Operation Center Field: Framing the Problem
Thu, Oct 18, 2007
by Geoff Young
I’ve been dreading this post (series of posts, really), been avoiding the subject for several months because it’s complex and difficult to frame. I’m still not ready to write about it in any meaningful way, but we can’t put it off any longer. Maybe the exercise itself will help us.
The Problem
Mike Cameron’s contract is up. He turns 35 years old in January, which makes him a long-term risk. There are few top-tier free agents at the center field position, which means that the players should have the upper hand. In this climate, and with no viable in-house candidates, the Padres must decide whether to bring back Cameron or explore other possibilities.
The Questions
The answers to some of these are obvious, or at least seem obvious, but they still need to be asked. You never want to overlook something because you took it for granted as true without examining it.
This is hardly an exhaustive list, but here are a few points we should consider:
- What do the Padres need in a center fielder? Specifically, what skills are required to play the position for 81 games at Petco Park, and
189 (d’oh!) more each at Coors Field and PhoneCo (it may help to compare and contrast Cameron and his predecessor, Dave Roberts)? - What will it cost to re-sign Cameron, in terms of both dollars and years?
- What skills does Cameron currently possess, and how much will those erode over the course of his next contract?
- What other options are available for filling the position, and how much will they cost in terms of either players (i.e., trade) or money and possibly draft picks (i.e., free agent signing)?
- Do the Padres need a long-term solution, or will someone within the organization (Brad Chalk, Cedric Hunter, Danny Payne, Yordany Ramirez, etc.) be ready in a year or two?
I’m reaching in the dark here. We keep throwing out names, but without proper framing of the problem, we might as well be throwing darts. Before we get too involved in the details, we must ask ourselves what the goal is.
In its most basic form, the goal is to procure a center fielder for 2008 and possibly beyond. Digging a little deeper, the goal is to do this at a cost that keeps the organization as flexible as possible so that it can continue to attack problems on other fronts as they arise.
I’ve got some theories of my own on the above questions, but I’d like to hear your thoughts before revealing those. I’d also like to know if there are any additional questions that I’m missing. Yes, I know, this is a tedious way to attack the problem, but I think in the long run, it will be much more effective than throwing darts.
Winter Leagues
Moving from the abstract to the concrete…
- Surprise 10, Saguaros 5 (box). Matt Antonelli (.188/.235/.250) started at second and batted eighth, doubling in four trips to the plate. Neil Jamison surrendered two runs on three hits in the ninth.
- Hermosillo 4, Navojoa 1 (box). Oscar Robles (.258/.324/.387), batting second and playing shortstop, went 0-for-3 with a walk. Luis Cruz (.250/.345/.417), batting seventh and playing second base, went 1-for-4 and drove in his team’s only run.
Also, the Dominican Republic opened its season on Wednesday. Box scores were not available as of this writing, but I did find team assignments for two Padres.
The aforementioned Ramirez is playing for Licey. D’Angelo Jimenez is also on this team. How is he only 29?
Outfielder Vince Sinisi is on the Escogido roster. His teammates include former Padres Miguel Olivo and Freddy Guzman, as well as some guy named Alex Rodriguez.
Picking up where last year's version left off, the Ducksnorts 2008 Baseball Annual provides in-depth analysis of and commentary on the San Diego Padres. Get your copy today.
October 18, 2007 at 8:00 am
I think we all agree (or, at least MOST of us agree) that we say “goodbye” to Cameron. Age, strikeouts, declining numbers, and surprising struggles in the field early in the season are all red flags to me, at least.
With center field: defense and the ability to be a field general are the most important qualities in a player, and not the ability to hit for power. I have no problem with a CF batting 8th, if he’s sharp in the field.
Personally I wouldn’t give any of the big 4 CF’s the huge contracts they are looking for. I’d like a guy like Coco Crisp, since I believe the Sox are wanting to dump him, to give Jacoby Ellsbury the job.
October 18, 2007 at 8:10 am
Well I guess I’ll take a shot at the center field conundrum. It first depends on what the Padres plans are for next year, are they going to try and get Younger and take the risk of not competing for the NL west in exchange for developing Headley, Antonellie ect… or are they going to load up for one more run and see if they can knock off the baby-backs and the defending NL champ Rockies with their old but experienced players?
If the Padres decide to roll the dice and go young then I think they have to trade for a young CF (Willits, E. Patterson, Balentien, ect…) I don’t think they have anyone in their minor league system that will be ready in two years (or ever really).
If the Padres decide to make another run with their current team then I would first try to see what it would take to sign Jones to a one year deal, If he refuses to sign a one year deal or wants $16+ mil then I would move on and try to sign Cameron to a two year deal with an option for a third year. I don’t know how much money I would offer because I don’t know what the Padres budget is for 08 & 09, if Cameron wants more years or more money then I would trade for Crisp who we all knows has his flaws but he can hold down the fort for a year or two.
