As the offseason gave way to spring training last year, rumors began to spring up regarding the Twins' interest in free agent third baseman Joe Crede. From pretty much the moment this speculation began, I took a stance against signing Crede, pointing out that with his troubling injury history and Tony Batista-esque career hitting line, his potential for plus power and defense were unworthy of a large financial investment.
The Twins ended up signing him, though they waited out agent Scott Boras until the price dropped to a reasonable $2.5 million guarantee plus incentives. At that type of minimal monetary commitment, even I couldn't take major issue with the signing. Still, I warned fans to keep their expectations for Crede in check, noting that when healthy enough to be on the field, "Crede should be able to provide strong defense from the hot corner while popping a few big home runs, but he is also likely to make a lot of outs."
When I did a preseason position analysis for third base, I projected that Crede would post a .255/.300/.425 hitting line with 12 homers and 50 RBI, anticipating that he'd hit around his career line while missing a sizable portion of the season due to injury. As it turned out, the prediction was accurate and the earlier Batista comparison was apt, as Crede hit .225/.289/.414 (Batista hit .236/.303/.388 with the Twins in 2006) with 15 homers and 48 RBI before having his season ended after 90 games due to yet another back injury. Of course, Crede was much better defensively than Batista, making this a much less disastrous experiment, but I nevertheless felt vindicated to see my warnings about Crede come to fruition almost precisely.
And so, when it came to light last week that the Twins may have interest in bringing Crede back on another incentive-laden one-year deal next season, I was somewhat appalled to see that the reaction from Twins bloggers and fans was overwhelmingly supportive. Are you kidding me?!
It seems to me as though the perception that Crede was a quality player for the Twins this season and would be a palatable option going forward into 2010 is predicated on a number of myths. Let's take a shot at dissolving these right now.
Myth No. 1: When accounting for defense, Crede was an overall positive contributor to the 2009 Twins.
This is a favorite argument amongst my fellow bloggers and stat-heads, and the go-to statistic when trying to support this one is WAR (or Wins Above Replacement), a metric featured on FanGraphs that attempts to quantify a player's contributions to a team while accounting for both offense and defense. According to this stat, Crede was worth 1.9 wins to the Twins in the '09 season.
Now, it's not in my nature to try and dismantle progressive baseball statistics, and I certainly don't think WAR is without it's value, but in the case of Crede I don't think it provides an accurate assessment of what can be expected going forward.
FanGraphs acknowledges that Crede was a liability at the plate, but according to UZR he was worth 12.5 runs over a replacement-level player in the field. Since UZR makes up the defensive side of the WAR equation, that big defensive boost completely accounts for his positive rating. Now, I like UZR as a defensive metric, but even its most avid supporters acknowledge that one year's data in isolation cannot provide a particularly accurate picture of a player's fielding acumen. Extrapolated over 150 games (UZR/150), the stat suggests that Crede's defensive performance would have been worth 23.4 runs this past year. He's a good fielder, but he's not that good. Crede's career UZR/150 is 10.2, so unless you believe that he magically took an enormous step defensively last year at the age of 31, it seems clear that the numbers over that 84-game sample are exaggerated and that expectations going forward should be adjusted accordingly.
My other problem with WAR's calculation is that it gives the same positional adjustment to a third baseman as it does to a center fielder. I don't really buy that the two positions carry the same defensive importance under normal circumstances, and I certainly don't believe that's the case on a Twins team that allows a higher percentage of fly balls than any other big-league club.
Regardless of what WAR and Crede's overstated UZR tell us, his quality defense at third simply doesn't outweigh his poor performance at the plate.
Myth No. 2: While not great, Crede's offensive output was significantly better than the rest of the players who filled in at third base in 2009.
On the surface, this statement seems obviously true, but it's really not. Crede hit .225/.289/.414 (703 OPS) this year, while all other Twins' third basemen hit .273/.339/.349 (688 OPS). That gives Crede a very modest offensive edge over the rest of the misfits who were trotted out to third in his absence this year and, depending on how you weigh AVG/OBP vs. SLG, perhaps not much of an edge at all.
There's a perception that hitting some home runs can completely make up for a dreadful on-base percentage, but that just isn't true. Which brings us to our next myth.
