336 replies to this topic

[Foulkey Reese]

Talks between Theo and Bay will be heating up in the near future. Here's a quick blurb from Heyman:

• The Red Sox were thought to have offered Jason Bay about $15 million. They know they need a big hitter if they don't keep Bay, and Matt Holliday seems like an obvious target in that case.

http://sportsillustr...ednesday/1.html

A 3 year deal with an option for a 4th would be great, but I think it's a given that Bay will be able to find 4 guaranteed years somewhere. Would 4/15 be an overpay for a player who is more or less a DH at this point?

[Rudy's Curve]

Talks between Theo and Bay will be heating up in the near future. Here's a quick blurb from Heyman:

http://sportsillustr...ednesday/1.html

A 3 year deal with an option for a 4th would be great, but I think it's a given that Bay will be able to find 4 guaranteed years somewhere. Would 4/15 be an overpay for a player who is more or less a DH at this point?

I don't know if he'll get four years guaranteed. He's 31, Dunn only got 2/20 at 29, and they're pretty similar players.

I'd only go to 4/60 if Holliday falls through, the next suitor is offering something similar, and Bay is willing to at least DH road games starting in 2011, if not full-time.

[Toe Nash]

Talks between Theo and Bay will be heating up in the near future. Here's a quick blurb from Heyman:





http://sportsillustr...ednesday/1.html

A 3 year deal with an option for a 4th would be great, but I think it's a given that Bay will be able to find 4 guaranteed years somewhere. Would 4/15 be an overpay for a player who is more or less a DH at this point?

I think so. If Bay won't sign for less than 4, and I doubt he will, I'd rather go 5 for Holliday, or just pass on both. Bay gives back about a third of his offensive value in the field if UZR is to be believed.

You can live with Bay in left for this year and move him to DH after Papi / Lowell are gone, but why not just solve the LF problem for years?

[Soxfan in Fla]

Talks between Theo and Bay will be heating up in the near future. Here's a quick blurb from Heyman:





http://sportsillustr...ednesday/1.html

A 3 year deal with an option for a 4th would be great, but I think it's a given that Bay will be able to find 4 guaranteed years somewhere. Would 4/15 be an overpay for a player who is more or less a DH at this point?

IMO no, its not an overpay if he is going to put the numbers up this season in the next few years. His overall numbers this year would be a definite upgrade over what Papi gets us now. Keep Bay at that price in LF for the upcoming season and then move him to DH. Thing is, Bay is at least an adequate LF, especially in Fenway and can go out there at times if necessary. Papi got to the point that he only did that in NL parks at 1B.

After this coming season they can put Bay at DH and either give the keys to LF to Josh Reddick or trade/sign a new LF to strengthen the defense at that position and possibly solidify the lineup even more.

[mt8thsw9th]

Would 4/15 be an overpay for a player who is more or less a DH at this point?

His UZR/150 improved quite a bit from last season. He's obviously not more than a passable defender on his best day, but I don't see how he'd kill the Red Sox in 2010, which is the crux of that issue. He certainly has enough of a bat to slide into the DH spot when Ortiz' contract expires. I don't see why he can't be a productive hitter for another 4 seasons.

Frankly, letting him walk because they don't want to go 4 years at that AAV would be quite foolish. They're not likely to easily find a ~130 OPS+ RHH, and I highly doubt they'd win the Holliday sweepstakes. If Bay is the "bird in hand", I don't see how letting him walk will result in a better team in 2010.

[Steve Dillard]

Frankly, anything from Heyman is suspect, since he's co-opted by Boras who represents Holliday. Stating that Bay turned down $15 mil increases Holliday's market value. Note Heyman's "reportedly" couching language. He's also the source that the Yankees are Holliday's top choice - obviously aimed at driving up the price with Boston, which is Holliday's most likely destination (if, and when they walk away from Bay).

Remember Heyman's prior guess:

2. Jason Bay, Red Sox OF. The Red Sox tried earlier, and Bay has said he loves playing in Boston, a stark change from Pittsburgh.
Agent: $147 million, 7 years.
GM: $60 million, 4 years.
[b]Me: $80 million, 5 years.[/b

]

http://sportsillustr...l#ixzz0VGBfpODs


I'll take Rob Bradford
http://www.weei.com/...d-sox?page=full

"The Red Sox were thinking that the level of compensation for outfielders was still trending toward the lower end, coming in with an offer of approximately three years for $30 million, while Bay was looking for something upward of four years at $14 million per."

[Carmen Fanzone]

"The Red Sox were thinking that the level of compensation for outfielders was still trending toward the lower end, coming in with an offer of approximately three years for $30 million, while Bay was looking for something upward of four years at $14 million per."