October 18, 2007 at 8:24 am
I won’t get too complex here cuz I’m incapable of it. I think Cameron is gone unless we offer more than other teams and I don’t think we’ll do that. Realistically I think we have zero chance of resigning him. He is on the decline, strikes out way too much, and has stated he wants to play closer to home.
The thing that sucks is there’s few options out there to plug the hole, so we’ll probably end up with some average, warm bodied, 2 million $/year guy. So that’s why this topic is a rough one.
I say make a trade (for who???) and hope all goes well……That’s all we can do unless Moores decides to open the payroll to $100 million which will never happen. Bring back Kotsay -J/K
October 18, 2007 at 8:28 am
Re: it will take more than $2M per year to get an average CF
October 18, 2007 at 8:28 am
I’m with Steve C, for the most part, except that I don’t think it’s as dependent upon an overall philosophy of going young or staying with the vets. I think it’s where they can get the most value.
It starts with the free agent crop or the “throw money at it” fix. I seem to remember one of SA’s chats on XX that he believed there were more free agent center fielders than spots available. If that’s the case, it’s a matter of figuring out who will be the odd man (men) out, and seeing if that fits within your budget. I think that may be the thinking of looking at Andruw for a one year deal.
An alternative is to pull a “Kouz.” That would be to find a young player who is blocked in another organization and bring him over by trading something we have in surplus, whatever that might be. (Third base? Relief pitching?)
Finally, assuming those options do not look fruitful, then you move to the “band aid” fix. ( i.e. what won’t hurt us too badly next year, while we wait for better alternatives?)
October 18, 2007 at 8:39 am
I think that signing Cameron for a long-term contract would be a serious gamble. That said, I also believe he’s got at least two more good seasons in him. I wouldn’t be opposed to a 2-3 year contract while the young guys get themselves ready for the bigs.
October 18, 2007 at 8:52 am
I’ve gotta say, I think LaMar might have nailed it with his “Kouz” type solution.
Reggie Willits is someone I’m very interested in. The Angels have a total logjam in their OF (Anderson, Matthews, Quinlan, Haynes, Gurrero). I don’t know much about Quinlan or Haynes, but I seem to remember thinking that the Angels have a couple young prospects knocking on the door in the OF as well (I can’t find anything off the top of my head).
Willits’ OBP this year was ridiculous (.391)for a rookie, and he had 27 SB, getting caught 8 times. At the only Angels game I attended this year, I was incredibly impressed by Willits’ play. He seemed to get great jumps in the OF (.986 Fielding in CF, 2.7 RF in CF, and .829 ZR in CF). He’s also incredibly young and would be under control for a while.
My biggest problem is figuring out what the Angels might need. They need pitching, but it’s not like we have any pitching to spare. Their third-base situation has never panned out like it should, but they’ve been linked to both Aramis Ramirez and A-Rod.
With Reagins as a new GM, the Angles might actually be willing to deal some talent. What it would take to get him though, I have no idea.
If it came down to this, would anyone do Antonelli for Willits? I think the Angels have some depth issues at 2B, so they might go for that. Is it still easier to fill 2B than CF? If so, does this appear to be a good deal?
October 18, 2007 at 8:57 am
I looked at some of our options last night and wrote about them at Friar Watch. No real surprises, we’re faced with throwing money at one of the big three, trading for a lesser option like Crisp or Jacque Jones or going real cheap with a journeyman.
There are a couple of high risk guys we could probably get for cheap due to their contract situations: Rocco Baldelli and Jim Edmonds. Baldelli has been injury prone but puts up great numbers when healthy, kind of like Milton Bradley without the anger management issues. I’m sure Tampa would be happy to part with him for a little bullpen help but he may be too much of a risk to give up anyone other than Ledezma. Edmonds has been on a serious decline with the bat but can still play CF I think and the Cards have been talking about making a run at Rowand. If we could get him cheap and the Cards pay some of his salary I think I’d rather have him than Crisp.
If there’s ever a time to jump into the free agent market I think this is it. There are three top tier options available in our position of greatest need, all three are at the very least above average defensively and range from good to potentially great offensively. On a dollar per win share basis are they worth the money they’re going to get? Probably not but signing one of those guys would give us long term certainty in at least one outfield position, something we don’t have at all right now. Giles’ contact will be gone after next year so that’s what, $10 million we can shift to CF, assuming we can fill his slot from within.
I know he’ll be expensive and there’s some risk but I think Andruw Jones is the guy. He has a career 1.441 OPS in Petco, he absolutely rakes here. Yeah he might be getting fat and has lost some range but if he hits like he has in the past he can still be a good corner OF in a couple of years. He had a terrible season but he had a pretty bad year in ‘01 too and bounced back to have some monster seasons.
