Fact or Fiction: Garko's Second Half Story
by tabler84 on Feb 28, 2009 9:15 AM EST
Email
PrintI found myself scratching my head at this exchange (watch the video) between a reporter -- not Paul Hoynes -- and Ryan Garko:
Reporter: "When you look back at last year, do you see any big difference adjustment (sic) that you made post-All Star break versus before?"
Garko: "Yeah, yeah. I went home at the All-Star break and kind of watched a lot of film, and I just saw a couple -- mechanically I had too much movement, a little bit of a push. I kind of just worked myself out of it, did everything I could to get rid of that. And I really worked hard on it this offseason, so hopefully it'll just go away."
I am not a scout, but even still, I'm not sure what the heck he's talking about. But the bigger problem, I thought, was that this reporter has swallowed the idea that Garko came out and busted loose after the All-Star break. He figured it out! It makes for an easy story.
Readers of LGT and the Annual know that this simply isn't true. However, I recall reading comments around here that Garko went nuts over the last two weeks against junk pitching (wish I could find a link to those comments, but that's the idea I've gotten). So I spent this morning digging through the numbers to figure out what was fact and what was fiction. My apologies if this has all been done before in detail.
CLAIM: Ryan Garko figured things out at the All-Star break and came out a different player.
VERDICT: Fiction. Garko posted a .715 OPS in July after the break, His OPS rose to .770 in August but his SLG remained right at .400. And for the first two weeks of September, Garko posted on OPS of .601 in 32 at bats without a single extra base hit (he seems to go long stretches without driving the ball a lick).
So, from the first game back after the break until mid-September, Garko posted an OPS of .697.
Then, in his final 12 games, Garko slugged .878, posted an OBP of .533, and raised his season OPS 59 points. (!)
CLAIM: Ryan Garko feasted on September call-ups and junk pitchers down the stretch.
VERDICT: Fiction, and this surprised me. Starters over the final 12 included Josh Beckett, Jon Lester, John Danks, Mark Buerhle, Justin Verlander, Francisco Liriano, The Cobra, Dontrelle Willis, Brian Bannister, and Robinson Tejeda. Only Tejeda has not been a major league regular.
Those starters compiled a combined ERA of 4.30 with a combined WHIP of 1.33. That's hardly bottom-of-the-barrel stuff. Garko was mashing against a strong group of starters (though some were certainly having down years), and several teams were in the playoff hunt.
CLAIM: Ryan Garko worked all throughout the second half to get rid of that "little push," and he finally did so in mid-September. Now it's championship time!
VERDICT: Who the heck knows. I have to doubt it. But at least his hot stretch run came against legit opponents, and regardless, he's not likely to have long to get into the groove in 2009.
150 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Why did he stop being a catcher again? Seems to me, his value plummeted once he moved out from behind the plate.
I believe the Indians FO felt he was a little shaky defensively to be an everyday catcher. Victor Martinez blocking him was also a factor obviously.
I was surprised to hear Garko say that he feels that moving from behind the plate to LF is a more natural transition than moving to 1st. It seems that most catchers who can’t stay there move to 1st base.
Garko posted on OPS of .601 in 32 at bats without a single extra base hit (he seems to go long stretches without driving the ball a lick).
I don’t think this is accurate, or at least I can’t formulate the same result over at baseball-reference. He had a double on Sept.10th and I come up with “32 at bats” from the games on Sept.1st through Sept.12th and the OPS is .623 with a .296 baBIP.
Also if you look at the 14 games he played before the All Star break and the 14 games following the All Star break you’ll find an improvement of .338 in OPS points. That does indicate that he may have “figured out” a mechanical issue that was plaguing him in at least the couple weeks leading into the all star break. I mean having a .384 OPS between June 19th and July 6th is going to do some damage to an overall OPS.
I think this data suggests he did make an adjustment to his hitting approach. I don’t know if he’s all that good though and simply having an OPS in the .720s for the rest of July is closer to his actual abilities at this point. (I’d say he can still hit in the .800s but maybe not for an entire season).
The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. I believe Garko when he says he had mechanical issues. However, he overlooks some issues with his head. The fact remains that the key event that turned around his season was the benching in August.
Post Benching on August 7th
.425 OBP .962 OPS
Even if you exclude the the final 10 games that folks point to as stat-padding, his numbers were not bad…
Post Benching on August 7th to Sept. 13th
.400 OBP .835 OPS
Post ASB Performance Before Benching on August 7th
He hit his low point in the season, accentuated by lollygagging it down the first base on a ground out… .279 OBP; .612 OPS
I think his performance after the benching is indicative of what we can get this season.
