Sun writer Bob Elliot wonders if the Moneyball revolution is to blame for Joe Carter's poor showing with Hall of Fame voters.

Do bears s*** in the woods?

Incidentally, anyone else having trouble accessing Primer?

No trouble here.

Hilight? You have definetly spent too much time in the U.S.A. Mr. Moffatt.

http://somecalzoneforderek.blogspot.com/
I'm hearing the Angels(?) have signed Vladimir Guerrero. Anybody else know anything about this? If its true then "Wow". Who would have thought the Angels would have been such big players in the FA market?

http://www.rotowire.com/free/baseball/index.htm
According to Rotowire (COMN), according to ESPN Radio, Vlady is "reportedly going to sign" with Anaheim.

I guess that would mean Erstad (or possibly Salmon) to first, with the outfield/DH spots filled by Garret Anderson, Jose Guillen, Vlady and Salmon/Erstad. Add Troy Glaus...Yowza!

Who would have thought the Angels would have been such big players in the FA market?

Arte Moreno understands the post-Series revenue spike in a way that Huizenga didn't (and Loria apparently doesn't) in Florida. Keep your championship team together, and fans will flock to see their heroes. The Angels smashed all their attendance records last year, despite their mediocre season. Now they have some money to spend, and they're spending.

http://me.woot.net
Fordin is fairly even-handed, but it's very difficult to put strong criticism about a team on that team's website. Sometimes I wonder if we should change Da Box' background to be a light pinkish hue; it is hard to find good even-handed criticism around here.

Anybody want to volunteer to become "The realistic Jays analyst"?

http://somecalzoneforderek.blogspot.com/
Looks like we have confirmation.

First time posting here!.....I have, however, been enjoying "Da Box" for a while now - it's the best Jays forum on the net, hands down.

Guerrero to the Halos is definately a good news/bad news situation for the Jays. On one hand, it reduces the compensation pick we'll receive for the Escobar signing (after Colon, we're looking at a 3rd or 4th round pick, I believe). On the other hand, I certainly didn't want to see Vlad 19 times a year in an O's uni.

While the best scenario would have been for Vlad to stay in the NL, I'll take the lower pick and be content to avoid him for the majority of the year. I trust the scouting department will still find a way to make it count.

Welcome Warse. In the *actual* hijack thread R Billie pointed out and then retracted his comment on the Jays losing in terms of the compensation pick since Vlad wasn't offered arbitration. That makes this a win-win situation for the Jays (aside from playing the Angels a handful of times a year). But this really bites for Seattle and Oakland...it may even be enough to force Beane's hand on a Zito deal for a bigger OPS kinda guy.

I don't think this signing is good from the Jays perspective at all. While the Jays won't have to play him in Baltimore as often, Vlad goes to a serious contender against whom --- whenever they are vying for the wild card, whether its 2004, 2005 or 2006 --- the Jays will have to compete. The Angels clearly have a VERY good rotation (Colon, Escoabar, Washburn, Ortiz) and now a VERY good lineup (Vlad, Glaus, Salmon, Erstad and Guillen) and I think they may have also had the best bullpen in the AL last year if I'm not mistaken. In order to make the Playoffs, the Jays will have to overcome either the Yankees or Red Sox AND two out of the A's, M's and now Angels. This will obviously be very difficult and almost certainly lowers whatever chance there previously was to compete for playoff position.
(Of course, so long as Vlad was to come to the AL, there probably isn't a "good" team for him to join unless it's the Tigers. So while I think Vlad joining the Angels is bad --- maybe even worse than him joining Baltimore --- I realize that there is no 'ideal' situation)

I don't think there is any doubt that Vlad in Anaheim is worse for the Jays then Vlad in Baltimore.

Vlad in Baltimore might win them an extra 2 games against Toronto. Vlad in Anaheim might win Anaheim an extra 5 games each of the next few years. It's made the wildcard that much more difficult to win. Now not only do you have to finish ahead of one of the superpowers, you've got to finish ahead of the Oakland/Anaheim runner-up. Yuck.

I don't think there is any doubt that Vlad in Anaheim is worse for the Jays then Vlad in Baltimore.

With the unbalanced schedule, the Angels getting better means that they will be more competitive with Seattle and Oakland. The more those teams beat up on each other, the greater the likelihood that the wild card will come from the east. The Rangers are not that bad either. Teams in the AL West have a difficult schedule, thus giving them a disadvantage in the wild card race.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/gammons/story?id=1705735
Peter Gammons new column is out, in which he lists the teams who have had great off-seasons. And of course, the Jays are #3.

Gammons states: "Problem is, the AL East is a lot more than New York and Boston. There's Toronto, which on a $50 million payroll has the makings of a 90-win team, which they hope will be enough to sneak into the tournament and then see what happens, a la Anaheim, Villanova and the Marlins. And the best thing for a Jays fan is that they have one of the best farm systems in the league."

He talks a little more about the farm system, and then makes reference to the performance of Jays farmhand Dimon Pond at the end of the column...

;)
COMN for link

Aos from that Gammons column, down at the very bottom:

One name that emerged in Puerto Rico is Jays' minor-league outfielder Simon Pond. After being released by the Indians and Expos, Pond hit .338 at New Haven, then hit 10 homers in Puerto Rico. "He's got one of the best power swings I saw," said one scout who covered that island's winter league.

Anybody want to volunteer to become "The realistic Jays analyst"?

Hey, I may be leaving ESPN, where I got several hundred e-mails from people who profited on my advice, thanking me for being so realistic, but I'm still here, Joe. Just because I think the team is in great shape doesn't mean they get a free pass, or has my "even-handed criticism" of Shannon Stewart's defence been forgotten already?

It was pre-Box, but I screamed in every ESPN column for the heads of Raul Mondesi, Buck Martinez and Joey "Buck Eighty" Lawrence, begging for them to be replaced by Josh Phelps, Carlos Tosca and Orlando Hudson, respectively. When all those things happened by mid-season, it confirmed what I already suspected from the Koch and Gonzalez trades -- finally, some very smart people are running this club. No longer can someone like Dave Stewart convince the GM to trade Woody Williams for Joey Hamilton or pay Homer Bush like he's Joe Morgan.

I'd say Jeff Blair, Mike Wilner and Spencer Fordin are the three most realistic Jays analysts in their respective media, mostly because I agree with them almost all the time and they don't dole out "strong criticism" until it's deserved.

If my conviction that the Jays are doing almost everything right is still too optimistic for some people's tastes, there are several other analysts here who are brutally honest, and you can always subscribe to the Toronto Star.

Gammons' comment about Simon Pond is interesting. He seems to be a late-bloomer (a la Reed Johnson?), although as an outfielder in the Jays organization, it's hard to envision him getting significant playing on the big club. I think I remember reading that his defense is mediocre, though I'm not sure.

Maybe useful as trade bait, or as a backup 1B/OF, in case of injuries?

Anyone have a good scouting report on him? Any idea where he fits into the Jays' plans?

I assume it would be Salmon moving to 1B/DH - Erstad is the only CF the Angels have. And, I agree that this is a scary lineup - with pretty decent defence, as well. If this goes through then I think the Angels should be up there with the Yanks and Red Sox, personally. (with the Jays a step behind with Oakland, etc).

Anaheim becoming stronger will impact the Mariners and Atheltics' chances of posting 90-95 wins. It helps us in the wild card because Anaheim is a team with an aging core of players, so they are not likely to become a consistent 95-win team.

Anaheim becoming stronger will impact the Mariners and Atheltics' chances of posting 90-95 wins. It helps us in the wild card because Anaheim is a team with an aging core of players, so they are not likely to become a consistent 95-win team.

Pond actually played a fair bit of third base for the Jays in the minors but if he could actually play the position well then he'd probably be playing for someone in the majors by now. He'll probably settle into an OF/1B/DH role and how much playing time he gets would depend on what other moves the Jays make.