If that's the case, I'd try to get something done at 4/12.5

Not only that, but I'd still go after Holliday. Then see if I could get pieces for Ortiz and Lowell that would help me make a Gonzalez deal, which would mitigate the right-handedness of having both Bay and Holliday in the lineup.

Let's face it, this club could afford them both, even if they were offsetting parts of the Ortiz and Lowell deals for a year.

[Wade Boggs Hair]

If that's the case, I'd try to get something done at 4/12.5

Not only that, but I'd still go after Holliday. Then see if I could get pieces for Ortiz and Lowell that would help me make a Gonzalez deal, which would mitigate the right-handedness of having both Bay and Holliday in the lineup.

Let's face it, this club could afford them both, even if they were offsetting parts of the Ortiz and Lowell deals for a year.

This came up in the 1B/3B/DH thread, but per Cot's Ortiz has 10/5 rights. That likely narrows down the pool of potential trade partners significantly.

[Andrew]

If that's the case, I'd try to get something done at 4/12.5

Not only that, but I'd still go after Holliday. Then see if I could get pieces for Ortiz and Lowell that would help me make a Gonzalez deal, which would mitigate the right-handedness of having both Bay and Holliday in the lineup.

Let's face it, this club could afford them both, even if they were offsetting parts of the Ortiz and Lowell deals for a year.

Getting Bay, Holliday, AND Gonzalez would make this off-season on par with the Yankees last in terms of upgrading big needs on the team. I just don't see it happening. Has there EVER been such large collection of moves in the Theo era? They'll take it slow and boring, but probably more effective and responsible in the long run.

[Carmen Fanzone]

This came up in the 1B/3B/DH thread, but per Cot's Ortiz has 10/5 rights. That likely narrows down the pool of potential trade partners significantly.

I was thinking White Sox, who have a need, could contend, and might get approved by Papi.

[leetinsley38]

Getting Bay, Holliday, AND Gonzalez would make this off-season on par with the Yankees last in terms of upgrading big needs on the team. I just don't see it happening. Has there EVER been such large collection of moves in the Theo era? They'll take it slow and boring, but probably more effective and responsible in the long run.

It is kind of ridiculous to think about but consider the potential lineup:

Ellsbury
Pedroia
Adrian Gonzalez
Youks
VMart
Holliday
Drew
Bay
Alex Gonzalez

I think Theo would put the package together and try to pry King Felix instead if they were to land both Holliday and Bay.

[CaptainLaddie]

There is simply no way in hell the Red Sox will trade David Ortiz.

[E5 Yaz]

There is simply no way in hell the Red Sox will trade David Ortiz.

We've officially entered the silly season.

[CaptainLaddie]

We've officially entered the silly season.

It makes no sense.

Ortiz, unlike Nomar, Pedro, or Manny, has never had "that run-in" with management. He's the face of the franchise and is beloved in Boston -- even when he was 0 for the first 60 games.

There is a better chance that Monbo votes for Obama in 2012 than Ortiz does of being traded.

[E5 Yaz]

It makes no sense.

That would be the silly part.

No one is biting on Ortiz's contract, even were the Sox inclined to try to deal it

Edited by E5 Yaz, 29 October 2009 - 02:20 AM.

[OCD SS]

On one hand I will be disappointed if Bay is the starting LFer over Holliday, but at the very least the contract numbers being thrown around in this thread are eminently more reasonable than what was leaked during the season ("Teixeira money").

[Todd Benzinger]

I'm pretty sure that if Bay was willing to sign up for $15M a year, he'd already be resigned. I'm almost certain that signing either Bay or Holliday would tak much more than that. The Cards would probably be willing to give Holliday the DJ Drew contract right now, too.

So the numbers thrown around here may sound nice.... but IIRC the numbers thrown around on SoSH for Teixeira during the world series last offseason were also unrealistically low.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

I don't think the Sox would jump at the chance to sign him for 15 a year. The highest paid member of the team is Drew at 14 million a year and he's a better player than Bay. In fact, there are several players on the team who are better than him who aren't making nearly as much. Of course, most of them weren't signed as free agents, but I would be quite surprised if the Red Sox thought they would be getting a deal by signing him at 15 million a year.

As an aside, I think it's really impressive that a team as competitive as the Red Sox isn't paying anyone more than 14 million per season.

[Pandemonium67]

I think the Sox strongly prefer Holliday to Bay for the defense. Holliday would be the perfect complement to Drew in RF, giving the Sox a very solid, well-rounded outfield.

The problem is Boras. The problem isn't that Boras will shoot for the moon -- that's a given, and Bay is doing it too -- it's that he'll drag it out to the last fucking minute. Theo has a lot of holes to fill, and he's already wasted tons of time dealing with Boras in the past. I think Theo will be aggressive with his offers to both Bay and Holliday, then go hard after the one who's most likely to sign. The last thing Theo wants is to diddle around for months, only to end up with neither.