IMO, trading for a guy like Crisp or signing a stiff like Corey Patterson is the same kind of thinking as drafting Matt Bush: penny wise and pound foolish. What’s a better use of your money, $5 million plus the prospect it will take to get Crisp and his plus glove and zero bat, or the $15-$18 million (minus the money it would take to sign the draft pick you forfeit) it will take to get Andruw Jones and his gold glove and above average to superstar bat for the next 6 years?
October 18, 2007 at 9:13 am
Re 8: Nice out of the box thinking with guys like Edmonds and Baldelli. Let’s hope the FO is thinking this through as deeply as we are.
October 18, 2007 at 9:22 am
Thread Hijack!
For all of you folks who are upset about the K’s, “Cameron strikes out way too much!” Please explain why a K is worse than any other out. Don’t forget to inclulde rationale for why it would be better for a weak grounder from a guy like Crisp, who hits into a lot of groundball outs, with a runner on first than a K from a guy like Cameron.
Baseball is a highly situational game, and in most situations a hitter faces, a K is no worse than, and possibly better than, a ground out or a fly out. This is not the Dead Ball era any more, and it hasn’t been for a long, long time. In fact, we’re playing in one of the most offensive eras ever. A K just doesn’t have the negative impact most people ascribe to it, and putting the ball in play does NOT have the positive impact most people ascribe to it.
October 18, 2007 at 9:26 am
Re: 10 if Cameron was 25 and struck out alot you would be correct with your assesment. The reason why people are concerned about Camerons strikeouts is because they have increased with every passing year. This indicates that Cameron is having a harder time putting the bat on the ball than in years past, which will result in a decline in avg OBP ect….
October 18, 2007 at 9:31 am
#11: Bingo. I agree with Pat’s overall point about value, but this is a problem:
2006: .224 K/PA, .500 K/BB
2007: .246, .419
Given Cameron’s age, I suspect we’re seeing a legitimate decline in skills.
October 18, 2007 at 9:31 am
8:
You build a strong case for going after Jones, but I do not believe it will fly. Alderson has talked about his 20% rule a number of times,(No one player should consume 20% of total payroll.) , and if you assume next year’s payroll at $75M, Jones at $16M violates the rule. Unless they are willing to increase to the $85M range, I do not believe they will go after Jones.
October 18, 2007 at 9:35 am
Re: 13 for a one year deal I’m sure SA would make an exception, That rule is really for long range planning so that you can have payroll flexability.
October 18, 2007 at 9:35 am
It should be called the Nevin/Klesko rule
October 18, 2007 at 9:41 am
14:
For a one year I agree, but Anthony was making the case for a six year deal, and I do not see that happening.
October 18, 2007 at 9:45 am
Re: 10 - The worst part about the Ks is the manner in which they come. I was at every single home game this season, and watched most road games on TV. And I’ve never seen one player strike out looking as much as Cameron. When the bases are loaded with one out and he strikes out looking, that’s as bad as it gets. With his strength, just throw the head and see if you can get a fly ball.
Anybody know where to find K stats on swinging or looking? I’ve been trying to find it, b/c I just know Cameron has a bad ratio there.
October 18, 2007 at 10:03 am
It’s good to have operational guidelines like no long term free agents and no player more than 20% of payroll but you have to realize that sometimes there’s room for exceptions. For example, this would never happen but assume A Rod said he’s always wanted to play in SD and would come here for 6 years/$73M. That would violate Sandy’s rules but wouldn’t you be a fool to turn that down?
The Jones situation isn’t nearly as good as that and I do believe there’s an upper limit on what we should pay but like I said, this is the one time where it makes sense. And I’m not one of those guys who is always clamoring for higher payroll and big name free agents.
There were a number of times last year when certain Padre hitters came to bat with men on base and I was hoping for a K so we could get to a better hitter. For Blum early in the season and NOG later in the season the best case scenario was a K.
The strikeout itself isn’t a problem but when you see guys swinging and missing at balls way off the plate it can be aggravating. Khalil Greene has tremendous talent but his inability to lay off that outside slider directly affects his OBP and his BA.
October 18, 2007 at 10:05 am
17: I don’t think that bothers the FO. SA once implied on his 1090 spot - on plate discipline - that he’d rather see a hitter called out on strikes than flail at a ball out of the zone for strike 3. That said, I think it’s a natural reaction to be upset when a player doesn’t offer at a close pitch with men on base.
October 18, 2007 at 10:06 am
11-12, Strikeouts do not allow the base-runner to advance.
How often were we frustrated about strikeouts when we had men on 3B… If a guy’s hitting nearly .300 had .350+ OBP and slugging at a decent clip, I’ll live w/ some K’s (Kouz, Gonzalez) but to have 2 guys (Cameron & Greene) striking out at their rates, it puts a drag on run-scoring.
Steve C (#4) I disagree…
Eric Patterson
Reggie Willits
Brian Barton
Adam Jones (pipe dream)
Would each cost less than $2mm/year
October 18, 2007 at 10:08 am
8, 9: Agree.