Yankees and Red Sox - MLB's Axis of Evil
(And ESPN is right in the middle)
I doubt it’s all that indicative—a .400 OBP would be career-year like. I’d rather see a sustained spike in power anyway—that OBP was driven, as noted by Tabs and Hans, mostly by a lot of singles.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Feb 28, 2009 1:33 PM EST up reply actions
I’m no expert either, but by “a little bit of a push” I think he might mean that he was lunging, rather than “staying back” on the ball. It takes away all your power.
by ken from alexandria on Feb 28, 2009 12:41 PM EST reply actions
Very possible. I just get the feeling that, when professional athletes struggle, the feel obligated to say they looked at the tape and figured it all out. It’s a lot easier than saying, “I have no freaking clue. This is bugging the heck out of me.” It’s also why, I would think, pitching coaches love to say they’ve detected this minor flaw or that minor flaw. And it keeps them employed.
That may be, and it certainly is human nature to want to identify “something” as the cause of a problem as opposed to the anxiety felt by not knowing. But I also think there is validity in mechanical breakdowns occuring and corrections needing to be made, not unlike my car that incurs a bent tie rod and needing to be replaced or fixed.
In the end it makes no difference. What counts is that the player believes that he’s corrected the thing that’s causing his problems. Kinda like Nuke LaLoosh wearing the garter belt in “Bull Durham”, as long as you believe it helps – it helps. See the Placebo Effect.
Not really. A player can believe he’s fixed his hitting problems all he wants but that’s not going him a better hitter. Look how many formerly great players believe that they’re still great even after they’re washed up. I’m sure confidence is important when playing baseball, but having confidence doesn’t turn Dellucci in to Pujols.
The placebo effect is more relevant when someone is discussing how they feel (e.g does this medicine decrease your pain?) not something like hitting a baseball, where you have empirical evidence as to how well you’re doing. Garko can think he feels great at the plate, but if he’s OPSing .650 he ain’t gonna be thinking that for very long.
You discount the effects of confidence. Confidence – of certainly the lack thereof – impacts a players performance.
I’m sure confidence does impact a player’s performance, I’m just not sure how much it does. I don’t think it’s quite as much as you’re saying it is. Garko can believe he’s going to hit well all he wants, but that’s not necessarily going to make him hit well — baseball doesn’t work that way. (After all, isn’t the pitcher confident that he’ll get him out? If the pitcher and the hitter are both confident, who’s gong to win — the one that is more confident?)
by Buckeye Brad on Mar 1, 2009 10:01 PM EST up reply actions
No, actually it’s not. In any endevour having been a participant often gives you added insight. Not that you hafta have cancer – for example – to understand it’s biochemistry, physiology, etc. But it does give you added insight into how the patient copes with his disease – which often effects his outcome.
I gotta back chuck on that one, actually. Confidence is a part of the equation just as much as everything else. If you lose confidence, you may not stay mechanically sound…or continue to approach the same way.
Think of trying to shoot a 3-pointer if you had 1k riding on it versus in your backyard. You think the chances are equally likely? Because your ability isn’t changing.
"Mixed emotions. Rather see him hit PEDroia [with that pitch]. I don’t care if he is in the dugout"
Brad is saying Garko could be the most confident player in the world, but it’s not going to add to his ceiling as a hitter.
I agree with you confidence is huge (having played baseball through high school), but confidence didn’t change the fact that I wasn’t going to be drafted or play college ball.
As you know Roger, most coaches spend a great deal of time developing a players confidence. Slumps are often compounded by a loss of confidence. But I agree, confidence without talent is useless. But I think a better term for this is hubris. Don’t you agree?
I was actually a big believer in Marte’s problem being confidence because of his body language. Garko struck me more as a guy that showed up last year thinking he was a big league starter and didn’t need to work that hard. It took him until the end of the season to realize that nothing is a sure thing
Really, we’re going to get in to that discussion again? I never played baseball, so I’m not allowed to have an opinion about a player? Then I guess I shouldn’t ever post on this site, because my opinions don’t matter.
Here’s my point: let’s say that Ryan Garko has the natural abilities to be a .800 OPS hitter. I agree that if he’s lacking confidence at the plate, that would cause him to be less productive than that. But he can have all the confidence in the world and it’s still not going to make him a .900 OPS hitter. Confidence doesn’t have that much of an influence.
We know players’ stats will fluctuate over time, based mostly on just plain luck. Hans is right that players (and coaches) want to look at film and try to figure out what’s wrong if a player is in a slump, and sometimes they will find a flaw, but often times the “slump” is just due to the randomness of the game. If you flip a coin a few hundred times, there will be a few streaks of 9 or 10 heads or tails in a row. That wouldn’t be due to anything the person did flipping the coin, but the randomness that occurs in a simulation. In the same manner, players have streaks of good or bad hitting during a season often. Players can look at film and evalute their swing, and sometimes that may help, but most of the time they’re doing the same thing they’ve always done, it’s just that they were particularly lucky or unlucky during that streak. Exactly like tabs said — most of the time the coaches have no clue what’s going on, but they look for something to explain the variation because that’s their job.
Back to Garko — he got hot for a couple weeks at the end of the season. Maybe it was because of confidence in his hitting, maybe because he corrected a flaw in his swing, or maybe it’s just plain good luck. I guess we’ll see if his success continues this year or he goes back to the player he was for most of the season.
by Buckeye Brad on Mar 2, 2009 11:36 AM EST up reply actions
I’m with you on this, Brad. Plenty of ballplayers—especially as they age, though a certain player nicknamed the Franchise was younger—have confidence exceeding their abilities.