[LondonSox]

That would be the silly part.

No one is biting on Ortiz's contract, even were the Sox inclined to try to deal it

There are a lot of reasons that this is a silly discussion, but saying a one year contract is "untradable" is not the reason. Any one year contract is clearly tradable, any team can manage its one year projected cost/ revenues. Even in this financial environment. Same goes for Lowell etc. You may not get much, to get much you ahve to eat money, but there is a demand for guys like them on short contracts.
Put it this way you're having real concerns about revenues, but you think you can compete, do you want to sign a 5 year contract to get a freee agent, or give up a prospect for a one year guy, who may well get your draft picks as well, or be tradable at the deadline if your season doesn't work out.

[Eric Van]

Would 4/15 be an overpay for a player who is more or less a DH at this point?

SSS, but Bay was +6 or +7 Fielding Bible in just the last month and also reduced his UZR/150 by a handful of runs. I always thought he was giving away runs playing too deep in Fenway and it's possible that they finally got him to make some kind of adjustment.

By UZR he was -11.4, -14.4 with the Pirates and -8.7 with the Sox this year. FB has it as -8, something in the -3 to -5 range IIRC from the time of the trade, and -1. I think he's actually a -5 defender at this point, maybe even a -4, so he's a few years from needing to DH.

Based on his simple Marcel projection, Bay would be worth $13.3M a year on an undiscounted open FA market. However, that figure includes his terrible 2007 injury off-year, which is a massive outlier in his whole career. If you replace that with 2009 (and he has been very consistent except for 2007), you get $16.7. His ZiPS projection yields $15.2. You can add $0.5 to $1.0 to these if I'm right about his defensive shortcomings being overstated by the raw numbers.

Finally, I believe the Sox believe that a win / 10 runs no longer costs $4.5M on the open market. You can make up your own number and multiply the above numbers by X/4.5 to come up with market-corrected ones.

[paulftodd]

Bay had a a 2 month slump from June where he went 213/346/354/700 with 5 HR and 25 RBI in 50 games. If not for that slump, he would be looking for 20 million/5 yrs as his numbers in 2009 would have been ridiculous. Not everyone can adjust to playing in the AL or Boston (ie. Holliday). Bay is a known quantity, and despite the slump, it's hard to overlook 119 RBI's. Also, unlike a number of other Sox hitters, Bay hit on the road as well with 21 of his 36 HR coming on the road.

If JD can be "underpaid or properly valued" over 5 yrs with 70 million while starting 130 games a year and driving in 60 someting runs per year, a guy who knocks in 119 runs in 151 starts and who can run the bases can expect a better deal. Oh wait, Theo went out of his way to defend Drew and said RBI's are not important. Wonder if he was setting the stage for the Bay negotiations. If he really believes RBI's are not important, Bay will be wearing a different uniform next year.

[mabrowndog]

Oh wait, Theo went out of his way to defend Drew and said RBI's are not important. Wonder if he was setting the stage for the Bay negotiations. If he really believes RBI's are not important, Bay will be wearing a different uniform next year.

I highly doubt that's what Theo was doing, and even if he wanted to knock down Bay's market value he knows it's nonsense. Theo knows damn well that impressive RBI totals can't be ignored. I mean, they are what they are -- man comes up with teammates on base, man hits ball, teammate(s) score. There isn't a sabermetrician on the planet that could make the case that someone who drives in 100+ runs in a given year isn't a productive hitter.

His point vis a vis Drew was that a lack of RBI doesn't necessarily indicate a corresponding lack of productivity, and that it can often be traced to two things:

1) A lack of opportunities (PAs with men on base).
2) Trading a higher-reward, lower probability of success (swinging at a pitch) for a lower-reward, higher probability of success (patiently drawing a walk and avoiding an out).

And in Drew's case, there's ample evidence that both apply.

Edited by mabrowndog, 29 October 2009 - 08:35 AM.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

If JD can be "underpaid or properly valued" over 5 yrs with 70 million while starting 130 games a year and driving in 60 someting runs per year, a guy who knocks in 119 runs in 151 starts and who can run the bases can expect a better deal. Oh wait, Theo went out of his way to defend Drew and said RBI's are not important. Wonder if he was setting the stage for the Bay negotiations. If he really believes RBI's are not important, Bay will be wearing a different uniform next year.

For the love of God, not this again. RBIs are primarily a function of opportunity, not skill. Stop paying attention to RBIs as a measure of a player's skill; they are tangentially related at best. Theo has been quite clear that RBIs play a very small role, if any, in the way they analyze a player. We have two whole threads demonstrating this over and over.