Crisp is awfully expensive to just be a guy who fills a slot so we can try to really get better somewhere else. It’s crossing an item off your to-do list for the sake of crossing it off, without really doing a quality job. We’re banking on a breakout or career year from Crisp, which isn’t a smart bet even though it can pay off.
October 18, 2007 at 10:10 am
Re: 20 but they are not FA’s
October 18, 2007 at 10:15 am
#21: The issues with Crisp are a) who will the Padres have to give up to get him and b) how much of the $11M remaining on his contract will Boston bankroll? I have no illusions that Crisp is a terrific player, but it seems to me that he’s no worse an option than Jay Payton was in ‘04. Assuming the cost isn’t too prohibitive (unknown at this point), I would have no problem sticking him out there and slotting him somewhere in the 6-8 spots. I don’t think we need a “breakout year” from him to get value.
October 18, 2007 at 10:22 am
20: Nor do weak ground balls, often, especially with a slow team, or shallow pop-ups, or liners to a fielder. Our strikeouts went up from 2005 to 2007, as did our runs scored. That’s not to say we might have scored even more runs this year with better hitters than Greene or Cameron, because we would have. But they could have been better hitters and still struck out as much.
A study would be complicated by the fact that high-contact guys often hit in low-RBI lineup positions, but just thinking of high-contact guys (Polanco, Loretta, etc) don’t lead me to see that they’re any better at getting the runner in from third.
October 18, 2007 at 10:25 am
22, precisely!
Back to throwing darts (naming names)
I’d wouldn’t mind seeing us re-sign Milton Bradley for a 2-year deal, trade for Crisp, and sign Fukudome…
Then in 2008 we’d have this OF in the first half of the season:
Fukudome-Crisp-Giles
…In the 2nd half of 08 you’d have a rotation:
Bradley/Fukudome in LF, Crisp/Fukudome in CF, Fukudome/Giles in RF
and in ‘09 you’d have:
Bradley-Crisp-Fukudome
(Not sure what we’d do w/ Headley - I think he’s worth more than Crisp - I don’t want to pull Kouz of 3B.)
October 18, 2007 at 10:26 am
…and in 2010:
Huffman-C. Hunter-Fukudome
October 18, 2007 at 10:35 am
I really dont think the Pads will sign Fukudome, he has not link to SD other than KT saying he wanted to sign him.
October 18, 2007 at 10:39 am
Give me Rocco Baldelli and I will be content…I think he has way to much potential to not go after him. Had not thought of Willits and did not realize his OBP was so high…makes me rethink of him as an option.
Now, RE: 10…I think Peter did a good job answering at 20. How many times does a weak ground ball advance a runner? How many times can you trade an out for a run with a sac fly? How many times can you get the runner to third with either option? I know that James and Neyer and couple of other high profile guys try to argue that the K is no different than other outs, but while that makes sense in theory, the situations in baseball that an out can be productive make that theory wrong. Just tell me the last time you saw anyone come into the dugout, being greeted by a flurry of high-fives after strike 3?
October 18, 2007 at 10:42 am
17: I can’t find anything that shows how many times a player took a called strike but I’m sure it’s out there somewhere. This study at BPro does show who swings at bad pitches:
http://www.baseballprospectus......cleid=6705
For those without a subscription, it shows:
Khalil is a guy who “swings at bad pitches but hits good ones in the zone”, although the tendency isn’t nearly as pronounced as I would have thought, he’s only slightly worse than average at swinging at pitches out of the zone.
Adrian Gonzalez also “swings at bad pitches but hits good ones in the zone”. He swings at pitches out of the zone about as often as Khalil but swings more often at pitches in the zone.
Mike Cameron is listed as “hits good pitches, avoids swinging at bad ones”, again it’s not to an extreme degree.
Brian Giles “takes good pitches but avoids swinging at bad pitches”. He avoids bad pitches to an extreme degree.
The data is presented as screenshots of graphs so it’s hard to pick out individual players and the data isn’t complete.
October 18, 2007 at 10:55 am
CM, I love a healthy Baldelli, but how healthy is he? We assume Bradley will not stay healthy shouldn’t we do the same with Rocco?
Re strikeouts: In Moneyball DePodesta/Beane talked about how strikeouts were the WORST thing a player could do, but they were less bad than walks were good. So you’ll take some strikeouts to get the walks, but ideally you want a guy who will take his walks without striking out… A strikeout, in a vaccuum, isn’t any worse than a ground-out… In fact, if you have runners at first and second and less than 2 outs, you’d rather have a strikeout than GIDP. However, if you have a guy on 3B, a ground-out may score a run, a fly ball becomes a sac fly, etc… Putting the ball in play, in general, is better than not…
October 18, 2007 at 10:57 am
With money coming off the books after next season and the need to make a riskier move to keep up with the Joneses in our division, I am inclined to throw a large sum of money over multiple years at Andruw Jones, perhaps a shorter 3-4 year deal for a higher annual figure, sorta what the Dodgers did with Furcal. I also don’t think there is any way that Jones signs a one-year deal, and if the Padres show an “interest” in him by offering a one-year deal, it is pure window dressing. It almost certainly won’t be taken seriously by Boras, and the Padres can then say they tried, but can’t compete with the multi-year offers from other clubs, all likely in excess of 80+ million. I’d be disappointed if they did this because it’s just not realistic.