Myth No. 3: Crede did his job, which was delivering big hits and driving in the core hitters from the middle of the Twins' lineup.
There's no denying that Crede had some big, memorable hits this year. That fact probably feeds the perception that he wasn't a major offensive liability. But, by making outs more than 70 percent of the time behind the team's best hitters, Crede killed A LOT of rallies. He batted .198 with runners in scoring position.
Overall, Crede hit .225 with a .289 on-base percentage. Despite his ability to hit the ball out of the park on occasion, his slugging percentage fell below the league average for a third baseman. He was a bad hitter in 2009, and next year he'll be another year older and coming off another back surgery, while the Twins will be moving into a new park that doesn't figure to be a whole lot kinder to right-handed power hitters than the Metrodome was. I don't think the smart money is on his improving significantly.
Myth No. 4: Signing Crede again is a low-risk move and doesn't really carry any downside.
This is the biggest misperception, for me. Nick Punto is set to make $4 million next year and it has been made fairly clear by the Twins brass that he'll be starting somewhere in the infield in 2010. If Crede is re-signed, then Punto will be your starter at second base and it's unlikely that another infielder will be added to the club. So, if Danny Valencia isn't ready when Crede goes down (you'll excuse me for not using the word "if" at this point), we're looking at Tolbert or Harris at third base with Punto at second. Isn't that precisely the situation we'd like to avoid?
If the Twins are willing to sign Crede to a deal that can reach $5-7 million or so in attainable incentives, that means they must be prepared to spend that money. It has to be accounted for in the budget. If they're willing to spend that money, why not just go ahead and guarantee it to one of the many second basemen on the market who are better than Crede and far more likely to remain healthy? This would potentially provide the team with the legitimate No. 2 hitter it has been looking for while sticking Punto at third until Valencia hopefully overtakes him at some point.
There's something about Crede that enamors fans. But once you look past the myths and dig deeper into the numbers, you'll find that he's far from an ideal solution and that there are much better options available if the Twins want to field a quality infield group.
If several months pass without Bill Smith taking action on the infield situation and things stand the same in late January as they do now, then fine, sign Crede to another one-year incentive-laden deal. But I would consider that scenario a failure on the part of Smith and the Twins front office. There are too many opportunities on the market right now to settle for Joe Crede.
47 comments:
Good read. I was pretty excited last year when we went and picked Crede up but, by the end of the year I felt it was just another failed experiment for old infield "talent". I'd be surprised if we brought him back. I personally would love to see Polanco or Hudson picked up but, that's just me.
Regardless of what WAR and Crede's overstated UZR tell us, his quality defense at third simply doesn't outweigh his poor performance at the plate.
You finish off an article full of facts with a gigantic bit of hyperbolic opinion?
i agree with you 100%. even if he was a great player, i would not sign him. we will be lucky if he will play half of the games next year. don't sign anyone that you know will be done playing in or before august.
I agree with the way you evaluated Crede. But when you talk about the Twins needing to find a #2 hitter, do you mean for 2010 or for the next few years? If you mean for 2010, they already have him. His name is Joe Mauer.
The problem is Gardenhire refuses to slot him there. So if Gardy doesn't use Mauer the way he's supposed to, who can guarantee he'd pencil in a hot-hitting 2nd baseman in the #2 spot even if Smith brought him in?
Even if Smith found a way to add Ben Zobrist, Gardy would probably bat him 5th or 6th.
See, I don't have any problems with Crede coming back, although I'd prefer Beltre or Glaus (or Figgins). I think Valencia needs some more time at AAA so if Crede comes back and goes down around the all-star break again, we can put Valencia in.
On the other hand, I like that Crede seems to be a fall back option this year, which Smith seems to think. Maybe the Twins add Polanco and move Punto to 3B.
I certainly don't think WAR is without its value
I don't know if you saw the Fangraphs article or not, but across the board, WAR has a .83 correlation to actual wins (i.e. strong correlation that, if team X has cumulative WAR of +10, they'll finish season 86-76). It's not perfect, but it's pretty strong considering it's a context-neutral stat, which brings me to...