I got to see Pond play a few games at third this year. From what I saw he didn't look too bad, although I didn't see enough of him to make a good evaluation. He had a decent arm and made some slick plays. My early judgement is that he's at least passable there. Take it for what it's worth.

One thing comes to mind with Pond, if Delgado leaves via trade or end of contract, Phelps will move to first base and DH will open up, which from what I hear would be Pond's best position.

I still disagree about Anaheim.

Let's say pre Vlad

New York 98
Boston 95
Toronto 88
Baltimore 70

Oakland 95
Anaheim 88
(Seattle is cooked as far as I'm concerned)

Vlad goes to Baltimore
NY 96
Boston 94
Toronto 86
Baltimore 76

Oakland 95
Anaheim 88

Vlad in Anaheim
NY 98
Boston 95
Toronto 88
Baltimore 70

Oakland 93
Anaheim 93

I'm not talking about 2006. I'm talking about 2004.

Pond's games by position last year were:
Syracuse 16 1B, 31 3B, 11 OF with 3 errors
New Haven 6 1B, 53 3B with 20 errors

My guess is that Simon will play in Syracuse as injury insurance for Delgado and Hinske

I got to see Pond play a few games at third this year. From what I saw he didn't look too bad, although I didn't see enough of him to make a good evaluation. He had a decent arm and made some slick plays. My early judgement is that he's at least passable there. Take it for what it's worth.

Well if Hinske is a third baseman then Pond can probably be one too. :) If Pond is at least competent though then he can be a good corner utility man or maybe even a regular if he can hit enough.

If the Jays' lose out on Delgado in 2005 then perhaps the best move would be to see if Glaus is available. He'd be a big improvement defensively at third and can replace most of Delgado's power and patience though his batting average will seldom look pretty. Hinske can also move to first which would be more suited to his skill and he can just concentrate on hitting. Eric would be on the expensive side for a first baseman though unless he improves a bit on what he did his first year in the league.

Pond can fill in at 3B, 1B or LF, but his best position is with a bat in his hands. I agree that he's most likely to end up back in Syracuse, but he does have a very narrow window of opportunity to be a Fighting Jay. This year, unless they decide to carry 12 pitchers, he could supplant Howie Clark as the lefty stick off the bench. By 2005, even if Phelps is the everyday 1B, there will be a lot more DH candidates to choose from, including the kids like Griffin.

J.P. also said recently that he's "95 percent" done retooling for 2004. At first, I took that to mean he might sign a couple more minor-league free agent NRI relievers, but it could also mean he's looking for one more bat -- the 25th man might still be a hitter with big league experience whose only other contract offers are from second-division teams. Otherwise, my fingers are crossed that Pond gets his chance, and the B.C. native makes the most of it.

With Vlady signing for 5 years $14 per, could Delgado realistically ask for more than that? Vlad is an up and coming superstar with his best years ahead of him, i know there's concern about his back, i'm not sure how much that reduced his value. With this signing it looks more like we could resign carlos for $12 per for 3-4 years. Keeping his bat in the middle of our lineup surrounded by the young core of guys coming up could be very dangerous for any visiting pitcher in Skydome.

I take back what I said about the Angels OF - it looks like they are indeed set on moving Erstad to 1B. If this actually happens, it will be an utterly stupid waste of Erstad's only real talent (hustling defence in CF) and would guarantee them a terrible 1B for years at a hugely inflated price.

The Angels have surely been big players in the FA market, but they've made a bit of a mess of things at the same time. Jose Guillen, Tim Salmon, Garret Anderson, Darin Erstad, Jeff DaVanon, and now Vlad - only Erstad can play CF well, and he's the one they're moving to 1B (he might be the worst hitter of the six, as well).

Jose Guillen is now a total lame-duck, as well.. they signed him as Vlad lite, after all, but now they have the real thing. Guillen is not a patient guy and I think he'll be demanding a trade by June.

I think you'll see Anaheim really become a major player in baseball over the next 4-5 years. As the first Latino owner in MLB Art Moreno seems to love baseball, have plenty of money (and a willingness to spend it.)Moreno seems to have a plan to make Orange County the premier destination for Latin ballplayers, given the large Spanish community, the climate, the free agent signings he's completed this year, I think this is a real recipe for success.

The Angels clearly have a VERY good rotation (Colon, Escoabar, Washburn, Ortiz) and now a VERY good lineup (Vlad, Glaus, Salmon, Erstad and Guillen).

I agree with the first part of the statement, less so with the last part. Erstad and Kennedy are middling to poor and Salmon and Eckstein both declined somewhat last year. Guillen has had 1 good year, and Glaus and Vlad, who are both studs, spent a fair bit of time on the DL. I'd say they have a terrific middle of the order, but not a terrific lineup. I'm willing to bet the Jays score more runs.

http://somecalzoneforderek.blogspot.com/
I assume it would be Salmon moving to 1B/DH - Erstad is the only CF the Angels have.

I disagree.

Anderson could work in CF -- I believe it was Erstad, Anderson, Salmon at one time, left to right. A good lineup for Anaheim would be Erstad, Anderson, Vladdy in the outfield, Salmon at first, Guillen DH.
I guess the Angels signed Vlad as a second choice after Palmeiro went to Baltimore.

#135533 Posted 01/11/2004 01:51 PM by Rich:

The Angels clearly have a VERY good rotation (Colon, Escoabar, Washburn, Ortiz) and now a VERY good lineup (Vlad, Glaus, Salmon, Erstad and Guillen).

I agree with the first part of the statement, less so with the last part. Erstad and Kennedy are middling to poor and Salmon and Eckstein both declined somewhat last year. Guillen has had 1 good year, and Glaus and Vlad, who are both studs, spent a fair bit of time on the DL. I'd say they have a terrific middle of the order, but not a terrific lineup. I'm willing to bet the Jays score more runs.
-----------------------------
I even forgot to mention Anderson, who was their best offensive producer last year. The Jays may be better offensively, but both teams defenitely do have potent offenses that are among the best in the AL with Boston, NY and maybe Texas.

http://somecalzoneforderek.blogspot.com/
Anderson could work in CF -- I believe it was Erstad, Anderson, Salmon at one time, left to right. A good lineup for Anaheim would be Erstad, Anderson, Vlady in the outfield, Salmon at first, Guillen DH.

Why would you DH Guillen? He's a great defensive player. And why would you play Salmon at 1st, he's never played a single game there, when Erstad has played almost 300 games there in his career? It makes much more sense to move Salmon to DH and Erstad to 1st. I'd probably play Guillen in CF. He's a less fat version of Raul Mondesi.

If you were too lazy to read my blog posting about it then go here. The Angels were already planning on moving Erstad to 1st base. He's beaten the crap out of himself playing CF the way he does. He can't do it anymore.

Erstad and Kennedy are middling to poor

If you want to view him through a critical lens, Kennedy might be "middling," but his production is certainly not "poor" for a second baseman -- he had a better year than O-Dog, with worse health. His glove is OK too.

If they go...

6 Eckstein
3 Erstad
9 Guerrero
8 Anderson
5 Glaus
DH Salmon
7 Guillen
2 Molina
4 Kennedy

...their only question marks, relative to their spot in the batting order, are Eckstein, Erstad and Molina. And all three are capable of having a good season, with Kotchman in the wings in case Erstad gets hurt.

Having said that, I agree with Robert: the competitiveness of the Oak/Ana and Sea/Ana series should affect all three teams' shot at the AL wild card -- good news for the AL East.

The Jays may be better offensively, but both teams defenitely do have potent offenses that are among the best in the AL with Boston, NY and maybe Texas.

