Is Lou Marson a Historic Non-Hitter?

by afh4 on Dec 5, 2011 11:05 AM EST in Analysis

The last few days have seen a lot of shrill discussion about Lou Marson's inability to hit a baseball. A straightforward exercise: I went to B-Ref's Play Index and found all the players who started their career like Marson or significantly worse. This is a list of all the players who, over their first five seasons:

Played at least 185 games (Marson = 188)
Had an OBP and SLG of less than .310 (Marson = .295/.305)
Had an OPS+ under 75 (Marson = 68)
Worked primarily (more than 75% of games) as a catcher (Marson has never logged an inning anywhere else)

Rk	Player	G	OBP	SLG	OPS+	From	To	Age	PA	AB	2B	3B	HR	BB	SO	OPS	Tm
1	Jerry Grote	467	.293	.298	72	1963	1968	20-25	1517	1368	47	5	13	119	305	.590	HOU-NYM
2	Matt Walbeck	333	.277	.310	52	1993	1997	23-27	1190	1113	45	1	12	64	167	.587	CHC-MIN-DET
3	Mike Ryan	325	.251	.258	45	1964	1968	22-26	1091	1001	25	7	8	76	188	.509	BOS-PHI
4	Alan Ashby	324	.303	.303	72	1973	1977	21-25	1082	933	32	5	12	110	155	.606	CLE-TOR
5	Mickey Grasso	303	.291	.268	53	1950	1953	30-33	1016	927	23	1	4	77	104	.559	WSH
6	Jerry Zimmerman	295	.271	.248	43	1961	1965	26-30	665	596	14	1	1	38	72	.519	CIN-MIN
7	Rick Sweet	272	.292	.292	63	1978	1983	25-30	813	736	23	1	6	60	73	.584	SDP-TOT-SEA
8	Jeff Reed	260	.284	.292	58	1984	1988	21-25	742	668	29	3	4	58	89	.576	MIN-MON-TOT
9	Joel Skinner	249	.261	.301	51	1983	1987	22-26	639	589	19	2	9	36	162	.562	CHW-TOT-NYY
10	Jeff Torborg	243	.268	.281	63	1964	1968	22-26	657	602	15	3	6	42	98	.549	LAD
11	Bob Didier	242	.289	.277	56	1969	1973	20-24	820	737	25	4	0	57	71	.565	ATL-DET
12	Mike Sadek	237	.301	.286	63	1973	1978	27-32	570	500	18	3	3	58	48	.587	SFG
13	Rob Johnson	228	.275	.297	59	2007	2011	23-27	733	649	35	3	8	65	170	.573	SEA-SDP
14	Mike Brumley	224	.295	.294	67	1964	1966	25-27	731	660	24	2	5	60	89	.589	WSA
15	Tom Nieto	223	.277	.292	58	1984	1988	23-27	636	569	24	4	5	46	117	.569	STL-MON-MIN
16	Skip Jutze	212	.250	.247	42	1972	1976	26-30	590	547	12	3	0	27	74	.497	STL-HOU
17	Kirt Manwaring	206	.267	.278	58	1987	1991	21-25	566	514	20	3	1	22	75	.545	SFG
18	Luis Pujols	206	.239	.246	40	1977	1981	21-25	628	581	19	4	2	37	110	.485	HOU
19	Dave Skaggs	205	.309	.302	72	1977	1980	26-29	578	510	18	2	3	51	76	.610	BAL-TOT
20	Choo Choo Coleman	201	.266	.281	53	1961	1966	23-28	509	462	8	2	9	37	85	.548	PHI-NYM
21	Chad Kreuter	195	.303	.301	70	1988	1992	23-27	501	425	15	1	8	62	101	.605	TEX-DET
22	Mike Roarke	194	.296	.297	60	1961	1964	30-33	543	491	11	2	6	45	61	.594	DET
23	Junior Ortiz	192	.295	.306	68	1982	1986	22-26	512	481	17	0	1	22	82	.601	PIT-TOT-NYM
24	Lou Marson	188	.295	.305	68	2008	2011	22-25	642	570	31	2	5	60	146	.600	PHI-TOT-CLE
25	Bruce Kimm	186	.290	.292	63	1976	1980	25-29	484	439	19	1	1	32	50	.581	DET-CHC-CHW
Rk	Player	G	OBP	SLG	OPS+	From	To	Age	PA	AB	2B	3B	HR	BB	SO	OPS	Tm
26	Alberto Castillo	185	.310	.307	60	1995	1999	25-29	504	437	13	0	6	45	94	.616	NYM-STL

Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool Used
Generated 12/5/2011.

