300 replies to this topic

[jon abbey]

Talk about silliness. "Trending down" because of last year's .241 in 83 PAs? Really? Previous to that, his OBP (and BB%) were higher in 2009 than in 2008. Not really a trend either way.

Yeah, that's fair upon closer observation, I just looked at the numbers quickly.

[Phranchise]

This is why I didn't even bother responding. We're talking about a guy who has less than 1000 career PAs, has played one full season, and in that full season had a ridiculous BABIP that inflated his first half. It's pretty silly.

Here is my prediction: Gardner either flames out and does nothing going forward, or he manages to stay somewhat productive after which NY will trade him. So either way, I don't think we'll be talking about him much after too long. I bet they've tried to move him but no team believes that he's worth anything yet.

I'll just have to sit back and wait for you to respond to my post that calls into question your point that Gardner is a below average baseball player while Ellsbury is an above average baseball player.

You bet they've tried to move him but not team believes he's worth anything yet? You're right. Who would want the 1-2 best fielding LF's in the game who gets on base at a nice clip, steals bases with ease and makes the league minimum?!?

[rembrat]

As far as I can tell, through researching the already questionable pages of MLBtraderumors.com, only the CWS and the A's. Both of these teams have a fetish. The White Sox will covet anyone that has speed, grit, and "makes things happen," and the A's have a public boner for anyone that can take a walk. Outside of these two, I don't think there is much interest in Gardner. He wasn't linked to the Lee trade talks nor was he linked to the Haren trade talks. I like to think of him as a guy that thrives hiding in a stacked lineup such as the Yankees one. I call it the Melky Cabrera effect.

[glennhoffmania]

Because maybe no one else believes that he'll be able to continue to get on base at a nice clip? Jesus, that was what Rembrat and I already said. I didn't think it had to be repeated in every post. I'm sure some teams would take him, but not for what the Yankees are probably asking for, ie., a usable middle of the rotation SP.

Edit- this was in response to Phranchise, not Rembrat.

Edited by glennhoffmania, 23 December 2010 - 01:09 PM.

[jon abbey]

Outside of these two, I don't think there is much interest in Gardner. He wasn't linked to the Lee trade talks nor was he linked to the Haren trade talks.

Those were both midseason discussions and NY had no real replacement for him at that point, so I don't think that means anything.

If his name came up much at all this offseason, it was generally before Crawford/Werth signed, and sportswriters thought NY could upgrade that way, pay big bucks to a FA and then move the cheap guy. Now that Crawford/Werth have both signed elsewhere, I don't think NY can really afford to move Gardner, as they have no Reddick/Kalish types anywhere close to ready.

[Phranchise]

Because maybe no one else believes that he'll be able to continue to get on base at a nice clip? Jesus, that was what Rembrat and I already said. I didn't think it had to be repeated in every post. I'm sure some teams would take him, but not for what the Yankees are probably asking for, ie., a usable middle of the rotation SP.

Edit- this was in response to Phranchise, not Rembrat.

Now, for the THIRD time - how can tyou consider Gardner to be a below average baseball player while at the same time you consider Ellsbury to be an above average baseball player?. Just admit you've got nothing and we'll end this.

[Alternate34]

Now, for the THIRD time - how can tyou consider Gardner to be a below average baseball player while at the same time you consider Ellsbury to be an above average baseball player?. Just admit you've got nothing and we'll end this.

The quick answer is that Gardner just had his best season he will ever have. Ellsbury's best season is not the best he will ever have. They contribute approximately the same value, but Ellsbury's future looks better.

Gardner is going to decline from this point because any offensive success he has is fueled by BABIP. Even considering his ability to run out infield singles, his minor league numbers show that a .360 BABIP is far above what his baseline should be. When you have one batting skill, plate discipline, it can be neutralized or your lack of power and contact ability limits your progression upwards.

OTOH, Ellsbury shouldn't decline. He has demonstrated middling power, middling contact ability, and middling plate discipline.

Scouts agree that Gardner has little upside while Ellsbury has quite a bit more. General statistical profiles on how players develop support that conclusion. Those are objective reasons to prefer Ellsbury to Gardner.

[Shelterdog]

Wait, you're suggesting that because one first baseman had an off-year on UZR (all of which was based on range--his hands were as good as ever), then the legitimacy of UZR is called into question? You're just throwing shit against the wall now to see what sticks.

The thing with Gardner is that his good UZR numbers--and they're really good--confirms the general perceptions of observers. Whatever you might think of his bat, his glove is legit.

I think the point is that one year of UZR ratings doesn't tell you that much; it's far too small a sample.

EDIT: It also gets missed a lot but Gardner is older than I think people perceive; he's 27 turning 28 in August (one month older than Ellsbury).

Edited by Shelterdog, 23 December 2010 - 02:04 PM.

[Joshv02]

Being a top defensive LFer doesn't tell you much b/c LFers generally aren't very good defensively. According to the Fans Scouting Report, which isn't worth a ton either mind you but is worth more than general subjective opinions, Gardner is a good defensive OFer but not elite. That's about my take from the 30-50 games I've seen him play (albeit on TV). Not the best hands, great acceleration, not the best instincts but generally instincts, weak arm - overall, solid reads with good routes and an above average defensive OFer, but not yet elite level.

Gardner's UZRs have been spoken about to death - just stop quoting them for now. If you are right about his UZRs you'll be just as right when he has enough data to show that you are.

