Navigation: Jump to content areas:

Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Terry Collins, David Wright, And The Mets/Brewers Kerfuffle

Handicapping the Field: Free Agent Second Basemen

427px-nap_lajoie_1913_tiny by Ryan on in News

Time to consolidate all the middle infielder acquisition talk into one place. I'm going to rank the top second baseman and shortstops, and I'm tailoring the rankings to what the Indians need.

Here's what I'm looking for:

  1. Better defender than Joe Inglett/Hector Luna
  2. Provides more overall value than Inglett/Luna
In other words, if the player is a poor hitter, his defense better make up for it. If he's a poor fielder...well, the Indians don't need another one.

First of all, let's eliminate players who don't meet the above requirements. All players listed will be free agents at the end of the season; those with options are omitted. I'll visit trade possibilities later on in the winter.

I'm using EQA for offense, STATS Inc.'s version of Zone Rating for defense, and Win Shares for overall contributions.

The players italicized are either part-timers, or in Craig Biggio's instance, not going anywhere. That leaves us with six real candidates: Belliard, Durham, Graffanino, Kennedy, Loretta, and Valentin. So who's the best fit for the Indians out of this group? Let's start the countdown:

6) Tony Graffanino. He was a reach to begin with, given his sporadic play at second base, but his bat made me at least consider him. He'd be a nice bench player, but no more than that.

5) Mark Loretta. Slugging .361 at Fenway isn't good, and Loretta's glove is slipping to boot. I'd stay far, far away.

4) Jose Valentin. Valentin's resurgence allowed the Mets to dump Kaz Matsui earlier this year, and has played excellent defense to go with his usual power. But he's become a part-time player, and this year's offensive numbers are well above his recent efforts. If other options fail, I wouldn't be adverse to giving him a one-year deal.

3) Ronnie Belliard. His defensive collapse was a major reason the team struggled early in the season. But he's the second-youngest player on this list, so he could rebound somewhat. I'd term him a "settle" option, similar to what Bob Wickman was last winter.

2) Ray Durham. Intriguing on many levels. He's the best offensive player by far of the bunch, would make a fine #2 hitter, and mashes left-handers (check his splits). But he's getting older, and his defense is below-average.

1) Adam Kennedy. Best defensive rep of the bunch, and the youngest. That will also make him the #1 target of the Red Sox, the Mets, and the Cardinals, but the Indians should at least give him a try.

Well, that's my list; feel free to disagree below.

Comment 145 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Re: Handicapping the Field: Free Agent Second Base
Before someone asks...no, I don't consider Alfonso Soriano a second baseman.

And I'm covering some of the hybrids (Counsell, Cora, etc) in my next post on shortstops.

by Ryan on Sep 23, 2006 12:23 AM EDT reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Free agent 2bs
I'd rank them 3) Kennedy, 2)Durham, 1)Valentin, understanding that Valentin would need lots of days off, and hoping that Durham's offense would more than make up for any defensive deficit relative to Kennedy.  But I would guess that the Mets are pretty happy with Valentin and would try to re-sign him.  
I'd prefer to move forward rather than revisit the Belliard era.
Of course, in addition to the players you listed, there are also some minor league free agents, and they are supposed to be exploring the far east in search of 2b options.  I don't expect you to know much about what might be available over there.

by plato on Sep 23, 2006 1:28 AM EDT reply actions  

Handicapping the Field: Free Agent Second Basemen
I like the list alot. I really see Durham coming hear because Kennedy might require us to overpay since as you mention other teams are going to go for him. (although you can argue that Durham might want the same money he got this year and that could be considered overpaying.)

This of course does nothing to help our defense, and Inglet and Luna will get thier share of time at second as well, because Durham is old and will need more time off.

I hate Valentine. no real reason.

Thankfully there are some intersting trade options that you will get to that will at least give us some more options.

by hans on Sep 23, 2006 2:49 AM EDT reply actions  

Re: Free Agent Second Basemen
I am the uber defender of Loretta.  Omit his first month and the fact that he isn't much of a power hitter to begin with and his statistical line is vastly improved.  It is not unusual for a hitter to fail his first go around in a new league and I would imagine playing in Boston is one of the most difficult things a player could do (next to New York and ahead of Chicago).
That said, his glove is taking a step back, as is his bat, but he is still a quality #2 hitter despite his poor EqA the last two seasons.

My list:

  1.  Walker - solid glove, solid bat.  he will rarely hurt you and will probably be the "leftover" of Soriano and Kennedy.
  2.  Loretta - he atleast could teach Crowe/ACab a thing of two in spring training and during a September callup.
  3.  Hairston - i love speed, i love the fact he could hit #9 and really throw off a lefty facing sizemore.  the only way he comes to town is if Wedge is gone.

by Brandini on Sep 23, 2006 3:49 AM EDT reply actions  

Re: Free Agent Second Basemen
Walker - solid glove

TODD Walker? Surely you meant someone else...

by Kos @ Let's Go Tribe! on Sep 23, 2006 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Free Agent Second Basemen
No, the Todd Walker that posted back to back seasons of a 3.3 rating by THT when calculating WS.  Far from the best, but far from the worst.
Hes struggling this season, but a lot of players who get traded tend to struggle - look at Orlando Hudson.

by Brandini on Sep 23, 2006 5:15 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Free Agent Second Basemen
Those numbers were from 2004 and 2005, and they are very questionable. I'm not saying they're wrong, but pretty much everyone believes that Walker is a piss poor defender at 2B (and has been for years). BP has him at -3 FRAA this year, and he hasn't been in the black at second base since 1998.

How is Orlando Hudson struggling? He's been excellent this year, and he's easily having the best season of his career.

by Kos @ Let's Go Tribe! on Sep 23, 2006 6:15 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Free Agent Second Basemen
Defensively, that was what we were talking about.  He is easily having one of the worst fielding seasons of his career.

by Brandini on Sep 24, 2006 10:35 AM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Free Agent Second Basemen
BP and THT both like what he's done defensively this season. Even if you want to consider it a down year (and I wouldn't), he's certainly not "struggling" in the field...or with the bat.

by Kos @ Let's Go Tribe! on Sep 24, 2006 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Free Agent Second Basemen
Up to his standards?  Anytime a player does less then what is expected, that is struggling.

by Brandini on Sep 24, 2006 9:16 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Free Agent Second Basemen
Okay, you may be the only person on Earth who considers that the definition of "struggling."

by Kos @ Let's Go Tribe! on Sep 24, 2006 10:57 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Free Agent Second Basemen
So example
If Steve Nash shoots 80% from the free throw line you will consider him being successful?
If Martinez hits .270 you will consider that successful?

Yea, you're right, I'm the only person who believes when a player is playing worse then they traditionally do(and are capable of) that is considering "struggling".

by Brandini on Sep 25, 2006 8:57 AM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Free Agent Second Basemen
I think what Kos is trying to get at is there is a certain normal range of variation in which athletes (and people) generally perform.  Simply playing above or below your average wouldn't classify as either excelling or struggling.  Struggling, I think, would be more suggestive of playing below that normal range of variation, not your average.  

by APV on Sep 25, 2006 9:03 AM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Free Agent Second Basemen
But what I clearly stated was that he is having one of the worst defensive seasons of his career.  It is no surprise this happens when a player changes teams (double play partner, playing surface, opponents need to all come into account).  Kos decided to ignore what I actually said in order to state a fact that was obvious to all.
As I mentioned, Hudson is struggling relative to his standards.  See my "other" examples above and tell me if those situations occured - although they would still fall at or above league average - that you would not state those two are struggling.

by Brandini on Sep 25, 2006 11:00 AM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Free Agent Second Basemen
Defensive win shares are very very unreliable.

Any defensive statistic should be taken with a grain of salt, but the play-by-play systems we have now (Zone Rating, Ultimate Zone Rating, The Fielding Bible) seem to be better than the rest.

The last time Todd Walker played more than 100 games at second base, he had a .788 ZR. He played 97 game there in 2005, and posted an .802 AR. This season, he's only 10 games there. I'd chalk his high rating up to sample size error.

by Ryan on Sep 25, 2006 8:20 AM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Free Agent Second Basemen
Ah, I thought he was the 2b for the majority of this season.
What about 2004?

by Brandini on Sep 25, 2006 8:58 AM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Free Agent Second Basemen
First of all, let's eliminate players who don't meet the above requirements.

