre jersey.
Position Roundtables: Starting Shortstop
Dave: Starting Shortstop: Pokey Reese
There aren’t a ton of things in baseball that die hard statistical
analysts and old school scouts will agree on. When you find something
that is being trumpeted as truth by both communities, well, you can be
nearly certain its true. One of these rare truths is that Pokey Reese
is an amazing defensive player, one of the two or three best gloveman
in the game, regardless of position.
Scouts have been raving about Reese’s defensive prowess for nearly a
decade. His defense was the main reason the Mariners tried to acquire
him as the centerpiece of the Ken Griffey Jr trade five years ago.
He’s kept a job in baseball despite hitting like a pitcher for the
past two seasons simply because scouts have seen him vacuum up every
ball that came his way.
In the past couple of seasons, more advanced statistical defensive
metrics have risen to the surface, such as Ultimate Zone Rating,
Defensive Regression Analysis, and the Probablistic Model of Range, as
well as Diamond Mind’s proprietary defensive ratings. UZR, PMR, and
Diamond Mind all base their ratings on specific play by play zone data
that is far more accurate than older, basically worthless stats like
Zone Rating. None of these models are perfect, and we still have a
ways to go in being able to accurately measure defensive performance
statistically, but the consenus among these rankings is clear; Pokey
Reese is worth something like 30 runs with his glove over the course
of a full season. UZR and PRM say about 27; DRA says about 32, and
Diamond Mind consistently gives him the best rating possible.
The only players who even perform at similar levels on a consistent
basis are Darin Erstad (as a center fielder), Mike Cameron, and Scott
Rolen. Saving 30 runs with the glove in one season is basically a
hall of fame type performance defensively, an elite level that few
players can reach.
30 runs is huge, either offensively or defensively. Keep in mind that
Bobby Crosby, last years American League Rookie of the year, only
created 23 runs with his bat. Edgar Renteria, he of the new 4 year,
$40 million contract, created 27 runs with his bat. Even if Reese
doesn’t hit better than .220/.280/.290, he’s still a valuable everyday
player simply based on his glove. For just over a million dollars,
the M’s purchased, arguably, the best defensive player in the game.
That’s just a ridiculous bargain for what he brings to the table.
Jeff: In 1999, Prince could finally party like he’d
always wanted to, the Matrix did for plastic pants what LL Cool J did
for the kangol hat, and something called Napster changed the mix tape
industry forever.
Oh, and 1999 was also the last time Pokey Reese played more than
135 games in a year. He was 26 years old.
Dave’s point about consensus (among people, and among existing
imperfect defensive metrics) is astute. Like blind men attempting to
describe an elephant, basing opinions on only one piece of the puzzle
is often unwise. The fact that Pokey’s glove is respected almost
universally, by baseball minds and by the numbers, is revealing and
encouraging.
Then there’s the injury issue.
A contrarian would point out that Dave’s 30 runs saved figure assumes
Pokey is on the field a lot more than he’s likely to be. A contrarian would
say that this is a guy who played 149 games at his peak, and the last three
years has played 119, 37 and 96, respectively.
Fortunately, I’m not a contrarian. I’m also on the Pokey bandwagon. His
penchant for getting nicked up, though, almost ensures you will hear in
2005 four words you never wanted to hear again:
Willie Bloomquist, starting shortstop.
I love having Reese on the team, think he was a great value signing, and
am excited to watch him for a number of reasons non-statistical. His cockeyed
cap, gleam-eyed love for game and enormous uniform are all a pleasure to watch.
He’ll turn 32 in the middle of this season, though, so maybe I won’t get
to watch him as much as I’d like.
While you’re lighting that candle for King Felix, it couldn’t hurt to throw
an extra thought out there for Pokey.
Jason: OK, so I guess this means I’m the designated
“negative” on Pokey Reese?
It’s actually tough. Sure, he can’t hit a lick — but he’s not supposed to.
If the M’s lose 100 games this season and Reese hits .200, nobody will blame
Pokey for the team’s offensive failings.
At the risk of reading too much into his stat lines, it appears he hits
significantly better when he gets decent playing time. Of course,
significantly better for Reese means a .700 OPS (1999, 2000, close in 2002)
as opposed to anemic .600 or worse seasons like he posted in 2001 and each
of the past two seasons. Again, there’s a positive correlation between his
playing time and his offense, which would appear to be a benefit here since
he’s the starting shortstop as opposed to backup middle infielder.