The idea that one has “solved” the problem of declining or diminished skills is pretty common too. It happens to me all the time at the racetrack. Lose your bets in the first six races, get lucky on the seventh and ninth race, and you leave for the day convinced you’ve figured it out.
One other thing that appears to be overlooked here is what we saw from Garko last season. Not who he was batting against or whatever, but how terrible and clueless he looked at the plate. He looked horrible!
I take this to be more important than any unconstituted hope that Garko will somehow find his 2007 form.
But it’s not that likely that Garko’s 2008 was a case of diminished skills. It’s more likely that either 2007 or 2008 was an outlier season, that one or the other is not indicative of his real abilities.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Yeah, that’s right. I don’t mean diminished in a Frank Thomas sort of way. I just mean he sucked for 90 percent of 2008 and he has 40 plate appearances at the end, and thinks he’s figured it out.
One of those seasons is the outlier. And I’m saying he looked so terrible in 2008 I’m guessing 2007 was the aberration.
I’m watching him play. The swing I saw at the start of the season was not the swing I saw at the end of the season. I’m not relying on just what Garko or any of the coaches or sports writers are saying. He was more f’ed up than Helen Keller at the start of the season amd looked much, much better in September. So far I’ve seen him once – on TV – against ST pitching – that Garko looked like the September Garko to me. Let’s see what he looks like in May of ’09
He never looked like Tony Gwynn, even when he’s hitting well, but I’ve begun to question his intelligence at the plate and his ability to change. Was he a phys ed major at Stanford?
Actually he’s got a degree in American Studies and – and – he’s a Notre Dame fan! I take it all back.
This isn’t something I know anything about, but Joe Inglett seems to have it on his side in fighting for his ML life. “They want a SS? I’ll give them a SS.”
Also, if / when Adam Miller finally gets healthy, I wonder if we should have the confidence to just trot him out in the majors, rather that to test him and his finger for another moment in the minors.
From memory, I can certainly tell you that Garko had three, maybe four, spells during the season when he was pretty hot. The BR links show this.
I do think he’ll be pretty good this year. Good enough to play in over two-thirds of the games until the ASB. He could probably be upgraded at the trade deadline.
Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.
Why would we wait until the deadline to call up LaPorta?
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Feb 28, 2009 5:57 PM EST up reply actions
Cuz Garko is OPSing .875?
Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.
by westbrook on Feb 28, 2009 7:08 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
What does Garko have to do to make people acknowledge he sucks? How many scores of popups do we have to see? How many ugly swings? 21 doubles in 495 ABs last season—what exactly would suggest he has potential as a hitter?
(Coincidentally, mechanical issues are also the reason that the rest of us aren’t playing for the Indians.)
by Fire Slider on Mar 1, 2009 2:21 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
No, it’s that lack of confidence you have that keeps you from playing for the Indians. If you just believe you can play baseball, you can play in the major leagues.
by Brad D on Mar 2, 2009 11:28 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I think sucks is kind of strong. More like inadequate for a playoff team. Like a Francisco or Blake.
What saves Garko for me, is his better than average RISP and clutch stats. Especially since he is often in the 5 or 6 hole when he bats. He’s kind of been the “safety net” of the middle of the lineup when Jhonny or Hafner fails.
by Toxicadam on Mar 1, 2009 4:37 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
If he’s actually that good when he’s in a clutch situation/RISP, then we need to ask him why he’s not trying as hard the rest of the time.
I’d agree that he could be a useful player off the bench, especially on a team with many lefties in the lineup. But it’s more about his right-handedness than his Clutch Abilities.
51 XBHs in 484 ABs in 2007! He’s had a serviceable year and a half and a bad year. Why are you so certain 2008 is so indicative of his true ability?
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Mar 1, 2009 8:47 AM EST up reply actions
Because Garko isn’t one of the LGT cool kids. He’s doesn’t have the right ideal stats so he must suck. Sort of like Cliff Lee before last year. Not saying Garko will be MVP this year, I’m just making noticing the similarities in our opinions.
by world dictator on Mar 1, 2009 8:49 AM EST up reply actions
I mean, that’s exactly it—he could suck like he did last year. It’s no less probable that he performs like he did in his first 751 plate apperances. If so, he’s a slightly above average player whose replacements will be arriving just as he nears his arbitration years. Just because he’s not Jhonny Peralta doesn’t mean this type of player isn’t very important to the Indians’ construction.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Mar 1, 2009 9:19 AM EST up reply actions
LGT cool kids: Grady, Asdrubal, Victor, Weglarz, Shoppach, Fausto.