I figured you would have left Walker off the list had he been a poor defender.

by Brandini on Sep 25, 2006 9:10 AM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Free Agent Second Basemen
Why is Walker on this list?

by Brandini on Sep 25, 2006 11:01 AM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Free Agent Second Basemen
Because he's listed as a free agent. I italicized the players who are part-timers and/or didn't provide enough defense - Walker was both.

by Ryan on Sep 25, 2006 11:06 AM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Free Agent Second Basemen
Sorry I'm a little confused.
I thought you weren't listing players who weren't defensive upgrades?

by Brandini on Sep 25, 2006 11:46 AM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Free Agent Second Basemen
No, I removed the defensive liabilities along with the bit players at the same time, which basically was Todd Walker and a couple of the utility guys. Fortunately or unfortunately, most full-time second basemen (with the exception of Cantu) would probably be defensive upgrades over what the Indians have now.

by Ryan on Sep 25, 2006 11:58 AM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Free Agent Second Basemen
Also, there is only 5 2b rated above him on the DZR for 2006.

by Brandini on Sep 23, 2006 5:16 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field: Free Agent 2B
Loretta is very poor defensively.

He was ranked 30th out of 36 2B by The Fielding Bible in 2005. He was 25th in 2004.

That probably is worse than Inglett/Luna.

by ronh on Sep 23, 2006 8:20 AM EDT reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field: Free Agent 2B
How about the rest of the guys in Ryan's top 6?  How do they rank?

by dgcambridge on Sep 23, 2006 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions  

Handicapping the Field
What about DeRosa?  Is he covered off in the next post?  I know Jay was high on him.

by cheech99 on Sep 23, 2006 8:38 AM EDT reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field: Free Agent Second Base
Ugh. Second base is the most uninspiring position of the last ten years, hands down.

How am I supposed to get excited about any of these players? About any second basemen in the entire Majors?

by afh4 on Sep 23, 2006 10:25 AM EDT reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field: Free Agent Second Base
I'm just gonna throw this out there, because I can't believe he is as bad as he was in New York, but I think Kaz Matsui is a free agent this year.  

The Rockies finally called him up and he's been playing well - .348/.388/.461, though add the Coors effect and remember it's 90 ABs.  When he came over he had a reputation as a great fielder and a solid contact hitter.  He's always intrigued me.

by mkwng @ Let's Go Tribe! on Sep 23, 2006 10:34 AM EDT reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field: Free Agent Second Base
Coors effect is next to null.  Look at the pitchers, they are nearly as good if not better at home this season.

by Brandini on Sep 23, 2006 12:08 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field: Free Agent Second Base
I don't know... he hasn't had much success overall, at least offensively.  Career OPS of .687.

I feel the same way about him as I do about Counsell: he had better be much much better than Luna or Inglett defensively, because he's unlikely to outhit them.

Probably be cheap.

by dgcambridge on Sep 23, 2006 2:34 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field: Free Agent Second Base
Who cares about a leadoff hitters OPS?

by Brandini on Sep 24, 2006 10:36 AM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field: Free Agent Second Base
Me. And I don't know why the hell you'd want Kaz Matsui leading off anyway.

by Kos @ Let's Go Tribe! on Sep 24, 2006 3:31 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field: Free Agent Second Base
Brandini, I hate to break this to you, but pretty much every thinking baseball fan has accepted OPS as a slightly sloppy shorthand for "overall hitting quality."  And that matters at leadoff as much as any other position, because the "leadoff" hitter will actually lead off an inning an average of less than twice per game.  His other 3-4 plate appearances, with any luck he's looking at one or two ducks on a pond.

I do appreciate the point you've made before, that OPS doesn't tell you anything about what kind of hitter someone is, and batting average does.  And I'm not saying that you're the only fan who doesn't use OPS, but the vast majority of those who don't are not very knowledgable -- or are using something even more complicated than OPS.

by Jay on Sep 24, 2006 4:42 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field: Free Agent Second Base
Well, call me an outsider then.  Tell me again how many of the true statistical teams have won a world series in the last 10 years?  I imagine these same teams would have called Vlad and Beltran over paid.
If you haven't noticed these "thinking baseball fan(s)" have switched their thinking on a quite regular basis.  5 years ago OBP was the basis to judge a player - see "Moneyball".

But lets do some comparison
Would you perfer a hitter with a 825 OPS or the guy with 873 OPS?  Keep in mind, the guy with the 825 OPS is plating a runner on 45% of his RISP at bats, and your beloved player with the higher OPS is plating around 37%.
So I'm unknowledgable yet I would rather the player who is more succesful at doing the thing that is core to this game?  Fair enough.

by Brandini on Sep 24, 2006 9:28 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field: Free Agent Second Base
Tell me again how many of the true statistical teams have won a world series in the last 10 years?

Five: the Red Sox in 2004, and the Yankees in 1996, 1998, 1999, and 2000.

And considering there are only about four "true statistical teams" in the league (Yankees, Red Sox, A's, and us), that's a pretty f'n fantastic percentage.

by Kos @ Let's Go Tribe! on Sep 24, 2006 10:59 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field: Free Agent Second Base
Wow, the Yankees are a stats team?  I bet thats why they brought in Jaret Wright!!!  

by Brandini on Sep 24, 2006 11:13 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field: Free Agent Second Base
Statistics have nothing to do with the Steinbrenner's wallet. The four teams I mentioned are the "most sabermetric heavy" teams in the league.

BTW, Jaret Wright was signed well after 2000, so that doesn't really help your "argument." The Yankees are a team that uses sabermetrics, but that doesn't mean they are smart with their money.

by Kos @ Let's Go Tribe! on Sep 24, 2006 11:21 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field: Free Agent Second Base
The Yankees signed Jaret Wright in 2000?  WOW!

The yankees use very little sabremetrics when evaluating their players.  They go after the players they feel are "the best".  The team is wooed by one outstanding statistical season.

I have no idea how the Yankees could ever be placed in the stat-head frame of mind.

What about the Padres, Dodgers, Blue Jays and Twins?  All of those teams use statistic heavy statistics a lot more then the Yankees!  Its arguable that the Dodgers and Blue Jays are actually 2a and 2b right behind the As.

by Brandini on Sep 25, 2006 9:03 AM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field: Free Agent Second Base
The yankees use very little sabremetrics when evaluating their players.

See, when you say stuff like this, you're just showing that you're completely clueless. The Yankees are probably the third biggest sabermetric team in the league. That doesn't change the fact that they'll buy whoever they want. Cashman has a seemingly unlimited budget, so what does he care about paying Bobby Abreu $20M for eight months?

What about the Padres, Dodgers, Blue Jays and Twins?

I can't tell you for sure about the Jays or the Padres. Obviously, Riccardi is a Beane apostle, but I've heard very little from the rest of the organization when it comes to sabermetrics. The Twins and the Dodgers do not fit on this list. Both have "old school" GM's (arguably two of the five biggest old school GM's in the league), the Dodgers fired DePodesta - another Beane apostle - because his new school views clashed with those of the owners, and the Twins are one of the biggest anti-sabermetric teams in the league.

Its arguable that the Dodgers and Blue Jays are actually 2a and 2b right behind the As.

No. Completely wrong. Boston is easily second...they hired Bill James, for God's sake. Hell, you could argue that Boston is ahead of the A's at this point. The Dodgers are not a new school team, and the Jays certainly are lower than the Yankees and the Indians.

by Kos @ Let's Go Tribe! on Sep 25, 2006 9:53 AM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field: Free Agent Second Base
See, I can't even reply to you any longer.  The Jays are behind the Yanks?  Give me a break.
As for Boston, if they hired Bill James, they are doing an awful job utilizing his skills.

The Dodgers aren't a new school team?  The entire roster is more or less all Depodesta!  Whether through draft or trade, this is his team.  I know he isn't there now, and the team has since acquired some players that do not fit the mold, but those players for the most part are marginal additions.  I really don't care about the fact that they fired him though, because as I mentioned, this team was all his workings.

As for the Indians, I'm really searching to figure out who they have on their roster that makes them new school?  Hafner?  Martinez is close to being a moneyball player.  So who are all these "new school" statistical players that the Indians have brought in that makes them a "new school" franchise.

Seriously, NOT the Jays?  Simply look at Overbay and Hill, those two are pretty well the definition of sabremetrics!  Honestly, who cares about the rest of the organization, Ricarridi is the one who puts the team together.

The Twins actually aren't so far off.  They bring in cheap players who are able to create but are not the fancy studs that the rest of the league prefers.  While they have yet to master the art, they are pretty well on their way.

As for the Yankees, if they are so into Sabremetrics, then why do they sign players like Jaret Wright?  Trade for players like Randy Johnson?  This team cares little about "new school" statistics, they care about flashy players who can do flashy things with flashy "old school" stats.  Again, show me a player on this roster that doesn't scream "old school"?  "What does he care"?  I don't know, why would he spend on a player who he knows is worse?  Do you really think you are making sense when you are saying they are probably the third best yet don't make their decisions based on it?

