Down with CCG -- Championship!
Read a real interesting piece the other day by my favorite regularly published baseball writer, talking about Championship Caliber Guys, meaning, the kind of players you have to have in order to win a championship. Posnanski divides all player-seasons into four categories:
- Immortal seasons - 40+ win shares
- MVP seasons - 30-40 win shares
- All-Star seasons - 20-30 win shares
- Good seasons - 12-20 win shares
- You don't need an Immortal to win.
- You don't absolutely need a legit MVP candidate to win ... but it helps.
- You really want at least four All-Star players.
- You could really use 10 or 11 Championship Caliber Guys.
So I thought, why not try to figure out how that's going to play out in the AL Central? So I'm just going to go roster-by-roster, see how this way of looking at things played out last season and try to make some reasonable guesses about how it'll play out this season. A few relievers hit the CCG level in 2007, but no one reliever can be considered likely to reach it in 2008. In general, to keep things simple, I'll try to count up the probable CCG's on each team by counting the "locks" as 1.0 and the "maybes" as 0.5. I won't bother to predict MVP-caliber seasons, but I will take a stab at All-Stars.
CHICAGO :: Last season: 1 All-Star, 9 CCGs
Thome (24), Vazquez, Konerko, Buerhle, Jenks, Garland, Uribe, Dye, Fields
Thome is likely to repeat and Konerko to return to All-Star level -- and they add Swisher, who's probably 50-50. Those three are locks to be CCGs, and Vazquez, Buerhle and O-Cab are likely to be as well. After those six, though, it's hard to see how many more they're likely to have. Maybe Jenks again -- it's tough for any reliever -- and maybe Contreras, but neither is a lock.
2008 prediction: 2 All-Star caliber seasons, 7 total CCG's.
CLEVELAND :: Last season: 2 MVP, 3 All-Star, 9 CCGs
Sizemore (31), Martinez (31), Sabathia (24), Carmona (22), Peralta (22), Hafner, Betancourt, Garko, Blake
The Indians had more MVP and All-Star seasons than a team needs but could have used one or two more CCGs -- they had the same number as the White Sox, who were kind of terrible. The untold story here is the "CCG partial seasons" the Indians got that other teams didn't, strong performances from players who were only around for six to 15 weeks, like Perez, AstroCab, Laffey and Westbrook.
For 2008, we're likely to see another four players reach the MVP or All-Star level -- Carmona and/or Peralta might be out, but Hafner probably will be back in. After those six, the CCG field is dicier. Garko is a solid pick, but Betancourt isn't (score 1 out of 2). Blake played in 156 games last season, mostly at third base, but still only got to the minimum 12. That makes Blake a poor bet in 2008, but on the other hand, Westbrook probably makes it, and AstroCab has a great shot, having racked up 7 win shares in only six weeks (score 2 out of 3). Dark horse candidates would include a full season of Gutierrez, a healthy Dellucci, and our fourth and fifth starters (score 1 out of 5).
2008 prediction: 4 All-Star caliber seasons, 10 total CCGs.
DETROIT :: Last season: 1 MVP, 2 All-Star, 8 CCGs
Ordonez (36), Granderson (26), Polanco (23), Guillen, Sheffield, Verlander, Inge, Pudge
Ordonez and newcomer Cabrera are locks in the All-Star group, and Granderson and Polanco are about 50-50. I don't see Guillen, Renteria, Sheffield or Verlander making it to that level in 2008 -- Guillen will lose positional value going to 1B -- but a total of four out of these eight seems like a conservative guess. Beyond those eight, though, the pickings are slim for CCGs. Inge won't be in the running unless one of the others are injured, and Pudge and Bonderman can't be counted on for more than 1 total. Willis started 35 games in the NL last season and still only managed 7 win shares, so he can't be considered a good bet for 12 in the AL.
2008 prediction: 4 All-Star caliber seasons, 9 total CCGs.
KANSAS CITY :: Last season: 6 CCGs
DeJesus, Teahen, Meche, Gordon, Bannister, Grudzialanek
Obviously short on standouts, the good news for the Royals is that at all six of their CCGs are likely to sustain that level, and others may well join in. Between those six, Greinke back in the rotation, Pena, Butler, and Gathright, you've got to pencil the Royals in for at least 8. The bad news is that even picking them for one All-Star caliber season seems optimistic, as none of these guys has ever gotten to 20 win shares.
2008 prediction: 0 All-Star caliber seasons, 8 total CCGs.
