Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
In a result that I'm sure is surprising to nobody, Geovany Soto and Evan Longoria have won their respective Rookie of the Year Awards. And in CRAZY BREAKING NEWS, the A's swooped in from left field to acquire Matt Holliday. I'm hearing Greg Smith and Brett Anderson are part of the package, but it's still being finalized.

Another Trade! (9:14PM) The Nationals have just traded Emilio Bonifacio along with prospects Jake Smolinski and P.J. Dean for Scott Olsen and Josh Willingham, according to Peter Gammons.

Update (4:18PM): A few sources seem to indicate that the final A's package consists of Carlos Gonzalez, Greg Smith and Huston Street.

Update (3:57PM): Greg Smith has been confirmed as part of the package. Anderson, Ryan Sweeney, and Carlos Gonzalez are also in the mix per ESPN.

The AL vote was unanimous, while Canuck Joey Votto stole a single 1st place vote from Soto. Edinson Volquez, who as previously mentioned isn't a rookie, finished 4th in the balloting. Michael Young, Nate McLouth and now this? I realize it's a different group of voters for the GGs, but I think we as fans can safely say there are some boneheads in both voting groups.

Here's the AL voting. Alexei Ramirez, The Cuban Missile, finished a comfortable second with Boston's Jacoby Ellsbury third. Mike Aviles, Armando Galarraga, Joey Devine, Denard Span, Nick Blackburn, Joba the Hut, and Brad Ziegler received the dregs of the voting.

In the NL voting, the aforementioned Torontonian Votto took most of the 2nd place votes, while Jair Jurrjens grabbed 3rd place. Three voters decided to give Edinson Volquez support despite his ineligibility, propelling him into 4th place, with the rest of the votes going to Jay Bruce, Kosuke Fukudome and James Loney.

OK, now let's talk about the Holliday trade. It's way more interesting anyway.

At first glance, colour me puzzled. Holliday is a free agent after the 2009 season, so this is a rent-a-player deal unless the acquiring team thinks they can lock him up long-term. Unless Billy Beane forgot about that 100 million dollars he tucked under his pillow 10 years ago, I don't see the A's extending Holliday. And while they have one of the best farm systems in the majors, I can't see the Athletics having much of a chance at the division next year, even with Holliday. Their chances depend heavily, of course, on what the Angels do this off-season, but word on the street is that LA will sign one of the big free agents, with Mark Teixeira possibly the most likely.

So what's the upside of this move for the A's? They could turn around and deal Holliday at the deadline in 2009, which would obviously invite comparisons to the the Manny deal from this past summer, in which the Red Sox acquired Jason Bay. Or, they could hold on to Matt and get a couple of extra draft picks. But I don't think I need to tell you that a first round and supplemental round draft pick are far less valuable than several young players who have already made it to the majors/high minors.

So what's your take here, Bauxites? I'll re-evaluate as the names come in, but it looks like the A's are giving up some pretty good players here. Do you think they can contend next year? Are they even better than Texas? Does Beane have something else in the works? Maybe he'll pull off a Boston Celtics style heist and pick up Jake Peavy later today. He is Billy Beane, after all.
Soto Beats Out Edinson "Not a Rookie" Volquez for NL ROY, Longoria Takes AL, Holliday Traded to A's | 57 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
John Northey - Monday, November 10 2008 @ 04:21 PM EST (#193991) #
Hmm...

The A's trade could it be a timing issue.  Trade away a handful of prospects for a star, open slots for the 40 man roster so you don't lose guys for $50k, then trade the star for guys who won't be on the 40 man roster yet. 

Thus you really are trading the prospects lost here for the star (Holliday) plus the guys the A's would've lost in the rule 5 draft, or for two first round picks plus the guys they otherwise would've lost, or for the guys you get in a Holliday trade mid-season plus the guys who would've been lost otherwise.

Shifts the value a bit, not drastically but a bit, and explains it in a non-rent a player way.
Kelekin - Monday, November 10 2008 @ 04:27 PM EST (#193992) #
While I really don't think Oakland can win their division next year, they are in a much better position to be competitive.  However, it will be their offense that carries them next year not their defense.

Kurt Suzuki had a decent rookie year, nothing exciting and not enough power but the guy is a true C prospect and surpassed Jeremy Brown in the A's organization 3 years ago.  Daric Barton struggled as a rookie, and will certainly do better as a sophomore (this guy came over in the Mulder trade and destroyed the minors).  The outfield for the A's will now consist of Matt Holliday, Jack Cust, and one of Carlos Gonzalez/Ryan Sweeney (most likely Sweeney) unless one of them gets traded in this Holliday deal. 
Add in the possibility of Jason Giambi returning to DH, and they have three 30+ HR hitters and rising stars at C and 1B.  Their question marks become SS and 3B - Bobby Crosby is truly a bust, and a healthy Eric Chavez is an upgrade (albeit not a stellar one) over Jack Hannahan.