LGT uncool: Peralta, Garko, Francisco, Dellucci,
I think I generally object to this cool/uncool thing. I think it is more about guys who are valuable assets and guys who are less valuable (i.e. more replaceable pieces). Peralta is extremely valuable, so I object to his uncool designation. Garko and Francisco’s value is largely in their ability to not completely suck at the low low price of a league minimum (or close to it) salary. The “cool” kids are those guys who are actually very valuable or potentially very valuable to the organization. There is also, I guess, the added factor of fun to watch. Garko is not fun to watch (unless he’s chugging a beer). Fausto is decidedly fun to watch.
by APV on Mar 1, 2009 3:03 PM EST up reply actions
If there are certain players who enjoy favor here beyond what their skills would merit—an outcast third baseman comes to mind—then there are others who are not held in as high regard as we might expect. I’m surprised by how much conjecture there is at LGT about trading Peralta, which would suggest he is uncool, or underappreciated. These aren’t my designations because for me Fausto is cool, plain and simple.
I’m surprised by how much conjecture there is at LGT about trading Peralta,
People say this all the time but I cannot remember an honest discussion involving regulars about trading Peralta. At least not any more than there’s talk about trading anyone not named Grady or Fausto.
I’ve talked about trading Peralta before. But not from the perspective of “let’s get rid of this guy, he sucks” – exactly the opposite, actually. I’ve brought up the possibility of trading him because he is not our long-term solution at SS, he can play SS, so he has more value to someone else as a SS than he does to us as a 3B. However, in the context of Peralta’s low salary and our current lack of alternative infield options, trading him doesn’t really make much sense. It’s certainly possible that could change at some point, but not likely anytime in the immediate future. But again, those talks were built on the recognition that Peralta is a very good baseball player.
by APV on Mar 2, 2009 9:17 AM EST up reply actions
I seem to remember floating trading Jhonny or Victor at various times owing to the haul it would bring back too. We’d have to go back a ways to find it though.
-Erik
If anything, trading Victor really is the smart move for this organization at this time. Aging player at a niche position with WAY above average offense for the next two (maybe three) seasons when the organization has a RIDICULOUS amount of depth at that position…
However, Victor Martinez is SO EFFIN’ BOSS that trading him would induce rioting (everywhere, here included.)
Don't be stupid. PUT IN MELOAN.
I tend to agree with both points here. This would be the best time to deal Vic. I’m just not sure it would be good for the clubhouse.
Signature to be named later.
Absolutely not. Victor is not at peak value now, people want to see him be healthy for a full season. They would have traded one catcher or the other if they thought the players coming back would have made the team better, but Victor’s ability to be above-average at 1B, and the weakness of our 1B-DH options, have made that value threshold higher.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Mar 2, 2009 2:03 PM EST up reply actions
I’ve talked plenty about trading Peralta, I guess you’re just blocking it out.
I have never talked seriously about trading Grady or Fausto.
Peralta is in a unique position on the team. If Grady were a below-average defender and 10% worse hitter, and if Gootz had been a 20% better and three years younger, then we’d be talking about trading Grady. That is the situation that Jhonny is in with Asdrubal. You could argue that the more depth the Indians acquire in the middle infield, the more they’re putting themselves in the position to trade Jhonny.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I’m not denying we talk about trading him. But it’s not like “get this bum out of town.” Or “he’s not cool.”
We talk about trading every player not named Grady or Fausto. I think I messed up the phrasing on that.
unless we can get three months of one half of a 1B platoon in return.
by Brick. on Mar 2, 2009 11:35 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
BavasiBOOM
Don't be stupid. PUT IN MELOAN.
by gte619n on Mar 2, 2009 11:36 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
No, that’s the regular Bavasi.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Mar 2, 2009 2:04 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Wait a minute … that means that Shaprio is the Reverse Bavasi.
Signature to be named later.
by emd2k3 on Mar 2, 2009 11:02 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Well, at some point, either Bavasi expressed interest in Eduardo, or Shapiro expressed an interest in Asdrubal, probably among several players. Possibly this was many months before the deal actually happened. So maybe Bavasi calls up Shapiro and says, hey, I know you like some of my guys, we like Eduardo. And Shapiro says, well, Bill, we’re not really looking to sell off guys right now, we feel like we’re still in this thing at the moment, but maybe … it would have to be someone pretty good.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Mar 2, 2009 8:25 PM EST up reply actions
Asdrubal is exactly my point. I think Jhonny gets looked at in terms of potential trade because Asdrubal is so well regarded. Hell, if the Indians had been willing to trade Cabrera they could have had Carlos Quentin.
I’d put Jhonny in with Fausto and Grady precisely because he is undervalued and other teams do not recognize his true worth.
if you’re suggesting that dellucci does anything but suck then you and i cannot be friends
by DontCallMeJoey on Mar 1, 2009 9:47 PM EST up reply actions
All I know is that Delucci provided me with my highlight of ’08. A game winning blast offa Joba in the eighth in YANKEE GODDAM STADIUM no less. For that and that alone, he hasta be one of the coolest guys in all of baseball.
Dellucci also came to someone’s defense at home in 2007. I don’t remember the details, but he stood up for somebody. That was cool.