The injuries are troulbing, though. Last season he missed handful of games
with a thumb injury (pun intended), then missed 45 games with a rib cage
injury and finished the season in a 4-for-49 slump.
In any event, I wouldn’t worry too much about seeing Bloomquist at
shortstop. Looking over the roster, there appears to be a very good chance
one of the spring training non-roster invitees — Ramon Santiago, Benji Gil,
Ricky Gutierrez — will make the roster as Pokey’s backup, since Bloomquist
really can’t handle the position.
With Adrian Beltre, Bret Boone, Richie Sexson and Reese around the infield,
shouldn’t we be more excited about the team’s pitching this season? Well
sure, except that this flyball staff won’t be able to take full advantage of
the upgraded defense.
Jeff: Is the bit about Santiago, Gil or Gutierrez serving
as the backup shortstop — and hence starting when Pokey’s hurt — intended
to make me feel better?
If so, that’s very nice of Jason to try to cheer me up. Nice, but ineffective — kind of like Bloomquist.
Dave: Jason and Jeff are right; Reese’s health is a legitimate concern, and
the backups are cringe worthy. Really, we’d be foolish to assume that
we’ll get a full season out of Reese, and every game he doesn’t play
is a game that we’ll be running a Triple-A player out to play
shortstop. That’s a problem.
Thankfully, there’s probably a 10-20 percent chance that Jose Lopez
makes The Prospect Leap, so if he’s hitting .330/.380/.580 in Tacoma,
he’d be a legitimate option, especially if the alternative is Ramon
Santiago getting at-bats every day for a month.
And yes, our infield defense is going to be something else this year.
Which is why we should want Dan Reichert on the staff, but that’s for
a later roundtable.
Jason: I will say nothing of his bat, but at least
Santiago’s a solid defensive player.
With respect to Lopez — isn’t the organization set on moving him to 2B? If
he spends two months in Tacoma, hits as you suggest and is playing second, I
doubt they’d move him back to shortstop just to fill in for a week or so if
Reese is hurt.
Dave: If it was just a week, you’re right, Lopez wouldn’t get
the call. If it was a month or two, well, that’s another story, I think. Yes, the
organization wants him adjusting to second base, but he’s going to play some
shortstop down there as well, and if they were faced with giving Ramon Santiago
200 at-bats, well, I think Lopez would look a lot more appealing. Especially if
he’s whacking the ball all over Cheney Stadium.
Position Roundtables: Starting Second Base
Dave: Starting Second Base: Bret Boone.
2004 was a disaster for Bret Boone, especially in light of his recent
performances, including his excellent 2003 season. His performances
went down across the board, dropping to a mediocre .251./317/.423
line. More disturbingly, there doesn’t seem to be a single culprit
that led to the struggles; he just got worse across the board. He
swung more often and made less contact. When he hit the ball, it
didn’t go as far, and it was turned into an out far more often. Even
his stolen bases fell, but he was caught more often. In addition, his
defense appeared to have purchased a 20 game plan, only bothering to
come to the park on select days.
He turns 36 before the third game of the season. He’s played almost
1700 games at a position known for wearing down players earlier than
expected. I know Boone thinks he just had an off year, and he’s done
the lasik thing to claim that his increased vision is going to help
him return to previous levels of stardom, but I just don’t see it.
The Bret Boone of 2001-2003 is just a memory at this point, and all
we’ve got left of that Boone is the jersey and the contract.
I don’t expect another massive slide for Boone, at least not this
year. I think he’ll hit something like he did last year or maybe a slight improvement, say
.260/.320/.440, which is still a pretty decent second baseman. With
the impending move of Jose Lopez to second base, however, Boone’s
replacement is waiting in the wings, so this is probably his swan song
in Seattle. It was a great run, but I just don’t see Boone hooking up
the juvenation machine and reliving the glory days again.
Derek: I agree, though I also think there’s a bounce possible. Even the
bad-hitting pre-Mariner Boone hit better than last year’s version.