There are players who were at the end of the line after these short runs of struggling (Bruce Kimm), and there are players who grew into decent starting options later in their careers (Alan Ashby). I don't have time to dig through some of the more interesting trajectories (I hope somebody else will in the comments), or bring Marson's defense or minor league track record into the discussion. I just wanted to get out there who was really Marson's cohort so that others could tease out some implications.

Tweet Comment 34 comments | 1 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I tried to repeat that PI, but for some reason I was getting a list of 65 – the 26 you show were a subset. Did you limit the years?

In any case, I added WAR fielding runs and sorted greatest to lowest. First name – Lou Marson, 18. Alberto Castillo was 2nd at +16, then Mike Ryan at +10. Jeff Torborg (8) and everyone else followed. So it looks like (if you trust WAR fielding stats) Marson is a damn fine defender.

by InfiniteMonkeyTypists on Dec 5, 2011 11:31 AM EST reply actions

I always limit to post integration.

by afh4 on Dec 5, 2011 11:46 AM EST via iPhone app up reply actions

To be fare, you should probably limit your lists to post expansion.

Our best players wear suits.

by mauichuck on Dec 6, 2011 5:56 AM EST up reply actions

Better than Pujols (, L.)!!!

by APV on Dec 5, 2011 12:54 PM EST reply actions 1 recs

Beat me to it!

Matt LaPorta is the bane of my existence.

by USSChoo on Dec 5, 2011 1:24 PM EST up reply actions

I feel like this is aimed at me. That’s fine. I don’t know if I ever stated that Marson was historically bad. All I’m advocating is keeping Santana at catcher and finding a 1B who can hit a little bit instead of moving one of the best hitting catchers in MLB to 1B where he becomes merely average and then having a black hole like Lou Marson at catcher. I’m suggesting Casey Kotchman, but really it shouldn’t be hard to find someone with an OBP that is better than LaPorta or Lou Marson.

Who I can’t believe we are wasting all this virtual ink on.

by Cols714 on Dec 5, 2011 12:55 PM EST reply actions

I think this comes close to confirming your stance re: Marson (backup, not a starter).

by jhon on Dec 5, 2011 1:34 PM EST via mobile up reply actions

What difference does it make where your offensive black hole is? I’m all for moving Santana to 1B just to decrease his chances of getting injured.

Our best players wear suits.

by mauichuck on Dec 6, 2011 5:57 AM EST up reply actions

The difference is that it is much easier to find a 1B who can hit than a catcher. Moving Santana for 1st means they have to go get a catcher.

I’m not worried about Santana’s longevity, it’s not like the Indians are going to sign him to a huge contract. Which is fine, but we need to get all we can out of him.

by Cols714 on Dec 6, 2011 10:02 AM EST up reply actions

Lou doesn’t have enuf history to be historically bad. Basically 2 seasons of 250 at bats or so each, in his age 24-25 years.

His minor league #‘s are not poor. He’s certainly good enuf defensively to start – if he ever gets the chance for consistent at bats it wouldn’t be a huge surprise to see him plateau somewhere north of 700 ops.

Even if he remains a crappy hitter, its hard to call your defensively excellent #9 hitter a black hole in the lineup. There’s a reason that catchers and shortstops have a tradition of hitting 8 or 9 – their worth isn’t necessarily tied to offensive output.

A true black hole is when your 1B or corner outfielder, perhaps challenged defensively, has a 700 or lower ops, which definitely describes our current 1B and LF, each of whom is closing in on 1000 ML at-bats.

by mcrose on Dec 5, 2011 2:12 PM EST reply actions

*Enough

I’m pretty sure the term “black hole” generally refers to a player’s offensive contributions. I think Marson would qualify no matter what position he plays. There’s a little more leeway given to a player like that because of their defensive capabilities at a premium position, but the key is figuring out where to draw the line. Hopefully the Indians’ defensive metrics are more trustworthy than those available to the public and they can figure out where that line should be drawn.