Bay's value lies in his power and consistency. Your point about the homers is a good one as they provide tremendous value. Jason Bay is a very good hitter with a very good batting eye, as his slugging and OBP show. His has year after year put up an OPS+ in the 130 range, which is excellent. But his clear weakness is fielding, which might be charitibly be described as "mediocre" and might more accurately be described as "much below average," and his defense negates a good deal of his offensive value.

[TomRicardo]

There are a lot of reasons that this is a silly discussion, but saying a one year contract is "untradable" is not the reason. Any one year contract is clearly tradable, any team can manage its one year projected cost/ revenues. Even in this financial environment. Same goes for Lowell etc. You may not get much, to get much you ahve to eat money, but there is a demand for guys like them on short contracts.

Except for a guy with a no trade clause and zero desire to leave town. They are pretty much not tradable.

Just for people have continued to ignore the obvious:

DAVIS ORTIZ HAS 10/5 RIGHTS. HE CAN VETO ANY TRADE. HE IS NOT GOING TO GET TRADED UNLESS SOMEONE IS WILLING TO GIVE HIM A BIG EXTENSION AKA HE IS NOT GETTING TRADED. STOP ACTING LIKE IT IS JUST A MATTER OF SOMEONE TAKING A ONE YEAR CONTRACT.

Of course about five more people will say that we can easily trade Ortiz's contract.

Edited by TomRicardo, 29 October 2009 - 08:22 AM.

[Red(s)HawksFan]

If JD can be "underpaid or properly valued" over 5 yrs with 70 million while starting 130 games a year and driving in 60 someting runs per year, a guy who knocks in 119 runs in 151 starts and who can run the bases can expect a better deal. Oh wait, Theo went out of his way to defend Drew and said RBI's are not important. Wonder if he was setting the stage for the Bay negotiations. If he really believes RBI's are not important, Bay will be wearing a different uniform next year.

If Theo really believes RBI are not important, why in the world would Bay's RBI total have any bearing whatsoever on whether he is re-signed or not? But don't let that get in the way of you continuing be obtuse on the matter.

[luckysox]

Can I ask a question regarding Bay's defensive skillset to those of you that may know more than I do? What, exactly, makes him as bad as he is? He's slow out there, yes, but is it his read of the ball off of the bat? His routes? His range? And can any of these actually be improved through certain kinds of training and workouts, i.e. Derek Jeter at shortstop over the past two seasons? Bay is a good athlete - he runs the bases well, can steal a bag when need be, has quick hands...yet he looks like a slow plasma blob like thing in the field. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me, and I wonder if it's something that can be improved.

[mfried]

If Theo really believes RBI are not important, why in the world would Bay's RBI total have any bearing whatsoever on whether he is re-signed or not? But don't let that get in the way of you continuing be obtuse on the matter.

RBIs are an important measure of offensive productive iff (if and only if) a batter is preceded in the lineup by high OBP hitters. If Victor Martinez couldn't generate RBI when preceded by Ellsbury and Pedroia it would be a problem. If the no. 5 hitter - after Ells, Ped, VMart, Youk - couldn't generate RBI I would raise questions. If you are batting no. 8, OBP might well be AS GOOD a measure of offensive productivity as RBI.

[Red(s)HawksFan]

RBIs are an important measure of offensive productive iff (if and only if) a batter is preceded in the lineup by high OBP hitters. If Victor Martinez couldn't generate RBI when preceded by Ellsbury and Pedroia it would be a problem. If the no. 5 hitter - after Ells, Ped, VMart, Youk - couldn't generate RBI I would raise questions. If you are batting no. 8, OBP might well be AS GOOD a measure of offensive productivity as RBI.

I understand that, but there are better ways to measure that than purely counting up RBI totals. As SJH says above, RBI are the result of opportunity, not skill. So one has to take the opportunities into the equation regardless of what position in the order a batter resides. It should be noted that whenever Theo has publicly stated that his and the organization philosophy is that RBI are not important, he does bring up that they DO look at rate statistics regarding RBI.

Point being that Theo is not going to look at Jason Bay's total number of RBI when evaluating him, he's going to look at his RBI per opportunity among other statistics to determine value. Just the same as he would with JD Drew or Victor Martinez or any other player. That shiny 119 number associated with Jason Bay's 2009 season really doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things.

So when paulftood brings up those 119 RBI as a likely reason why Theo wouldn't re-sign Bay, he's misconstruing things greatly, and I suspect, intentionally.

[Todd Benzinger]

I don't think the Sox would jump at the chance to sign him for 15 a year. The highest paid member of the team is Drew at 14 million a year and he's a better player than Bay. In fact, there are several players on the team who are better than him who aren't making nearly as much. Of course, most of them weren't signed as free agents, but I would be quite surprised if the Red Sox thought they would be getting a deal by signing him at 15 million a year.