If you didn't know, the Padres have a two GMs in place (more or less).  They are the ideal franchise.  One that considers both spectrums.  They are the team that can't get enough of OBP and the non-flashy players.  So calling them one of the 5 most old school teams, well come on?  I can think of worst teams in their division alone!

by Brandini on Sep 25, 2006 11:14 AM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field: Free Agent Second Base
Another note, why aren't steals apart of OPS?  Take Ichiro for example, his 42 steals would add a great number to ones OPS.  That said, should a hitter such as Juan Pierre not be given atleast the same value for every 4 steals as Adam Dunn gets for a home run?
Thats where I find the biggest flaw in OPS.  Along with general base running ability.  I would prefer someone who can at the very least break up a double play rather then the hitter that continually curves off the base path in said situation.

by Brandini on Sep 24, 2006 9:32 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field: Free Agent Second Base
Because OPS is a very raw offensive statistic. Many "new school" people (me included) think it's a pretty poor way to evaluate players. The only reason you'll see a lot of us use OPS is because it has become semi-accepted by many old school people. You might want to check out EqA, a more accurate statistic that incorporates stolen bases.

by Kos @ Let's Go Tribe! on Sep 24, 2006 10:55 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field: Free Agent Second Base
Furthering my last point

OPS gives more "reward" to HRs then it does to base hits.  While a HR scores a definite run, OPS also gives as much credit to a walk(if not more) then it does a base hit.  That said, how many base hits have you seen that scored a run from second?  How many walks have you seen that scored a run?

Again, I know statheads love OPS, but for me, I'm just not sold on it.  I prefer a .300/.340 guy rather then a .250/.390 guy.  I prefer Carl Crawford over Adam Dunn.

I'm not looking too carefully this, this is just kind of a theory of mine but:
Is there a relationship between hitters with high strikeout rates and high OBP?  Just quickly viewing OBP, of the top 10, 6 have 100 of more Ks.  
With Ks aside, Barry Bonds 06 or Matt Holliday?

by Brandini on Sep 24, 2006 9:51 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field: Free Agent Second Base
OPS gives more "reward" to HRs then it does to base hits.

Aren't home runs better than base hits?

OPS gives the same "credit" to a walk as it does to a hit. The thing you're not grapsing, though, is that if you have a high batting average, YOU CAN STILL WALK. Anyone would prefer a high batting average to an equal amount of walks. The problem is that plate discipline is consistent from year to year, but batting average can often fluctuate significantly.

I know statheads love OPS

I don't know a single one who does.

by Kos @ Let's Go Tribe! on Sep 24, 2006 11:05 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field: Free Agent Second Base
"As much as it does a hit"
Well that is clearly impossible, it could be "close" but "as much as"...Come on "Kos".

by Brandini on Sep 24, 2006 11:14 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field: Free Agent Second Base
...OPS also gives as much credit to a walk(if not more) then it does a base hit.

I'm just enjoying this thread.  (And am I not allowed in the Bridge burning thread anymore?  I wasn't around yesterday)  I've only been on this site since just before the Crisp trade, but every so often a commentor comes around an stirs things up by making a lot of goofy arguments.  Boiling everything down to simplistic statements, and stubbornly sticking to wrong conclusions.

Anyway, Kos is doing fine job by himself here, but I wanted to add this small correction also:

OPS gives more "credit" to a single than it does to a walk.  They are the same in OBP, but a single counts in your total bases.  (of course, I suppose if a hitter was already slugging over 1.000...but whatever)

by dgcambridge on Sep 25, 2006 10:33 AM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field: Free Agent Second Base
Yeah, you're right. I was thinking about OBP, not OPS, for some reason. I'm an idiot.

Brandini said "OPS also gives as much credit to a walk (if not more) then it does a base hit," and that is incorrect (unless, as DG said, you're slugging 1.000+). But then again, I don't know why we're discussing OPS since there are so many better statistics available.

by Kos @ Let's Go Tribe! on Sep 25, 2006 10:45 AM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field: Free Agent Second Base
Maybe I'm making a mistake here.
OPS is OBP+Slugging
Ones OBP can technically increase without once hitting the ball and reaching base safely.
So a player with an OPS of .800 goes 0 for 2 in a day with 3 walks.  Their OPS certainly would raise?
The next day, this same player goes 3 for 5 with three singles.  Does their OPS go up in the same amount that it did with 3 walks?

I understand that a single counts towards ones total bases, however it also counts as an at bat.  Where as a walk only adds to your OBP without adding an at bat.
Possibly I am wrong here.

by Brandini on Sep 25, 2006 11:20 AM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field: Free Agent Second Base
A player who comes to the plate five times, makes two outs, and walks three time (0-2, 3 BB):

OBP of 0.600, SLG of 0.000 for that day.

A player who comes to the plate five times, makes two outs, and singles three time (3-5):

OBP of 0.600, SLG of 0.600 for the day.

Obviously, it's a one day extreme example.

by dgcambridge on Sep 25, 2006 1:50 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field: Free Agent Second Base
On Matsui, I don't know how cheap he'd be - I suppose he could just lump it and head back to Japan.

He won several gold gloves in Japan and was thought to have as much potential as any other Japanese position player who made the switch.  Here's a great article on him from '03 before he signed.

I have no idea why he flopped as badly as he did here - maybe it was the position switch - but he intrigues me a lot.  It's probably just for the potential uniqueness, but I think at the core there's still a VERY talented player in there.

by mkwng @ Let's Go Tribe! on Sep 25, 2006 12:40 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field: Free Agent Second Base
Possibly the New York media and the culture shock.  I couldn't imagine coming to a place and knowing hardly anyone and not speaking the language required to order a sandwich.  How often do we see a Latino coming over and taking a while to develope in the minor leagues?
I also think playing with Reyes was tough on him, not to knock Reyes, but he is relatively raw on his own account - at the time, his English was also relatively poor.

I think there are a lot of variables, but like you I am intriged with what he has done in the Colorado and even his 2004 season wasn't that miserable considering everything he had to go through.

However, I personally would like to see someone that can help bring along Crowe or ACab.  Hopefully nobody reads my post, otherwise you'll be receiving an earfull mkwng.

by Brandini on Sep 25, 2006 1:06 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
Thank you, Ryan, for saying so succinctly everything I have been trying to say about Mark Loretta for the last couple months.
July 28, 2006 - The Andy Marte Era officially begins. Proud to be the unofficial Andy Marte Apologist.

by woodsmeister on Sep 23, 2006 3:56 PM EDT reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
I think Brandini is the only one pimping Loretta at this point. I still can't figure out why.

by Kos @ Let's Go Tribe! on Sep 23, 2006 4:09 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
Loretta
Strong Defender - as per THT
Solid Bat - good k/bb, puts ball in play a lot
Perfect #2 Hitter - objctive is to make "good" at bats, not hit home runs.
Average Speed -
Non-Stop Hustle - IMO
Will Play Anywhere - starting at 1b for the Sox right now.

Yea, I can't see why I would be pimping him either.

by Brandini on Sep 24, 2006 10:42 AM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
Oh, he'll also come relatively cheap, isn't that what the Tribe continually looks for?  Isn't that what half the arguement against Howry was?

In your opinion, has Shapiro ever done anything wrong?

by Brandini on Sep 24, 2006 10:43 AM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
Strong Defender - as per THT

BP thinks he's below average. Red Sox fans think he's been very poor. He's also getting older, meaning he'll probably decline in 2007.

Solid Bat...Perfect #2 Hitter

No. You are wrong. A .254 EqA (from any spot in the lineup) isn't solid. His power is completely gone. Slugging .364 in Fenway, especially as a right hander, is awful. I know you don't care about this because "a #2 hitter should be able to handle the bat well" or whatever, but I'll point you towards this study:

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/story/2006/2/12/133645/296

Not only does this show that a #2 hitter needs to have power, but it also shows that a #2 hitter needs to be one of the team's best hitters. Putting Loretta there would be a terrible option.

Non-Stop Hustle

Ah, there's a great reason to sign him. We better trade for Scott Podsednik, too. He's a "gamer."

Will Play Anywhere

Why do we care about that? He doesn't play "anywhere" anyway...he only plays 1B and 2B, and his bat at first base is a joke.

Yea, I can't see why I would be pimping him either.

Don't worry, no one else can figure it out either.

by Kos @ Let's Go Tribe! on Sep 24, 2006 3:42 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
So Kos, go sign Kennedy, I imagine he will have a MUCH better season the Loretta...You know, .246 "EqA".

As for him playing anywhere, where did I state it as being a matter of flexibility?  Answer, no where (that jump to conclusions map would make Millions on this board).  But the organization didn't like Phillips/Bradley, Loretta is the polar opposite of the two of them.
"Nice comeback!"

Sports Illustrated wrote an article last year that stated the opposite, that a #2 hitter needed to make quality at bats having good bat control and not grounding into double plays.  On base percentage was also a concern, Loretta isn't bad there.

Not sure where you get the information he is a poor defender though, he is better then Adam Kennedy even according to your beloved BP.