I believe it is the rotation that becomes the question.  Will Duchsherer who came out of the blue repeat? Are Eveland/Smith/Gallagher true quality pitchers?  This team has traded away two aces in the past year and they have positioned themselves for future success, but I can't see it being next year.

Kelekin - Monday, November 10 2008 @ 04:28 PM EST (#193993) #
*Edit to my post: Ignore me adding Smith in the mix.
John Northey - Monday, November 10 2008 @ 04:30 PM EST (#193994) #
Just checked the adjusted standings from Baseball Prospectus - http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/standings.php

Note that the W3 area shows the A's as being just 7.3 wins back of the Angels.  That is darn close.  Holliday plus developing players plus a small amount of regression from the Angels and the A's are even or even ahead before factoring in other changes that could occur (Angels could just lose free agents and be beaten to the punch for signing others).  The Angels were extremely lucky in 2008 and I'd bet Beane knows it and figures he really is less than 10 games back in raw talent.

2009 could see the A's back in the playoffs really, really easily.  Their DH's were around 100 for OPS+, 1B was below 90 but was manned by a 22 year old, lots of youth everywhere with no 32+ year olds being counted on for 2009.  The Angels had an outfield at 32+ across the board, Teixeira was added mid-season but might be gone now,  their closer is a free agent, they outperformed their runs for/against drastically which has been shown to not be a repeatable skill.

Yup, the A's just might have a window that opened without being expected to be opened.  2009 will be interesting out west.

Mick Doherty - Monday, November 10 2008 @ 04:34 PM EST (#193995) #

Are they even better than Texas?

Ouch!

Damn, when your team draws the "even better than ..?" question lede, things are not going well.

P.S. No, they're not.

Dave Rutt - Monday, November 10 2008 @ 04:50 PM EST (#193997) #
Damn, when your team draws the "even better than ..?" question lede, things are not going well.

Heh. I guess that came off a little more facetiously than I was intending. I think Texas is a very good team. If they deal catching for a major league starter and give Derek Holland a shot, the rotation could be solid, and we all know about their offense. What I meant is simply, we know the A's will have to deal with the Angels, and I'm not even convinced Holliday makes them better than the Rangers, so the trade is confusing me.
John Northey - Monday, November 10 2008 @ 04:51 PM EST (#193998) #
I see the AL West as a 3 horse race with Texas/Oakland/Angels in 2009.  Of course, if the Angels go sign CC and Tex, K-Rod, and someone else as well they might shift to the 'likely 90 win' level and leave the A's and Rangers in the dust.
Jays2010 - Monday, November 10 2008 @ 05:32 PM EST (#193999) #
Watch Holliday post a sub .900 OPS in 2009. That being said, I don't think the A's gave up a ridiculous bounty for him and all of the trades they have been making recently were of the quantity type, not quality. So making a 3 for 1 isn't the worst thing in the world. I wonder how far off Lind, Litsch and Ryan for Holliday would have been...considering Ludwick was thought to be only one piece of the Holliday trade, I'm thinking a Ryan/Campbell/minor league pitcher for Ludwick trade is possible...time for JP to get active!
Wildrose - Monday, November 10 2008 @ 05:45 PM EST (#194000) #
I must admit when I first read this I thought it said Halladay to Oakland. Now that my heart is back to normal Blair chimes in with some Blue Jay news.

Ricciardi reiterated that the Blue Jays will move on even if Burnett takes his time. They've kicked tires in discussing a trade with the San Diego Padres for shortstop Khalil Greene, whom the Blue Jays would have taken instead of Russ Adams in the 2002 draft had Greene not gone with the pick before. Free agents Jason Giambi and Brad Penny — yet another of pitching coach Brad Arnsberg's Florida Marlins diaspora — are on their radar screen.

Greene has been debated here frequently . The Padres appear to be holding a fire sale ( Peavy) due to the owners impending divorce so this may have some merit. Giambi is a buddy of Ricciard's from his Oakland days and Penny may take a 1 year deal  to restore some value lost during his struggles this year with shoulder problems.

Wildrose - Monday, November 10 2008 @ 05:54 PM EST (#194001) #
Jordan Bastian is also throwing some logs into the hot stove.

It's believed that the Jays have already talked to the representatives for Sheets, as well as for pitchers Ryan Dempster and Derek Lowe.

Dave Rutt - Monday, November 10 2008 @ 06:15 PM EST (#194002) #
It's believed that the Jays have already talked to the representatives for Sheets, as well as for pitchers Ryan Dempster and Derek Lowe.

I should hope that J.P. is talking to any free agent the Jays reasonably have a shot at, but so is every other team, so I wouldn't read too much into it.
Mylegacy - Monday, November 10 2008 @ 07:20 PM EST (#194003) #
I think I must be retarded - but - I really, really, really like all the off-season talk and moves - even more than the actual season. Deep down inside I want to be a GM.