Boone’s an obvious example of a player that didn’t peak at 27-28. While
on a larger scale we know that players peak then and then decline, and
we can talk about the shape of careers (as we did in Sexson’s case) many
players peak early, or late, and in general a player who had a nice,
easily distinguishable career year at 27 and then declined softly and
steadly until 35, when they crashed would be the exception. When Boone
was supposed to be at his best, in 1995-1997, he wasn’t: his 1994 year
was really good, his 1995 good, and then he stunk it up for two years
until he put up some decent numbers, and then 2001 and 2003 were
stellar. 2002, by istelf, was impressive but wouldn’t have been
unbelievable on its own. Compared to 2001 and 2003, it looks anemic.
My point is that Boone’s career may have taken an unexpected late turn,
but I look at his 13-year career and in trying to guess at what next
year’s performance would be like, I keep looking back at the bad and
decent years that have made up the bulk of his lines. If he hit
.240/.300/.350 next year, that wouldn’t be surprising.
Really, are there cases where LASIK has dramatically improved a hitter’s
performance this late in their career?
Other interesting fact, though: while nearly every defensive stat you
can point to showed Boone as a below-average defender and in many cases,
far below average, UZR had him at +5 which I think has to be some kind
of fluke. Defensive metrics are all subject to strangeness. As much as
I’ve looked to UZR in the past for answers, in this case I think there’s
something odd going on.
Lopez should be a good player and a contributor to the next truly
competitive team, and there’s an excellent chance he’ll be promoted
during the season if he takes to second well and Boone doesn’t rebound well.
Jeff: Once again, I am in concordance with what Dave and Derek have said. One small addendum: I think continued productivity by Jeff Kent (a player of similar vintage, and Boone’s top PECOTA comparison) indicates that a rebound is possible.
To help undermine the site’s reputation as a source for factual information, though, I also offer this parody of Robert Service’s poem ‘Boon Soul.’
***
Boone Soul
With profound apologies to Robert Service
Behold! He is old; frosted hair soon white;
Bret’s years-eroded swing
a sometimes troubling sight,
absent now what it once did bring.
The raucous second baseman’s skills
held through select all-star years,
one-hundred sixteen wins, viewed thrills
where facing Boone ranked in pitchers’ fears.
But in watching him this year you’ll see
(along with an inevitable decline, belated)
observers muse of how next year he’ll be
himself among the For Assignment Designated.
***
Yes, I know that letting a player walk in free agency is not the same as designating him for assignment. Poetic license.
Jason: For starters, I think we should be glad 2005 is the last year of Boone’s
current contract. Maybe he just looks young, but I was marginally surprised
to see he turns 36 in April; not that I thought he was 30 or anything, but
he just doesn’t seem 36.
Moving on. As I said at the USSM Feed a few months back, Boone’s not as good
as he was in 2003 but not as bad as he was last season, either. Nobody’s
mentioned this yet, but he was slowed by nagging hip/back injuries that
certainly hurt him at the plate, even though he still managed to play 148
games. Assuming those problems are gone, we should see a small bounce back
in his offensive numbers. I think we should look for something similar to
his 2002 season — I’ll say he posts a .270/.340/.480 line.
That sort of production won’t mean he’s worth his $9M salary, but it’s
certainly not awful for the position. It also helps that he shouldn’t have
to be the team’s only power option next season; you can afford to have that
line from your fourth- or fifth-best hitter (Ichiro, Beltre, er, Sexson…),
but not from your second-best.
I don’t think we’ll see much of Lopez in 2005 unless Boone’s hurt or the M’s
fall way back in the race the way they did last season. I suppose there’s a
third option as well: Boone’s playing well but the M’s aren’t, and Bavasi
manages to unload him in July.
Peter: For some reason my memory had displaced just how
stinky Boone’s 2004 had been. Then I see him ranked
7th in the AL VORP for 2B, sandwiched between Adam
Kennedy and Omar Infante. Yikes!
The holy books of baseball history leave much to be
desired when it comes to 36-year-old second basemen.
Hmm… let’s see. There’s the 1939 version of Charlie
Gehringer. He played on l18 games for the Tigers, yet
put together a .308 EqA (adjusted for all-time). In
1923, Eddie Collins batted a .302 EqA (again,
era-adjusted) in a full season of 152 games. Those
fellas are enshined in Cooperstown, though, and a Hall
of Famer Bret Boone is not.