Any more comments genious?

by Brandini on Sep 24, 2006 11:10 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
I don't remember pulling for Kennedy, though I do think he'll significantly outperform Loretta next season. I've been big on Orlando Hudson or Marcus Giles, but I'll take Kennedy if the alternative is Loretta.

As for him playing anywhere, where did I state it as being a matter of flexibility?

You said he "will play anywhere." What else could you have meant...that he'll play in Indonesia?

Sports Illustrated wrote

Stop there. That's enough to lose you an argument.

Not sure where you get the information he is a poor defender though, he is better then Adam Kennedy even according to your beloved BP.

You must be as blind as Anne Frank. Kennedy is +8 this year, and he was +3 last year. Loretta is at -3 (at 2B) each of the last two years. Nice one.

Any more comments genious?

That's the defintion of irony (and stupidity) right there.

by Kos @ Let's Go Tribe! on Sep 24, 2006 11:17 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
You must be as blind as Anne Frank.

You mean Hellen Keller, right?  I agree with what you're saying.  Some of these posts are making me blind with fury, but I don't have the tools / energy to dispute them

by homelytourist on Sep 25, 2006 12:48 AM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
ahahah. That's a funny slip I didn't notice.

Anne Frank had it hard enough as it was.

by afh4 on Sep 25, 2006 12:52 AM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
Yeah, wanna know what's funnier?

A little earlier tonight I was piss-on-a-cop-car drunk (I'm not saying that happened) and I can STILL tell baseball right from baseball wrong (see Bridge Burning thread). Dude's straight-up wrong.

by homelytourist on Sep 25, 2006 1:07 AM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
Yeah thanks for the support. I let myself get drug too far under.

by afh4 on Sep 25, 2006 1:15 AM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
I'll be at the Jake on Friday night to watch Slocum take on the Delmon Rays... I'll probably buy a $6 dollar upper-box ticket and hang out in standing-room.  Ya gotta love autumn baseball; I hope an LGT constituent makes it out for the final series.

by homelytourist on Sep 25, 2006 1:37 AM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
Go see Clerks 2, and it will make sense.

by Kos @ Let's Go Tribe! on Sep 25, 2006 3:42 AM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
I don't have time to go through your lists any longer.  It seems no matter what I post you have an arguement for it.  Taking credibility away from SI - I wonder why they are the #1 sports magazine in America, props to BP!
"Stupidity" is being unable to see an obvious joke...I'm going to give you some advice here, you probably shouldn't go to any stand up comics routine - well, maybe Carrot Top would be up your alley.

That aside you win...Maybe you should apply for the position to run the Indians.  You seem to slurp Shapiro at every turn, so in your interview just say, "I wouldnt do anything that Mark wouldn't"

by Brandini on Sep 25, 2006 9:20 AM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
I don't have time to go through your lists any longer.

I know. I bet it takes a lot of time to correct all the mistakes from your previous posts.

SI - I wonder why they are the #1 sports magazine in America

SI is just like ESPN. They don't use any type of sabermetric statistics because the general public doesn't understand them. Just because they sell a lot of magazines doesn't mean they are the best source for sports information.

by Kos @ Let's Go Tribe! on Sep 25, 2006 10:54 AM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
I never said they were.  You just immidiately wrote off an article that actually surveyed GMs around the league.  This wasn't part of the mail bag, this was an article written by one of the best baseball journalists of our time.  While they do not take Sabremetrics into account all the time - frequently they do - I would put money on an "SI" GM to win it all over a sabre GM - remember a "sabre" GM signed Dany Graves and Johnson even one of the least Sabremetrical teams in the majors knew to not resign Johnson!

by Brandini on Sep 25, 2006 11:23 AM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
Wow, how did I miss this the first time?

So Kos, go sign Kennedy, I imagine he will have a MUCH better season the Loretta...You know, .246 "EqA".

Kennedy's 2006 EqA: .246
Loretta's 2006 EqA: .245

Your argument...genious.

by Kos @ Let's Go Tribe! on Sep 24, 2006 11:33 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
No. You are wrong. A .254 EqA (from any spot in the lineup) isn't solid.

I suppose you forgot posting that.
Next time, try to post correct statistics!

by Brandini on Sep 25, 2006 9:06 AM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
You missed the point. You are the one who is pimping Loretta as a good hitter while Kennedy and his .246 EqA are garbage. Problem is, Kennedy has out-EqA'd Loretta this season. That would seem to make your argument completely useless.

But I'm sure you'll attack my credibility or something like that to defend yourself.

by Kos @ Let's Go Tribe! on Sep 25, 2006 9:42 AM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
Because I have attacked your credibility in the past?  No, the problem is you don't see that sometimes these Sabre stats are incorrect.
But to further back up Loretta, his season looks so awful because of the piss poor April he had.  You remove that and its certain he has a much higher EqA then Kennedy.  It is reasonable to remove that given the new league and facing pitchers for the first time.  Kennedy on the other hand has taken just as large of steps back since his breakout season all the while playing against the "same old".

So again, I won't be surprised one bit when Loretta has a vastly superior season to Kennedy next season.  Interesting aside - Loretta has more WS then Kennedy, Loretta was also traded for by a "Sabre" team.  

by Brandini on Sep 25, 2006 11:29 AM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
OK, let me try to stat a little more clearly:

(1) Kennedy is four years younger
(2) Better defender than Loretta no matter how you slice it
(3) Even in a down year hit better than Loretta

The difference in Win Shares is due mainly to Kennedy losing PT to Howie Kendrick. His WS Percentage (a rate stat) is higher than Loretta's

Is Kennedy a great second baseman? Of course not. But he's the best fit for the Indians among free agent second basemen.

by Ryan on Sep 25, 2006 11:38 AM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
  1.  Kennedy is four year younger, yet breaking down at a very rapid pace at such a young age, is this not taken into consideration?  This is also a trend, missing close to 20 games a season is something Kennedy is mastering.
  2.  I've never thought that, there are stats going both ways, however I will admit Loretta looks as though he is breaking down.
  3.  Loretta is having a down year as well - his downyear can somewhat be attributed to his poor start in April.  How different do his numbers look if hes above the Mendoza line?  Probably better then Kennedys.  Whom is having a down year, but an identical year to 05 and extremely similar to his first years in Anaheim.

Something you are leaving out completely, Kennedy is completely awful against lefties.  Something Loretta does nearly as well as he hits righties.  To further that, Kennedy is a lefty, where do you hit him?  Inbetween Sizemore and Hafner (the place I've been pimping Loretta for), that would make 3 lefties in a row, add in Martinez and that does wonders for the opposition late in the game.  Do you bat him at the end of the order where he is clearly more comfortable?  If you do that, why not just go after a John McDonald?  
Do you see why I don't think hes a great fit for this club?
As for his WSAB, there is a reason the club went with Kendrick early on.  Kennedy couldn't buy a hit in May/June, so the Angels had no other choice but to try out their future 2b.  That said, he has turned it around at the plate, but his numbers have fallen for a 3rd straight season.  While it is true that Lorettas have bounced up and down, there are atleast "excuses" behind his "failures".

But I will be honest, I won't be dissapointed with Kennedy, I just worry that at his age he won't sign a 2 year contract.  Loretta seems most likely to give into a 2 year deal.

by Brandini on Sep 25, 2006 12:04 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
Kennedy is completely awful against lefties

So is Grady Sizemore. You take the good with the bad, and I've already stated that Kennedy is the best of a rather uninspiring group of free agents.

To further that, Kennedy is a lefty, where do you hit him?

At the bottom of the order, probably between Peralta and Marte. There's no rule that your second baseman also has to be your #2 hitter. Belliard certainly wasn't.

by Ryan on Sep 25, 2006 12:17 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
I never said there was a rule, but if you are going to hit him that low in the order and he has that great of a weakness against lefties, why not bring in someone with an incredible glove?  Just drop a muligan when he comes to the plate.  Bat him ninth and treat him like the pitcher.  As you mentioned any player is a defensive upgrade, but what happens when you bring in the best(or close to it), does that make up for a guy who doesn't have that great of a bat to begin with?

As for your comparison with Grady, I think its too far off.  Grady is still somewhat servicable against lefties.  His batting average is almost as bad as Kennedy's, but he still displays some pop, of Kennedy's 51 career home runs, 13% have come against lefties.
Also, Grady's failures against lefties are what may force him from ever being the true star he looks like he could develope into.

by Brandini on Sep 25, 2006 12:34 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
never said there was a rule, but if you are going to hit him that low in the order and he has that great of a weakness against lefties, why not bring in someone with an incredible glove?

I don't know, because roughly two-thirds of AL starters are right-handed? Hector Luna can play against left-handers if needed.