JP - Furcal, go get him. Furcal (if healthy) could be a real upgrade at SS and at lead-off. Bradley, go get him. If Bradley says no then Giambi. Dempster is a VERY GOOD pitcher and a Canadian - this is a guy I'd overpay some for. I like everything about him. I'm ambivalent about Greene - however, I'm a BIG fan of Richard Greene the guy that played Robin Hood back in the 50's TV series - ya I know before your time. Penny for my thoughts? No thanks.
TimberLee - Monday, November 10 2008 @ 07:52 PM EST (#194004) #

I see nothing astonishing in this move from Oakland's viewpoint, and Colorado is apparently saving money and filling holes.

Mr. Beane's people probably see Smith and Gonzalez as less than sure things, and Street has already looked disappointing and will be a free agent after two more seasons, I believe. Holliday will give them a big bat for a year, and two big draft picks when he leaves, so that the A's' net loss could be very slight indeed.

Wildrose - Monday, November 10 2008 @ 08:55 PM EST (#194005) #
It looks like Zaun won't be offered arbitration.

"It sure wasn't easy to take when J.P. in the papers was telling everybody in the baseball world that nobody wanted me, when I knew that that was in fact not the truth," he said in a telephone interview. "To say that nobody was interested in me was inaccurate and embarrassing and it really made me look bad. I wasn't happy with that."

ANationalAcrobat - Monday, November 10 2008 @ 09:21 PM EST (#194006) #
Arbitration might actually be worth offering now, Wildrose, since Zaun is certain not to accept. Zaun's a type B, so if JP values the supplemental pick, offering arbitration is the smart move.
Dave Rutt - Monday, November 10 2008 @ 09:27 PM EST (#194007) #
My thoughts exactly, Acrobat.
Thomas - Monday, November 10 2008 @ 09:51 PM EST (#194008) #
While JP's habit of not hiding how he's feeling can be admirable at times and certainly makes things more interesting as a fan, this is a case where it seemed ill-advised at the time and in retrospect. Regardless of whether this will eventually net the Jays a pick, Zaun would be a valuable platoon partner for Barajas in 2009 and he's been a loyal Jay for several years. It's disappointing to see him leaving with a bitter taste in his mouth and I don't blame him for feeling the way he does.
Wildrose - Monday, November 10 2008 @ 10:01 PM EST (#194009) #
Arbitration might actually be worth offering now, Wildrose, since Zaun is certain not to accept. Zaun's a type B, so if JP values the supplemental pick, offering arbitration is the smart move.


Maybe your right, both sides seem to be tired of each other.
Wildrose - Monday, November 10 2008 @ 10:18 PM EST (#194010) #
Having said that they're tired of each other, this whole Zaun/Barajas/Ricciardi triangle almost defies description.

First Ricciardi blows off Zaun and signs Barajas 2 years ago, Barajas and his agent renege on the deal and Ricciardi and Zaun kiss and make up. Then last year Barajas is signed once again by Ricciardi despite the disagreement of 2 years ago, so really who knows how this whole saga ends , if arbitration is indeed offered.

brent - Monday, November 10 2008 @ 10:27 PM EST (#194011) #

http://mlb.mlb.com/stats/individual_stats_player.jsp?c_id=tor&playerID=124748

First, Zaun's total games played and at bats this season were his second highest total in the majors (not counting his other Blue Jay seasons. What does he have to complain about? He was payed whether he played or didn't. It is not the Jays' responsibility to ensure that he can get his counting stats up for his impending free agency. Zaun did no favors to the team the last contract he signed. This only makes Zaun look worse for another team thinking about signing him.

http://www.battersbox.ca/comment.php?mode=view&cid=193965

On the other thread, I typed that the Jays need to put their money into bats if they could. Billy Beane has already made a move for a bat- I hope JP follows suit quickly. I hope that it is an outfield bat because then the outfielders can rotate through the DH to keep fresh. A pure DH (if I were GM) would not even be considered.

brent - Monday, November 10 2008 @ 10:46 PM EST (#194012) #
BTW, did any team publicly say that they were interested in Zaun? Is he just saying that he heard rumors? JP doesn't have to trade him if he will only get a throw in back or the other team wants the Jays to eat some contract dollars. It's not the Jays' problem. I mean, Zaun didn't even have the guts to call out Cito because it was obvious who wanted Barajas out there every day. His OBP and SLG this year were the lowest totals he had as a Jay.
Wildrose - Monday, November 10 2008 @ 10:51 PM EST (#194013) #
This whole arbitration business is very tricky. Here's the details:

  • A club receives compensation if it loses a free agent before December 2. See Free Agent Compensation.
  • By December 1, each club must decide whether to offer salary arbitration to their former players who have filed for free agency. A club not offering arbitration may continue to negotiate with the player but does not receive compensation if he signs with another club.
  • By December 7, player must accept or reject the arbitration offer. If the player accepts the offer, he returns to his club’s 40-man roster. The player and club may continue to negotiate before the February arbitration hearing. See Arbitration. If the player rejects the offer, he may continue to negotiate with any of the 30 clubs.