Robbie, I just don't see it. The Angels finished 11th in the league in runs last year, 158 behind the Jays. I don't see how Vlad and Guillen are worth a combined 150+ runs to an offense. The best offensive clubs in the AL don't have more than 1 player of the Erstad / Kennedy / Eckstein ilk.

Guerrero and Anderson are going to be hitting a lot of solo homers with that lineup...

Right, but Salmon and Guillen should each put up huge RBI numbers.

http://somecalzoneforderek.blogspot.com/
8 Anderson

Right on Mike. I said earlier that I thought maybe Guillen should be the CF, and I think he'd do a good job, but after further analysis Anderson has played over 300 games in CF and from the looks of it did a very good job.

Looking back at my post, I can find no real reason for putting Tim Salmon at first base, nor Guillen at DH. It must be the cold weather.
Thanks for pointing out my stupidity, Niles. ;)

#135539 Posted 01/11/2004 03:50 PM by Rich:

The Jays may be better offensively, but both teams defenitely do have potent offenses that are among the best in the AL with Boston, NY and maybe Texas.

Robbie, I just don't see it. The Angels finished 11th in the league in runs last year, 158 behind the Jays. I don't see how Vlad and Guillen are worth a combined 150+ runs to an offense. The best offensive clubs in the AL don't have more than 1 player of the Erstad / Kennedy / Eckstein ilk.
-------------------------------------
Erstad may have had a bad season, but I don't think he's a bad player. He was injured last year and has hit .300 many times in the past. Hinske also had a pretty awful year last year, hitting just .243, but I do still think he'll bounce back and that he is a solid, above-average third baseman. I also think that Woodward and Hudson are pretty comparable to Kennedy and Eckstein, so in this sense, I'm not quite sure I see your point. Also, keep in mind that Angel Stadium of Anaheim (previously Edison field) is a big-time pitcher's park while skydome favours the hitters. Finally, adding a player like Guerrero (and Guillen) completely transforms that offense so there's no way you can compare the two. If given the choice, I'd still take Toronto's offense, but I can definitely see an argument for both sides being possible, regardless of where Anaheim ranked last season...

He was injured last year and has hit .300 many times in the past.
If by "many times" you mean once in the majors, I agree.

He's had one great offensive season (2000), two good ones (97, 98) and 5 fairly crappy ones (including the last 3 in a row).

If the Halos have a firstbaseman with a 700 OPS, that pretty much cancels out what Vlaad gives you above an average corner outfielder.

Erstad may have had a bad season, but I don't think he's a bad player. He was injured last year and has hit .300 many times in the past.

Erstad has hit over .300 once. He was pretty close in 1997 and 1998, batting .299 and .296 respectively, but even if you give him those it hardly qualifies as "many times", and it was 5 years ago from a player who has tanked. Darin Erstad, year-by-year OPS+ from 1997 to 2003: 114, 115, 74, 137, 78, 88, 75.

Hinske's 'pretty awful' year, where he was hampered by a non-chronic injury, produced a 96 OPS+.

As perhaps the biggest Angels' fan writing here, I will tame my predjudices and just say the feeling here in SoCal is huge excitement for the Halos with an almost equivalent disappointment with the Dodgers.
The past 2 years have been electric at Anaheim Stadium, whether winning or losing. Big loud crowds, well-behaved but aggressively loyal, like nothing I have ever seen (and I have been attending since the 1st exhibition game in Anaheim against the Giants in 1966).
SoCal is excited by what Mr. Moreno is bringing, not only in terms of players, but also attitude. Orange County is a strange mix of upper middle-class whites and lower to middle-class Hispanics, and he has found the common denominator to grab everyone: family entertainment with a team and management that give 100%.
Whether they can outplay the A's and Mariners is uncertain; what is certain is that Anaheim will be an exciting place to catch a ballgame in 2004.
(By the way, Erstad can be an excellent 1st baseman and Anderson is an excellent CF. Both have shown this in the majors already).

If the Halos have a firstbaseman with a 700 OPS, that pretty much cancels out what Vlaad gives you above an average corner outfielder

As a Jays fan, I wish this wiped out the Guerrero signing. If you imagine that Glaus was playing first and Erstad was playing third, then suddenly Vlad's wildly-above-average production re-enters the picture.

I'm just saying that this argument is more of an accounting point than an analysis of what should be a dangerous lineup.

Can anyone else think of a player who made such a bizarre defensive shift as Erstad? Normally when you decline at a skill position, you move a notch or two down; a poor shortstop moves to third, poor centre fielder to left, etc.

But has anyone moved from one of the most demanding defensive positions on the diamond to one of the least? I understand the desire to keep Erstad healthy, but wouldn't some combination of centre/left/occasional DH & days off make a lot more sense?

If you imagine that Glaus was playing first and Erstad was playing third, then suddenly Vlad's wildly-above-average production re-enters the picture.

Over the past 3 years, Erstad's OPS have been: .691, .702 and .642. That would rank him worst or second-worst among AL third baseman in each of those seasons among qualifiers. Among first baseman those numbers would be the absolute worst among qualifiers each and every year.

Erstad's primary value is his defence in centre and the Angels are removing that. Sure the offence is better with Vladdy than without him, but they are making Erstad into an even bigger sinkhole than he already is.

In the past 2 years, Woody's OPS has been 40-60 points higher than Eckstein's. Kennedy's have been 20-30 points higher than Hudson's. (And Carlos's numbers have been only 400 points higher than Erstad's). I think the evidence speaks for itself.

Erstad is converting not because of a slow decline in skill but because of serious right leg problems, which restrict his mobility. He was a terrific defensive centrefielder, and it is really sad that he must give this up at age 30. First base is a natural choice for him (he did play a little bit of left field last year, but at this point, Garret Anderson is probably a better defensive outfielder than he is).

I'm sure somebody has commented on this, but the big-name talent, from Guerrero to Sheffield to Javy Lopez to Schilling, has left the NL for the AL. It's quite possible for an AL team to improve vis a vis the rest of baseball, but to not show anything in the win column because of the talent transfer between leagues.

From a thread at Primer, here is the Blue Jays portion of the 1996 Baseball PRospectus book (via Wayback Machine archived pages)

http://web.archive.org/web/19970127034100/www.baseballprospectus.com/info/1996/bluejays.html

Man that was one ugly roster.

In Rob Neyer's new article reviewing the signing of Vlad, he closes by saying the AL West will once again be the best division in baseball. Now that can certainly be argued, but to say it so definitively is a tad ridiculous without mentioning the AL East and 3 teams that are perhaps as good as any in the West. Darn Devil Rays bringing us down!

http://www.baseball-reference.com/n/nixonot01.shtml
That's an entertaining read- a lot of guys I remember thinking were good prospects at the time, mostly because I really didn't know how to read stats back then.

As a side note, until he became a starter I was absolutely fascinated by Otis Nixon. COMN for his stats, and check out that ratio of SB:AB up until 1992. 23 SB in 95 AB- the man was AFIK the greatest pinch runner ever at a time when stolen bases were actually useful. Even at 40 with Atlanta he stole 26 bases in 151 AB. Fun, fun player, though I didn't like him as a Jay.

http://somecalzoneforderek.blogspot.com/
Thanks for pointing out my stupidity, Niles. ;)

Forget about it.

Does anybody know if Raul Mondesi has officially retired?

No doubt the best thing that could happen to the Halos is for Erstad to retire due to injury, or at least have insurance pick up a big portion of his contract this year.

I love watching that guy in the outfield, but at first? Regardless if he is the best defensive 1B of all time, I really don't see how it can make up for the fact that it looks like he's hitting with a blindfold when he's at the plate.

I did hear, and maybe Brad can confirm/deny this, that Erstad was going thru a really nasty divorce over the past 2 years and it affected him on the field (or at the plate). Now I mostly don't put much stock in that kind of thing, but youneverknow.