It was Phillips.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Mar 2, 2009 10:28 PM EST up reply actions
Garko’s wOBA
2006- .358
2007- . 368
2008- .333
That’s not exactly suck…
by world dictator on Mar 1, 2009 8:47 AM EST up reply actions
That 2008 number, for a 1B, is kind of the suck. Quickly counting down fangraphs 1B leaderboard puts him right around 23rd. I do think he’ll likely bounce back to a .350-.360 number this season, but given the makeup of the team and his inability to do much other than (sort of) hit – he doesn’t have a lot of value to Cleveland right now. And even less beyond this year, when his salary begins to escalate.
by APV on Mar 1, 2009 9:43 AM EST up reply actions
I think the best thing we can say about Garko is that we are pretty sure he is better than replacement level and has a ceiling of league average. That kind of guy is not part of the core of any team that has championship aspirations, but he’s not a bad guy to have on the roster, especially when he’s cheap and their aren’t better options internally. If Hafner can at least partially return to form and Shop can prove last year was for real, Garko should be a bench player, or maybe in a DH platoon.
He’s not a bad guy to have on the roster, especially when he’s cheap and there aren’t better options internally.
Which is to say he’s not bad if you don’t have any choice but to play him.
But, yes, I agree he has a ceiling of league average. Last year’s VORP was 10.3.
I think his ceiling is above-average, for all his deficiencies. I would not be surprised if he popped off a 900 OPS one of these years, but then again, I wouldn’t be surprised if he was out of the majors by the end of 2011, like Broussard is. I guess the main thing is that he’s unlikely to post a prOPS of 900, so if he gets to 900, it will be in part because of luck.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Mar 1, 2009 6:55 PM EST up reply actions
Yea, I think it’s worth noting that his defense and speed are well below average. If he is going to lack in those areas, he needs to be hitting with the best of the 1B in the league
Yes.
Pure hitting stats — including OPS, OPS+, wOBA — significantly overrate Garko, even though his pure hitting numbers are merely average.
- There’s no positional adjustment, which for a first baseman is estimated at -12.5 runs over a season.
- There’s no quality of defense, where Garko takes a hit between -5 and -10 runs.
- There’s no baserunning, which we have reason to believe is also bad.
So here we have a guy who has been about an 85% playing time guy for the past two seasons, and he posted 83 and then 72 Runs Created in the past two seasons. But compared to the “average player” — one with average positional value, average defensive skill at his position(s) and average baserunning, Garko should be penalized another 20 runs.
Seriously — 20 runs. That is the cost of Garko’s lack of complementary skills. That is the reason why Garko is not one of the LGT “cool kids” — and, I would bet, the reason why the Indians have started to treat him like a utility player.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Once again you’ve described perfectly what Garko has done in the past. I’m much more interested in what he’s going to do in the future. I think that his defense at first base will improve – after all he’s only recently begun to play there. However, he’ll never be fast, not even fast for a first baseman. But these are all secondary issues. I think that his hitting will improve dramatically this season. Given enough ABs, I anticipate decent power – 20+ HRs and a much better contact rate – OBP of .380+, with 60+ XBH. In other words one of our top five hitters. Why do I believe this? Cuz I drank the Kool-Aid, I believe his late September numbers. Watching his swing Friday only enforced my impression that he’s figured it out. He’s much quieter in the box, the pronounced upper cut is gone and I liked the results. He’s making good contact. Granted this is all in February against early ST pitching, but I think all the signs are there – Garko’s poised for a break out year.
Garko’s real problem is going to be getting the ABs he’ll need to establish himself. Victor looked like he should be posing for his HoF bust Friday. Hafner may in fact be back to being Pronk again and Shoppach is our best defensive catcher and probably our best option there with Vic at first. Choo could be another Indian poised for a break out season, and frankly I don’t see Wedge playing Garko in left over Francisco. So that leaves Garko as the odd man out. But somebody always gets hurt or slumps. Garko’s gonna hafta be ready when he gets his chance, cuz he probably won’t get a second shot if he’s anything less than stellar.
PECOTA gives him a 41% chance to improve, 15% to breakout, 31% to collapse and 24% for attrition. That’s better chances than it gives Victor or Hafner.
Not that I believe those baseball sangomas, but that’s a 56% chance he’ll improve/breakout and a 44% he’ll tank. I like those odds.
Actually, Chuck, “breakout” is a subset of “improve.” PECOTA sees a 41% chance of improvement and a 59% chance of decline from a baseline of his last three years, with last year weighted slightly more.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Mar 1, 2009 3:02 PM EST up reply actions
Better chances in which categories?
I suppose it could be in all 4, since they strangely add up to 111%.
Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.
It ain’t just that. PECOTA (as I think you know) makes projections based on typologizing a player based on his most recent three years of performance and other factors, comparing with all other players in the history of baseball with a lot of gradations and nuance. And what PECOTA is seeing is that, despite the most blunt version of the age curve working to his advantage, players similar to Garko have tended not to rebound as often as they’ve just continued declining. I’m pretty sure if we asked Nate Silver, he would point to Garko’s one-dimensionality as a player (contact hitting) as a key indicator. Well-rounded players persist better, bounce back better, and eventually decline better (more slowly).