 It's not inconceivable ( especially given all that's gone on) that Zaun if offered arbitration December 1,  finds out the market is soft for his services and comes crawling back to the team knowing he'll get a minimum of $3.18 million for one year.

I'd hate to be the one making the arbitration decision, you'd have to be pretty sure the player wouldn't return. I wonder if Zaun is still acting as his own agent ( does this story help or hinder Zaun?).  This is all like a game of bluff poker.  
GregJP - Tuesday, November 11 2008 @ 12:10 AM EST (#194014) #
Looking at the Willingham/Olsen deal from a Jays' perspective, I really think the team could have used both of these guys.

Willingham could have been a platoon partner for Overbay at 1B and been insurance against Lind and/or Snyder struggling early in the year. He's certainly better than guys like Stewart, Wilkerson, and Mench.

With Burnett gone, Marcum out for the year, and McGowan uncertain the present opening day rotation is Halladay, Litsch, Purcey,?,? Olsen would most likely struggle in the AL east, but I'd rather have him than what the alternatives are at this point.

So what are equivalents in the Jays system of the 3 prospects Washington gave up? Whoever they are, they're just not that valuable. Willingham and Olsen are certainly affordable, so I don't understand why the Marlins couldn't have received a better return.  


mathesond - Tuesday, November 11 2008 @ 09:23 AM EST (#194016) #
It also appears that Hoffman won't be returning to the Padres...with Heath Bell having had an ERA over 6 during the 2nd half of this past season, I would expect that the Padres are in need of cheap bullpen help. While I would love to see the Jays make a play for Peavy, his no-trade seems to preclude that possibility, although perhaps extra dollars added to his contract could change his mind...otherwise, I could see a Carlson (or League) for Greene discussion taking place
MatO - Tuesday, November 11 2008 @ 09:31 AM EST (#194017) #
It should be noted that there is no 20% max pay-cut rule when dealing with a FA accepting arbitration.  The 20% rule only applies to non-FA arbitration (generally 3-5 years MLB experience).  Zaun could conceivably get a lot less than he was making this year though I'm not sure there's much of a history of major pay-cuts through arbitration.
ayjackson - Tuesday, November 11 2008 @ 10:17 AM EST (#194018) #

Off topic, here's a wonderfully thorough Top 101 prospects list from a Sox fan at Sickels' site.  Sinder (4), Arencibia (42) and Cecil (58) all crack the top 60 and Coop is listed as "just missing" the list. 

Mike Green - Tuesday, November 11 2008 @ 10:23 AM EST (#194019) #
So the A's look to be running out an outfield of Buck, Sweeney and Holliday, and an infield (at this point) of Chavez, Crosby, Ellis and Barton with Suzuki catching and Cust DHing.  If Chavez is healthy and can hit his career norms or close to them and play 140 games, that is a fine lineup.  The rotation (Duchscherer, Eveland, Braden, G. Gonzalez and Gallagher) should be all right. Casilla, Devine and Ziegler will be fine at the top of the bullpen.  They're aiming to compete in 2009, no question about it.

Incidentally, Barton's top 2 BBRef comparables at age 22 are Wally Pipp and Derrek Lee.  Pipp led the league in homers at age 23.  Lee waited until age 24 to turn up the juice.  Other comparables included Keith Hernandez, Reggie Smith and George Scott. 

John Northey - Tuesday, November 11 2008 @ 11:39 AM EST (#194020) #
Y'know, if the Padres are serious about cutting payroll then a deal could be made that covers a lot of holes.

Brian Giles: 136 OPS+ last year, 139 lifetime - left handed right fielder who could become DH/RF/LF depending on need.  Still plays CF a couple times a year so he'd fit the defense first viewpoint of the Jays too.

Khalil Greene: 64 OPS+ last year, 95 lifetime - right handed shortstop who had injury issues last year, thus should be a guy the Padres will dump quickly.  Odds are he'll recover to a 90 OPS+ with any luck (esp with Cito running the place) or better thus a major, major improvement over other options.

Jake Peavy: 137 ERA+ last year, 121 lifetime - right handed ace with a Cy Young award from last year in his pocket.  Entering age 28 season so his long term deal isn't unreasonable and some would say it is cheap.  Very expensive to get, but if the Jays eat 2 other salaries the Padres might drop the price in an effort to clean up payroll in one big swoop.

Dollar costs are: Giles: $9 million (free agent in 2010), Greene: $6.5 million (free agent in 2010), Peavy: $11 in 2009, $15 in 2010, $16 in 2011, $17 in 2012, $22 in 2013, $500k for being traded plus has a no-trade clause. = $26.5 million in 2009 added onto the payroll (or about what Manny wants).  Plus only one guy with a contract guarantee beyond 2009.