More modern and mortal examples include Willie
Randolph (1991, 124 games, .315 EqA), Lou Whitaker
(1993, 119 games, .314 EqA), Tony Fernandez (1998, 138
games, .299 EqA) and Randy Velarde (1999, 95 games of
.286 EqA for Anaheim and 61 games of .306 for
Oakland). However, none of these guys resemble Boone’s
skillset or career arc.
On the other hand, his ginormous season of 2001 seems
to have warped our historical perspective of what we
Mariner fans should expect from their second basemen.
Prior to Booney, the best offensive season we had seen
from a second sacker was Joey Cora of the Kingdome
(1997, 11 HR, 54 RBI, .284 adjusted EqA). In that one
season, Boone hit more homers than Cora did his whole
career.
One interesting tidbit from Boone’s latest tenure in
Seattle: The trend in his
pitches-seen-per-plate-appearance is going up, yet his
plate-appearances-per-strikeout is tanking
dramatically. He saw 3.96 P/PA last year, the very
same as Edgar Martinez.
2001, 3.69 P/PA, 6.27 PA/K
2002, 3.68 P/PA, 6.61 PA/K
2003, 3.93 P/PA, 5.64 PA/K
2004, 3.96 P/PA, 4.87 PA/K
Perhaps he was pressing in a lost, nighmare year.
Perhaps his vision was terrible. And maybe the Lasix
will help. And maybe the presence of Beltre and Sexson
in the lineup will take some pressure off. I’d like to
think so.
PECOTA has Boone pegged around .260/.330/.450 and 25
homers in 490 AB. I, for one, wouldn’t cry to see that
line from Booney. As has been read in this space
before, PECOTA is based on comparable players, and
there just aren’t that many for Boone.
If Boone can manage those solid numbers and the
Mariners find themselves swimming ’round .500 by July,
flipping Boone for some prospects isn’t out of the
question. It would have made for a good run.
I am going to love double plays this summer. I’m just
imagining Dave Niehaus tripping through “Booney to
Pokey, Pokey to Booney.” It’s gonna be great.
Dave: Actually, I think Lou Whittaker is a pretty decent comparison. Not
perfect, but decent. Boone doesn’t possess Whittaker’s ability to
control the strike zone, but both were .270-.300 hitters with some pop
despite not being over 6’0 tall. And though he couldn’t stay healthy
at the end of his career, Whittaker was a pretty good hitter until the
day he retired. So maybe I’m underestimating Boone a little bit.
And, also, I think we’d be remiss to not mention the fact that Boone
is the case study for the type of right-handed power hitter who isn’t
affected by Safeco Field. From 2002-2004, he hit .274/.340/.471 at
home and .276/.342/.478 on the road. That’s a statistical tie, for
all intents and purposes. Why? Look at his hitting
chart. He’s peppering the ball to right field consistently, the
part of Safeco that favors hitters.
By my subjective count, Boone’s career extra base hit numbers at Safeco Field:
Left Field Line: 18 doubles, 0 triples, 2 home runs
Left Center Gap: 14 doubles, 1 triple, 16 home runs
Center Field: 4 doubles, 0 triples, 10 home runs
Right Center Gap: 11 doubles, 2 triples, 15 home runs
Right Field Line: 17 doubles, 1 triple, 15 home runs
Now, trying to divide center field from right center gap by looking at
a hitting chart isn’t perfect, and squinting to see if there are one
or two “D” marks on the chart is a challenge, so these numbers
probably have a 5% margin of error. But the general idea is still
true. Boone drives the ball the other way far more often than he does
to left field. He’s the tailor made Safeco Field power hitter. If
the M’s want right-handed bats who aren’t going to be affected by
Safeco, they should find hitters like Bret Boone.
Position Roundtables: Starting First Baseman
We continue our overviews of each roster spot with a look at the Mariners shiny new $50 million first baseman today.
Jeff: Starting First Baseman: Richie Sexson
If there is a bright side to getting nothing for a position, here it is: whoever takes over afterward is almost certain to look good by comparison. The revolving door-sinkhole that was first base last year (and how’s that for a mixed metaphor?) has given way to Richie Sexson. However observers felt about his exorbitant contract, he’s just about certain to be a performance upgrade, given just two words as a caveat.