On another note, is that Erstad contract one of the worst signings in the past 3 years? I mean, at least Greg Vaughn hit 50 hrs before he signed his albotross contract.

Yes, Oggman, Erstad did go through an emotionally difficult divorce. I cannot know how this effected his play, but I am sure it did. He is a small-town guy with strong family values, his wife was his high school sweetheart, and the impression we got in the local press was that the split was her idea. Of course, his injuries have probably plagued him in the field at least as much.

Erstad will never be the proto-typical 1st baseman offensively, but he can be in the top 5 defensively in the league, and with a better lineup around him and playing a physically less demanding position, he could hit .290, score 100 runs and steal 25 bases.

Most important, he desire and effort inspires his teammates and fans. Locally, there is none of this talk of his position change being a detriment to the team. And Garrett Anderson can play center field!

Shouldn't Erstad remain in centre? He has trumped the league range factor in each of the past three seasons as a starting centrefielder. Anderson has been right around the leftfielder average range factor. Why not move Anderson to first and go with an OF of Guillen, Erstad, Vlad?

they are making Erstad into an even bigger sinkhole than he already is...I think the evidence speaks for itself

Rich, the evidence does indeed speak for itself. The Angels are replacing Jeff DaVanon and Scott Spiezio with Vladimir Guerrero and Jose Guillen.

Their outfield defence will still be superb, and Erstad will play a fine defensive first base (as he used to).

Erstad won't become a "bigger sinkhole." He'll hit somewhere around 260/320/390 with good speed. Not great, and not really all that good. It's not abysmal, however, for a #2 hitter who's capable of high-percentage base stealing (and moving runners along) for a team that runs aggressively, and generally intelligently.

Teams don't win games based on position-by-position comparisons. The reason why it's generally costly to have a low-OPS first baseman is because other positions require more speed and defence, and most players with those skills lack power. Therefore, you take 1B, punt speed and defence, and put a masher there.

But the Angels already have five sluggers capable of OPS excellence in their lineup. If you flip-flopped Anderson and Erstad defensively, the Angels would look better in a position-by-position OPS analysis. But the defence would take a severe hit at first base, and the impact on the offence would be, obviously, nil. Maybe worse than nil, if playing CF breaks down Erstad's body and inhibits his running.

I don't know...really...but (as with everyone else) I'm speculating...

If they started the year with a healthy Erstad in CF, and with a masher 1B, they could replace him in CF after he went down with the inevitable injury. Why settle for a 700 OPS at 1B? You can have the "veteren presence" in CF (where he is a proven plus) and still get production from 1B. When he's on the shelf with contract paid by insurance, Anderson can play CF and everyone else could move as required.

But the Angels already have five sluggers capable of OPS excellence in their lineup.
Capable yes... you should hedge your bets though IMHO.

I think that Fullmer's 900 OPS (weighted v.s. righties) will be missed this year after Erstad goes down.

I don't know...really...but (as with everyone else) I'm speculating...

If they started the year with a healthy Erstad in CF, and with a masher 1B, they could replace him in CF after he went down with the inevitable injury. Why settle for a 700 OPS at 1B? You can have the "veteren presence" in CF (where he is a proven plus) and still get production from 1B. When he's on the shelf with contract paid by insurance, Anderson can play CF and everyone else could move as required.

But the Angels already have five sluggers capable of OPS excellence in their lineup.
Capable yes... you should hedge your bets though IMHO.

I think that Fullmer's 900 OPS (weighted v.s. righties) will be missed this year after Erstad goes down.

DOH!!!

Excuse my ignorance...
What does COMN mean?

AZ: It means Click On My Name. Took me a while to figure out, too.

As for Raul Mondesi, I haven't heard anything about his *official* retirement, but my guess is nobody will want him for anything more than we paid Gomez, so he'll have to retire.

AZ
COMN = Click On My Name.

This morning from Jamey Newberg's Texas Rangers Minor League Report:

"The Dallas Morning News is reporting (and the Fort Worth Star-Telegram will report in the morning) that the Rangers have agreed to terms with left-handed starter Kenny Rogers and nasty right-handed reliever Jeff Nelson."

He'll hit somewhere around 260/320/390 with good speed. Not great, and not really all that good. It's not abysmal, however...

Teams don't win games based on position-by-position comparisons. The reason why it's generally costly to have a low-OPS first baseman is because other positions require more speed and defence, and most players with those skills lack power.

Mike, I appreciate that we can disagree so strongly. 260/320/390 IS abysmal. The reason why it's even worse for a first baseman is that there are so many options available out there that can play first and post. Guys like Kevin Millar, Scott Hatteberg, or even Travis Lee, all hit significantly better that this at a fraction of the cost. Position does matter.

Vlad is not replacing DeVanon, who is a 4th outfielder who had a lot of at-bats last year because Erstad was hurt.

I agree with Mike D, it doesn't make sense to focus on the first baseman compared to league average rather than the lineup as a whole vs. league average.

If they started the year with a healthy Erstad in CF, and with a masher 1B, they could replace him in CF after he went down with the inevitable injury.

Even if you care so little about your employees that you'll willfully injure them, why would Erstad agree to this plan? He may be an over-rated hitter, but last I checked he wasn't a zombie. And I'd love to hear how the Angels would go about conjuring a mashing first baseman that they can afford at this point. Travis Lee may be a small upgrade, but he's a long way from a masher.

If you flip-flopped Anderson and Erstad defensively, the Angels would look better in a position-by-position OPS analysis. But the defence would take a severe hit at first base

My point was that Erstad ought to be in CF because he is a better OF than Anderson. I do agree, however, about the inefficacy of comparing to others at the same position.

Maybe worse than nil, if playing CF breaks down Erstad's body and inhibits his running.

Are you sure about that? Erstad's VORP last year was -3.7. If he goes on the dl, that could be a good thing for the Angels.

Even if you care so little about your employees that you'll willfully injure them, why would Erstad agree to this plan?
Willfully? I was being somewhat sarcastic with the _when_ he gets injured; I of course meant _if_
Erstad in CF is better than a 700 OPS player due to his defense. Erstad at 1B is bad.
As for him agreeing or not, that is not relevent. It's not like it would be asking Delgado to play CF or something...


And I'd love to hear how the Angels would go about conjuring a mashing first baseman that they can afford at this point. Travis Lee may be a small upgrade, but he's a long way from a masher.

Have you noticed how much $ they've been spending? I don't think 'afford' is a big problem for the Halos anymore. Of all of the positions (save DH), 1B is probably the easiest to find a better than replacement level hitter. Don't you think they would be further ahead if they signed Palmeiro to a 1 year deal to play 1B and had Erstad catching flies in CF?

Good debate, all.

Erstad can't play CF for the new-look Angels, because there are already four outfield/DH types that can't play first and whose bats are required in the lineup every day.

CF defence, therefore, is not the skill the Angels are looking for Erstad to supply. And surely they aren't counting on him for OBP or power. Therefore, they want his 1B defence, his speed, his bunting and his clubhouse presence.

It's an entirely legitimate argument to say that Erstad's low OPS outweighs all of those perceived abilities. But if that's true, he shouldn't be playing CF either. Unfortunately for the Halos, they signed him to a terrible, untradeable contract. So if you're going to have the "sinkhole" debate, you have to consider whether it's more of a sinkhole than it would be to pay Erstad not to play, plus pay for the cheaper OPS source to play 1B. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

The Angels' best-case scenario is that he becomes to the club what Hatteberg (who, it must be said, is a fellow 1B non-masher) is to the A's: a "glue guy" in the clubhouse, good 1B defence, and a skill set that fits with what they're trying to accomplish offensively. Worst-case scenario is he does even less with the bat. Likely scenario is he gets hurt, and we see a lot of Robb Quinlan.

Vlad is not replacing DeVanon, who is a 4th outfielder who had a lot of at-bats last year because Erstad was hurt.