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Mar 1, 2009 6:59 PM EST up reply actions
Sure. This is really just a way of saying they have less talent. They “emerge later” because only at their peak are they good enough to be major league regulars.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
We’ll see.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Mar 2, 2009 9:45 AM EST up reply actions
We’ll see.
Start by visualizing the age curve. For more talented players, the entire curve moves up a notch or two, for less talented players, down notch or two. But beyond that, the curve is not as steep for all players. Many highly talented players have a surprisingly flat age curve — not flat exactly but a lot less steep than is typical — and for some others it’s surprisingly steep. In the latter case, you might get superstar performance for a few years with only a short amount of time between replacement level and peak, both on the way up and on the way down. I think what you’re seeing with those players is just that the various factors that change over time — both physical kills and learned tools — are particularly well aligned for them, so that (for example) their bat speed, foot speed, hand-eye coordination and knowledge are all peaking simultaneously, and then in many cases collapsing simultaneously as well.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Well, since MTF illustrated the use of subsets, I would say that they can add up to more than 100%.
Signature to be named later.
ok, so now we’re missing 4%.
Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.
No, collapse (extreme performance decline) and attrition (extreme loss of playing time) are not subsets but do overlap. The only things that add together are “improve rate” and chance of decline, which is defined as, and only as, 100% – improve rate.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Mar 1, 2009 6:29 PM EST up reply actions
Isn’t collapse rate a subset of attrition rate? I believe it is.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Mar 1, 2009 7:00 PM EST up reply actions
I don’t think so — from the ’09 BP book, attrition rate describes playing time, not performance. Attrition rate also includes chance of injury, which of course is not related to performance.
To support this, nearly all players have collapse rates exceeding their attrition rates. From this years’ book, see Rafael B. (C: 32, A: 15), Grady (C:12, A: 8), and, for the hell of it, Weglarz (C: 18, A: 2).
The opposite is also possible. Brodzoski (The Close) has a collapse rate of 15% but a shockingly low attrition rate of 29%. Should have taken those odds.
And for the sake of completeness, Francisco (22) and Rivero (8) have equivalent rates.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Mar 1, 2009 9:35 PM EST up reply actions
There’s not a lot of attrition possible when you only pitched 16.2 innings the year prior
by APV on Mar 1, 2009 9:42 PM EST up reply actions
0% of 16.2 is still zero, my friend
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Mar 1, 2009 10:37 PM EST up reply actions
snap
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Mar 1, 2009 10:38 PM EST up reply actions
Hafner may in fact be back to being Pronk again—mauichuck
/faints
by ken from alexandria on Mar 1, 2009 5:01 PM EST up reply actions
I think that his defense at first base will improve – after all he’s only recently begun to play there.
I think you’re mis-remembering, like your buddy Roger. Garko split time between first base and catcher basically from the moment we drafted him, 111 games at 1B compared with 106 behind the plate over his first two seasons. He was moved to first base full-time in his third pro season, playing 378 games there over the past three seasons. So he’s played 489 games at first base already, plus five whole spring trainings (and a few postseason games). I’d say we’re looking at a finished product.
Garko’s real problem is going to be getting the ABs he’ll need to establish himself.
That is true. He made the mistake of regressing badly in the best possible year he had to cement his status as a big-league regular. For Garko’s sake, it would be nice if he had an opportunity to turn it around, but for the team’s sake, you have to root for others to play so well that he doesn’t have that chance.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Mar 1, 2009 7:13 PM EST up reply actions
He made the mistake of regressing badly in the best possible year he had to cement his status as a big-league regular.
Bingo. Garko’s chances at being anything other than a marginal roster component took a big hit last year.
by APV on Mar 1, 2009 7:25 PM EST up reply actions
Well .. maybe so and maybe not. Garko looks squeezed right now because nothing has gone wrong yet — nobody is hurt and nobody sucks. But since he’s Ryan Garko and not Andy Marte, he will be the direct beneficiary of any injury or poor performance among Francisco, Choo, Hafner, Dellucci, Martinez or Shoppach. The odds are against the Indians “running the table” with all six of those guys staying healthy and performing at or above expectations, so Garko probably will get his chances one way or another.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Mar 1, 2009 7:36 PM EST up reply actions
He’s squeezed right now on the 25-man roster because Shoppach had a great 2008 season, Victor should have a great 2009 season and is the de facto team captain, the team hopes Hafner will regain something of his greatness (and because he has a lot of $$ still coming his way) and because he can’t do much but play 1B or DH. But he’s also squeezed because Matt Laporta and Beau Mills are getting ready to take his place. Garko clearly has a role and fills a need on the 2009 team. Depending on how things shake out he might fill a similar role in 2010. I’d be very surprised if he’s on the team in 2011.
by APV on Mar 1, 2009 7:51 PM EST up reply actions
But Mills isn’t a factor right now, and LaPorta likely will not be a factor at least in the first half and maybe not at all. And even if he is a factor, again, all it takes is 1-2 other players to get less playing time (for any reason) in order for Garko to get more.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I must admit to not understanding the comparison between Garko and Marte (which seems to be a variation on the "if only Marte had more playing time,more at-bats,more hugs from Wedge, etc., etc.). I understand Garko for what he is: a potentially average 1b who is cheap. It’s highly unlikely that he ever becomes more than that, but while he is what he is then he’s useful. When he gets expensive, I have every reason to believe he will, as was Broussard, politely shown the door. Until then, he’s done enough to earn any opportunities that emerge this season based upon his actual ML performance.