MINNESOTA :: Last season: 2 All-Star, 8 CCGs
Hunter (24), Mauer (22), Morneau, Santana, Cuddyer, Bartlett, Nathan, Kubel
Say, did you know that while some folks are thinking of the Twins as an intriguing kinda-sorta dark-maybe-horse team, PECOTA thinks they're the second-worst team in the league? It's true!
Obviously, this one is painful (for Twins fans) and difficult (for me). Three of their six are gone, and it's not clear they'll be replaced. Pencil in another All-Star season for Mauer. Morneau soberly isn't better than 50-50 for that level, but new guy Delmon Young also has a decent shot. Those three plus Cuddyer and Kubel are all likely CCGs this season, and after four straight CCG seasons, Nathan is one of the few relievers worth betting on in this category. We'll also pencil in one guy out of their absurdly young rotation. It's not terrible, and there's upside, but on balance, they don't look any better than the Royals through this prism.
2008 prediction: 2 All-Star caliber seasons, 7 total CCGs.
0 recs |
21
comments
Read Related
Comments
Re: Down with CCG -- Championship!
by mauichuck on Mar 7, 2008 7:23 AM EST 0 recs
Re: Down with CCG -- Championship!
Win Shares - 2007, 2005, 2006, 2004
Sheffield - 16, 3, 33, 31
Hafner - 17, 25, 27, 21
It's just totally random to single Hafner out. There are a million things that are a "distinct possibility." This one is not special or notable.
In general, there is nothing really interesting about the fact that it is possible that the Indians could be less lucky than some other team, which is the entirety of your point. The Indians, given their youth, depth and ability to manage injuries, might well be the least risk-prone team in the game.
by Jay on
Mar 7, 2008 7:32 AM EST
up
0 recs
Re: Down with CCG -- Championship!
But it's not totally random. Of the Indians you listed I still see Hafner as the shakiest prospect for '08.
And you're absolutely right about Sheffield and I'd add Pudge to that list too. The Tigers are an aging team and aging teams tend to have more injuries and subsequent sub-standard perforance.
It's more like a knee jerk reaction. I'm very, very concerned about Pronk and frankly - and I know it's early - I don't see any reason to be hopeful about his '08 performance yet. I hope I'm wrong about this, but I'm afraid we'll hafta do with the '07 version of Pronk in '08.
But I get it - this CCG thing makes the Tribe the favorite in the AL Central. Can't argue with that.
by mauichuck on
Mar 7, 2008 7:57 AM EST
up
0 recs
Re: Down with CCG -- Championship!
I'm much more concerned about last year's first-year guys like Carmona, Garko, and Cabrera regressing.
by Ryan on
Mar 7, 2008 10:51 AM EST
up
0 recs
Re: Down with CCG -- Championship!
The gist is that they don't see a bounce back in his future but rather a slow and steady decline. Have you guys read that? And, as a follow-up, is it mostly hope that has you thinking differently?
PS SSS alert, but hasn't Hafner looked positively 07-ish thus far this spring?
by NickFantana on
Mar 7, 2008 11:09 AM EST
up
0 recs
Re: Down with CCG -- Championship!
No, I haven't picked up this year's BPro yet. What are they basing this on?
by Ryan on
Mar 7, 2008 11:20 AM EST
up
0 recs
Re: Down with CCG -- Championship!
by nickjs21 on
Mar 7, 2008 11:27 AM EST
up
0 recs
Re: Down with CCG -- Championship!
Ryan, I will quote the relevant parts of the blurb tonight when I go home and grab the book, unless anyone else has one handy.
Like Nick, I only remembered Boog Powell as a comp and was going to cite him as being an early decliner, then I looked up his B-Ref page and he had a .297/.377/.524 year with 27 home runs in 1975 when he was 33, for the Indians so it's not like he fell off a cliff. Powell was also in the bigs full-time at age 20 and weighed 240 or more for most of his career, not all of it muscle. I know PECOTA doesn't factor such things but maybe that mitigates his comparable a little bit. By the way, Hafner is currently 30, turning 31 in June.
by NickFantana on
Mar 7, 2008 11:39 AM EST
up
0 recs
Re: Down with CCG -- Championship!
by dgcambridge on
Mar 7, 2008 11:42 AM EST
up
0 recs
Re: Down with CCG -- Championship!