I don't really buy that the two positions carry the same defensive importance under normal circumstances, and I certainly don't believe that's the case on a Twins team that allows a higher percentage of fly balls than any other big-league club.
Really good point. WAR is context neutral - it assumes the same conditions for every player throughout the league. So for the Twins, a UZR/150 of +10 in CF would probably in actuality be worth more than 10 runs, if I understand this correctly. And a third baseman w/ maybe a 15 UZR/150 on a flyball-heavy staff would be worth about (rough approximation) the same as that CF on that club. Seems to me that these adjustments would be fairly small, but for a team like the Twins, trotting out an abysmal OF defense will probably be even worse b/c of the high FB% pitchers, and a great IF defense will be minimalized for the same reason.
So, if Danny Valencia isn't ready when Crede goes down (you'll excuse me for not using the word "if" at this point), we're looking at Tolbert or Harris at third base with Punto at second. Isn't that precisely the situation we'd like to avoid?
True. This scenario further minimizes Crede's positive impact, b/c any replacement's offensive contributions are going to be even worse than Crede's offensive output. That said, Matt Tolbert, the worst option IMO at third, was still only -.2 WAR last year. That probably is worse in reality for the Twins again b/c his defensive value is minimized. So really, I think bringing Crede back gets you maybe 1 win in reality - his 1.9 WAR plays a bit worse in reality, and Tolbert, the replacement, probably in reality is lower than -.2. I've probably been too pro-Crede, but I still don't think he's a bad option with Valencia and/or Hughes hopefully ready to take the next step.
Nick,
I think signing Joe Crede last season was a success!!! Yes, he was injured and only played in 90 games but he put up numbers that Harris, Tolbert, or Buscher could only dream about. I would love to see the front office go after Adrian Beltre but with Danny Valencia almost ready that seems very unlikely. Crede might be ok again for one year but the team needs to address second base first. The big problem with signing Crede is it means the infield is set for 2010. Punto needs to play as a utility player instead of being a starter.
Before you strain your arm patting yourself on the back, keep in mind what you WERE advocating at 3rd base. Harris/Buscher were not what you said they'd be.
So if Gardy doesn't use Mauer the way he's supposed to, who can guarantee he'd pencil in a hot-hitting 2nd baseman in the #2 spot even if Smith brought him in?
Gardenhire is a traditionalist and is fixated on having middle infielders batting second. Many of the second basemen currently on the market -- like Polanco, Hudson and Lopez -- fit Gardy's No. 2 hitter mold.
I don't know if you saw the Fangraphs article or not, but across the board, WAR has a .83 correlation to actual wins
I like WAR. But I think people are using improperly by using it as a predictive measure for Crede's expected success next year. No one can reasonably expect him to post the same type of UZR numbers next year, and it is solely because of that exaggerated UZR number that his rating in this particular metric came out positive.
I think Valencia needs some more time at AAA so if Crede comes back and goes down around the all-star break again, we can put Valencia in.
The problem with this take is that Valencia is far from a guarantee to be a quality contributor at the MLB level at any point next year. If he never proves to be ready in Triple-A, what's your contingency plan? Harris? Tolbert?
Yes, he was injured and only played in 90 games but he put up numbers that Harris, Tolbert, or Buscher could only dream about.
Actually, he put up numbers that those three nearly matched, as I pointed out in the article. I don't know if many players "dream about" posting a .289 on-base percentage in the major leagues.
Before you strain your arm patting yourself on the back, keep in mind what you WERE advocating at 3rd base. Harris/Buscher were not what you said they'd be.
I wasn't really advocating for those two. I had been urging for a legitimate upgrade at third base throughout the offseason. My point, at the time, was that I didn't think Crede was going to be enough of an upgrade over those two to justify a sizable monetary commitment. I still believe that.
Crede might be ok again for one year but the team needs to address second base first. The big problem with signing Crede is it means the infield is set for 2010. Punto needs to play as a utility player instead of being a starter.