With all that said, Garko has been, in comparison to Marte, a towering success story. Even given the sporadic quality of Marte’s opportunities, he’s shown absolutely nothing (including in AAA) since the Indians acquired him. Sure, maybe he’ll finally figure it out, but it certainly appears to me that whatever skills that he once had have eroded badly over the last 3 seasons. Marte fantasizes about achieving Garko’s brand of mediocrity.
Railing against the sacrifice bunt since 2000.
Can we even do this without getting into the same Marte discussion?
The comparison is this: The difference in overall performance/value has not been as great as it appears to be (because of positional value, defense, the one-dimensionality of Garko’s hitting). The difference in their ceilings as prospects was substantial. And yet the difference in their opportunities has been immense in the opposite direction.
Dating back to 2007, Wedge has seized upon every possible excuse not to play Marte, often not playing him when there was no reasonable excuse not to, and even being willing to squander Blake’s versatility in order to avoid writing Marte into the lineup. As has been well documented, we faced a situation last May where production was sub-replacement at DH, 1B, LF, RF and 3B, yet Wedge refused to shift Blake to any of those positions, insisting on keeping Marte on the bench. What possible purpose did it serve for Jamey Carroll got 93 PA as a 3B last season? Or for Jason Tyner to get any PA at all?
Contrast this with Garko. He had a brutal season at the plate, hitting below replacement level for five months and going weeks at a time without an extra-base hit — all combined with his customary poor defense, poor baserunning, and lack of positional value. Yet Wedge has trotted out the idea of playing Garko in LF — to keep his “bat” in the lineup — since Shoppach will be (indirectly) squeezing his playing time at 1B. This despite the fact that Garko probably will be, at best, the 23rd best outfielder on our roster, behind all nine of the outfielders and others infielders, probably all 12 pitchers, and Victor.
There is no better word for this scheme than “loony,” and it illustrates vividly what has been observable for years. For certain players like Garko, Wedge will bend over backwards to find opportunities that aren’t even there to get him in the game. For others like Marte, he will actively seek to blot out from his view even the most glaring opportunities and obvious moments to get him in a game.
This is not to say that Garko hasn’t been better — much better — than Marte, but the difference in playing time has been concurrent with the widening of the performance gulf, not as a clear cause-effect in either direction. What we’re talking about here is the tendency of a manager to find opportunities for one player and avoid them for another, going to lengths that are truly absurd in both directions. The difference in opportunity has not been proportionate to the difference in potential.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Mar 2, 2009 10:09 AM EST up reply actions 4 recs
I don’t really disagree with anything you’ve said here, Jay. And, for the record, you are the one who brought up the Marte comparison. I suppose that my disagreement is one of emphasis: Marte has had opportunities and stunk. Garko has had opportunities and has both done ok and stunk. It’s at least plausible to me that his doing ok is enough for Wedge to justify giving him extra opportunities. That is all.
Railing against the sacrifice bunt since 2000.
I’m sorry, but you’re equating the opportunities, and especially now that Wedge wants to try Garko in the outfield, that is just patently absurd. They have not both had “opportunities.” You might as well say that both of them have had “a batting average,” therefore their performance is the same.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Mar 2, 2009 3:10 PM EST up reply actions
I like this discussion, tabs, but my assessment of Garko’s last 12 games is a little more nuanced. His huge numbers — 1399 OPS, it’s like a cartoon — are the product of two big surges. First, he batted .488, 20 for 41, and not even Chuck can drink the Kool-Aid when it’s that strong. Second, he had 7 extra-base hits, which would put him on pace for about 80 over a full season, and which included 4 HR, a rate of exactly one HR for every 12 PA. In Garko’s best season (2007 of course), he had 51 extra-base hits and one HR for every 25.8 PA.
On the batting average, there’s no need to talk about crappy pitching when we can just look at BAbip. Garko reached base on 16 out of 33 balls in play. Given average luck, Garko loses 6 of those hits, and in this small of a sample, that’s almost 300 points of OPS right there. By the way, he’s still batting .341 in these games under average luck, so it’s not like we’re saying he wasn’t hitting really great anyway. We know this was a lucky result, and it doesn’t really matter if it was seeing-eye grounder luck or facing-bad-pitcher luck.