Peavy is the prize but with that no-trade clause would be hard to get. Still, if he knew he was going to a team with 2 teammates plus getting a shot with Halladay to be co-aces he might go for it.  Depends on a lot of factors.

Getting those 3 would give us the twin aces, a slugger, and a shortstop in one big package.  Odds are we'd lose a few very good prospects to make this happen though, ones close to majors too.  But wouldn't that be sweet.
ayjackson - Tuesday, November 11 2008 @ 11:52 AM EST (#194021) #
Off topic again, but a curious coincidence a propos of nothing in particular is that Vernon Wells and Scott Rolen share their number one comparable (through age-29 and age-33, respectively) - one Reggie Smith.  Mr. Smith's age-30 and age-34 OPS+ were 137 and 125.
Jdog - Tuesday, November 11 2008 @ 12:42 PM EST (#194023) #

Not sure if anyone remembers last december when everyone was touting our Big three of Halladay, Burnett and McGowan. I just wanted to remind a certain Timinder of this here bet he made last offseason. I was claiming that Marcum was the better pitcher (vs McGowan) and he was merely overlooked do to his lack of a big sexy fastball. Well Im just here to claim my bragging rights, as Marcum came in with a 3.39 Era over 151  IP while McGowan finished with an era of 4.37 over 111 IP.  Timinder if you want to read through the whole thread so you can relive calling me "nuts" feel free. Enjoy the taste of black bird. 

Just a friendly little wager, 

The conditions of the bet would be that each would have to top 100 innings minimum. If one fails to top the 100 innings pitched then the bets off.   I like Dustin and think he will be pretty sick, but i still think he is going to be fairly inconsistent next year and post an ERA around 4.25 or so while I expect Marcum to come in just under 4 . I may be dreaming.  

 

lexomatic - Tuesday, November 11 2008 @ 12:52 PM EST (#194024) #
If people are loking for a AAAA bat for backup catcher. i'd like to take the time to again suggest J.R.House (I'm pretty sure I said something after his massive AA season a few years ago). He wouldn't be much with the glove but could be an asset in the 800 ops range with the bat, and could also fill the RH bat backup for Overbay much more capably than our current catcher. While I'm sure Zaun is/was much better at callign a game than House - I don't think there would be too much difference in terms of throwing out runners. I figure someone could call the game from the dugout, or someone like Halladay might even be able to call his own game if House is playing.
I'm not sure if he's a MiFA... last I saw he was listed with Baltimore. I figure worth a shot. He still has value with the bat once Jeroloman/ JPA are ready for the big leagues. I would also say he's infinitely better than a Phillips type solution.
Ozzieball - Tuesday, November 11 2008 @ 01:00 PM EST (#194025) #
Enjoy the taste of black bird.

McGowan FIP: 3.89
Marcum FIP: 4.52

And that's with McGowan pitching injured.


Oops.
timpinder - Tuesday, November 11 2008 @ 01:03 PM EST (#194026) #

Yeah Jdog, I remember, but I was hoping you wouldn't.  FIP notwithstanding, the bet was ERA and you win, I lose.

 

christaylor - Tuesday, November 11 2008 @ 01:47 PM EST (#194027) #
I wonder how seriously to take fielding independent pitching in this case when we know the Jays have an excellent defense.

Just something I starting wondering about when I read this...

I know the whole FIP theory stems from looking at BABIP but has anyone looked at the SLG averages that pitchers surrender (for the record McGowan was .404 and Marcum .388) do they correlate from year to year in a way the BABIP don't?
Jdog - Tuesday, November 11 2008 @ 02:05 PM EST (#194028) #

FIP

Fielding Independent Pitching, a measure of all those things for which a pitcher is specifically responsible. The formula is (HR*13+(BB+HBP-IBB)*3-K*2)/IP, plus a league-specific factor (usually around 3.2) to round out the number to an equivalent ERA number. FIP helps you understand how well a pitcher pitched, regardless of how well his fielders fielded. FIP was invented by Tangotiger.

We all  know that no statistic is going to perfectly give the whole picture. And FIP is going to have its shortcomings just like ERA does. But our bet was ERA, which i believe is a better indicator of what actually happened,  the guys had pretty much the same defenders behind them and Marcum gave up well under 1 hit per inning where as McGowan gave up over a hit/IP. Marcum had only 126 hits against in his 151 IP, where as McGowan had 115 in 111 IP. Obviously Marcum's FIP is higher do to the fact that his HR's against was much more than McGowan's, but i would have to say that FIP overestimates the impact of HR's especially here when a guy us giving up less than a hit per inning. As you can see the formula has no hits taken into consideration which is absurd. I simply refuse to believe that a pitcher has no effect on the type of contact a hitter makes.