That won't happen. Punto is going to start; this is essentially set in stone. So everyone who is advocating for Crede to return next year needs to realize that they're also advocating for Punto at second base.
sign someone other than crede or just give the position to valencia, at least then he would have some experience at the major league level for the 2nd half of the season. if we go with crede, he will play for half the season, then when we need him he'll be hurt. that will leave us with whoever gardy decides to put there (punto and tolbert probably) or we'll call up valencia and with no major league experience. is that good for the stretch run (when the twins usually play their best baseball and make a move in the central)? if we sign crede, we are essentially handing the starting job to punto for the last few months or possibly valencia with no time to get used to the majors. sign beltre or hand the job over to valencia. if he doesn't cut it, we'll still be left with punto starting at 3rd near the end, which is exactly what crede would give us.
Nice post, Nick. At the very least the Twins should exhaust all other options before signing Crede. He should be a fallback. One small correction pertaining to this:
[A]ccording to UZR he was worth 12.5 runs over a replacement-level player in the field.
UZR is actually measured against an average fielder for the position. Replacement level for fielding is tricky to define from what I've read, although I did come across this.
FWIW, Beyond the Boxscore's 2010 UZR projections have Crede at +7.4 (I think that's for 125 games).
What bothered me the most about Crede was how much games he sat on the bench because he was listed as "day-to-day." I think there easily could have been 1-2 additional trips to the disabled list for him, but instead his absence often left the Twins with a smaller bench.
And someone please tell Scott Boras to stop saying that Crede's latest back surgery solved his problems for good. We've heard this rhetoric before.
You're right, Josh. Sorry for the typo. Tough to keep the two reference points straight when discussing WAR and UZR simultaneously.
2010 projections for Crede would be -0.5 batting (ZIPS) + 1 fielding (career UZR) + .25 3B + 2.25 replacement = 3WAR per 162 games.
I agree with the premise of the article. Crede should not be considered until more desirable infield options such as Hudson, Polanco, and Lopez are off the board.
"If you mean for 2010, they already have him. His name is Joe Mauer. "
Mauer is the Twins number three hitter. And, frankly, there really isn't anyone else who has the skill set to bat third. Only an idiot for a manager would stick a guy who hit close to 30 home runs in less than a full season in the number two spot so that he gets fewer chances to drive in runs.
I love all those "modern" stats that are gospel, except when they contradict the users subjective judgments. Then they have all sorts of flaws and can't be trusted. Crede gave the Twins great defense. He also gives the Twins some pop in the bottom of the order where his OBP is less of an issue. If the alternatives are Tolbert and Harris, then he is an improvement when healthy.
"Only an idiot for a manager would stick a guy who hit close to 30 home runs in less than a full season in the number two spot so that he gets fewer chances to drive in runs."
Joe Mauer had fewer opportunities per plate appearance to drive in runs than anyone on the team not named Denard Span or Brendan Harris. Batting Mauer 3rd is fine. However, only an idiot of a manager would stick a low OBP middle infielder in front of the best hitter in the league.
"However, only an idiot of a manager would stick a low OBP middle infielder in front of the best hitter in the league."
Instead of having a low OBP number nine hitter bat in front of him? The fact that the Twins lacked a good number two hitter is not a reason to move Mauer into that role.
"Joe Mauer had fewer opportunities per plate appearance to drive in runs than anyone on the team"
First, that isn't true. Second, that's what happens when you bat second which Mauer did a lot more than he should have. Thankfully, Gardenhire came to his senses.
I know I've posted this before but below are the baserunners per PA.
Kubel 0.73
Casilla 0.72
Morneau 0.70
Cuddyer 0.70
Cabrera 0.69
Crede 0.66
Punto 0.65
Redmond 0.65
Young 0.63
Morales 0.60
Mauer 0.59
Span 0.58
Harris 0.56
Gomez 0.55
Each 0.05 increase results in 30 extra baserunners per 600 PA. Mauer could have had 20 extra RBIs if he had the same rate of baserunners as Casilla or Cabrera. Mauer drives in runners on base at the same rate as Ryan Howard (19%).
Mauer batted 2nd in 23 games compared to over 100 in the 3 hole. It is not reasonable to blame his lack of RBI opportunities to batting 2nd. You might as well say he didn't have many baserunners on base because he hit 3rd. Both Casilla and Cabrera batted mainly 2nd and had plenty of chances to drive in runs.
if we had a solid lineup, batting mauer 2nd or 3rd wouldn't make as much of a difference. just get some guys in here that will keep the automatic outs on the bench!