As an aside, I think it's really impressive that a team as competitive as the Red Sox isn't paying anyone more than 14 million per season.

OK, poking around the internet it looks like the most specific rumors out there during the failed negotiations last off season and this season were that the Sox were talking Adam Dunn money ($10M/yr) and Bay wasn't interested, so maybe they never went to $15M.

Still, I agree with Bowler in this past thread. If you could lock up Bay (or Holliday) for JD Drew's contract, you'd be doing well, at least if signing one of the two is your major priority. And Bowler was making that point before they both hit FA. I will be surprised, given that both guys will be receiving serious attention from multiple teams (at least the Sox/MFY/Cards, probably others) if either winds up settling for less than 5/70.

IIRC, Teixeira's contract was way, way bigger than where SoSH was setting it last offseason, although I haven't found that thread.

PS: IE< despite the market correction last off-season for Abreu, Dunn, & Burrell, there was no correction for the guys the MFY signed or the Sox bid on. It seems if you are an elite FA you get paid. If you are a hair below that, you get paid alot less. Of course, Fangraphs has Bay's "value" at 13M last season and 15M this, so maybe paying full retail for Bay is in the 14-15M range... SO maybe that's where he'll sign as an FA, and not above it. Still, I will be shocked if he winds up having to take less than 5/70, and I suspect that the only way that will happen is if the one of the Sox/MFY snag Holliday, and the other does something creative to fill FA (ie an expected trade), Abreu signs with the LAAAA, and Bay is the only one left w/o a chair when the music stops so has to take 4/50 from the Cards...

Edited by Todd Benzinger, 29 October 2009 - 09:19 AM.

[Eric Van]

Except for a guy with a no trade clause and zero desire to leave town. They are pretty much not tradable.

Just for people have continued to ignore the obvious:

[BIG TEXT!]

Of course about five more people will say that we can easily trade Ortiz's contract.

And the only reason you would want to trade Ortiz anyway is if you signed Beltre and traded for Prince Fielder. And given the weakness of the NL Central, and that Adrian Gonzalez will also be on the trade market, it would make no sense for the Brewers to deal Fielder now, two years before FA, rather than next winter.

[TomRicardo]

OK, poking around the internet it looks like the most specific rumors out there during the failed negotiations last off season and this season were that the Sox were talking Adam Dunn money ($10M/yr) and Bay wasn't interested, so maybe they never went to $15M.

Still, I agree with Bowler in this past thread. If you could lock up Bay (or Holliday) for JD Drew's contract, you'd be doing well, at least if signing one of the two is your major priority. And Bowler was making that point before they both hit FA. I will be surprised, given that both guys will be receiving serious attention from multiple teams (at least the Sox/MFY/Cards, probably others) if either winds up settling for less than 5/70.

Why? Bay is not as good a player as Drew and Drew got a contract when the market was at its highest where Bay is entering free agency in a recession. The Red Sox screwed up if they have to sign Bay to what Drew got.

[Rudy Pemberton]

Drew is a better player than Bay, even if that perception doesn't exist. How one values Bay, on his own and in comparison to Drew, is really dependent on an assessment of defense- and how you project that going forward. Last three seasons, Bay is -1, +33, and +34 RAA offensively; while Drew is -5, +25, and +25. Defensively, Drew is -3, +6, +10, while Bay -12, -18, -14. I would suggest that a 5 year, $70M deal offer which matches Drew is a fair one. The problem is that what Drew makes is probably irrelevant to what Bay wants; and Holliday is going to cost a ton more. If you stick to a fair offer for Bay and lose out, you'll end up overpaying someone else or with a downgrade in LF (offensively, at least).

[bakahump]

For the love of God, not this again. RBIs are primarily a function of opportunity, not skill. Stop paying attention to RBIs as a measure of a player's skill; they are tangentially related at best. Theo has been quite clear that RBIs play a very small role, if any, in the way they analyze a player. We have two whole threads demonstrating this over and over.

Bay's value lies in his power and consistency. Your point about the homers is a good one as they provide tremendous value. Jason Bay is a very good hitter with a very good batting eye, as his slugging and OBP show. His has year after year put up an OPS+ in the 130 range, which is excellent. But his clear weakness is fielding, which might be charitibly be described as "mediocre" and might more accurately be described as "much below average," and his defense negates a good deal of his offensive value.

But isnt there a tipping point?

I mean 100 rbis is realistically a minimum of 50-60 hits that come at very specific times. If you add another 90-100 hits (in situations with no on on base or in situations where teammates cant score for whatever reason) you have a "near elite" offensive player.

The flip side is that a player ONLY hits in those specific situations (or at least rarely in others). Thus inflating his RBI numbers but really overstating his offensive contribution. But really what are the odds of that? Besides said player would be clutch! Ok I ked I ked....