If you prefer, we can look at it as Erstad, Guerrero and Guillen replacing DaVanon, Spiezio and Shawn Wooten. Either way, the debate is over how much the Angels' offence is improved over 2003, and you can't consider the '03 Angels without "counting" DaVanon. In any event, DaVanon was actually pretty decent last year.

Lastly, I agree with Benum that injury histories, age and possibilities of mirage (see Guillen, J) counsels caution when we project how this lineup will do. But they're capable of excellence.

Erstad can't play CF for the new-look Angels, because there are already four outfield/DH types that can't play first and whose bats are required in the lineup every day.

Isn't 1B the easiest position to play, defensively? I can't imagine that any current Angel OF couldn't handle 1B (sorry for the double neg).

The "Erstad should stay in Center" camp seems to think that he'll be the same hitter regardless of position. But what if a position change is the necessary move to turn the 700 OPS Erstad back into the 800+ OPS Erstad of 97 and 98 (realizing that 2000 was quite probably a fluke)? While a good defensive outfielder, he plays like a punter who's the last man between the runner and the endzone. He lunges and flops and hopes he doesn't land on anything sharp. That has to be hard on the body. It's tough enough to hit on a good day, let alone with a bruised hip, a jammed finger and a raspberry on the knee the size of Danny DeVito. Moving back to first (Erstad started out as the Angels' regular first baseman) might rid him of enough aches and pains that he gets his power back.

he plays like a punter

Which of course he was, on football scholarship at the University of Nebraska. But I'm betting you knew that already.

Mick...what a coincidence. ;)

The "Erstad should stay in Center" camp seems to think that he'll be the same hitter regardless of position. But what if a position change is the necessary move to turn the 700 OPS Erstad back into the 800+ OPS Erstad of 97 and 98 (realizing that 2000 was quite probably a fluke)?

I hadn't thought about that, Spicol. I agree with you: if playing first can make him a better hitter, then he should be playing first.

tell me again why Jose Guillen's even being mentioned as a difference-maker? surely not on the basis of a mere 91 games where he hit far above career norms yet maintained his usual inferior BB:SO ratio...*cough*FLUKE*cough*

this post-Vlad Angels offence isn't especially awe-inspiring: .700 OPS SS...this is a lineup that features two .700 OPS players (Eckstein, Erstad), sub-.800 OPS hitters at C and 2nd, and an .800 OPS at 3rd. Their three top hitters (Vlad, Anderson and the Camby-esque Tim Salmon) will end up hitting an awful lot of solo homers next season.

While I'm at it, a few words re their starting pitching: Ramon Ortiz = not Scottish (which is to say, crap)...30 yr old who put up a 5.20 ERA last season and has always posted mediocre WHIPs...Kelvim Escobar: sure, that 3.92 ERA is a starter last season was neat-o, but not when it's accompanied by a 1.42 WHIP. There's hope for Washburn though since his '03 was better than that ERA shows, and Colon's a horse.

To sum it all up, the Angels are no sure thing...LOTS will have to work out in their favour if they plan on challenging for a wildcard.

Sef, I agree completely. The Angels will score more runs, but my point is that adding Vlad and Guillen isn't likely to turn them into a top offensive club. They just have too many unproductive hitters in the lineup. I think the real key guy will actually be Glaus, and how healthy he is. They also play lots of games against the A's and M's staffs.

2003 EqAs for the starting nine. Little predictive value is implied.

Angels

Vlad .328
Guillen .304
Anderson .298
Salmon .295
Glaus .281
Kennedy .268
Molina .257
Eckstein .240
Erstad .236
-------------
Average .279

Jays

Delgado .338
Wells .302
Myers .293
Phelps .280
Cat .279
Sparky .270
Hinske .266
Hudson .249
Woodward .245
-------------
Average .281

While the Angels have a couple of guys (Guillen, Salmon) who might not be able to maintain their 2003 production, it's not as though the Jays underperformed expectations at the plate in 2003. Delgado and Myers could easily lose 30 points of EqA each, and if Kevin Cash gets 300 AB, look out. Each team has several players (Kennedy, Eckstein, Glaus, Phelps, Hinske, Hudson) who might take a step forward.

Eyeballing things, I'd say that these two teams are pretty close offensively. The difference between them is that the Angels have a deeper rotation and a much better bullpen, even after all of the improvements that Toronto has made. Considering that the other AL East teams have been improving while the AL West teams have largely been sitting still, I'd put my money on the Angels finishing ahead of the Jays next year.

I don't pretend that this is a very good analysis ;) Let's look at the PECOTAs when they come out.

Apologies if I'm the only one that missed it, but apparently (according to TA at BP) the Jays signed RHP pitchers Brian Powell and Shane Bowers, C-R A.J. Hinch to Syracuse (AAA).

Thanks for those EQA numbers John; they're very interesting. You didn't give your opinion on whether Vlad, Guillen, and a healthy Glaus are likely to add 150 runs to the scoreboard or not.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=neyer_rob&id=1705855
John, Rob Neyer's take (COMN) on the Angels seems compelling. The Angels' pythag W-L was 80 wins last year. Guerrero, if healthy, is worth 5 wins roughly. Escobar and Colon are worth 3 to 5 wins total.

I would say that the Jays' win expectation have improved about the 2-4 games, from the 86 that they won last year. That would put them in the same vicinity as the Angels. The Angels' rotation might be a little deeper, but they do not have Halladay.

I don't pretend that this is a very good analysis ;) Let's look at the PECOTAs when they come out.

Well, we do have Dan Szymborski's ZiPS '04 Diamond Mind 8 projections. Vlad's projection is still based on Montreal/San Juan, but plowing on ahead, here are the AVG / OBP / SLG numbers:

   Angels                     Blue Jays
C  Molina   .270/.296/.392    Myers    .278/.347/.460
1B Erstad   .271/.325/.373    Delgado  .288/.421/.561
2B Kennedy  .288/.342/.411    Hudson   .291/.353/.430
SS Eckstein .281/.340/.363    Woodward .270/.331/.435
3B Glaus    .261/.381/.509    Hinske   .276/.366/.485
LF Guillen  .305/.354/.507    Cat      .303/.364/.473
CF Anderson .302/.338/.521    Wells    .316/.361/.523
RF Vlad     .332/.421/.582    Johnson  .301/.359/.438
DH Salmon   .254/.360/.453    Phelps   .291/.375/.545
-----------------------------------------------------
Averages    .285/.351/.457             .290/.364/.483

Methinks Mr. Szymborski is predicting very high rates of pitcher implosion in 2004. Further interpretation is left as an exercise to the reader.

http://economics.about.com
Apologies if I'm the only one that missed it, but apparently (according to TA at BP) the Jays signed RHP pitchers Brian Powell and Shane Bowers, C-R A.J. Hinch to Syracuse (AAA).

You're not the only one who missed it. I can't find details about it anywhere. Last Thursday's Phildelphia Inquirer reports that the Phillies signed Hinch to a minor-league deal, so I have no idea where Baseball Prospectus got that from.

Cheers,

Mike

Just for fun, here are the numbers from the aforementioned ZiPS '04 Diamond Mind 8 on the two pitching staffs.