Let me repeat: Kennedy IS a good defensive second baseman. There's little difference defensively between Kennedy and John McDonald, and Kennedy actually can hit.

by Ryan on Sep 25, 2006 12:52 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
Are you not at all worried about the significant nose dive he has taken this year?

by Brandini on Sep 25, 2006 1:07 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
Of course I'm a bit worried. But again, he's by far the best of the bunch.

by Ryan on Sep 25, 2006 1:14 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
This seems like a backwards approach to me.  I think you want to find the most valuable player we can, and put in him in a particular lineup spot based on his bat.  I don't think you decide on his position in the order, and then let that influence your choice.

by dgcambridge on Sep 25, 2006 2:22 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
Again, why would we want two years of a rapidly declining Loretta?  Just because he would sign a two-year contract does not make him worthwhile.
July 28, 2006 - The Andy Marte Era officially begins. Proud to be the unofficial Andy Marte Apologist.

by woodsmeister on Sep 26, 2006 11:15 AM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
OK, let's cease with the personal attacks. I've already had to close one thread, let's not make it two.

by Ryan on Sep 25, 2006 8:06 AM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Free Agent Second Basemen
Adam Kennedy is the only one that I think meets our the Def need and can hit a little bit. but I really think we will be looking at the trade market. Pitt is looking at moving Jose Castillo or Jack Wilson and Washington is looking to dumping Jose Vidro (7 million)  
Fan in Texas

by fanintexas on Sep 24, 2006 11:32 AM EDT reply actions  

Re: Free Agent Second Basemen
Jack Wilson would be awesome, but do you think he can make the switch to 2b?

by Brandini on Sep 24, 2006 12:39 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Free Agent Second Basemen
Or could Peralta make the switch?

by exileincincy on Sep 24, 2006 3:07 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Free Agent Second Basemen
yes, Wilson would be the better SS.
Fan in Texas

by fanintexas on Sep 24, 2006 6:08 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Free Agent Second Basemen
Wilson is badly overpaid:
07:$5.25M, 08:$6.5M, 09:$7.25M, 10:$8.4M club option ($0.6M buyout)

He'd be (off the top of my head) I think the 3rd or 4th highest paid Indian in 07. That's not counting any renegotiations that might happen.

Belliard, Loretta, Kennedy, and Hudson all made 4 million or less this year. Plus they were all on short deals/club controlled deals. That's what the Indians should be looking for.

Wilson is a classic example of the terrible decisions Pittsburgh makes routinely. He was one of the worst 3 or 4 hitting SS's in the NL in 2005 and 2006. He would've been the worst hitting 2B in the league in either year, by miles and miles.

by afh4 on Sep 24, 2006 7:35 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Free Agent Second Basemen
He would cover so much more ground that what we have now at SS.  I'm saying he is the guy I would want, but we are going to have to overpay somebody. We have been under paying for the last 4 years. It is time we move the team in the right direction and to do that we have to start spending money, yes it need to be spent wisely and I not sure in the past that is the case 7 million on a pitcher that is it best a 5th starter
Fan in Texas

by fanintexas on Sep 24, 2006 8:50 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Free Agent Second Basemen
should hav said I'm not saying he is the guy I would want
Fan in Texas

by fanintexas on Sep 24, 2006 11:16 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
I'll take option 7 - none of the above.

Kennedy is the best defensively, yes - but he'll probably get a 3-4 year contract out of somebody.  That somebody won't be us.

Belliard will likely resign with St. Louis, and I wouldn't take him over IgLu anyway, defensively or offensively.

In any other year, Durham wouldn't be a bad fit - but with the front office and the fans emphasizing infield defense, I'm not sure I see it happening.

I think IgLu can put up a 285/345/400 line next year with average defense - and since you've apparently been looking at 2B numbers lately - that ain't too bad.

In my opinion, this is what we do:

  1. If Crowe will play at 2b (we'll know if a few weeks), IgLu for 2007.  I think this is our best option by far, as it means Crowe will be our 2B for a while.

  2. Trade for Orlando Hudson, who will be available for the right price (Thank you, young Alberto Callapso).

  3. I'll take IgLu, while trading for a 2b who is a year away.

  4. Durham for a year?

Sorry if I got ahead of the post, but it made me realize that I don't like any of those options.  So I got to thinking what I did like, and whaddya know, there it is.

by Thommy on Sep 25, 2006 5:44 PM EDT reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
I'm sorry but which of these options make us better?
Fan in Texas

by fanintexas on Sep 26, 2006 4:32 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
Nothing. I think the underlying point is that it's very hard to get better by upgrading second in today's major leagues. There just aren't enough good second basemen to go around and the ones who are pretty good options, like Kennedy, would be misuse of resources.

by afh4 on Sep 26, 2006 4:53 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
I understand your point, there is not a lot out there, now about we pick between Luna or Inglett and get a defensive SS/2nd that we can put in the 7th inn if we are winning, plus we could give Jhonny a day off now and than when Westbrook is pitching.
Fan in Texas

by fanintexas on Sep 26, 2006 6:40 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
Well,,,lets wait and see who Ryan lists as possible trade options, because I think there are some options there and in total, we have to upgrade the position. As Ryan noted somewhere above, most of these guys will give us better defense.

by hans on Sep 26, 2006 10:20 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
Sorry to leave you guys hanging...I'm working on the  possible trade targets + hybrids (DeRosa, Counsell, etc). I am struck by how poor the overall position is, though.

by Ryan on Sep 26, 2006 10:33 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
Andrew, I'm not sure that the one follows the other.  Just because the field is weak doesn't mean that we don't gain an equally good advantage over our opponents by obtaining a (relatively) good one.  Maybe even more of an advantage.  If half the teams have a hole (relatively speaking) at 2B, do we not gain significant advantage by not having a hole there?

by Jay on Sep 26, 2006 11:31 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
That's an excellent point but I still have reservations about even being able to make a relative upgrade, especially through the FA market.  For the most part, the players listed, as has become evident as they were picked apart in this thread, do not have outstanding value over other second basemen and/or have serious concerns moving forward (Loretta/Durham's ages, especially).

On top of that, like all baseball decisions this is one that has to be viewed in terms of opportunity cost as well. Somebody brought up Jack Wilson who would cost the Indians at least 2-3 million more per year over the next couple of years than some other options, players like Belliard. Adam Kennedy is probably going to fall into the same category in terms of cost. The end result, assuming a fixed budget, is that the money doesn't go towards other needs. An extra 2 million a year could be a big deal in swinging a deal for a top flight closer or set-up man to be converted.

Let me do a little experiment here to see just how far off base I have wandered...

If you order all the second basemen on THT via their win shares (it seems like an ok way to do this-it at least pretends to have a defensive element) then you have a range of about 25 to 8 for full time players (there are some problems due to qualification and non-qualification but I think it's mostly going to wash out...).

There are the outliers: 5 players have between 18 and 23 win shares. They are Chase Utley, Dan Uggla, Ray Durham, Orlando Hudson, and Tad Iguchi.

The next 14 second basemen fall somewhere between 13 and 17 win shares. The difference from the top of this range (Jesse Barfield, Jeff Kent, Marcus Giles) to the bottom (Grudz, Aaron Hill, Mark Ellis) is just over one win for the entire season.

This kind of clustering isn't true of the other positions I flipped through (third has a range of about 9 win shares within a similar sample, SS a range of 10). I don't feel like looking through all the rest and it's possible they prove my whole analysis is flawed.

I've kind of wandered around a little bit here but I guess what I'm trying to do is delve a little bit into the issue of what positions merit the most spending and what positions you should just accept the league average for.

What I'm really arguing against is the idea that the Indians have to "spend money to win and that spending should start at second." I don't think there's any reason to pay more for a second basemen then we have in the past. Ideally, we need to try to find a player like Loretta or Durham who's ready to put up big numbers at low cost. Loretta and Durham both charted 15 WS in 2005.

Less ideally, but more realistically, we need to be prepared to settle for a player who will put up something in the 13-17 range. Someone like Ronnie Belliard when we first signed him.  And who might that player be? Well, it might be IgLu. It also might be someone like Jose Valentin or Mark Ellis.

The big question from there is which of the players on that list or available by trade have A) the potential to breakout like Durham and Loretta which is hidden enough that it's not exploding their value or B) are prepared to put in another workmanlike season.

Please, please, please don't get into a bidding war for someone like Adam Kennedy just because we watched bad defense all year.

Of course, people are desperate for defense too but frankly I don't know how to tell who's good and who's not so I don't know how the Indians plan to determine that either.

Alright that was entirely too much to write. Sorry for the length and whatever elementary mistakes I made with the win shares.

by afh4 on Sep 27, 2006 2:43 AM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
Good points And I agree 100% that we need to fix the bullpen problems first. At this time I do not trust the defense stats they leave a lot to desire. I would rather trust our baseball people, who have watched a million more games than I have.  From every thing that I have been able to read, they do not think what we have at 2nd currently will do the job for next year.  I may not be the smartest man in the world but I do know that we can not keep giving the other team 4 or 5 outs in an inn and expect for our pitcher not to have a let down and give up a ton of runs.      
Fan in Texas

by fanintexas on Sep 27, 2006 9:46 AM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
I agree (and also with fanintexas), and I think your general approach is sound.  Looking at the position using WSAB (win shares above bench), which basically filters out win shares just for playing time, the effect is even more dramatic.  Utley, Uggla, Durham and Kent have 12, 11, 10 and 8.  Five guys have 7 (Barfield, Valentin, Hudson, Overratedyankee, Iguchi) and Giles round outs the Top Ten with 6.