Boog Powell's lines at 31 and beyond:
Age 31: 114 Games 370 AB's 11 HRs .265BA .398OBP .395SLG 126 OPS+
Age 32: 110 344 12 .265 .358 .413 146
Age 33: 134 435 27 .297 .377 .524 154
Age 34: 95 293 9 .215 .305 .338 90
Kent Hrbek's lines at 32 and beyond:
32 112 Games 394 AB's 15 HRs .244AVG .357OBP .409SLG 112 OPS+
33 123 392 25 .242 .357 .467 120
34 81 274 10 .270 .353 .420 99
It feels to me like they're kind of taking liberty with "cooked" and "washed up." When I first read it, I read it as "out of the league." Well, I for one wouldn't be terribly disappointed if Hafner's curve matched Boog Powell's, even though as I stated before, there's good reason to think he'll have more durability.
by NickFantana on
Mar 7, 2008 12:11 PM EST
up
0 recs
Re: Down with CCG -- Championship!
I guess if you want a preview of Hafner five years from now, you could look at Jason Giambi, minus the steroids, of course. The average took a big dive, but he's still a semi-productive player.
by Ryan on
Mar 7, 2008 12:48 PM EST
up
0 recs
Re: Down with CCG -- Championship!
Neither do I. I just don't see Pronk selling pit beef sandwitches at the ball park after retirement.
by Brick. on
Mar 7, 2008 1:05 PM EST
up
0 recs
Re: Down with CCG -- Championship!
by drerikbrady on
Mar 7, 2008 1:08 PM EST
up
0 recs
Re: Down with CCG -- Championship!
- Relatively low batting averages (no check)
- Good slugging percentages (check, with reservations)
- Good on-base percentages (check)
- Not too many stolen bases (check)
If you want to bring up a classic "old player skills" guy, try Adam Dunn:
27 years old
Career .248 average
238 HR, 178 2B (and the ratio's getting worse)
No more than 10 stolen bases since he was 22.
by Ryan on
Mar 7, 2008 11:48 AM EST
up
0 recs
Re: Down with CCG -- Championship!
Second, for the purposes of this specific piece, I'm not saying Hafner necessarily will bounce back. His yearly win share totals are 17, 25, 27, 21. I'm saying, #1, he's a lock to rack up 12 or more, and #2, he has a reasonable shot of racking up 20. Getting only 12 would still be a massive decline (or injuries) and getting 20 would be a pretty mild bounce-back.
Third ... I wrote another ten paragraphs, then decided it should be its own article. See the front page in a few minutes.
by Jay on
Mar 7, 2008 1:56 PM EST
up
0 recs
Re: Down with CCG -- Championship!
I assume those names should be reversed?
by rolub on Mar 7, 2008 8:59 AM EST 0 recs
Re: Down with CCG -- Championship!
I don't see much reason why his over/under for 2008 would be higher than 19.5. PECOTA gives him an 11% chance to return to his 2006 form and only a 40% chance to be as good (or better) as he was in 2007.
by Jay on
Mar 7, 2008 12:03 PM EST
up
0 recs
Re: Down with CCG -- Championship!
by cheech99 on Mar 7, 2008 10:05 AM EST 0 recs
Re: Down with CCG -- Championship!
On a different note, why did Granderson, compared to WARP score so poorly in Win Shares?
by ClarkM on Mar 7, 2008 11:16 AM EST 0 recs
Re: Down with CCG -- Championship!
Win Shares are quite different from WARP, starting with the fact that they don't incorporate any replacement-level threshold -- a bad or mediocre player will still get a few Win Shares if he racks up the playing time.
I don't know everything about WARP, but I do know that Win Shares incorporates James' latest version of the Runs Created formula. That version pays a lot of attention to how many outs you're making, possibly more than WARP does, and it somewhat controversially incorporates BA with RISP.
James' argument is that RC was meant to estimate run production, and there's no good reason to estimate a part of run production where you actually have the specific data. So where BA/RISP is available, it gets worked into the formula. (The way it gets worked in is quite elegant, and nobody really quarrels with that.)
Grandy was kind of lousy with RISP. If I wanted to pick on him, I might point out that he was a particularly atrocious 10-for-55 with two men on base, with only two triples and no doubles or homers. Or I could note his "close and late" OPS of 555. And by the way, do you know how hard it is to only have a .188 OBP with men on 2B and 3B and an empty 1B? It's damned near impossible.
Anyway, I'm sure that's not helping him in the Win Shares category.
by Jay on
Mar 7, 2008 12:17 PM EST
up
0 recs
Re: Down with CCG -- Championship!
by ClarkM on
Mar 7, 2008 3:41 PM EST
up
0 recs