Angles

First	Last	      Age	 ERA 	INN	K/BB	K/9	BB/9	HR/9
Bartolo Colon	31	 3.99 	230	2.35	6.61	2.82	0.86
Kelvim	 Escobar	28	 3.72 	150	2.31	8.46	3.66	0.66
Jarrod	 W'burn	29	 4.22 	192	2.57	6.14	2.39	1.13
Ramon Ortiz        28	 4.95 	191	1.90	5.98	3.16	1.41
John	Lackey	      25	 4.07 	197	2.57	6.81	2.65	1.01
-------	-------	-------	-------	-------	
Troy	Percval	34	 3.71 	51	2.73	10.59	3.88	0.88
Brendan Donnely	32	 3.16 	74	3.04	9.97	3.28	0.61
Ben	Weber	      34	 4.01 	74	1.79	5.23	2.92	0.61
Scot	Shields	28	 3.78 	112	2.90	7.23	2.49	0.88
Fran'co Rod'gez	22	 3.15 	80	3.32	11.59	3.49	0.79
Aaron	Sele	      34	 4.75 	163	1.61	4.53	2.82	1.16
-------	-------	-------	-------	-------	
		    29.5	4.10	1514	2.38	7.00	2.94	0.97

Blue Jays

First	Last	      Age	 ERA 	INN	K/BB	K/9	BB/9	HR/9
Roy	Hal'day	27	 3.31 	234	4.75	7.31	1.54	0.62
Miguel	 Batista	33	 4.14 	176	2.05	5.98	2.91	0.61
Ted	Lilly	       28	 3.94 	153	2.72	8.00	2.94	1.18
Pat	Hentgen	35	 5.39 	127	1.78	5.81	3.26	1.42
Josh	Towers	       27	 4.69 	169	3.79	4.85	1.28	1.33
-------	-------	-------	-------	-------	
Justin	Speier 	 30	 4.13 	72	3.00	8.25	2.75	1.00
Aq'no	Lopez	       29	 4.07 	84	2.25	7.71	3.43	0.64
Kerry	L'berg	       33	 4.12 	59	1.96	7.17	3.66	0.92
Adams Terry	       31	 3.52 	133	2.10	7.11	3.38	0.41
Jason	Kersh.	       27	 5.12 	109	2.06	5.28	2.56	1.40
Valerio d Santos	 31	 4.94 	51	1.52	6.71	4.41	0.88
-------	-------	-------	-------	-------	
		     30.1	4.20	1367	2.51	6.64	2.64	0.93

Szymborski's figures do seem a little high. You have to bear in mind that Anaheim was a fairly extreme pitcher's park in 2003 and the Skydome was a hitter's park in comparing the two team's figures.

Well, Szymborski surely likes them Fighting Jays. Under his projection, they figure to score about 1000 runs (even allowing for Kevin Cash's .250./.310/.370) and give up about 750, and win 100-105 games. And, Szymborski's not even in the FJ Marketing Dept.

None of S's numbers leap off the page and say "impossible". Hudson's .353 OBP will require a substantial improvement in hitting lefties (by giving up switch-hitting?). Phelps' .375 OBP will require a significant age-related improvement (cutting down on the Ks a bit). Ted Lilly's 3.94 ERA would require a big leap forward. On the other hand, 5 plus ERA's from Hentgen and Kershner would be disappointments.

So the Angels have certainly improved, the A's are great and the M's are a solid club. What are the Rangers doing? They can''t compete while playing 60 games against these guys!

Mike, I'm not sure how Dan handles playing time. If you add up add the Blue Jay hitters you get 8,486 AB, which is absurd given that last year they had 5,661 AB. Maybe he's projecting each player as if they are on the major league roster for the entire season and get as much playing time as performance dictates. In general I think he's very optimistic about both Toronto and Anaheim hitters. That overall ERA for Anaheim sounds reasonable, Toronto's sounds optimistic.

.375 OBP will require a significant age-related improvement (cutting down on the Ks a bit).

Cutting down the Ks won't help Phelps' OBP one bit. A few more walks would help, though.

Ted Lilly's 3.94 ERA would require a big leap forward.

According to the new Bill James handbook, Lilly's component ERA last year was about 4.05. Even considering the ballparks, 3.94 is well within range of what he did last year.

Cutting down the Ks won't help Phelps' OBP one bit.

Sure it will. K's are a drag on the batting average component of OBP, since you have no chance for a ball-in-play hit when you strike out.

Mike D, Thank you, I couldn't have said it better. I'll tackle the 2nd half.

Component ERA does not, as I understand it, take into account either the ballpark or the quality of the defence behind the pitcher. The Oakland to Toronto transition involves significant losses for pitchers on both fronts (Oakland's BABIP last year was fabulous; Toronto's below average). Taking the component ERA at face value, Lilly's ERA from last year might translate to a 4.6 ERA in Toronto. I'm not saying Lilly cannot improve, or that Toronto's defence will not be better, just that Szymborski's projection for Lilly involves a leap forward. Checking Cory Lidle's component ERA in 2002 might give a hint about the height of Lilly's hurdle.

Szymborski has said repeatedly that ZiPS doesn't pretend to estimate playing time effectively. Nevertheless, the numbers are interesting, and they do suggest that the Angels haven't caught up to the Jays offensively after all.

Rich, I don't think Vlad+Guillen+healthy Glaus are worth 150 runs. But there are so many other variables to consider. There are two quick and dirty ways to estimate a team's overall production next year:

1. Start with what they produced last year, and correct for big changes in the lineup
2. Start with what the projected lineup produced last year

The two aren't equivalent, as the first counts all of the at-bats given to Kevin Cash and Dave Berg and Jeff DaVanon, and the second doesn't. I'm not sure which is a better method. I used method 1 just because everyone else seemed to be using method 2 and I wanted a fresh perspective. Certainly I would argue that without a much more complicated analysis, we're not going to be able to predict with much confidence which of these teams is going to be better in 2004.

I'm with Logan on Lilly -- the only likely way he won't have a good year, IMHO, is if he gives up 1.5+ HR/9IP. I don't think that is out of the realm of possibility, but it's not terribly likely.

Oops .. should have written "I used method 2 because everyone else seemed to be using method 1"

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/splits3?statsId=6223&type=pitching
Lilly could have a good year with an ERA of 4.4 or 4.5 on this ballclub. If you look at his 3 year splits (COMN), it's easy to see how he could have a lot of trouble doing better than that without giving up a ton of homers. He absolutely eats up left-handed hitters but is hittable by right-handed hitters (with Chavez/Tejada behind him last year the platoon stats were the same). He is also very vulnerable to the stolen base.

Anyways, Szymborski has Hentgen giving up roughly 1.5 more earned runs per game than Lilly. I'd happily put my money on Hentgen with that projection, but if you look at the two of them, the projection might very well be right in total.

http://www.aarongleeman.com
Aaron Gleeman states the 'keep Erstad in the OF' case convincingly in today's blog entry (COMN). I say this in no small part because I've been saying this all along. =P

And, just to clarify, people have been saying that Erstad is 'a good outfielder'. By almost any advanced defensive metric, he is one of the best defensive players in baseball at an important position. Only Mike Cameron is in his league, and no one else is particularly close. Guillen and Anderson are good OFs, but the Angels still take a HUGE hit from this move - I find it really hard to believe that Anderson would be unable to learn 1B. Hatteberg did it, after all (by the way, comparing him to Erstad offensively is unfair to Hatteberg - Hatteberg had OPS+ of 111 and 98 in the last two years, Erstad had 88 and 75... not even taking into account Hatteberg's FAR superior OBP...)

Cutting down the Ks won't help Phelps' OBP one bit.

Sure it will. K's are a drag on the batting average component of OBP, since you have no chance for a ball-in-play hit when you strike out.


That would be true if hits on balls in play were random or somewhat random for hitters, when in fact they're not. Again, cutting down on Phelps' Ks won't help his OBP - but if he shortens his swing to reduce his Ks, it may very well hurt his power production. If that's true, the suggestion is worse than irrelevant, it's counterproductive.

Going back to Green's original post...

Phelps' .375 OBP will require a significant age-related improvement

This isn't even true. His OBPs the last two years in the majors were .362 and .358. A .375 OBP last year would have meant eight more times reaching base in the same number of PAs. "Significant?" The only thing that's significant here is the hyperbole.