Now the extra base hits. Since there’s only 7, let’s just look them up and see who pitched:
- HR, Sep 13 — Devon Lowery, making his third MLB appearance, finished with 10.38 ERA in five games. He had a great ERA in the minors but terrible peripherals.
- HR, Sep 16 — Francisco Liriano, who had an up-and-down season coming back from Tommy John surgery. He was dominant on some days and horrible in others, finishing with a 104 ERA+. In this game, he gave up 8 runs and didn’t make it out of the 3rd inning, and he gave up another HR to Asdrubal two batters after Garko.
- 3B, Sep 21 — Dontrelle Willis, 9.38 ERA in only 24 IP, gave up 6 ER in this game, and he too didn’t make it out of the 3rd inning.
- 2B, Sep 21 — Gary Glover, 5.30 ERA in 54 IP. He’s been a below-average reliever in all but one season (2004) of his career.
- HR, Sep 26 — John Danks, 3.32 ERA in 195 IP. This was one of Danks’ few terrible outings in 2008 — he pitched 15 shutout innings in his previous start and next start — and Garko was a big part of it. Danks gave up 13 total bases including 5 to Garko, getting knocked out when he opened the 5th inning 1B-1B-BB-1B. And two batters later …
- HR, Sep 26 — D.J. Carrasco, 3.96 ERA in 39 IP. Carrasco actually looked pretty dominant after coming off the DL in July but struggled badly in September. When he took the mound to relieve Danks, he’d given up 8 ER in his previous 10 games. He opened with a walk to Peralta to load the bases, which Garko then cleared.
- 2B, Sep 27 — Lance Broadway, 7.07 ERA in 14 IP. The Indians were up 7-2 in the 8th inning with a man on 2B. I don’t want to say it was mop-up time, because Chicago was fighting for a playoff spot. Still, they had burned through five relievers the night before, and the game was basically out of reach. Broadway spent the bulk of the season as a Triple-A starter with a 4.66 ERA.
I think you have to give Garko full credit for Danks, a very fine pitcher who might have had a good game had Garko not been in the lineup that day. But the rest of those knocks were against guys who were either really struggling in general, or who have always been mediocre, or who have never been good major leaguers. Of course beating up on bad pitchers is part of how any good hitter gets good numbers, but I do think this very small sample is very biased by the quality of the pitching he was facing.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Mar 1, 2009 8:36 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
OK, you’ve given us all the reasons Garko’s gonna aspirte to be league average. Let’s see what happens.
Jay,
Thanks for the followup and added detail. It’s interesting; I not only looked up the starters he faced, but glanced at the relievers brought in during those games, and there were plenty of quality (or at least “major league regular”) names. But taking the extra step to check the pitchers for each XBH is much more instructive — it reads like a list of “who’s not” for the most part.
And of course, as small as the sample is, it’s not completely troubling. But, for the sake of our friend Chuck, it certainly felt better to compile the starters’ collective numbers than it does to look at the stats from the XBH-yielding pitchers.
The bottom line remains two things, for me: Reporters need to do a better job understanding what kind of player Garko was last year, and he’ll need to show rather quickly that he’s not an anchor holding his hole in the lineup down, like he was for 150 games last year.
Yeah, well, a certain reporter that I know included Dontrelle Willis on his list of quality starters that Garko had to face in the last 12 games.
I did a little math on this last night, and I figured out that Garko’s last 12 games luck-adjusted would be something like a 908 OPS, which obviously is very good. Still the extra six hits (and 15 total bases) that he racked up over those games gave him a 10-point boost in his (still mediocre) OBP and a 30-point boost to his slugging, which is still weak at .404 but truly atrocious if you think it should have been .374. So that’s a 40-point boost to his 2008 OPS, and if you look only at the oft-cited second half, the adjustment brings his OPS down from 868 to 768.
Despite all this, I don’t expect him to be a dead weight in the lineup this season. I think he’s better than he was showing last year, and I think he’s highly motivated and smart.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I don’t understand your first line. If it relates to me, you’re aware, I assume, that I didn’t say that DW is a “quality starter.” I listed each of the starters Garko faced and pronounced it a relatively strong group, and certainly better than I had figured to find. Nowhere did I say anything about DW specifically.
I agree strongly that Garko is not only motivated but a pretty bright guy, and that matters. I think it’s more than realistic to hope for a repeat of 2007.
I only said you included him on a list. In a paragraph that opens with “VERDICT: fiction,” there is a strong implication that the whole group is pretty good. You later clarified, but as you now seem to realize, the bigger issue is that Garko also faced a bunch of middle relievers, many of them terrible or rookies or both, and those generally were the guys he went to town on.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Let’s just call close our eyes and buy into the fact that Garko has established a new skill level of a 908 OPS.
See, that was easy. CHAMPIONSHIP
Don't be stupid. PUT IN MELOAN.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Photo: Padres fan regrets letting mother capture moment with Trevor Hoffman
- Marlins agree to unretire No. 5 for Logan Morrison, who will honor his father’s favorite player
- Weatherman Derek Holland does Dallas TV
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