92-93 - Tuesday, November 11 2008 @ 02:10 PM EST (#194029) #
"It should be noted that there is no 20% max pay-cut rule when dealing with a FA accepting arbitration. The 20% rule only applies to non-FA arbitration (generally 3-5 years MLB experience). Zaun could conceivably get a lot less than he was making this year though I'm not sure there's much of a history of major pay-cuts through arbitration."

Is there a link to verify this? Do people even know about this? If it's true, why would teams ever be so scared to offer arbitration?
Mike Green - Tuesday, November 11 2008 @ 02:25 PM EST (#194030) #
In arbitration, service time is a very important factor.  I have no idea how an arbitrator would deal with a case like Zaun's.  I guess that they'd look at the contracts of part-time catchers with equivalent offensive performance and 10+ years of experience.  There really aren't too many that fit the bill.  Usually, they are either better offensively (like Benjie Molina) and play more than Zaun did or worse (like Paul Bako and Jason Larue) and play less. Brad Ausmus?
John Northey - Tuesday, November 11 2008 @ 03:24 PM EST (#194031) #
JR House is a guy I thought they should sign before but this year he played 73 games at first, 45 behind the plate, 8 as a DH and once played a third (looks like a 'oh (#!' situation).  At 28 he hit 306/378/480 which is very good but in the PCL which is a big time hitters league.  Lifetime in AAA he has hit 309/370/498 mainly in the PCL.  In the majors he has just 63 PA's over 5 seasons.  Seems odd that Pittsburgh (his first team) didn't keep him in the majors back in 2003 when he was just 23.

I'd sign him to a AAA contract in a second as a backup 1B/DH/CA with a spring invite in case none of the kids are ready.  Barajas is solid defensively so an offense first catcher as his backup should be OK and given Thigpen is pretty much toast at this point I'd say why not.  I do wonder though if there is some other reason this guy just doesn't get a chance.

MatO - Tuesday, November 11 2008 @ 03:37 PM EST (#194032) #

Is there a link to verify this? Do people even know about this? If it's true, why would teams ever be so scared to offer arbitration?

http://baseball.suite101.com/article.cfm/how_baseball_arbitration_works

Under "The Club's Offer Requirements" see part (3).

It's been discussed here before but it's an often misunderstood area.

Mike Green - Tuesday, November 11 2008 @ 03:51 PM EST (#194033) #
And for all the (licensed or otherwise) lawyers out there, here's the actual CBA.  The relevant provision is at page 72 of the agreement.



Dave501 - Tuesday, November 11 2008 @ 04:32 PM EST (#194034) #
ok, so i was originally against offering Zaun arbitration because I thought he's almost surely accept - but in light of this rule clarification, I think it'll be sweet if they can get a pick for him.  And worst case scenario, they get stuck with him for too much money, they cut him in the spring and the contract is not gaurenteed (a la Reed Johnson, but i don't think we'll miss zaun as much).
Wildrose - Tuesday, November 11 2008 @ 05:24 PM EST (#194035) #
t's been discussed here before but it's an often misunderstood area.

Thanks Matt that's an excellent summary.
Ozzieball - Tuesday, November 11 2008 @ 06:23 PM EST (#194036) #
And FIP is going to have its shortcomings just like ERA does. But our bet was ERA, which i believe is a better indicator of what actually happened,

There is no reason to use ERA to judge a pitcher ever. At all. For any circumstance. It has huge problems with: BABIP; runner strand rate; the randomness with which errors are assigned; and plain old defence.

Examining these shortcomings to our case study, we find:
BABIP - Marcum .246; McGowan .316; league average tends to be in the .290 range. So Marcum got phenomenally lucky, while McGowan got fairly unlucky.

runner strand rate - Marcum 80.2%; McGowan 67.4%. So a huge difference in a factor that it has been shown pitchers cannot control.

errors: 0.18 difference between RA and ERA for Marcum, 0.48 for McGowan.

Defensive efficiency: .755 for Marcum; .685 for McGowan

A few threads ago someone posted a link comparing the accuracy of judging players by FIP or ERA. He prefaced it with the statement that there is no excuse to judge a player by ERA ever. It is not representative of the value of the pitcher. It is less accurate that batting average. ERA is a moral judgement created by a Chicago sportswriter, it does not represenet baseball skill, value, or ability.

I should also note that I was defending McGowan over Marcum in that thread where you offered the bet, and didn't take you up because ERA is a useless, awful metric. I believed it then, and this season only served to reaffirm it: Marcum is a fourth starter. He is not particularly good, and should not be thought of as a long-term solution as a top-3 starter for a team that wants to be comptetive.
Dave Rutt - Tuesday, November 11 2008 @ 07:02 PM EST (#194037) #
Regarding the whole Marcum vs. McGowan argument:

Marcum LD%: 17.3%
McGowan LD%: 21.0%

It's well-known that some hitters can maintain higher BABIPs than others, and this generally correlates with higher LD%.