Those words are: If. Healthy. And unfortunately, it’s far from certain that he will be.
Sexson is a huge man who generates tons of power with his swing. So much power, in fact, that just checking his swing popped Sexson’s shoulder out of joint, causing a bone bruise upon reattachment. As age sets in — he turned 30 in December — likelihood of injury doesn’t decrease. Even if the maladies aren’t of the season-ending variety, a power outage similar to Shawn Green’s is possible.
When watching Sexson this year, think: this is the season when his productivity is likely to be highest.
Maybe a combination revolving door-sinkhole isn’t such a bad image for this position after all. It conveys something spinning, spinning and heading ever downward.
Derek: Didn’t we think the same thing about Spiezio being an upgrade over Cirillo at third, though?
I’m going to ignore for now the issues of his contract, and his DUI.
What Sexson is likely to contribute next year would be great: a
power-hitting right-handed bat who’s also a top-tier defensive first
baseman. That’s what the Mariners are paying him for. If you place your
faith for a moment in the team’s doctors, figure in some decline from
aging, maybe a slow return from having not played regularly for a year,
the bottom of a healthy Sexson expectation is .260/.320/.500. That would have
made him the second-best hitter on last years team, behind only Ichiro! The best
outcome for a healthy Sexson is a return to peak form, maybe a
.270/.360/.550 season.
The unhealthy Sexson scenarios get ugly quick: Spiezio as a regular
no-hit first baseman, Ibanez as a no-glove option, possibly some
combination of players — it’s all unappealing.
To the larger long-term picture, though, maybe we are better off with no
solution here, even it means ugly play now. I’ve heard the argument that
Sexson, because he displays what are commonly called “old player”
skills, should age well because those skills will expand. But on the
largest level, that’s not what happens. Players who, while young, hit
for average, power, and have speed tend to lose speed as they age while
they draw more walks and hit for more power. Then as strength and
reflexes erode, the average and power decline.
A young player with low contact numbers, no speed but power, who relies
on walks as a big part of their game have in general shorter careers.
They don’t add walks and power. Sexson isn’t going to become infused
with Super Old Man powers and draw 200 walks and hit 90 home runs at age
33 — we’ve likely already seen close to his max there.
If Sexson’s healthy next season, he’ll be an asset to the team and
contribute to returning them to respectability. In future seasons, I’m not so sure.
Dave: Sexson requires two different discussions, really. We should know fairly
quickly if the shoulder is going to be a performance issue. There is a
possibility that he’ll perform at a lower level than expected, ala Shawn
Green, but I’d guess that the more realistic scenarios involve him either
being 100 percent healthy or spending significant time on the DL. If he
shows up to spring training, taking hundreds of cuts a day and whacking the
ball all over the field, I’ll feel a lot better. If something in the
shoulder pops early on, well, this will go down as one of the biggest free
agent blunders in recent memory.
So, in the discussion of healthy Sexson, what should we expect? As Derek
said, Sexson’s contact issues point to a historical trend that his type of
hitter does not age particularly well, but let’s also put this in context;
he’s 30, which is just barely past his prime years and not even
significantly into the decline phase yet. While the discussion of aging
patterns of players with old man skills is interesting and relevant to his
contract, it isn’t particularly pertinent to his 2005 performance. The
difference between the expected performance of a 28-year-old healthy Richie
Sexson and a 30-year-old healthy Richie Sexson aren’t going to be
tremendously different. His 2000-2003 performances paint a fairly
consistent picture of his prime level of production; .270/.340/.530 or so.
Those are good but not great numbers for a first baseman, but his defense
was well above average by most metrics (though not by UZR, probably the best
of the flawed metrics we have for measuring defense at the moment, which had
him as the equivalent of Jason Giambi with the glove).
So, depending on which defensive metric you think is most likely to nail
Sexson’s worth with the glove, we should reasonably expect Sexson to be
worth something like 5-7 wins over replacement level. If he’s healthy.
If he’s not, well, I don’t think its quite as dire as Derek makes it sound.
Speizio isn’t nearly as bad as he was last year, and Ibanez’s problems with
the position would probably be minimized by regular playing time at the
position. But we certainly don’t want IbanZio in the lineup at first base
too often. If the M’s hope to contend at all this year, they need a healthy
Sexson.