Mauer is the Twins number three hitter. And, frankly, there really isn't anyone else who has the skill set to bat third. Only an idiot for a manager would stick a guy who hit close to 30 home runs in less than a full season in the number two spot so that he gets fewer chances to drive in runs.
This is true in theory, but it won't be true in reality until Ron Gardenhire starts to understand the value of having an on-base threat in the second spot in the lineup. This year, the Twins' No. 9 spot had a .332 OBP and the No. 2 spot had had a .306 OBP -- worst on the team outside of the No. 6 spot that Crede usually called home. So by batting third, Mauer ultimately had fewer opportuntities to bat with runners on base while also racking up fewer plate appearances overall.
Ideally, the Twins would have a pair of strong OBP players batting in the first and second spots, and then Mauer in the three-spot would be great. But, your assertion that Mauer batted second "a lot more than he should have" during this past season is demonstrably false.
"I know I've posted this before but below are the baserunners per PA"
Now if you could just get Joe Mauer to bat in front of Joe Mauer. Mauer was about 1/8th of the Twins baserunners last year, despite missing the first month of the season. Span accounted for another 1/8th.
Its not really surprising that the guys behind Mauer all had more "baserunners" than he did. Its no accident that Morneau, Kubel and Cuddyer are leaders on the team with Mauer and Span ahead of them. Even guys like Crede, Young and Redmond were going to get chances with Mauer on base.
Morneau had 305 plate appearances with runners on base, knock off the @250 times Mauer was a runner and see what is left. Of course that isn't entirely fair, since Morneau missed the last month of the season. But it gives you some idea of the impact having Mauer ahead of you in the order has on your opportunities.
Moving Mauer up in the order just reduces his chances to drive in runs. It certainly didn't help the Twins offense that almost 25% of Mauer's plate appearances last year were in the number two spot.
As for who should bat number two, there aren't many options other than the middle infielders. If you eliminated Morneau, Crede, Cuddyer, Kubel and Young from consideration it leaves you with the two middle infielders. Of course when Crede was hurt, you could have had Tolbert or Harris or Punto hitting there and I guess they wouldn't be middle infielders any more when they were playing third base.
"This year, the Twins' No. 9 spot had a .332 OBP"
So your argument is that Nick Punto should have been batting second instead of Cabrera?
So your argument is that Nick Punto should have been batting second instead of Cabrera?
My argument is that Mauer should have been batting second. He'd have been hitting behind directly behind the team's next-best OBP guy and two spots behind a league-average OBP, rather than directly behind the an outs-machine. He also would have gotten more plate appearances overall thanks to the higher spot in the lineup, as would all the other core hitters who nudged up a spot.
Cabrera had a poor OBP this season and grounded into 22 double plays. Terrible choice for the spot directly behind your OBP-heavy leadoff man and in front of your best hitter.
Cabrera never batted with Mauer on base and had 17% more baserunners per PA. Casilla rarely batted with Mauer on base and had 22% more baserunners per PA. Limiting Joe Mauer's RBI opportunities is clearly a flaw in lineup construction. I agree with Nick that it is due to the poor OBP from the 2nd spot.
The Twins scored 4.91 runs/game while Mauer batted 2nd. 4.59 runs/game on the year. This was also when Span was out with vertigo.
There is no reason that Cuddyer couldn't hit in the 2 hole. He has an above average OBP and is an average baserunner. Being RH is also a bonus in our lineup. The team would benefit from getting extra AB from a good hitter instead of a Casilla or Tolbert.
Using Markov chains to estimate run scoring, the Twins cost themselves 0.05 r/g with a lineup of Span, Hardy, Mauer, Morneau, Kubel, Cuddyer, Young, Harris, Punto vs sliding Hardy down to 7th and everyone else up. That equates to 9 runs a year or about 1 win.
Nick, you've turned me around on signing Crede. I was in favor of it assuming we could get a guy like Beltre on another incentive-laden contract as a bridge to Valencia, but I'm seeing the flaws in this. Of course, one of the major flaws in this analysis is the fact that Punto will always get a starting job so long as Gardy is the manager...