Take this observation at face value - I'm not on one side or the other here, I just thought its something that should be pointed out. I don't know if pitchers can control their LD% to any extent, but I would guess they can. If someone else wants to do the legwork and research this more in-depth, be my guest.
ayjackson - Tuesday, November 11 2008 @ 07:31 PM EST (#194039) #

BABIP - Marcum .246; McGowan .316; league average tends to be in the .290 range. So Marcum got phenomenally lucky, while McGowan got fairly unlucky.

Maybe it means that Marcum had better command and more of his "balls in play" were on pitches on the outside third of the plate.  I think it was Hardball Times that posted a study showing a lower BABIP on pitches on the outer third (and they were velocity indifferent).

Ozzieball - Tuesday, November 11 2008 @ 08:39 PM EST (#194041) #
Maybe it means that Marcum had better command and more of his "balls in play" were on pitches on the outside third of the plate.  I think it was Hardball Times that posted a study showing a lower BABIP on pitches on the outer third (and they were velocity indifferent).

In reviewing his own work, the author of that article noted that there were a lot of variables he did not include in his analysis.

Jamie Moyer is the famous example of a pitcher who has been able to keep his BABIP low. His career BABIP is .287. Marcum's was .246. That is phenomenally lucky on a scale probably only possible because he was kept down to 150ish innings.
Wildrose - Tuesday, November 11 2008 @ 09:32 PM EST (#194042) #
ERA is a moral judgement created by a Chicago sportswriter, it does not represenet baseball skill, value, or ability.

Well said. Glad to see some Bauxites trying to go beyond the most basic statistics to try determine  a players actual talent level.
I'm still trying to get a handle on this stuff, but I think your being a little harsh on Marcum ( although I agree if both are healthy McGowan is better). Marcum seems to have above average control, strike out rates and line drive%. His flyball %  may however  become problematic if Toronto ever has a hot, torrid  summer again. I'm just a little surprised your so down on him.
Mike Green - Tuesday, November 11 2008 @ 09:43 PM EST (#194043) #
Marcum is also a great fielder.  That helps the BABIP.
Ozzieball - Tuesday, November 11 2008 @ 10:06 PM EST (#194044) #
Marcum is also a great fielder.  That helps the BABIP.

http://www.billjamesonline.net/fieldingbible/charts/leaders2-08.gif

Pitcher defence does not have a very big effect on anything, and it can be inferred that Marcum is pretty much neutral there. Marcum's magic mound defence skills do not create some incredible .040 swing in BABIP.

youngid - Wednesday, November 12 2008 @ 09:40 AM EST (#194048) #
Marcum pitched better than McGowan this year.  His ERA was lower.  It is reasonable to expect from his BABIP that he won't be better than McGowan in the future (especially next season, since he's short an elbow ligament).  I'd take McGowan over Marcum if both were healthy, but you can't deny that Marcum was the better pitcher in 2008.
Ozzieball - Wednesday, November 12 2008 @ 10:17 AM EST (#194051) #
Marcum pitched better than McGowan this year.  His ERA was lower.  ... but you can't deny that Marcum was the better pitcher in 2008.

This is like saying David DeJesus was better than Alex Rodriguez this year because he had a higher batting average. Does this analogy make things clearer?

There is no excuse to use ERA to evaluate a player, ever.
Mike Green - Wednesday, November 12 2008 @ 10:51 AM EST (#194052) #
There are several reasons that Marcum has a much better career ERA than McGowan so far.  One may be luck.  But, he's also a better fielder and holds runners much better (and consequently is more comfortable pitching with runners on).  The opponent's line off McGowan for his career is .238/.304/.366 with nobody on and .280/.361/.416 with runners on (and a 51/9 SB/CS).  In Marcum's case, the lines are .235/.301/.421 with nobody on and .259/.335/.443 with runners on (and a a 13/5 SB/CS). 

Incidentally, if you look at runs allowed instead of earned runs only, the gap between Marcum and McGowan is even larger.  FIP is a very useful tool for evaluating pitchers, but so is runs allowed.  The more innings a pitcher has pitched, the more relevant runs allowed is vis a vis fielding independent measures.

None of this guarantees or even suggests that Marcum will be a better pitcher in 2010 or the years that follow. That will depend on their respective recoveries which are very difficult to predict. 

John Northey - Wednesday, November 12 2008 @ 11:20 AM EST (#194054) #
ERA vs the many other tools is not an either or proposition.  Every tool (even batting average) has uses as long as they are used correctly.

ERA tells you how many runs per game (not factoring in errors) scored while a pitcher was on the mound more or less (not counting bullpen blowups).  For starting pitchers it is a reasonable thumbnail check as long as you are aware it doesn't tell you what they are going to do next year. 