While I think that we could bring back Cameron for a reasonable sum over a 2 or 3 years, I really do think that the family pressure would be too great to turn down a reasonable Atlanta offer.
What to do if this Plan A doesn’t work? Got me. This is the most important decision of the off-season, and nothing is really all that attractive outside of trading for a promising young CF who is blocked. If we are going to have to trade some of our more attractive minor leaguers, this would be the best return: La Mar’s “Kouz” scenario. Trading a Headley for Crisp or Jaque Jones doesn’t do it for me.
I really wish we had moved Antonelli to CF, but I can understand why they moved him to 2B. Cedric Hunter at this time last year looked like the CF candidate we needed. Now he had a so-so year, and things are a bit murkier. If anything, here’s hoping Veneble can handle CF, but so far he hasn’t made it out to the field in the AFL.
October 18, 2007 at 11:06 am
“With money coming off the books after next season and the need to make a riskier move to keep up with the Joneses in our division, I am inclined to throw a large sum of money over multiple years at Andruw Jones…”
The rest of pleased Alderson & Towers run the show…
Are you kiddin’ me? Seriously?
The Rockies & D’Backs (and Indians for that matter) demonstrated that the way to success is internal player development… Yet you’re suggesting we should throw caution to the wind and sign a player w/ diminishing defensive skills (at a position in our park that NEEDS superior defense) coming off a career-worst year to a long-term contract?
October 18, 2007 at 11:08 am
Venable (31): b/c he’s nursing an injury…
October 18, 2007 at 11:10 am
30: There’s no unified position in the SABR platform then. Gary Gillette was always talking about Ks not being so bad in his ESPN chat days.
October 18, 2007 at 11:11 am
34: I think there is agreement… An out is bad, and a K is the worst kind, but again, a K is less bad than a walk is good…
October 18, 2007 at 11:13 am
You’ll always take a guy who doesn’t make many outs over a guy who makes a lot when the former strikes out 100 times (out of 275 outs) and latter only strikes out 50 times (out of 350 outs)…
October 18, 2007 at 11:14 am
32: I thought Andruw’s defensive decline had been greatly exaggerated. OK, maybe not greatly, but …
October 18, 2007 at 11:25 am
28: How many times did Deivi Cruz get a high-five for grounding into a DP in 2002? An extreme contact guy who single-handedly killed 20 innings with a DP. It’s not nearly as simple as a contact hitter always successfully moving a runner or generating a sac fly, while the strikeout hitter always makes an out.
32: Those teams demonstrated “a” way to success, not “the” way to success. Had the Padres shown much skill at building from within, people would be more willing to give them that shot. The Angels demonstrated another way to succeed. Seattle was quite successful the first part of the decade doing it a different way.
34: The SABR-platform, if you will, has always had to be more vigorous in “defending” K’s because for too long they were thought of as the ultimate evil. The majority of stat heads still see Ks at the major leage level as not a very big deal for hitters. In the minors high K rates are more problematic.
October 18, 2007 at 11:31 am
36: Yeah, I don’t want anybody to think people are happy with strikeouts. We’d all love a Ted Williams / Albert Pujols talent, high average, huge power, walks, few K’s. But that’s a small pool. I named about 20% of the players with those skills over the last 50 years right there.
October 18, 2007 at 11:35 am
17 … I nominate Gracie for FAN OF THE YEAR … *thanks* for your comment … keep coming back!!!
35 … re: K = “worst kind” … what comes to mind is that the GIDP is the worst kind of AB … also, I precieve a correlation between K’s and SLG which make me a bit more tolerant of Ks in general …
October 18, 2007 at 11:39 am
32 … PF, if you agree to use the “Preview” function more, then I will also (trying #40bb again … I perceive a correlation between K’s and SLG which makes me a bit more tolerant of Ks in general
)
October 18, 2007 at 11:47 am
#17: You can find this at B-R.com. Go to a player’s page and click “Show or Hide” next to Pitch Data Summary. Here’s Cameron’s page:
http://www.baseball-reference......mi01.shtml
In ‘07, 36% of his strikeouts were called. Here are totals for key players on the team:
OG: 62%
Bard: 50%
Cameron: 36%
NOG: 27%
Blum: 17%
Kouz: 16%
Adrian: 14%
Khalil: 14%
#38: Well said on all counts. There are many ways for an organization to succeed. I’ll also take your comment on “SABR platform” a step further and submit that it advocates systematic study of issues rather than steadfast adherence to any party line.