But in a year where there are a few 2B & 3B options out there that would be upgrades over Crede's out-machine batting performance it does make more sense to go get one of those guys for the money we'd be willing to drop on a healthy Crede.
"Cabrera never batted with Mauer on base and had 17% more baserunners per PA. Casilla rarely batted with Mauer on base and had 22% more baserunners per PA."
Its amazing what happens with small sample sizes. The Twins had a team OBP in August and September of .355. For the rest of the year it was almost 20 points lower. Span had a .458 OBP during August hitting in front of Cabrera. And in September, Cabrera had a .338 OBP while driving in 23 runs and .336 for the second half overall. Both are better than that average for the number nine hitter.
You can play with numbers all day long. Getting on base is only one attribute you look for in a number two hitter. You also want someone who has at least a little pop in his bat, will make contact and can move runners up where they can score on a hit by the three and four hitters. Punto was never very good at any of those and it is a waste to have Span moving runners over instead of focusing on getting on base.
If Mauer bats second behind Span, he will have a runner on base about 40% of the time for his first at bat, usually on first base. If you have another batter second who gets on base even 30% of the time, Mauer will have 75% more runners on base. Its also likely the lead runner will be closer to scoring. That will also be true for Justin Morneau who will also get fewer opportunities. Instead those opportunities will shift down the order to Kubel and Cuddyer.
And while the number nine hitter will be closer to Mauer in later at bats, so will the number 7 and number 8 hitters whose ability to get on base now have a larger effect on Mauer's chances. At some point that guy you pulled out of number two is going to get his at bats.
As for Markov chains, they are a mathematical construct that is largely inappropriate for predicting human behaviors. It sounds impressive though.
Markov chains are the "guts" of all linear weights and run estimators. They are the basis for WPA and run expectancy matrices.
Saying the don't perfectly mirror baseball so we shouldn't use them is like saying physics doesn't perfectly mirror reality and therefore is useless.
Articles discussing in depth how Markov chains are used in sabermetrics can be found at http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/introducing-markov-chains/ and http://www.tangotiger.net/runscreated.html
"Markov chains are the "guts" of all linear weights and run estimators. They are the basis for WPA and run expectancy matrices."
I know and Tango and company are putting out pure hokum. Its no more real than Hari Seldon.
"Saying the don't perfectly mirror baseball so we shouldn't use them is like saying physics doesn't perfectly mirror reality and therefore is useless."
No, its not. At least, not unless you think its God consciously playing with reality that is causing your physics model to fail.
The fact is that baseball data is not a result of random actions, its being constantly optimized for the situation by the people playing the game. Is there any reason to think players are lying when they say they change their approach at the plate depending on the game situation? Is there any reason to think that doesn't produce different results?
With a runner on first and no one out, the approach of the hitter is going to be to try to move that runner into scoring position, not to drive the ball. If Span gets on base 40% of the time, Mauer hitting second is going to be following him with a "get-him-over" approach 40% of the time.
Putting Mauer in situations where he is forced to approach at bats in that way is a waste of his talent. And when you make an out 60% of the time, you can't afford to take any other approach. The chances that one of the next two hitters will get a hit and drive in a runner in scoring position is still better than the chances Mauer will get a hit.
"With a runner on first and no one out, the approach of the hitter is going to be to try to move that runner into scoring position, not to drive the ball."
TT, Do you really believe that major league players don't try to drive the ball in that situation? I am speechless. We'll just have to continue to disagree.
So where does Punto play? Isn't that the key to what we do with Crede?
I'll give you a scenario if we sign a 2b and put Punto on 3rd base. Punto struggles. Valencia gets hot in AAA. Smith calls him up. He plays one game, makes a rookie mistake. Gardy fixates on the mistake and keeps him on the bench. His pet keeps playing. Valencia never builds any confidence and never develops as he could.
Maybe we should just put Punto on 1b. We played a lot better last year once that Morneau guy was out of the lineup.
Mauer batted .406 with a runner only on first base this year. That "get-him-over" approach was clearly his undoing. Such wasted talent.