I'm not saying Lilly cannot improve, or that Toronto's defence will not be better, just that Szymborski's projection for Lilly involves a leap forward.

Actually, you said a "big leap forward," implying that in 2003 he was nowhere near what Szym forecasted for him for '04. And, QED, that is incorrect.

(AP) Free agent pitcher Rick Helling agreed to a one-year minor-league contract with the Minnesota Twins on Monday night.

Ladeez and Gennemen ... your 2004 Andujar Winner! Helling returning home (he's from NoDak and grew up a Twins fan) will re-energize him and he will win 18 games for the AL Central champ Twins.

And no, I'm not taking bets on that outcome.

Logan, you have missed the point of my original post entirely. Here is the relevant paragraph:

None of S's numbers leap off the page and say "impossible". Hudson's .353 OBP will require a substantial improvement in hitting lefties (by giving up switch-hitting?). Phelps' .375 OBP will require a significant age-related improvement (cutting down on the Ks a bit). Ted Lilly's 3.94 ERA would require a big leap forward. On the other hand, 5 plus ERA's from Hentgen and Kershner would be disappointments.

I wouldn't say this was hyperbolic. I'd say that I just pointed out the optimistic and pessimistic projections. You may think that Ted Lilly's 3.94 ERA and Hentgen's 5.39 ERA are reasonably accurate projections. My point was that more accurate projections IMO would have them both somewhere in the middle. Here in the Box there are many different opinions about Lilly's chances of success, but if you take his raw numbers over the last year, or the last 3 years, and adjust for the park and the defence, you should end up with a figure somewhere in the mid 4s.

As for Phelps, I'm not suggesting that he shorten his swing. "Cutting down the Ks a bit" can sometimes be accomplished by young players by incrementally improving their knowledge of the strike zone.

That would be true if hits on balls in play were random or somewhat random for hitters, when in fact they're not. Again, cutting down on Phelps' Ks won't help his OBP - but if he shortens his swing to reduce his Ks, it may very well hurt his power production. If that's true, the suggestion is worse than irrelevant, it's counterproductive.

I assume you mean that hits on balls in play are not random for hitters in the sense that if Player A has a career .310 ball-in-play average, he will have something very close to a .310 BIP average in the upcoming season. (The alternative is that you mean that a hitter can control whether a batted ball goes for a hit or not, but then I'd have to ask why we've never seen anybody bat 1.000 with 400 strikeouts).

So suppose that Josh's career BIP average is indeed .310. If he has 500 AB in 2004, walks 100 times and strikes out 200 times, we expect him to get .310 x 300 = 93 hits, and have an OBP of approximately 193 / 600 = .322. Now suppose he has 500 AB, 100 BB, but cuts his strikeouts down to 150. Now he's projected at .310 x 350 = 108 hits, and his OBP goes up to 208 / 600 = .347.

What am I missing here Logan? Sure looks to me like Josh's OBP is going up as he cuts down his strikeouts. His power may or may not go down as a result of trying to cut down on strikeouts, but last I checked OBP was quite a bit more important than SLG, so sacrificing some power may indeed be productive. And if his K rate is going down due to a shorter swing, his BB rate will probably go up to, improving his OBP beyond the increase in hits.

OK, I'd better come to Mike Green's defence here.

If that's true, the suggestion is worse than irrelevant, it's counterproductive...The only thing that's significant here is the hyperbole.

Mike Green's points are certainly arguable, and he's been nothing but civil. What gives?

More substantively...

That would be true if hits on balls in play were random or somewhat random for hitters, when in fact they're not.

I'm not sure how this contradicts Mike G's point. Hitters can have balls-in-play tendencies, that's true. But are you suggesting that every ball he's currently failing to put in play is foreordained to be, say, a routine groundout to short? The fact that balls-in-play hits are not distributed randomly does not mean that a reduction in strikeouts is "irrelevant" to a hitter's batting average -- and therefore on-base percentage. There's a reason why Paul DePodesta calls the strikeout the "most expensive thing a batter can do." Sometimes, balls in play are hits. Strikeouts are never hits.

if he shortens his swing to reduce his Ks, it may very well hurt his power production

It may. But we're concerned here with what the great hitters do -- shortening his swing with two strikes, not throughout the at-bat. Two-strike pitches are deliberately not fat, particularly with a powerful, yet strikeout-prone, hitter.

Consider his 2003 numbers:

0-2 counts: 206/270/382, 1 HR, 20 K, 34 AB
1-2 counts: 169/182/292, 2 HR, 42 K, 65 AB
2-2 counts: 063/082/063, 0 HR, 30 K, 48 AB
3-2 counts: 229/519/375, 2 HR, 27 BB, 23 K, 48 AB

Five home runs in 195 official at-bats. As a comparison...

First pitch: 351/397/702, 5 HR, 57 AB

I can live with his 3-2 approach. But if he gets into a two-strike hole earlier in the count, he's not getting much production bang for his long-swing buck.

Is there no room for improvement? Is this nothing that a more mature, experienced approach to hitting might address? Bottom line, Mike Green's points can't be dismissed quite so summarily. Above all, the insults really don't help anyone.

http://economics.about.com
So suppose that Josh's career BIP average is indeed .310. If he has 500 AB in 2004, walks 100 times and strikes out 200 times, we expect him to get .310 x 300 = 93 hits, and have an OBP of approximately 193 / 600 = .322. Now suppose he has 500 AB, 100 BB, but cuts his strikeouts down to 150. Now he's projected at .310 x 350 = 108 hits, and his OBP goes up to 208 / 600 = .347.

There's no reason his BIP or his marginal BIP should remain constant. That's what your missing. :)

Cheers,

Mike

Shown up again. Mike Green and Jonny both made their points more logically and concisely, and quicker to boot. Bah.

http://economics.about.com
But are you suggesting that every ball he's currently failing to put in play is foreordained to be, say, a routine groundout to short?

He's not suggesting that at all.

The problem is that people have been assuming Phelps can change his K's without impacting his walks, singles, doubles, triples, etc. That doesn't make any sense; there's going to be tradeoffs somewhere.

Suppose Phelps goes to a more contact style approach. He's going to have less K's, but also less walks. Suppose he gets 50 less of each, and 100 more balls in play. If he has a BIP of .500 on those 100 balls, then his OBP won't change at all. That doesn't at all imply that all his strikeouts were destined to be a routine groundout to short.

I wish people wouldn't abuse ceteris paribus so much. What did it ever do to you?

Cheers,

Mike

Mike Moffatt, nobody's suggesting he choke up on the bat like Ty Cobb, and take a swinging bunt at everything. Mike Green and Jonny each explicitly argued for a modest decline in strikeouts, and modest means to go about getting it.

Look at his two-strike results. Josh's Ks are a result of

1) taking a strike, thereby misjudging the strike zone; or
2) chasing a ball, thereby misjudging the strike zone; or
3) falling victim to a bad call, which likely accounts for a very small number of Ks; or
4) swinging for the fences, which I submit is revealed by his numbers to have been an unproductive two-strike approach for him.

Let's assume that with two strikes, his new approach reflects an improved understanding of the strike zone and a slightly shorter swing. Would that totally eviscerate his BIP average? And if not, wouldn't the reduced Ks lead to an improvement in OBP? Logan's argument is that the two are unrelated.

http://economics.about.com
Would that totally eviscerate his BIP average?

No, but it would likely lower it.

And if not, wouldn't the reduced Ks lead to an improvement in OBP?

It could lead to an increase in OBP. It could also lead to a decrease in OBP. It could have no impact whatsoever.

It depends on what assumptions you make on what happens to his walks. But to assume that it will have absolutely no impact is absurd. I know you don't believe this, as your factor (2) indicates.

I don't know what the answer is. I'm just critical of the assumptions people are making.