October 18, 2007 at 11:52 am
[Inadvertant back-button angst - retyping sucks]
Re 37 (andruw’s defense):
Andruw ranks 10th in RF (2.67) and 16 in ZR (.863) - among 18 qualified CF
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/.....angeFactor
Early in Andruw’s career, he posted 3.00+ RF scores and .900+ ZR scores… Since 2002, his best RF has been 2.71 (which would rank 8th) and his best ZR has been .878 (which would rank 12th)…
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/.....t=fielding
For comparison sake:
Coco Crisp is first in RF (3.07) and tied for second in ZR (.911)
Now admittedly neither defense matrix is perfect - in fact this details demonstrates that quite well:
Vernon Wells is tied w/ Coco Crisp for 2nd in ZR… He is dead last in RF.
I think though, where we see agreement between the two matricies (both saying a player is good, average, or bad), it’s probably pretty close to accurate…
October 18, 2007 at 11:53 am
38…You can’t compare Deivi Cruz to Mike Cameron b/c of the money involved. Are you willing to pay $10-12 mil/year for a guy that has absolutely no bat control. Part of it wasn’t Cameron’s fault, b/c the club had nothing close to a No.2 hitter, he was hitting in a spot where he shouldn’t have been. Hairston was a little better suited for the 2-hole. Before this year, I would have said Cameron’s defense made him worth it. But it just wasn’t there this season.
Jones and Rowand were better fielders this season. I’m as confused as anyone on what to do.
And I wouldn’t completely discount the 1 year Andruw Jones deal. If Boras can’t get the long-term deal he’s looking for b/c of the down 2007, I could see him doing the same thing he’s done with Jeff Weaver the last couple of years. Wait for the big contract year and really cash in.
October 18, 2007 at 11:58 am
The only issue I see with jones taking a 1 year deal is that there is no way he would go to Petco to try and put up contract year numbers. I know he has great numbers at petco but would you take the risk of playing 100 games in pitchers parks (including Dodger and PhoneCo Park) to get your career back on track?
October 18, 2007 at 11:59 am
Somtimes I do indeed fall into the mindset that strikeouts are the end of the world and for certain players it sure would help if they put the ball in play. But, should we care if a player like Adam Dunn strikes out 200 times ? However, if you can run, I sure would rather have a guy making some contact and hopefully some of that contact produces some seeing-eye hits, which is why I don’t like someone like Corey Patterson.
October 18, 2007 at 12:00 pm
43: My head hurts. Aren’t there more complex metrics out there and don’t some of them peg Andruw as still pretty good? Someone posted a link to one after the season ended that had Jones high. Hardball Times’ RZR has him up near the top, too, IIRC.
October 18, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Geoff…Thanks for the info. Very interesting stuff.
October 18, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Was that SteveC in the Keith Law chat today asking about Padre pitching prospects?
October 18, 2007 at 12:04 pm
49: do post the comments!
October 18, 2007 at 12:04 pm
“Had the Padres shown much skill at building from within, people would be more willing to give them that shot.”
I don’t think it makes sense to hold the club’s previous failings against Fuson, Alderson, DePodesta, et al.
October 18, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Speaking of Freddy Guzman, I am not sure we can completely write this guy off yet. I wouldn’t mind if the Pads brought him into camp for a ‘look-see’ as a potential extra outfielder.
October 18, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Steve (San Diego): Do you like any of the Padres Pitching Prospects? Geer, LeBlanc, Latos, Carillo?
Keith Law: (2:46 PM ET ) Loved Carrillo before he got hurt. I thought he should have been in the mix for us (Toronto) at #6 if we weren’t taking Tulowitzki. But he’s out with Tommy John surgery. Latos has a big fastball but his secondary stuff isn’t great and he’s had some questions on his makeup; he’s a #1/2 on his fastball alone but it takes a lot more than that. LeBlanc is a 5 tops. Haven’t seen Geer.
October 18, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Re: 49 yeah I wanted to see if he would kill Leblanc and Geer
October 18, 2007 at 12:08 pm
32: I think we touched on that a little yesterday. The fact that the Rox and D Backs have so much talent means we need to spend some money to catch up while we build our system, unless KT can work some of that trade magic again.
42: I think TW is right in generalizing that certain corners of the stathead community go too far in defending the K as “just another out”, just as they’ve gone too far in decrying the SB as worthless, the sac bunt as a bad play, claiming pitchers have no effect over balls in play (I know, a simplification of the argument), chemistry and “clutchness” don’t matter, and the glorification of OBP above all. Rational people can understand there are nuances to all these positions but there is definitely a contrarian streak in some of the vocal elements of the SABR types that seems to take satisfaction in denouncing old school ideas. To be fair, I think the people that bang the drum the loudest are bloggers and commenters (present company excepted of course) rather than the people who actually do the research.