by callmrplow on Dec 5, 2011 2:28 PM EST up reply actions

I’m not quibbling over the use of “black hole”, just weighing in on what I think are the major weaknesses in the lineup, and that, #1, its not particularly fair to single out your young backup backstop as historically bad when he’s still acquiring a history, and, #2, I’m much less concerned with our 1B/C overall production than I am with a 2012 OF that consists of Choo, Grady, Brantley and Zeke.

by mcrose on Dec 5, 2011 3:34 PM EST up reply actions

There is no reason that both the 1B and the OF situations can’t be improved. Not necessarily with great or even good players, just average production or slightly below would be helpful for 1B and LF.

by Cols714 on Dec 5, 2011 3:48 PM EST up reply actions

I agree completely. I find it strange that winter meeting reports have Tribe looking for either, not both. Of the two, OF seems a lot more critical, because when Grady has his first knee twinge in April and gets held out “day to day”, our starting OF is Brantley, Zeke, Choo.

If it actually is either, I’d rather stand pat with Laporta and concentrate on the OF.

by mcrose on Dec 5, 2011 4:18 PM EST up reply actions

A true black hole is when your 1B or corner outfielder, perhaps challenged defensively, has a 700 or lower ops, which definitely describes our current 1B and LF, each of whom is closing in on 1000 ML at-bats.

Yep…and for what it’s worth, here are the offensive 2012 Bill James projections for LaPorta, Brantley, & Marson via Fangraphs:
LaPorta 2012 projection: .254 BA / .327 OBP / .441 SLG / .768 OPS / .333 wOBA
Brantley 2012 projection : .268 BA / .332 OBP / .358 SLG / .690 OPS / .309 wOBA
Marson 2012 projection: .236 BA / .323 OBP / .328 SLG / .651 OPS / .294 wOBA

Somehow Brantley as a LF seems to escape all of this talk of concerning spots.

by The DiaTriber on Dec 5, 2011 2:31 PM EST up reply actions

I think the best path for the Indians is to use 1B as a flexible position, utilized alternatively to get an extra glove on the infield (Hannahan at 3B, Chisenhall/Duncan/LaPorta at 1B) and to give Santana time off catching (with Marson at C). The better offseason move would be to find someone the team feels comfortable playing in LF 75% of the season and using Brantley as a 4th OFer (likely to see significant time given our OF). Barring us making an unexpected move for a minor-leaguer of significance (e.g. Hafner from the Rangers), the OF position seems easier to fill with a greater number of bang for the buck options.

by APV on Dec 5, 2011 2:36 PM EST up reply actions

Is it possible for us to get Hafner from the Rangers again? Because that was effing sweet.

by Jay on Dec 5, 2011 5:16 PM EST up reply actions

In lieu of that, could we just send him back?

by Joel D on Dec 5, 2011 6:36 PM EST up reply actions

That would be effing bittersweet.

by Jay on Dec 5, 2011 8:18 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Brantley is the Ezequiel Carrera of 2012.

by YoDaddyWags on Dec 5, 2011 2:40 PM EST up reply actions

Pretty sure that makes Ezequiel Carrera the Chris Magruder of 2012

by APV on Dec 5, 2011 2:57 PM EST up reply actions

Funny but Chris Magruder was the Horace Speed of 2002.

by emd2k3 on Dec 5, 2011 4:05 PM EST up reply actions

Horace Speed wasn’t even a hack.

by Jay on Dec 5, 2011 5:16 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs

That’s depressing.

by callmrplow on Dec 6, 2011 1:18 PM EST up reply actions

I do think (and I think you’ll agree) that Brantley and LaPorta are starkly different cases, despite the superficial comparison of careers to date.

Brantley was brought up a lot younger than LaPorta. LaPorta should have been ready to hit by the end of his first full season and wasn’t. One guy’s first 1000 aren’t the same as another as regards projection. One of these guys wasn’t expected to be peaking in 2011.

Almost as important, Brantley is a center fielder who offers some additional defensive value even while playing in left field. Our aim for LaPorta is just for him to be an average guy at first base, but we expect Brantley to be a Crispesque (or Bondsesque) defender in left. One must be a little careful not to over-value that defensive edge — or his speed on the bases for that matter — but it is a clear difference between Brantley and LaPorta.

by Jay on Dec 5, 2011 5:15 PM EST up reply actions

No question that LaPorta’s performance to date is wildly more disappointing, for all of the reasons you list. But this idea that Brantley is even a poor man’s Coco Crisp is fading for me. In a way, I feel like I keep projecting success for Brantley, regardless of what my head tells me, which is unfortunately what I did for too long with LaPorta.

by The DiaTriber on Dec 5, 2011 7:57 PM EST up reply actions

I was beating the Brantley skepticism drum all last season, and people gave me a lot of crap about it. Just trying to stay objective about it.