Granted that a guys teammates need to be on in order for him to get those RBIs, but absent those Runners being on they still represent 50+ hits that would provide significant value without the runners on.

Serious question....when was the last time a "Bad/average hitter" or "someone who didnt add significant offensive value" drove in 100+ runs? Maybe a 1920s scrub on the 27 Yankees?

We could say someone with an OPS+ of 100 or 0 Offensive runs above replacement.

How many season like that has there been? How often percentage wise do they happen?

While I totally agree that RBI numbers inflate the perceived value of player X....and that value its mostly driven by his teammates abilities....when it reaches a certain threshold there becomes significant value in player X own right.

I dont have access to BBRef to do the search but if anyone else is curious I would love to know.

[maufman]

I can't believe we have to make the case that RBI are irrelevant in evaluating talent, but here we are. For present purposes, let's just stipulate that the Red Sox' FO thinks they're irrelevant. (If you don't believe me, do a little Google research and find what Theo has said on the topic.) It's true that a few organizations are behind the curve and might still consider RBI in evaluating talent, but none of those teams will be serious bidders for Jason Bay.

I oppose re-signing Bay for the following reasons:

1. At his age, any improvement Bay showed with the glove in 2009 is likely to be fleeting. Besides, according to UZR, Bay's range was worse than ever in 2009; his improvement came from slight improvements to his arm and his error rate-- both of which scream SSS (to me, anyway). I take little comfort from evidence that he played better D down the stretch; we said the same thing about Julio Lugo in 2007, and look how that turned out.

2. Signing someone who figures to occupy the DH spot from 2011-13 (or longer) will greatly reduce Theo's long-term flexibility during a time when he'll need to fill lots of holes. The market is unlikely to discount Bay's value sufficiently to account for this loss of flexibility.

3. Bay will be an "old" 31 next season (turning 32 in September). Even if you're optimistic and think Bay is a 3.5-4.5 WAR player, it's absurd to expect him to maintain that performance level for more than two seasons. If Bay produces 12 WAR over the next 4 seasons, whoever signs him should be satisfied; if he produces 14 WAR, they should be elated. Those numbers make Bay a marginal investment even at 4/60, and like others, I think he'll get a lot more than that.

[henrydog]

I understand that, but there are better ways to measure that than purely counting up RBI totals. As SJH says above, RBI are the result of opportunity, not skill. So one has to take the opportunities into the equation regardless of what position in the order a batter resides. It should be noted that whenever Theo has publicly stated that his and the organization philosophy is that RBI are not important, he does bring up that they DO look at rate statistics regarding RBI.

Point being that Theo is not going to look at Jason Bay's total number of RBI when evaluating him, he's going to look at his RBI per opportunity among other statistics to determine value. Just the same as he would with JD Drew or Victor Martinez or any other player. That shiny 119 number associated with Jason Bay's 2009 season really doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things.

So when paulftood brings up those 119 RBI as a likely reason why Theo wouldn't re-sign Bay, he's misconstruing things greatly, and I suspect, intentionally.

Yet among players with 500+ PA, in 2009 Bay ranks 10th overall with an OPI% (Others Batted In %) of 18.7% and Drew ranks 100th with an OPI% of 13.8%. This would seem to account for the OBP of players ahead of them and thus account for opportunity, right? Am I misinterpreting the OPI% stat? One thing it does exclude is HRs (that is, the RBI generated from knocking yourself in), but Drew's less of a masher than Bay so it seems like OPI% would benefit Drew.

This isn't a knock on Drew per se, as I think his value lies in the fact that he's good or really good at all things (defense, running, OBP, SLG) but does not excel at driving runners in. I still think he's worth every penny of his contract, though, and I bring up the OPI% only to address the notion that Drew doesn't have the RBI total because he doesn't have the opportunity. It seems like when there are runners on base, Drew drives them in less frequently than Bay.

Looking at 2008, they're a bit closer, with Bay at 15.8% and Drew at 14.9%. 2007 has Bay at 14.7% and Drew at 12.4%.

Apologies if this was brought up in the other Drew thread, but it seems like this is what baka was hinting at.

[Jimbodandy]

Why? Bay is not as good a player as Drew and Drew got a contract when the market was at its highest where Bay is entering free agency in a recession. The Red Sox screwed up if they have to sign Bay to what Drew got.

Fangraphs doesn't have a problem with Bay at Drew money. I don't either. There will be a competition for outfielders this year.

[ToxicSmed]

There isn't a sabermetrician on the planet that could make the case that someone who drives in 100+ runs in a given year isn't a productive hitter.

Unless you are talking about 1997-era Joe Carter. There is a prime example of how poor the RBI is for judging even a cleanup hitter.