The next 20 guys range from 2 to 5, which as you note, is exactly one extra win over 162 games.  But there are at least two problems with looking at it this way.  The first is that Hector Luna is one of those 20 guys.  So the argument that says the extra production available at 2B is not worth the cost ... is basically saying, just use Luna.

(Switching threads for a moment, Chris Burke is at 3 WSAB, and is awarded 2.7 win shares for defense alone this year.)

The second is that the argument presupposes that the Top Nine cannot be had for reasonable dollars, and I'm not sure that's the case.  Durham has been a consistent producer and will be 36.  Who says he's not worth a two-year deal, and who says he's going to get any better offer than that?  Maybe he will, but maybe not.  Remember also that in signing a guy like Durham, you're freeing up Luna or Inglett to be traded, or kept around for depth or something.  So you get a couple of projected marginal wins, and you also get to cash in some lesser chip.

More to the point, exactly how cheap do you think you can find marginal wins on the trade or free agent markets?  They're not cheap, and you can't expect them to be cheap.  The rest of our roster is cheap; filling holes is expensive.

By the way, something else jumped out at me looking at Adam Kennedy's THT page.  His BABIP has dropped significantly (351 to 313), and his SB% has plummeted along with it, which to me kind of screams "losing a step."  On the other hand, he's hitting more line drives and the same number of ground balls, so maybe he's just hitting into more than his share of lineouts.  Both FRAR and Wins Shares have him losing only a few runs with the glove over last year.

by Jay on Sep 27, 2006 5:24 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
Correction ... Adam Kennedy is actually on pace to be 8 runs better with the glove than he was last season, per FRAR.

by Jay on Sep 27, 2006 5:25 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
So the argument that says the extra production available at 2B is not worth the cost ... is basically saying, just use Luna.

"Playing the kids" (and at this point I'm loathe to call either Luna or Inglett "kids") is great if the kids can actually play, but sometimes you have to get help from a veteran. Let me break it down, including all the possible choices inside the organization from AA and up:

(1) Hector Luna. Decent bat, but below-average in range and double plays.

(2) Joe Inglett. Provides versatility, but little else.

(3) Asdrubal Cabrera. Good glove, but hit .263/.295/.337 in 393 AAA at-bats.

(4) Eider Torres. The AA version of Cabrera.

That's pretty much it. So while getting upgrades in the free agent market are not fiscally efficient, the Indians are forced to do so.

by Ryan on Sep 27, 2006 6:41 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
I wasn't advocating sticking with Luna, just explaining that that's the logical conclusion of the "win shares" argument.  Luna as an option won't be evaluated under some "play the kids" theory.  He's got a fairly established performance level, and I think he'll be judged on that.

by Jay on Sep 27, 2006 11:35 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
Not responding to you, but addressing the "keep Luna/Inglett" argument. If the Indians are keeping Westbrook/Byrd/Sowers in the rotation, and keeping Peralta at shortstop, they absolutely positively have to upgrade at second base. Sure, Luna and Inglett might be cheap, but that doesn't mean they make a good fit for the roster.

Probably the same goes for left field, if they have any money left. Do we really want to see an outfield of Choo-Sizemore-Blake?

by Ryan on Sep 28, 2006 8:40 AM EDT up reply actions  

Is that a bad outfield?
Hello Ryan,

I'm not sure why you think Choo-Sizemore-Blake is a bad OF, unless you are referring to offensively?  Defensively, that OF would seem to have a lot of range and strong arms on the corners.  Admittedly, Choo is inexperienced, but hasn't looked bad defensively (although he hasn't looked quite as good in LF as in RF, which could make an argument for Blake shifting to LF while allowing Choo to remain in RF if Choo can't adapt to LF.)

Just curious on why you made that statement.

Go Tribe! :-)

by indiansfan on Sep 28, 2006 4:28 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
That outfield wouldn't bother me, assuming we'd acquired a quality player for second base.  We're going to score a TON of runs next season, I'm not worried about putting Choo out there for minimum salary.  Good D, decent chance for good O, too.

by Jay on Sep 28, 2006 7:01 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
Part of what I didn't convey clearly was that I don't think Durham is going to be back in that top tier next year. He wasn't there last year after all. The trick is figuring out who will round out the group of Utley, Uggla, and Kent.

At any rate, it's interesting discussion, perhaps only made interesting by how uninspiring the second basemen hanging around are. I mean, Jose Valentin? Ten years ago did anybody think Jose Valentin was going to be a valuable commodity in 2007?

by afh4 on Sep 27, 2006 8:15 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
why do you think Durham won't have a good year next year?

by hans on Sep 27, 2006 8:45 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
Because he wasn't there in 2005 and he's turning 35 in november.

It's not that I'm sure he won't have a good year. It's that I don't want to pay 7 million dollars for a second basemen who is anything less than a guarantee. Durham's age, plus his inability to stay healthy in the past (142 in 2005, 120 in 2004, 110 in 2003, projected for 138 this year), plus his lack of consistent excellence (and I mean that word seriously-durham is good, sometimes excellent, but not consistently so; granted injuries matter for that) make his price tag too much for me to swallow running a team on a relatively tight budget.

Might he have a great season? Sure. But no matter if he does or doesn't, somebody's gonna pay 7+ million for it, probably over a couple of years. And I don't think the Indians can or should pay that much for anything less than a near sure thing at second.

 

by afh4 on Sep 27, 2006 11:20 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
As if you could get a sure thing for anything like $7 million!

$7 million gets you Paul Byrd.  Don't we essentially need the second base version of Paul Byrd?

by Jay on Sep 27, 2006 11:33 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
C'mon Jay. That's starting pitching. This past season, the top 2B in the AL via RC and their contracts:

J. Lopez-$335,000
Guch-2.4
L. Castillo-5.6
Loretta-3
B. Roberts-3.075
Cano-381,000
Grudz-4
Aaron Hill-336,000
Mark Ellis-2.25

And in the NL:
Utley-500,000
Uggla-375,000
Durham-7
Hudson-2.3
Giles-3.85
Barfield-327,000
Brandon Phillips-327,000
Jose Vidro-7
Biggio-4
Jamey Carrol-700K
Jose Castillo-348,000

(Jeff Kent made like 11 million but he didn't qualify. Add him in if you'd like).

Why are you making me do this? Just to torment me?

Look, I don't know what the second base salary and production distribution is going to look like next year. And I'll admit that this spread here seems to indicate the golden era of 2B may be starting with Utley, Uggla, Cano, and (maybe) Phillips all becoming top players/earners in the next few years.

But I do know that this year, if you paid more than 5 million dollars for your second basemen, you were not getting a substantial jump in production for the extra money you were spending, on average.

And befor we get into "well who cares about on average-we're talking about Ray Effing Durham!!" consider that Durham was not as good a player, win shares wise, as his overpaid mate Luis Castillo in 2005 (17 to 15) or 2004 (21-20).

There's some funny stuff going on with comparing across seasons because Castillo only just now jumped over the 5 million mark. Durham, however, has been paid a bunch of money forever.

My overall point is that if you're going to pay a salary that is going to be the most money being made by any second basemen not named Kent, don't you want him to at least be a pretty sure bet to play more than 150 games? And say with some assurance that he will produce at a level that approaches very good to excellent? That doesn't happen all the time but with Durham I don't think there's any assurance. His numbers are way up from last year, plus he's getting old, plus he's an injury concern.

Look, I like Ray Durham. I actually think he's a really good player. I don't think he's the kind of guy the Indians should take a chance on.

I hate Mark Loretta. I don't think he's worth much of anything. But if it's between signing him to a one year with an option or something 3 million dollar deal (which doesn't seem unreasonable because he's producing at a consistent level with his past, which garnered the 3 million deal he's on now-granted, I don't really know what demand is like) and signing Ray Durham to something like 24 million dollar/3 year deal, give me Loretta, Hector, and/or Joe every time. I'll make do.

by afh4 on Sep 28, 2006 12:31 AM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
Isn't great that we have months and months to talk about this stuff until Shapiro puts us out of our misery.

by hans on Sep 28, 2006 2:06 AM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
Perhaps we'll get lucky and he'll move quickly...

I will not hold my breath, however.

When I get frustrated I just repeat: "Sabathia, Hafner, Sizemore: 3 superstars, less than 15 million."

by afh4 on Sep 28, 2006 3:02 AM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
C'mon Jay. That's starting pitching.