I prefer to think of him as a rich man’s Crowe.

by Jay on Dec 5, 2011 8:19 PM EST up reply actions

For his sake, Michael Brantley was also less than sucky for the first part of last season. Through his first 58 games he was at .295/.363/.423, with a 11.5% walk rate. The rest of the season, .238/.273/.346, with a 4% walk-rate. I don’t know what happened to LaPorta and Brantley after the first week of June, but it sucked the life out of both of them.

by APV on Dec 5, 2011 8:50 PM EST up reply actions

didn’t brantley have a wrist problem?

I like ex-Phillies prospects.

by Gradyforpresident on Dec 5, 2011 8:54 PM EST up reply actions

yeah he did have wrist issues, and it’s not clear in my mind if those issues may have sprung up earlier and he tried to play through them before finally going on the DL. In any case, it’s not an excuse (as Jay pointed to in the LaPorta post following this Marson post regarding using injuries as an excuse), but it’s fair to take into consideration it probably indicates a greater variability when it comes to projecting what said player may do next season.

Between Brantley, Sizemore, and Choo, we have a set of players that likely won’t last the full season next year with regards to avoidance of DL time. They need to add another (and I would agree with what others said above, “starting quality”) outfielder. There really isn’t any way around it, if they plan on contending. They also need to add a 1B if they plan on contending. I would read a failure to do both, but particularly either, as indication that the front office either failed and are accepting a passive approach, or have reassessed and are considering a sell off during the season.

by hans on Dec 5, 2011 10:34 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Wait a minute… Isn’t the back up catcher supposed to be an good defender who doesn’t cost too much because he can’t hit… I mean this is what we want, the manager just feels that Santana at 1st is better than LaPorta… Makes sense to me to have the better hitter playing 1st on the days Santana’s knees need a break… of course I would love to see a power bat come in and make that equation switch so that the new 1st baseman is greater batter than Santana but isn’t the idea to just keep the best lineup in as often as possible?

by AdaminFL on Dec 5, 2011 4:26 PM EST up reply actions

Expanding your criteria a little (raising the OBP and SLG limits to <=.330 instead of <=.310, but keeping the OPS + at <=75) and only taking the guys who are both young (5th year is age 28 or younger) and show up with positive fielding contributions (dWAR>=5), you get 7 guys very comparable to Marson.

Dick Bartell, Mark Johnson, Steve Swisher, Paul Casanova, Mike Ryan, Jeff Torborg, and Kirt Manwaring.

These 7 averaged 337 games 226 AVG, 278 SLG and 9.5 fielding runs over their first 5 seasons. Marson is at 188 games, 218 AVG, 305 SLG and 18 fielding runs over 4 seasons.

Three of the seven (Bertell, Johnson, and Swisher) were more or less done after their 5th season – less than 100 more games in their careers. They continued to hit like they did in the first 5 years.

Three more (Casanova, Ryan, and Torborg) were about halfway done with their career, and they didn’t hit any better in the second half.

Only Manwaring had a relatively long career, playing to age 33 and getting into just over 1000 games. He hit better after that first five years, but he went from god-awful (222/267/278 for a 58 OPS+) to very, very bad (69 OPS+ for his career).

From that perspective it doesn’t look good for Lou.

by InfiniteMonkeyTypists on Dec 5, 2011 2:30 PM EST reply actions 1 recs

If Marson ever gets to a full oWAR or a full RC/9, it will be a great testament to coaching and effort. Nice add-on research.

by YoDaddyWags on Dec 5, 2011 3:36 PM EST up reply actions

One of Marson’s top similarity scores is Bruce Ogrodowski, who, as the very first man to step into a batter’s box to face Bob Feller in a professional game, took the first pitch, told the catcher he wanted to get through the game alive, and bunted the second pitch down the 3rd base line. Made out, of course.

by YoDaddyWags on Dec 5, 2011 2:31 PM EST reply actions