Expanded tools, such as ERA+, FIP, xFIP, expected W-L, Support Neutral value above Replacement,... (I'm sure there are dozens I'm not thinking of offhand) all provide more data points to help evaluate a pitcher.  However, each tool has different degrees of difficulty in finding.  ERA can be found with pitcher stats virtually everywhere and is easily understood by most (an ERA under 2 is amazing, over 6 sucks almost no matter the era and park).  ERA+ is also easy to understand and thanks to Baseball Reference is easy to find.  FIP and xFIP are also easy to find at Hardball Times but go based on assumptions that some are uncomfortable with (pitchers having no control over balls in play, % of fly balls becoming home runs should be consistent), expected W-L SNVAR are pay as you go stats with limited access for historical via Baseball Prospectus.  Other stats are challenging to find.

If someone says 'Litsch is a much better pitcher than AJ due to his low ERA' you have an easy battle (AJ has higher K rate, lower HR rate, more history to prove his skills just for starters).  If someone says 'Litsch had a better year than AJ due to ERA and RA' then it is a bit harder as you have to show that Litsch had better luck via defense and bullpen support plus the value of AJ's extra 45 innings. 

Even batting average has its value.  Years ago BA/HR/RBI and AB's was all I could find in most papers so to know who was best BA was a big factor.  A high BA helps your Slg% and OBP, a low one hurts both.  Would I use it exclusively?  Heck no.  But it does give an idea about a player and help you evaluate him.

As a statistician I refuse to say a certain stat is useless or says nothing about anything (although RBI with no context are fairly hard to make anything out of).

Oh, btw, if you are asking 'who was more likely to reach via a base hit during a plate appearance' then David DeJesus (307/366/452) was better than A-Rod (302/392/573) in 2008 although anyone who bets on that continuing is most likely tossing their cash in the toilet.
TamRa - Wednesday, November 12 2008 @ 08:21 PM EST (#194074) #
What I want from a stat - as a NON statistician - is two things:

accesability - that is, I can easily look up any players statistic; and
understandability - by that i DON'T mean that I have to know what every factor in the calculation is or how to figure it myself, what i do mean is when I look at the number i grasp whether it's a god one, a bad one, or an ordinary one...and the degree to which it is good or bad.

For instance, OPS+

I have not the first clue what the formula is for figureing OPS+ nor do I care to find out. But I know that 100 is considered average and the further you get above or below 100 the better or worse you are offensively. I also know where to find the OPS+ for any player i want to research.

That's all I need.

If your stat is propriatary and i have to pay for your site (BP) in order to even find it, let alone have any idea what it's supposed to mean - screw it, I pass. i can get by without having my analysis be that deep.

If your formula is so complx that I can't understand it, then give me a baseline where i will know "this number (or range) is average and above it is good and below it is bad"

If your stat has predictive value - i.e. if you can say "if a BABip is below .260 that means a pitcher is likely to have a worse ERA next year" or whatever...make that clear. I've seen people throw out BABip dozens of times in the last couple of years and i've never seen a page which specifically said "this is what this stat tells you"

Now part of that is surely me being too lazy to look it up, but part of it is also that such stats are not commonly accessable or explain in terms non-mathmaticians get intuitively.


Pistol - Thursday, November 13 2008 @ 09:50 AM EST (#194079) #
Actually, Baseball Prospectus' stats are free (except for the PECOTA cards).
John Northey - Thursday, November 13 2008 @ 10:05 AM EST (#194080) #
In the end with statistics I think the key is general acceptance.  IE: If you have to explain the stat every time you use it then odds are you won't use it in a public forum when comparing players.  If you are writing the blog itself then you can take the time to add in a full description (what is good, bad, average, and examples of each - ie: a 200 OPS+ is Barry Bonds/Babe Ruth territory, a 50 is John McDonald, a 100 is Devon White/Shannon Stewart territory).  In the average comment it is too much of a pain to do that.

OPS and OPS+ have gained acceptance for hitters and OPS is now mentioned in the mainstream media from time to time.  ERA and ERA+ also have acceptance.  Thus you use OPS and ERA or the + versions and most people will know what you are talking about.  Use SNVAR and most won't understand you.  Some measures are working their way to acceptance like EQA and FIP which are helped by being on understandable scales (EQA is similar to batting average for scale where sub 200 is horrid, 300+ is very good, 400+ is Bonds/Ruth, FIP is on the same scale as ERA) but you still get questions when you use them.

Does this mean ERA or OPS are great stats?  Nope.  It just means that they are quickly understood as indicators of performance.  You expand by mentioning 'Yes, Litsch had a great ERA but his K/IP was so low and HR/IP so high I doubt he'll be there again'.  No need for wars over what stat is the best or worst or whatever.  If someone leans too much on one feel free to knock it, but recognize that all stats have their + and - and that there is no need for blanket statements.
Mike D - Thursday, November 13 2008 @ 02:54 PM EST (#194090) #
Speaking of stats, a really cool article on strikeouts.
Soto Beats Out Edinson "Not a Rookie" Volquez for NL ROY, Longoria Takes AL, Holliday Traded to A's | 57 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.