I'm not sure this helps your argument Andrew.  If you're saying the starting pitching is more risky and expensive, why would you want to focus all resources there.

Beyond that, I'm not sure about the point of your list.  Several of those guys are talented contributors who are still pre-free agency/arbitration.  We don't have one of those guys at 2b.  (Luckily we do elsewhere.)  Our decision on Durham should not be based on the fact that the Marlins or Braves etc are getting more production for less cost.

As you've discussed, the decision is whether those resources are better spent elsewhere.  It's a tough decision.  One one hand, the thought is that we can only get reliable elite production by focusing on one or two players (the best reliever we can get?).  On the other hand, there is something to be said for diversifying too.

by dgcambridge on Sep 28, 2006 9:40 AM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
I have to pile on here.  Your whole list is pointless.  Players who haven't reached free agency don't count.  The question is, how much do top producers at second base cost in the trade and free agent markets?  The fact that Cano is making the minimum is totally irrelevant.

by Jay on Sep 28, 2006 11:39 AM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
I shouldn't have included the guys not out of team control and I apologize. But I think the point is still being somewhat missed.

The kind of guys who aren't making the league minimum are still often making far less than Durham, Kent, and Vidro. If a player like Grudz can be had for 4 million then why pay the 9 for Durham?

This is, of course, assuming that a player like Grudz can be found and had.

Still, doesn't anyone care that Ray Durham is going to be paid a lot and probably can't be depended on to play 150 games?

As has often happened, I feel like we're not even arguing for or against Durham anymore but arguing about the types of arguments being made. Which is fine, it was a pretty dumb list.

But still, does anybody think Ray Durham is actually worth that money?

by afh4 on Sep 28, 2006 11:25 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
no he's not worth the money, but he is worth the potential production (if that makes sense). To take a positive spin, if he only plays 150 games that gives guys like Inglet a chance to play and post his .300 avg here and there. There are many arguements against him, (his defense won't help out Westbrook and Byrd, so we're basically back to same defensive problems we had this year with maybe some improvement from Marte over Boone), the money could be spent somewhere else (although I have argued in the Giles thread that this arguement doesn't hold water since there is no "somewhere else" other than the bullpen, and if we are going to overspend I'd rather do it at second than in the bullpen) So if the Indians get Kennedy, Giles, Hudson, or Durham, I'll be happy, but I do feel Durham's name should be considered as one of the guys we should go after and should be considered a moderate succesful improvement over the current platoon even if he will be overpaid...also I don't expect him to make more than what he is making already, but that is just my guess.

by hans on Sep 28, 2006 11:44 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
Yeah it's tough to really know what's happening because of the nature of the FA market.

People have talked about Kennedy being bid up by other teams with two-bag needs (i.e. the Red Sox).

My gut is that Durham will get more than 7 and more than 2 years. But I've got no reason to think that I guess, just sort of extrapolating a big year plus his age (looking for a last contract, not a one year) plus the terrible signings some GMs make.

I never meant to take this hard of a line, I mean everyone's an option until the money/years/trade costs are better distilled, right? Sort of like when people say "CC is untradeable" and someone always has to go "What bout Pujols? Would you do it for Pujols?"

As often happens, the point has been put into the rock tumbler and is now much sharper, finer and divisive than it ever really was.

by afh4 on Sep 28, 2006 11:49 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
Yeah i understand. I agree with your point that I think it became an arguement about the arguement, and so on, getting away from the original point.

by hans on Sep 28, 2006 11:53 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
As a lapidary technique, tumbling a stone accomplishes polishing / smoothining.  (just thought I'd take the critique thing to a ludacris extent)...  but really, this is what happens... I guess you'd want to use the grinding wheel to define an edge.

I'm tired as hell, but I think I  get it... you're essentially saying that Luna and Inglett, for all their obvious deficiencies, may still be of a comparable quality to many of the realistically available 2B around the majors, and your position is 'hold' unless an unforseen but highly favorable deal comes our way?  If that's the case, I agree wholeheartedly.  In the short term I think they'll pass, and I'm particularly fond of Luna in this role.  

   

by homelytourist on Sep 29, 2006 12:22 AM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
Yeah, I guess I'd pick one of Inglett and Luna and try to get a defense only guy on the serious cheap if the money could legitimately be useful elsewhere.  

But again, I don't really know if there's relief help available that's worth paying for. Or if the amount of money would be enough.

by afh4 on Sep 29, 2006 12:33 AM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
That's what I find too, now that I'm in the habbit of running cursory cost / benefit analysis across the field... Almost no one ever seems to be worth the anticipated cost in dollars and/or talent.

by homelytourist on Sep 29, 2006 12:46 AM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
Well, yeah.  Maybe.  $ 9 M is getting pretty high, obviously.  So maybe not that high.

Look, his lowest WARP over the last four years is 4.8.  

How about this as one marker?  His PECOTA valuation has him at $5.4 M for 2006 according to its prediction of a WARP of 3.8.

For 2007 (age 35), it has him at $3.6 M, according to a predicted WARP of 2.8.

I think there would be little hesitation at $3.6 M.  But what do we do with the fact that his WARP this year is 6.2?  (or whatever stats you want to use for his year).  I think its pretty reasonable to think he could be at 4.0 this year.

Plenty of risk here, no doubt.  But what I still question is whether there is more advantage to be gained using the same amount of money for a pitcher.  (Go, for example, back to Byrd signing.  Even totally ignoring the outcome this year, at the time he clearly had higher risk for a comparable benefit.)  That would be one way to convince me.  

by dgcambridge on Sep 28, 2006 11:55 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
Yeah that's the key point. What's the marginal difference and how much does this mean on the FA/Trade market in terms of a pitcher.

Let's just say, hypothetically, we could find a guy at 4.5 million. I don't think that's crazy unreasonable though I question if such a player even exists (part of the problem with 2B is that there aren't any 2B-anybody got a list of FA SS?). And let's say Ray ends up costing somebody 7.5 million.

So, we saved 3 million in year one. Years 2 and 3, well that's getting really speculative.

If that 3 million goes directly into starting pitching, that probably only comes out to 1 to 1.5 million a year for any pitcher of considerable value.

The Padres got Trevor for, what, 13.5 guaranteed? And up to I think 18.5? And we offered, I believe, something like 21. And it didn't matter.

And it's not like we've even got a Trevor Hoffman to pursue.

He's sort of an odd case but the point is that one million dollars a year isn't exactly a deal breaker for a lot of guys, in my opinion. Maybe Hoffman was unique but my gut is that you have to overpay big for value and that 3 million isn't exactly going to make the difference.

This isn't playstation, where $500,000 more than the next chump gets you the player.

by afh4 on Sep 29, 2006 12:06 AM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
I'm pretty sure the SS market is no better as far as FA go.

I guess my question is, would we not be better off using the trade route to aquire our high leverage back end of the bullpen guy than overspending on any of the "currently available" bullpen guys on the market, due the variability in trying to predict future success at the position.

This would allow us to overspend at second base. I completely agree that under normal conditions and strickly sticking to the value based financial decision model that has placed our organization at the point of contention (assuming this year was just a minor setback) that this would not be a good move, but with a boost of salary available to this team, I'd feel more confident in Durham producing well for this team than any of the closers available. This is purely based on the FA class, as you noted Hoffman and Ryan were available last year, and if available this year (well forget about Hoffman's age) I'd agree on not overspending at second and instead putting that money into the closer.

by hans on Sep 29, 2006 1:37 AM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
Well, at this point we're separating money and trade leverage a little, right?

I'm assuming proven back end bullpen help is going to be expensive (though that's not completely true). So saving at 2B might also give us the chance to "spend" on a trade by taking a big contract.

Of course, we could also "spend" by adding more prospects to lower the cost of that back end guy, be it by getting a guy who's way underpaid or getting somebody to eat some contract.

It's this latter scenario that you seem to be point to and that I prefer as well. What we want is to be able to spend some prospects (Kouz, somebody else) and get someone who's contract is low or is made low by the trading partner. Somebody like Scott Linebrink (though not him-the NL/Petco combo is just too scary for me). This deal done or planned to be done, a player like Durham can be overpaid for.

It seems like a pretty decent strategy. As for Durham's defense, however...

by afh4 on Sep 29, 2006 5:29 AM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
Yeah Durham's defense will be biggest arguement against him. In my oppionion it will encourage us to move either Byrd or Westbrook, because both would suffer with no real defensive upgrade other than Marte over Boone going into next year. Say if we could somehow sign someone like Padilla to in effect replace Byrd, I'd think that would work, but now I'm getting ahead of myself.

by hans on Sep 29, 2006 9:55 AM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
Yeah Durham's defense will be biggest arguement against him.