[Rough Carrigan]

Can I ask a question regarding Bay's defensive skillset to those of you that may know more than I do? What, exactly, makes him as bad as he is? He's slow out there, yes, but is it his read of the ball off of the bat? His routes? His range? And can any of these actually be improved through certain kinds of training and workouts, i.e. Derek Jeter at shortstop over the past two seasons? Bay is a good athlete - he runs the bases well, can steal a bag when need be, has quick hands...yet he looks like a slow plasma blob like thing in the field. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me, and I wonder if it's something that can be improved.

IMO, he starts after balls incredibly slowly. I don't know if that's just an inability to read the ball off the bat or if it's a combination of that and a slow first step but, IMO that's his problem. He tries hard and runs okay once he gets going. His hands aren't bad but his throwing is pretty weak and inaccurate too. Remember the game in Texas in August or September when Beckett was pitching and gave up a fly to short left that a Rangers runner still managed to score on from third, causing Beckett to say something like (as read by SOSH lip readers) "Jesus Christ! Can I get a left fielder who can throw?!"

As to the possibility of improvement, who knows?

[Cuzittt]

Serious question....when was the last time a "Bad/average hitter" or "someone who didnt add significant offensive value" drove in 100+ runs? Maybe a 1920s scrub on the 27 Yankees?

We could say someone with an OPS+ of 100 or 0 Offensive runs above replacement.

Don't much remember Tony Armas, do you.

Tony Armas

1983... first season with the Red Sox. .218/.254/.453 - 85 OPS+. But... what people remembered about Armas was the HRs (36) and the RBI (107). He, of course, was the cleanup hitter.

I am certain Armas would not be the last player like this.

[Wade Boggs Hair]

Don't much remember Tony Armas, do you.

Tony Armas

1983... first season with the Red Sox. .218/.254/.453 - 85 OPS+. But... what people remembered about Armas was the HRs (36) and the RBI (107). He, of course, was the cleanup hitter.

I am certain Armas would not be the last player like this.

In 2004, Tony Batista hit 32 HR and amassed 110 RBI for the Expos, despite an overall .241/.272/.455 line (80 OPS+).

[Eric Van]

Unless you are talking about 1997-era Joe Carter. There is a prime example of how poor the RBI is for judging even a cleanup hitter.

In 2008 Ryan Howard led all of MLB in RBI by a large margin while ranking 39th in Win Probability Added, a stat which actually measures what RBI tries to (and usually correlates to it decently).

[cannonball 1729]

In 2004, Tony Batista hit 32 HR and amassed 110 RBI for the Expos, despite an overall .241/.272/.455 line (80 OPS+).

And, of course, there's Ruben Sierra's 1993, with his 22 HR and 101 RBI coming despite a .233/.288/.390 line (86 OPS+)

And Jeff Francoeur has made a career out of stat lines like .260/.293/.449 (87 OPS+) that somehow give 29 HR and 103 RBI (in fact, these are exactly his 2006 numbers).

[luckysox]

IMO, he starts after balls incredibly slowly. I don't know if that's just an inability to read the ball off the bat or if it's a combination of that and a slow first step but, IMO that's his problem. He tries hard and runs okay once he gets going. His hands aren't bad but his throwing is pretty weak and inaccurate too. Remember the game in Texas in August or September when Beckett was pitching and gave up a fly to short left that a Rangers runner still managed to score on from third, causing Beckett to say something like (as read by SOSH lip readers) "Jesus Christ! Can I get a left fielder who can throw?!"

As to the possibility of improvement, who knows?

Thank, you Rough. Seems like more of an instinctual thing/arm thing rather than something that might be improved by specific drilling or a specific training regimen.

It's sure hard to watch the guy in big left fields. Do we know if he's even open to DH-ing from 2011 on? B/C that may be a point of contention in negotiations.

[mabrowndog]

Lowest OBP in a 100-RBI season

Lowest OBP in a 100-RBI season

PLAYER	OBP	RBI	YEAR	AGE	TEAM
Tony Armas	.254	107	1983	29	BOS
Tony Batista	.272	110	2004	30	MON
Joe Pepitone	.281	100	1964	23	NYY
Joe Carter	.284	102	1997	37	TOR
Ruben Sierra	.288	101	1993	27	OAK
Joe Carter	.290	115	1990	30	SDP
Joe Carter	.292	105	1989	29	CLE
Jeff Francoeur	.293	103	2006	22	ATL
George Bell	.294	112	1992	32	CHW
Sammy Sosa	.300	119	1997	28	CHC
Tony Armas	.300	123	1984	30	BOS
Butch Hobson	.300	112	1977	25	BOS
Andre Dawson	.302	104	1991	36	CHC
Ruben Sierra	.302	109	1987	21	TEX
Gary Gaetti	.303	109	1987	28	MIN
Jim Presley	.303	107	1986	24	SEA
Gorman Thomas	.303	105	1980	29	MIL
Juan Gonzalez	.304	109	1992	22	TEX
Joe Carter	.304	106	1987	27	CLE
Vernon Wells	.305	100	2002	23	TOR
Richie Sexson	.305	116	1999	24	CLE
Joe Carter	.306	107	1996	36	TOR
Ernie Banks	.306	104	1962	31	CHC
Garret Anderson	.307	117	2000	28	ANA
Tony Batista	.307	114	2000	26	TOR