Cheers,

Mike

http://economics.about.com
Or to phrase this a different way:

Last year Carlos Delgado had a BIP average of .397, and 9.6% of his balls in play were for home runs.

By the logic here, if Carlos could eliminate his strike outs and his walks, he'd put the ball in play in every one of his plate appearances. He'd hit 397/397/780 on the year, with 68 homers.

Obviously this doesn't make any sense. Now you could argue that these tradeoffs only occur at the margins, or what Mike D calls a "modest decline". However assuming a constant marginal BIP average assumes that you've automatically assumed that the tradeoff is the same at any point. Changing 1 strikeout to a ball in play gives the same rate of change has changing 100 strikeouts.

For these models to make sense, you need realistic assumptions on what the tradeoffs are and you need declining returns to scale. You can't just move numbers from column A to column B to calculate the effect of the change.

Cheers,

Mike

http://economics.about.com
That should read "assuming a constant marginal BIP average leads to the tradeoff being the same at any point". I had three sentences saying the same thing and I rather unsuccessfully merged them into one. :)

It's Tim Horton's time.

Cheers,

Mike

I don't think there is much wrong in Josh's current approach. As he gets a better book on the pitchers in the league and gets better at pitch recognition, his K rate should inch downwards even if he swings just as hard.

The key will be to follow the long term trend in K/(BF-IW) - if it stays stagnant then that's an indication that Phelps will not become a great hitter.

Mike Moffat,

Usually when we refer to BIP average it refers to balls that stay in the field of play (so that it is completely analogous to $H that Voros made famous). Perhaps we can create a new moniker - batting average on balls contacted (BABC) to refer to th stat which includes homeruns. It can get a bit confusing if we use BIP for both.

Toronto hitting stats with two strikes, 2003:

       ------------Phelps----------   ---------------Total-----------
Count  AB BB  K   K%   BA  OBP  SLG    AB  BB   K   K%   BA  OBP  SLG
0-2    34  0  20 .59 .206 .270 .382   454   0  215 .47 .150 .170 .207
1-2    65  0  42 .65 .169 .182 .292   796   0  345 .43 .183 .197 .261
2-2    48  0  30 .63 .063 .082 .063   781   0  312 .40 .197 .204 .328
3-2    48 27  27 .36 .229 .519 .375   617 274  209 .24 .230 .468 .368

X-2   195 27 117 .54 .164 .288 .272  2648 274 1081 .37 .192 .277 .296

Phelps isn't all that bad with two strikes. Hitting with two strikes is hard.

[K% = K/(AB+BB)]

I generally agree with Robert. I also think that this is Mike Green's point -- his ability to improve at pitch recognition this season, as manifested by reduced strikeouts, will determine whether his OBP will rise as projected.

you need realistic assumptions on what the tradeoffs are

I agree that it's unrealistic to assume that balls-in-play average would remain constant. However, it's definitely unrealistic to assume that by changing a two-strike approach to hitting, walks would diminish at a 1:1 rate with strikeouts. This ignores 3-0 walks, 3-1 walks and intentional walks.

Besides, Josh doesn't really have that many walks to lose!

http://www.baseball-reference.com/g/gonzaju03.shtml
Right, Robert. That's a nice easy to use marker of progress for Josh.

I should say that I do think Josh will manage it, but that's just an opinion. Juan Gonzalez (COMN) is an example of a player who marginally improved his K rate between his early and late 20s without sacrificing power. My impression is that Josh can do a little better than Juan did, but that is purely subjective.

http://economics.about.com
Usually when we refer to BIP average it refers to balls that stay in the field of play (so that it is completely analogous to $H that Voros made famous). Perhaps we can create a new moniker - batting average on balls contacted (BABC) to refer to th stat which includes homeruns. It can get a bit confusing if we use BIP for both.

Oops.. you're right. My mistake.

BABC is good, or maybe BC% if something shorter is needed.

Cheers,

Mike

John, how do the Jays stack up against the rest of the league in two-strike hitting?

http://economics.about.com
I agree that it's unrealistic to assume that balls-in-play average would remain constant. However, it's definitely unrealistic to assume that by changing a two-strike approach to hitting, walks would diminish at a 1:1 rate with strikeouts. This ignores 3-0 walks, 3-1 walks and intentional walks.

Agreed. Mind you, I also assumed he'd hit .500. It was more for illustration purposes than anything else.

I don't think 30 strikeouts, 10 walks, and a .250 BABC (on those 40 extra balls put into play) would be unrealistic. In that case his OBP would still net out.

Like I said, I don't know what the right answer is. But there will be tradeoffs.

Cheers,

Mike

2003 AL hitting stats:

Count   PA    AB   BB    K   K/PA  BA   OBP  SLG
----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- 
0-2    6686  6527    0  2802  .42 .163 .176 .236
1-2   11822 11620    0  4727  .40 .179 .189 .262
2-2   11066 10927    0  3984  .36 .199 .204 .313
3-2   10739  7368 3291  2290  .21 .228 .466 .378  

X-2   40313 36442 3291 13802  .34 .192 .265 .296 

Hitting with two strikes, the Jays were precisely average in BA and SLG and .012 above average in OBP. (No adjustments for park, etc.)

In 2002, Phelps was an above-average 2-strike hitter despite a very high strikeout rate:

Count	PA	AB	BB	K	K/PA	BA	OBP	SLG
0-2	22	22	0	17	0.77	0.136	0.136	0.273
1-2	45	45	0	26	0.58	0.222	0.222	0.467
2-2	35	35	0	21	0.60	0.171	0.171	0.371
3-2	47	34	13	18	0.38	0.265	0.468	0.529

X-2   149   136    13     82    0.55   0.206 0.275 0.426

So, let me see if interpret these statistics right, the Jays as a team strikeout one third of the time a pitcher records 2 strikes on them and Phelps strikes out more than half the time a pitcher records 2 strikes on him. Both of those stats seem to me to be ridiculously high. Is there anyway to find out how many times he swung and missed? It would be interesting to note whether he is taking called strikes or whether he just can't hit the pitch thrown that would be a better indicator of whether he needs to shorten his swing just to make contact or improve his batting eye.

You're not the only one who missed it. I can't find details about it anywhere. Last Thursday's Phildelphia Inquirer reports that the Phillies signed Hinch to a minor-league deal, so I have no idea where Baseball Prospectus got that from.

Look here under Jan 7th and you can see how this likely all got started. Hinch, Powell and Bowers all signed with Philly, not the Jays.

Jeff, there was a guy named David Driscoll in London who meticulously recorded the results of every pitch in a Jay season in the mid-80s, and answered questions of the type you posed. His work was highlighted in a Baseball Abstract. I wonder if he's still following baseball.

To put Mike's argument a different way:

Vernon Wells hit .402/.410/.705 last year when he put the first pitch in play. Does this mean that Wells should always attempt to put the first pitch in play?

Rhetorical excesses aside, I don't think there's anything wrong with Phelps' approach. I'm as frustrated as the next guy when Phelps watches another 2-2 pitch go by for strike three, but the numbers show that he's at least a league-average hitter with two strikes.

Incidentally, one thing that's misleading about count-based statistics is that, except for 2-strike counts, they don't tell you how often the pitch ends up being a strike. So Josh Phelps hit .351/.397/.702 last year on 0-0 counts and .164/.288/.272 on 2-strike counts. However, the numbers for 0-0 counts don't take into account the times that he takes a strike, swings and misses, or hits a foul ball, but the numbers for 2-strike counts do take those events into account. If you remove strikeouts and walks from the denominator, Phelps hit .283/.325/.469 last year on 2-strike counts, which doesn't look half as bad.

Jeff: The Jays were no worse than the average team at hitting with two strikes last year. Therefore, I don't see why one should suspect that anything is wrong with their approach. All teams have poor numbers and lots of strikeouts when hitting with two strikes -- that's the only time you can strike out!