Absolutely.

by dgcambridge on Sep 29, 2006 10:22 AM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
Grudzielanek is not a very good example, as he has achieved his 4 WARP by overperforming defensive projections by almost 30 runs.  It's a fluke season, ordinarily he's a two-win guy for $4 million, and that's the market.

by Jay on Sep 29, 2006 12:26 AM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field: Free Agent Second Base
By the way, Ryan, that's a great summary post.  Thanks.

by Thommy on Sep 25, 2006 5:46 PM EDT reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field: Free Agent Second Base
Alright, Brandini, I'm done discussing things with you (for now, at least...I make no promises for the future). Frankly, you take an ignorant approach to these discussions, and I'm tired of arguing about what teams use sabermetrics the most when these things aren't really disputable. You argue that Loretta is a great player while Kennedy sucks, completely ignoring that Kennedy, who is younger, is outhitting AND outfielding Loretta this year. You refuse to bring any logic to the table, instead calling me Michael Moore any time I back you into a corner where you have no answer. The bottom line is that you seem to be the only person on LGT who wants Loretta. That's fine, but me, Ryan, and many others have shown you why he's a poor option, and you ignore the facts because they differ from your opinions. I'm tired of repeating myself, so I'll (probably temporarily) end my part here.

by Kos @ Let's Go Tribe! on Sep 25, 2006 8:41 PM EDT reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field: Free Agent Second Base
Man, I didn't even get to see the Burning Bridge thread. Oh well. Looks like Brandini picked another topic to defend here as well. Glad I wasn't the champion for this cause. Thanx Kos!!

by talonk on Sep 26, 2006 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field: Free Agent Second Base
Yeah, me too, I only saw it early on.  It's like some creepy event went down that no one wants to talk about.  Must have been a good thread...

by dgcambridge on Sep 26, 2006 1:57 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field: Free Agent Second Base
I wouldn't call it "good."  I think it was locked because things started to get personal.

by mkwng @ Let's Go Tribe! on Sep 26, 2006 3:02 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field: Free Agent Second Base
Our software doesn't give us a way to lock a thread from new comments while still leaving old comments visible.  There's nothing in there all that horrible, but there was definitely a sense that there was nowhere to go but down.

by Jay on Sep 26, 2006 8:21 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field: Free Agent Second Base
I'm glad it was yanked, even though I was sad I didn't get to see the last 20 comments.  It was the right thing to do.

by Thommy on Sep 27, 2006 12:13 AM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
Here's a sort of random question:

Were we to trade Westbrook in the off-season (and I'm not suggesting we should), would the general LGT community be less inclined to go after a defensive 2B?  

by APV on Sep 26, 2006 10:47 PM EDT reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
I'd say yes...but I would hate the move at this point. I've always liked Westbrook, and have to say he's performed better than Byrd and Lee, and HE'S the guy leading (or second, I forget if Wang is ahead of him) the AL in GB %. With a better defense behind him, this is a guy who could be a very effective and be an incredible innings eater.

by hans on Sep 26, 2006 10:58 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
I agree with the overall point.  But the reality is, we are unlikely to have high-quality infield defense for the foreseeable future.

by Jay on Sep 26, 2006 11:28 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
But the reality is, we are unlikely to have high-quality infield defense for the foreseeable future.  ?
Well, I'm not sure what high-quality means, or how unlikely you think it is, or what the foreseeable future is, But, I wouldn't be very surprised to see "us" have an above average infield defense next year.  three-fourths of this year's infield will be replaced by players who, with varying degrees of probability, will be defensive upgrades.  And Peralta is capable of being at least average and possibly above average.  I think it's pretty hard to tell how good the infield defense will be, especially when you don't know who's going to be playing one position.

by plato on Sep 27, 2006 12:23 AM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
I think we can have a solid infield next year, just not one that is significantly above average.  To move significantly above average, you have to have solid-average or better guys at all four positions, and you have to have at least one standout.

I think it would be overly optimistic to think that Peralta will be much better than solid-average, and Garko probably will be average at best.  Marte is a good bit to be a bit above average but, given a bit of youthful error-proneness, probably not by much.

As for second base ... we shall see.  But lacking a clear solution at second, I'm doubtful we can be much better than average.

by Jay on Sep 27, 2006 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
An equally good question would be, if we upgraded our infield defense, would the LGT community be even less inclined to let Westbrook go?

by Jay on Sep 26, 2006 11:28 PM EDT up reply actions  

Re: Handicapping the Field:
I am a big fan of Westbrook.  Of all our starters, he's the one I feel most confident in knowing what he's going to produce any given start.  Lots of ground balls, lots of weak contact, lots of balls in play.  He's made all of his starts each of the last two seasons and he's just turned 29. His FIP for the last three seasons: 4.19, 4.14, 3.93.

With his walk-away year coming up next season, though, it'll be interesting to see what happens with him.  

by APV on Oct 1, 2006 9:54 AM EDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed

Search

User Tools

Constantly updated Indians news, lots of in-depth analysis, live in-game discussions — and more fanatical and thoughtful Indians fans than every other web site combined.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Avatard_new_small
Indians by the Numbers — #36

by emd2k3 3 days ago

2 comments | 1 recs

Topps1978-332f_small
Historical Timeline

by talonk 11 days ago

8 comments

427px-nap_lajoie_1913_small
Pick 6 Discussion

by Ryan 15 days ago

61 comments | 1 recs

Topps1978-332f_small
Indians by the Numbers — #35

by talonk 16 days ago

2 comments

Avatard_new_small
Indians by the Numbers — #34

by emd2k3 19 days ago

5 comments | 2 recs

Small
Indians 2012 Player At Bat Music

by aparks87 21 days ago

17 comments

Etat_small
Tribe Observations - 15 games In

by AmbienTribe8 22 days ago

0 comments

Draft_lens6670022module54040272photo_1251768414louissockalexisicon4b_small
LGT, in the belly of the beast.

by YoDaddyWags about 1 month ago

14 comments

Tribe_cap_small
LGT Safeco Field Meet Up?

by PortlandVinny about 1 month ago

1 comments

Topps1978-332f_small
Indians by the Numbers — #33

by talonk about 1 month ago

26 comments

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Recent Posts

Featured Poll

Poll
Will Matt LaPorta be on the opening day roster?
Yes
59 votes
No
140 votes

199 votes | Poll has closed

Featured Stories

3444ant_black_small
The Indians need Grady Sizemore

by APV 7 months ago

22 comments | 3 recs

47b8dd28b3127cceb64839d9746800000026102bauwjrq3za_small
Andy Marte Buys Plain Dealer Advertisement To Thank Fans

by afh4 over 1 year ago

32 comments | 17 recs

Dosequisman_small
Fire Everyone! - Mark Shapiro

by Jay over 2 years ago

623 comments | 11 recs

47b8dd28b3127cceb64839d9746800000026102bauwjrq3za_small
What Cliff Lee's Not Reading

by afh4 almost 3 years ago

28 comments | 15 recs

3444ant_black_small
Trade Profile: Justin Masterson

by APV almost 3 years ago

75 comments

FanShots

Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.

Recent FanShots

Garko gets another shot

by Toxicadam about 16 hours ago 8 comments

Broadcaster Rankings (Radio): 30-21

by Ryan 1 day ago 36 comments

Indians at Fenway don't drink beer; they watch TV.

by peter m 1 day ago 12 comments

Michael Brantley: A Studious 4-for-5 Night

by hans 2 days ago 0 comments

Damon Makes His Case for HOF

by Denver Tribe Fan 4 days ago 29 comments

Casey Blake to Retire

by Ryan 9 days ago 40 comments

To longtoss, or not to longtoss

by millionairesrow 10 days ago 19 comments

Grady to resume baseball activities

by USSChoo 10 days ago 9 comments

Indians Podcast

by bostonhomer 10 days ago 3 comments

Beltre's three-run homer in the 11th inning Saturday was the first allowed...

by talonk 10 days ago 2 comments

+ New FanShot All FanShots >

Yahoo_full_count

In Association With

Baseball Nation Recent Stories

Arlington, TX, USA; Texas Rangers shortstop Elvis Andrus argues with home plate umpire Hunter Wendelstedt after a strike three call against the Tampa Bay Rays at Rangers Ballpark in Arlington. The Rangers won 7-2. Credit: Jim Cowsert-US PRESSWIRE

The Infuriating Jose Molina

Photo +1 updates

Will Rhymes 'Fine' After Being Hit By Pitch And Fainting

Anaheim, CA, USA; Los Angeles Angels first baseman Albert Pujols during the eighth inning against the Oakland Athletics at Angel Stadium. Credit: Gary A. Vasquez-US PRESSWIRE

When All Else Fails, Fire The Hitting Coach

More from Baseball Nation >

Managers

427px-nap_lajoie_1913_small Ryan

Dosequisman_small Jay

Editors

3444ant_black_small APV

47b8dd28b3127cceb64839d9746800000026102bauwjrq3za_small afh4