Re: Andruw Jones’ defense: FWIW, I’m pretty sure Tango’s 2007 fan ratings had him rated higher than Cameron, Rowand and Hunter.
October 18, 2007 at 12:08 pm
#44: I’ve heard this 1-year deal for Andruw theory advanced by several smart people, and for that reason, I’m not willing to dismiss it altogether. At the same time, I’m skeptical. Andruw turns 31 in April, and he’s coming off one bad season following five very good ones. Regardless of his current defensive ability, he’s still got the rep, and if anyone can market that, it’s Boras. Short of another ‘85-’87 style collusion, Andruw should find a long-term deal despite his most recent performance.
October 18, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Strikeouts actually hurt less than other outs from the #2 hitter. That’s the only spot in the order where that’s true.
October 18, 2007 at 12:13 pm
56: I just don’t see it - 1-year deal, which is why it surprised me when a rational type such as Buster Olney suggested San Diego not once but twice.
October 18, 2007 at 12:14 pm
38: Of course you can compare them. We’re not comparing money, we’re comparing outcomes from high-contact hitters (Cruz) and low-contact hitters (Cameron). Putting the ball in play, in itself, is not success. Cruz, for all his bat control, was no better at lofting sac flies or hitting behind runners to avoid DPs.
47: Defense is hard. About half the metrics, and any scout who’s gone on record, says Kouz is bad. By RZR he ain’t bad, not nearly as bad as I would have thought.
50: The chat is still active, so you can view it without being an insider. As soon as it finishes it’s off-limits.
http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/.....t_id=17676
October 18, 2007 at 12:17 pm
51: I haven’t been overly impressed with their results since Alderson took over. It’s still overwhelmingly college pitchability arms and polished, fairly low upside college hitters, with one or two high school kids who might sign for slot. And a lot of the people who were involved with scouting and drafting before are still there.
October 18, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Re: 60 since SA has joined the Padres KT has IMO become a better GM. The only reason I can think of why that happened is better scouting.
How hands on is SA with the draft? I always thought that was more of a GF thing.
October 18, 2007 at 12:22 pm
59: Antonelli as a utility infielder, huh? The Padres seems awfully high on him in comparison.
October 18, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Re: 62 Law thinks that Antonelli and Headley will turn into Blum and Burroughs when they get the MLB level.
October 18, 2007 at 12:24 pm
The breakdown on Cameron’s K’s:
87 of them came with no one on base.
41 of them came with a runner on first or runners on first and second (times when a K is better than a ground ball out).
5 with the bases loaded (2 with no outs, 2 with one out, 1 with two outs).
4 with runners on first and third (3 with two outs, 1 with no outs).
4 with a runner on third (3 with one out, 1 with two outs).
3 with runners on second and third (3 with two outs).
16 with a runner on second (6 with one out, 6 with two outs, 4 with no outs).
So, there were 8 opportunities for Cameron to bring in a runner from third with fewer than two outs in which he struck out. In 5 of these situations, a ground ball was still worse than a strikeout. There were an additional 4 chances for him to advance the runner to third with one out.
(Thanks to baseball-reference for the info. I just subscribed and it is awesome!)
October 18, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Keith Law: Again I don’t find myself disagreeing with him all that much.
I’m a little higher than him on LeBlanc, but what’s the real difference between me thinking he’s probably a 4 and Law saying he’s a 5? Not much. And Antonelli made solid contact all year, if we allow him to have a slump (August) like other hitters do without making too much of it. Even then he kept his approach, a 100 point jump from his BA to OBP. But the defensive switch, which was supposed to be seamless, seems to instead have seams. That’s not the first time somebody’s talked about his awkwardness at 2b.
October 18, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Re: 64 thanks for the headache Ben - J/K
October 18, 2007 at 12:37 pm
64. Interesting info on Cameron’s strikeouts, a good point you raise, but keep in mind: Strikeouts are a “free out” for the defensive team. No one has to accomplish anything, except the catcher catching the pitch, or throwing to first if he drops it.
Every time you put the ball in play you increase the chances something good will happen. First, you may get a lucky hit (a 87-hopper through the infield, or a DUCKSNORT over the shortstop’s head) and second, you make the defense work and increase the chances they will make a mistake, mental or physical.
If it is basketball, a strikeout is an airball, where you have no chance for a rebound and a put-back. A baseball put in play is a shot of the rim, at least you still have a chance.
October 18, 2007 at 12:37 pm
63: In fairness to Law, he wasn’t that down on Headley. He was predicting league average third baseman, which seems logical to me. Basically like Kouz this year, except more OBP weighted and with solid defense.
Not sure what his problem with Antonelli is though. Antonelli had a .180 ISO with OBP’s consistently around .400, so not sure how that indicates a lack of solid contact or a poor approach.