Nick -
I have to disagree with you on some points. Crede, when healthy, is amazing with the glove and provides power to the bottom of the order. However, in the event of an injury, we do have Valencia (who will not be blocked unless we sign Beltre long term), or Punto.
Twins should use their money to sign Felipe Lopez. We are in desperate need of a OBP player in the #2 hole. The thing you are overlooking is that if the Twins do sign Beltre, who in the world will they stick #2 ahead of Mauer? Mauer is cemented in the #3 spot and that will never change.
Lopez provides OBP ahead of Mauer. This provides Mauer with not one but two runners to drive in. We should re-sign Crede and put him in the field and at the bottom of the order when he is healthy. Punto would then be his backup (I dont like it but he is basically guaranteed a spot by Gardy).
Beltre would bring some power and defense to this club, but I find the Twins already have power (Mauer, Hardy, Morneau, Kubel, Cuddyer..Young). Why not go out and sign the OBP person to hit behind Span and in front of Mauer? Re-sign Crede and play him when he feels good (i.e. 3x a week), while Punto plays the rest (i.e. 4x a week). Valencia will get some conditioning in AAA and should be ready to come up by July/August if needed.
I have no problem with the idea of signing Lopez. The problem, as I stated after listing Myth No. 4, is that if Crede is signed then the Twins won't sign a second baseman. Punto is going to be starting somewhere in the infield on Opening Day, that much is essentially guaranteed. As I stated in the post, I'd prefer that he were starting at third with a legitimate OBP guy (such as Lopez) starting at second and batting in the two-hole.
I presented Beltre last week as a desirable but wholly unrealistic option for the Twins. I don't think they'll commit the type of years or money that he wants. With that said, I'm hardly going to advise against bringing him in because he'd be blocking Valencia. I like Valencia, but he ain't exactly Evan Longoria.
Hey nick -- are you aware of any major league managers who pay attention to meaningful statistics and think progressively about their players and how to use them correctly? If not, how long do you think it will be before we start seeing some in the bigs?
Hey nick -- are you aware of any major league managers who pay attention to meaningful statistics and think progressively about their players and how to use them correctly? If not, how long do you think it will be before we start seeing some in the bigs?
Great question. I'm sure there are some out there who take modern statistics into consideration, but I've never heard of any basing lineup or roster decisions on them. It can't be long before that starts happening, though.
"Mauer batted .406 with a runner only on first base this year. That "get-him-over" approach was clearly his undoing. Such wasted talent."
Uh Nick - was that with no one out? Do you follow how the game of baseball is played, or just read spreadsheets?
"I've never heard of any basing lineup or roster decisions on them."
That answers that question. In fact all managers base their lineup and roster decisions to some extent on the results players get aka statistics.
"TT, Do you really believe that major league players don't try to drive the ball in that situation? "
Yes. I think that major league players in that situation sacrifice some of their power to make sure they make contact and move the runner over. At least, I think that is what they are coached to do. That is the reason the ideal for the number two hitter is a guy who can execute a hit and run.
Uh Nick - was that with no one out? Do you follow how the game of baseball is played, or just read spreadsheets?
Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't know we were making that differentiation. Wonder why I would have thought that? Oh, maybe it's because you said that "If Span gets on base 40% of the time, Mauer hitting second is going to be following him with a 'get-him-over' approach 40% of the time." Which of course is only true one time per game, because contrary to what you may believe the leadoff batter does not lead off an inning every time he bats.
The number of outs that Mauer would waste by using this "get-him-over" approach you speak of (which I sincerely doubt is reflected by the facts; if Mauer is hitting a robust .406 with a runner on first I'd wage dollars to donuts he's hitting pretty well with a runner on first and no outs), I suspect would be more than made up for by the increased number of plate appearances he and the rest of the core hitters would receive, the decreased number of plate appearances the Orlando Cabrera clone alternative would receive, and the fewer outs the Twins would waste on needless sacrifice bunts.
That answers that question. In fact all managers base their lineup and roster decisions to some extent on the results players get aka statistics.
There are differences in the statistics you and I lay credence to. I'm quite sure the commenter was not inquiring whether managers consult with the basic statistics you prefer.