Derek: I’d say this, though — we don’t know what his level of performance is
going to be. The Mariners think they do, or they wouldn’t have signed
the deal, but until he’s out there we don’t know if we get a 100%
Sexson, a 70% Sexson, or a 0% Sexson. That scares me a lot.
As for Ibanez at first — here’s my problem with the “regular playing
time improves play” argument. How often is that really true? Are there
that many cases of a player who looked horrible at a a position
initially getting better? Even an improved version of Ibanez at first is
pretty bad.
Dave: I don’t know that this type of injury lends itself to the likelyhood of
there being a 70 % Sexson. To me, it seems like the shoulder’s either
permanently broken, taking his career down the drain with it, or it’s not,
and he’s fine. I think if we’re going to assume that Sexson is playing
regularly, that would lend itself to the assumption that we’ve got 100 %
Sexson.
Players changing positions, struggling initially, and improving as the year
goes on? How about Randy Winn, circa 2004?
Playing first base just isn’t all that hard, especially if you have some
kind of lateral mobility. Ibanez isn’t quick by any means, but he’s got the
athletic skill to move side to side better than most major league first
baseman, and I fail to see why his reactions wouldn’t improve with
repitition.
Jason: The consensus seems to be that if Sexson’s healthy, he’ll hit; it’s
simplistic, I suppose, but I agree. He’s established himself as a .270’s
type of hitter with some walks and power. Sort of a Jay Buhner-lite, if you
will — more contact and a higher average, but fewer walks (though it’s
worth noting he walked 98 times in 2003). Even taking a bite out of his
numbers for Safeco, I think he can hit in the .260/.350/.500 range. Not
stellar, of course, but not awful for the position.
As for his health, I’m with Dave in that it’s probably an all-or-nothing
affair. If you look at Sexson’s career, he’s been quite durable — 148 games
played in 2000, 159 in 2001, 157 in 2002 and all 162 in 2003. If the
shoulder’s fine, there should be no reason he won’t play 150 or so games
next season.
If the shoulder’s not? I’d rather not think about that.
Position Roundtables: Starting Catcher
We’re launching our 2005 season preview today, but taking a slightly different approach that we think you all will enjoy. Over the next 50 days before Opening Day, we’re going to writeup a roster spot every other day with the thoughts and feelings of myself, Jeff, Peter, Jason, and Derek on the players who are likely to fill that role with the club. Consider it 25 mini roundtables. We’ll do a position every other day from now until April 3rd. We launch today with the Starting Catcher. Enjoy.
Dave: Starting Catcher: Miguel Olivo
The Mariners acquired Olivo in the Freddy Garcia trade to be the catcher of the present and future, but his poor performance in the second half of 2004 has left the starting job up for grabs. Olivo’s track record is all across the board in both the minors and the majors, but he’s shown flashes of ability and the potential for league average production is there. He’ll need to cut down on the passed balls in order to insure his playing time, and if he struggles, he could easily end up as Dan Wilson’s caddy. The range of Olivo’s possible production is vast, and his performance is one of the main uncertainties heading into 2005. Dave’s Projection for 2005 Olivo: .270/.320/.420, 350 AB.
Jason: I like Olivo a great deal; I was probably more excited that he was in the Garica trade than I was about Jeremy Reed. His .233 average last season makes his overall line look ugly, but there’s reason for optimism — better than 45% of his hits went for extra bases. Offensively, he needs to get back to drawing walks like he did in the minors, where he was right around the “10% of at-bats” mark, and the rest of his offensive game will come. He certainly runs well for a catcher, too.
Defensively, he seems to have a strong arm and quick enough release that the running game isn’t a problem. Obviously he needs to cut down on the passed balls (nine in 49 games after the trade), but he seems like a good enough athlete that this shouldn’t be an issue with work. Didn’t he hang out with Roger Hansen this winter to work on his defense?
I think Dave’s projection is pretty good, but I’ll go out on a limb and say he manages 400 at-bats under a new manager who perhaps isn’t as tied to Dan Wilson. I also think he’ll hit for a bit more pop… put me down for .260/.320/.440 and 15 homers.
Jeff: Like Jason, I’m bullish on Olivo. With JMB summarizing the “pro” side aptly, though, it’s devil’s advocate time for yours truly: here’s why I’m a little worried.