October 18, 2007 at 1:26 pm
RE K’s in general: Geoff and Steve C., thanks for adding the context. This is really all I’m looking for is some thought. Most of the comments regarding K’s seem to be devoid of this sort of thinking though and so I’m trying to generate some thought and refelection.
Also, regarding Cameron’s delcine, his K/PA is up from last year, but not from the two years prior, nor from 2 of the 3 years prior to that. His BB rate is down from his mid-career levels though. I don’t see any drastic decline evidenced in his numbers yet.
RE 64: Excellent, Ben, as usual; this is the sort of detail and context which has to be understood before one can say whether or not high K’s are good, bad or indifferent. I think this is an excellent illustration of how the K is highly contextual and is not the demon some make it out to be.
RE 67: A free out? No one has to do anything? Well, the pitcher has to make at least three pitches, I think that’s something. Also, take a look at the error rates among modern defenders. Just putting the ball in play is not going to result in any extraordinary increases in runs scored. It’s putting the ball in play with authority, which requires getting a good pitch to hit, which generally requires seeing more pitches and going deeper into the count, which leads to more 2 strike situations. You get the picture.
And this, “Every time you put the ball in play you increase the chances something good will happen…” is pattently false. Put the ball in play weakly with runners on and you increase the chances of something very bad, a double play, happening.
October 18, 2007 at 1:32 pm
67: Those “good things” don’t happen enough to be really relevant. Of course there are specific situations where you’ve got to put the bat on the ball if at all possible; Gonzalez in the 2001 Series. But over the course of a season a lucky player could get 10 or so bases from errors and flukes. The league fielding percentage is 983. Put 1000 balls in play and you’ll get 17 extra runners. You’ll get a lot more going deeper in counts, risking the strikeout but taking the walks. Honestly, how many fluke hits do you think happen? Burroughs was the King of Flukes and it didn’t happen enough for him to keep a job, let alone start.
October 18, 2007 at 1:32 pm
OT … JeffP @ Yahoo writes an accurate version of the Rockies #1 “most memorable event during the streak” …
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/ne.....;type=lgns
Jamey Carroll lined a ball to right field, making it a race between Holliday’s legs and Brian Giles’ arm. The ball lofted toward home. Catcher Michael Barrett awaited it. Holliday dove. The ball arrived. Barrett blocked the plate. Holliday’s chin bounced off the ground, leaving a scrape that today continues to heal. His hand, sealed off by Barrett’s leg, never touched the plate. And yet home plate umpire Tim McClelland called him safe.
BINGO
October 18, 2007 at 1:34 pm
69: Billy Beane used to call the pitches needed to strike a hitter out “the pound of flesh.”
October 18, 2007 at 1:34 pm
While I love all the statistical analysis available, I have to go with what I see with my own two eyes. And that is Mike Cameron, watching fastballs over the plate go by for strike three, even though he can’t hit a slider to save his life (unless hung badly).
Great guy, just don’t think he’s worth the money he’ll get.
October 18, 2007 at 1:38 pm
“”And this, “Every time you put the ball in play you increase the chances something good will happen…” is pattently false. Put the ball in play weakly with runners on and you increase the chances of something very bad, a double play, happening.”"
The Padres have built a very good defense…
http://baseballprospectus.com/.....cid=204024
…converting 70.6% of the balls-in-play into outs (the 5th best rate in baseball).
The flip side of this is the quote you question above… A home run, a strikeout, a walk all happen independantly of the defense. The more times balls are put in play, the more hits will find the cracks (line-drives or infield driblers). So you want pitchers that strike people out and hitters who avoid strikeouts. It’s what makes Albert SUCH a great hitter… His .320 career BA is awesome, but the fact that he 42 HR and only 68 SO (between 50 and 69 since 95 his first season) and he averages 88 BB/year… The ultimate (current) hitter.
…Or look at Dimaggio’s career numbers…
October 18, 2007 at 1:47 pm
74: I don’t want hitters to avoid strikeouts as an end in itself. I want them to make as few outs as possible. Ideally you’d want Roy Hobbes, hitting 400 with a 600 OBP and 20 strikeouts. Outside of a small group of hitters, none currently employed by San Diego or likely to be so, that ain’t happening.
Who chooses Randall Simon over Ryan Howard?
October 18, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Again, context is everything. When you consider modern defense, turning 100 K’s into 100 balls in play is unlikely to have a considerable impact on runs scored. Defenders just don’t make that many errors any more, not to mention the high level of scouting player’s tendencies and the increasing use of positioning to counteract those tendencies. Furthermore, a defensive swing just to make contact is unlikely to result in anything more than a weak ball in play translating to an easy out. Most guys are not Ichiro.
Here’s the context or situations a hitter faces.
No one on with no outs, 1 out, or 2 outs. In none of those three situations is a K any different than any other sort of out.
Runner on first with no out, 1 out, or 2 outs. A K is better than a ground out in 2 of those situations and no different in the third case; essentially no