Manny Acta is a big Sabermetrics guy. The Red Sox, Rays, and Mariners all have very sabermetrically inclined organizations, and consult with their managers about decisions like this more than a team like the Twins does.
I suspect would be more than made up for by the increased number of plate appearances he and the rest of the core hitters would receive...
Great point. We are not only getting a poor hitter less plate appearances and giving Mauer more, we're also giving Morneau, Kubel, and Cuddyer more plate appearances.
I just don't understand what isn't to like about Mauer in the 2 hole. He has too much power? Morneau, Cuddyer, and Kubel all have similar or better power than Mauer. He is a better hitter because he hits more singles and walks more. Singles and walks are just as good to start an inning as they are to drive people in. Also, Mauer is a very good baserunner. He doesn't steal bases, but always takes the extra base when needed. He is one of the best contact hitters in the game, and hits the ball to all fields, so he's obviously a great guy to hit and run with.
Where's the downside? You give your best hitters more plate appearances, a bad hitter less. You have less outs in front of your good hitters. You aren't losing any baserunning or contact skills. Even if we are trading a few RBI opportunities for Mauer for a few opportunities to get on base for other guys, I just can't see how this could be a worse scenario over all.
-- I'm quite sure the commenter was not inquiring whether managers consult with the basic statistics you prefer. --
Yes Nick. You are correct. I was referring to advanced metrics.
I would like to address the myth that a few big hits makes up for a bad average. If Crede were in a different profession, lets say Firefighting, we would not be ok with a few big saves and no action the rest of the time... He was brought in to hit, it isn't happening!
Beth-
Apparently you do not know the reason behind the Twins signing Crede. The twins knew long before signing Crede that he was not a great OBP or avg hitter. The Twins BROUGHT HIM IN to play GREAT DEFENSE (which he did) and to PROVIDE power to the bottom of the order (which he also did).
Not every player is a "hitter". Span is a "hitter" - Ryan Howard is hitter. There is a difference and Crede belongs in the Ryan Howard category.
"Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't know we were making that differentiation. Wonder why I would have thought that? "
Because this is what I wrote:
"With a runner on first and no one out, the approach of the hitter is going to be to try to move that runner into scoring position, not to drive the ball."
If Mauer batted second in every game that is going to be 162 plate appearances, about 1/4 of his total for the season. With Span leading off he will be on base about 40% of the time, most often at first base.
If Mauer is batting third his first plate appearance will still be 1/4 of his total. But he will have one runner on about 46% of the time and two runners on base 12% of the time even if the number two hitter only gets on base 30% of the time.
Last year Mauer had 272 plate appearances with runners on base and 65 with two runners on. Moving him to the number two spot would take away a minimum of 48 and 20 repectively.
I didn't adjust for home runs which will have some impact. But the notion that what happens in the first inning is insignificant is simply inaccurate.
Its the top of the order that scores runs and the first time through the order is the only time they are guaranteed to start with a clean slate. In later at bats there may be some runners on base from the bottom of the order, but more often there will already be some outs.
"I'd wage dollars to donuts he's hitting pretty well with a runner on first and no outs)"
That doesn't happen very often when you bat third. Especially if the number two hitter isn't an on base guy. It is going to happen a lot with a guy like Span.
And its not just Mauer. Morneau will get also fewer opportunities to drive in runs batting third than he would cleanup. Those opportunities will also go to the guys lower in the order.
"I suspect would be more than made up for by the increased number of plate appearances he and the rest of the core hitters would receive"
The number 2 hitter on the Twins had 17 more plate appearances than the number 3 hitter. If you move the number two hitter to the sixth spot ahead of Delmon Young, then Mauer, Morneau, Kubel and Cuddyer will get 60 more plate appearances combined - 15 each. And of course the number two guy will get Cuddyer's opportunities to drive in runs. Or you can move Young up and give him an extra 26 plate appearances and Cuddyer's RBI opportunities.
Great read on Crede. As a Sox fan he was always one of my favorites. The one game that I saw in the Dome this year he hit two dingers. He was a fun player to watch, but his back always was frustrating.
Post a Comment