Olivo hit .233 last year, but hit just .200/.260/.387 after coming over in the trade. It was just 160 at-bats, but the drop-off of more than 100 points of slugging makes me wonder about his right-handed bat in Safeco. He’s just 26 years old, should improve, and I hope he will — but he’s just two years young than Ben Davis. The next year or two will be key if he’s going to establish himself as the answer at catcher.
That said, I’ll point that my compadres’ respective projections are just a hair’s breadth more optimistic than the PECOTA system’s forecast for Olivo (.247/.308/.418 in 307 at bats). I for one am hoping for the great leap forward.
Jason: That slugging dropoff was all batting average, though — after the trade, a full 50% of his hits (16 of 32) were of the extra-base variety. And if we want to talk even smaller samples, 10 of his 21 hits at Safeco last season (93 at-bats) were extra base hits.
Dave: Jason’s right on this one. I wouldn’t really be concerned with Olivo’s power. The legitimate concern is whether he’s going to make enough good contact for his power to be useful. His track record is all over the board. He hit .305 in Modesto in 99, then just .282 repeating the league the next year, than .259 in Double-A in 2001, but then hit .306 repeating the league in 2002. Then he hit .237 with the White Sox as a rookie, .270 with them in his second year, and .200 with us after the trade.
Basically, he could hit anywhere from .200 to .300.
Jeff: Agreed on both counts: power v. contact and Olivo’s inconsistency. An additional point that might be worth noting, though, is the dramatic platoon splits he’s shown. Even when he struggled in 2004, Olivo was able to brutalize left-handed pitchers. This is true over the past three years as well: in almost 650 total at bats, his OPS against lefties is .917, compared to .594 against right-handers.
When watching Olivo, it seems like he really struggles with breaking stuff from right-handed pitchers. I seem to see him bailing out a lot, which undoubtedly leads to a lot of those strikeouts and failed attempts at contact. It’s certainly too early to start talking about him being a platoon player, but I’ll be disappointed if the Mariners face a southpaw and he isn’t starting.
Dave: Small sample platoon splits can be misleading, but I think Jeff’s right in his analysis of Olivo’s past approach. The Olivo I’ve watched, both in Chicago and Seattle, has been a pure fastball hitter who really struggles with offspeed stuff. After the trade, he was a classic mistake hitter, only hitting pitches where the ball was in his wheelhouse, but desperately flailing at everything anyways. It will be interesting to see if his approach is different at all in 2005, as it’s hard to believe that’s the style he used to get himself to the major leagues in the first place, so the talent to be a less hackier version of his 2004 while retaining the power should be in there somewhere.
Peter: Olivo for career: 4.12 PA/K
Olivo ’04 w/Chicago: 5.38 PA/K
Olivo ’04 w/Seattle: 3.16 PA/K
So while Olivo went all Tasmanian Devil on us swinging
at anything and everything like it was a nervous tick
once he arrived in Seattle, he had been relatively
patient (for him) previously, and we can see his
season totals reverting to the mean.
On the other hand, Olivo had the mother of all funks
last September. Why? Did he mentally check out once
the M’s were done in August? Did aliens take over his
body? Did Melvin and Molitor tinker with his swing? Is
his vision okay? Did Dan Wilson defecate on Olivo’s
Joe Boo shrine?
Between September 4 and 28, he collected one hit (an
infield single) and one walk in 39 at bats. He struck
out 22 times, at least once in each game he started.
In 4 of those 11 games, he struck out 3 times.
According to ESPN’s game logs, 19 of those 22
strikeouts were of the swing-and-miss variety. (For
those scoring at home, Zito, Dotel and Hudson of
Oakland performed the amazing feat of freezing Olivo.)
Olivo’s ability to become a starter for any major
league team depends upon his discernment at the plate.
For his career, his OBP/SLG once he falls behind in
the count is .240/.326. Not a bad scouting report for
the opposition: Feed him a first pitch strike and then
you’ve got a better than 3-in-4 chance of setting him
down. But after a first-pitch ball, his numbers are
.336/.490.
Perhaps Mike Hargrove and Don Baylor can make some
kind of positive influence on Olivo’s approach at the
plate. I certainly hope so.