It's interesting that 19 of the "Top" 25 were in the AL, and that only 2 of these seasons (and 7 of the top 50) occurred before 1977.

Edited by mabrowndog, 29 October 2009 - 10:40 AM.

[bakahump]

Thanks for the examples. They are obvious counter points to the 100 RBI seasons are good ones.

They prove what we already know....that alot of the RBIs stat is dependent on the situations you hit in, (hence your situations your teamates put you in) or that you hit a large Ratio of HRs to Hits.

To Be far .....how many season like that have there been? There have been about 5 mentioned in this thread.
100?
1000?
10000?

If its 200 such seasons (of which you rightly point out 5) over the last 30 years thats a pretty small size statiscally (2%? .02%?).

This is a classic SOSH over reaction. For years the triple crown numbers where so important to the MSM and fandom that we as a collective have knee jerked totally the other way. "RBI'S! BAH they indicate nothing except he had good teamates!"

Yet we still cry "We need someone to drive in runners!"

Hear me clear.....Not all 100 RBI seasons are "good". However I would bet that 100 RBI seasons are a helpful indicator of a good season because of they are a side affect of other more important Player controlled achievments (must get hits/ hit HRs to get RBIs.) That Statsically x% (be it 93% or 89% or 75%) of the time a player gets 100 RBIs its going to indicate a "near elite to elite" level of offensive production. (we can haggle over "Near elite".)

Also understand that I do not endorse signing a player because "he got 100 RBIs!!!" What I do endorse is using the stat as part of the process in understanding how well a player performed overall.

What LED to those 100 RBIs that the batter controlled?


EDIT: Thanks Dog. Still this seems like a very small % of total seasons. So again I would contend....If you get 100 RBIs that in a entremely high % of the time.....players are doing the right things (Getting hits....high OBP.....hitting for power.)

Edit2: Joe Carter as ToxicSmed mentioned and MABDs chart illustrates is the Poster boy against my stand. The Exception that proves the rule?? 5 of the top (bottom?) seasons to one guy? If it was really common for 100 RBI seasons to indicate "Bad" offensive seasons I would have thought to see all kinds of different names....not the same 3-5 over and over and over.

Edited by bakahump, 29 October 2009 - 10:51 AM.

[Steve Dillard]

Fangraphs doesn't have a problem with Bay at Drew money. I don't either. There will be a competition for outfielders this year.

Fangraphs also says Varitek outpeformed his contract and was worth $5.9 last year.

Yet among players with 500+ PA, in 2009 Bay ranks 10th overall with an OPI% (Others Batted In %) of 18.7% and Drew ranks 100th with an OPI% of 13.8%. This would seem to account for the OBP of players ahead of them and thus account for opportunity, right? Am I misinterpreting the OPI% stat? One thing it does exclude is HRs (that is, the RBI generated from knocking yourself in), but Drew's less of a masher than Bay so it seems like OPI% would benefit Drew.

This stat excludes HR self-driven in.

http://www.baseballm...I...&MinPA= 400

Holliday 18.82 % (3rd in baseball)
Vic Martinez 18.30% (9th in baseball)
Bay 16% (63rd in baseball)
Drew 13.55% (232nd in baseball)

[Frisbetarian]

Don't much remember Tony Armas, do you.

Tony Armas

1983... first season with the Red Sox. .218/.254/.453 - 85 OPS+. But... what people remembered about Armas was the HRs (36) and the RBI (107). He, of course, was the cleanup hitter.

I am certain Armas would not be the last player like this.

The first guy that came to mind for me was Bill Buckner, who drove in 102 runs while posting a 97 OPS+ and playing spectacularly bad defense at 1st base.

[Jimbodandy]

Fangraphs also says Varitek outpeformed his contract and was worth $5.9 last year.

True, but that was because of the positional adjustment. It works against Bay.

edit: Quote idiot

Edited by Jimbodandy, 29 October 2009 - 10:58 AM.

[yecul]

The first guy that came to mind for me was Bill Buckner, who drove in 102 runs while posting a 97 OPS+ and playing spectacularly bad defense at 1st base.

What makes you think he played bad D? Care to provide an example?