[jon abbey]

That's about my take from the 30-50 games I've seen him play (albeit on TV). Not the best hands, great acceleration, not the best instincts but generally instincts, weak arm - overall, solid reads with good routes and an above average defensive OFer, but not yet elite level.

Everyone's obviously entitled to their own perspective, but I'm not sure where some of these perceptions are coming from. I've seen all or close to all of Gardner's MLB games (also mostly on TV), and I'd say he has superb hands, great acceleration, very good instincts, and an improving arm (this last is backed up by Fangraphs numbers). Also, he's played as many innings in CF as he has in LF in his career, and has very strong numbers there also.

Overall, if he's not an elite OF defender, the list of genuinely elite OF defenders is pretty short.

[Phranchise]

The quick answer is that Gardner just had his best season he will ever have. Ellsbury's best season is not the best he will ever have. They contribute approximately the same value, but Ellsbury's future looks better.

Gardner is going to decline from this point because any offensive success he has is fueled by BABIP. Even considering his ability to run out infield singles, his minor league numbers show that a .360 BABIP is far above what his baseline should be. When you have one batting skill, plate discipline, it can be neutralized or your lack of power and contact ability limits your progression upwards.

OTOH, Ellsbury shouldn't decline. He has demonstrated middling power, middling contact ability, and middling plate discipline.

Scouts agree that Gardner has little upside while Ellsbury has quite a bit more. General statistical profiles on how players develop support that conclusion. Those are objective reasons to prefer Ellsbury to Gardner.

I was hoping you'd use some stats to back up your points instead of statements such as your opening statement. Unless you can read the future, it's not worth much.

Gardner has consistently put up high BABIPs in the minors. I'm not sure why when he does it at the MLB level, it's being called into question - check it out - http://www.fangraphs...927&position=OF

Edited by Phranchise, 23 December 2010 - 02:35 PM.

[rembrat]

Because the Major Leagues.. are the Major Leagues?

Austin Jackson is another dude that put up high BABIP in the minor leagues, and, well, do I really have to say it?

[Phranchise]

Because the Major Leagues.. are the Major Leagues?

Austin Jackson is another dude that put up high BABIP in the minor leagues, and, well, do I really have to say it?

Austin Jackson's BABIP was historically high this year. I think he'll maintain a BABIP of over .300, but .396 is a joke.

Gardner's BABIP has been around .340 throughout his MiLB career, and for the record, even if he had a more normal (by his standards) .320 BABIP this past season, his OBP would still be more than respectable.

Edited by Phranchise, 23 December 2010 - 02:48 PM.

[Joshv02]

Everyone's obviously entitled to their own perspective, but I'm not sure where some of these perceptions are coming from. I've seen all or close to all of Gardner's MLB games (also mostly on TV), and I'd say he has superb hands, great acceleration, very good instincts, and an improving arm (this last is backed up by Fangraphs numbers).

I'll pay attention this year and try to point out plays - I think that many plays where I see Gardner move towards the ball, he is using his athleticism where his instincts fail. He does not appear to have a great knack for knowing the balls angle off the bat. That is good instincts. I don't think Gardner has that at all - I think he generally freezes for a moment before breaking, though he usually takes very good routes when he recognizes the ball's location.

I'll defer on his arm - I didn't see a lot of strength there, but if you say it improved that's a pretty nice asset.

I don't think just about any player who we barely have data on is elite. I don't see why saying "let's wait to make that judgment" is a bad idea. I don't think that Gardner is clearly not elite - I just think that he isn't clearly elite, either. I'd certainly call him very good.

[Alternate34]

I was hoping you'd use some stats to back up your points instead of statements such as your opening statement. Unless you can read the future, it's not worth much.

Gardner has consistently put up high BABIPs in the minors. I'm not sure why when he does it at the MLB level, it's being called into question - check it out - http://www.fangraphs...927&position=OF

First, I'm sorry that I don't have the studies right in front of me, but generally, when a player has a slugging percentage lower than their on base percentage, it is difficult for them to improve or even sustain their level of production. It happens from time to time, but more often than not, those guys are out of the league or back up OFs because pitchers eventually just challenge them. You can look at Baseball Behind the Numbers to find that players who have one offensive skill tend to develop less than players with multiple offensive skills. Additionally, young players with good discipline and lower batting averages generally develop less than players with al around skill.

Garnder's career MLB BABIP from the fangraphs is .324. His .340 BABIP is above that. His minor league BABIP may be around .340, but like almost all minor league stats, especially for a guy whose first long exposure to the bigs is at 27, his baseline will be lower than his minor league stats because the minor leagues are easier.

Checking out his minor league BABIP, he has a season at A+ with a .414 BABIP, two seasons at AA at .324 and .341, and one season of AAA at .370. Following that, he has major league BABIPs of .296 and .311, and then this last season at .340. So we have 2 MLB seasons below what you think his new baseline is, 2 AA season at or below where his purported baseline is, and 2 minor league seasons above his baseline. In total, 4 seasons that should be considered below .340 BABIP, 2 seasons above. The way I look at it, he is due a correction downward.

Can you read the future or do you think one major league season is predictive? Do you really think you can take his most recent season and use that as his major league production? Do you think scouting is completely worthless? You do realize that you have failed to bring up stats to support your point aside from Brett's one year correct? That basing a projection on one year is worth old crusty shrivelled up old man dick?

Fuck me, I just looked at all your old posts on this topic and you haven't even put any stats in at all. You just cited a fangraphs page. You put no stats up yourself and ask me for stats? Here's a challenge for you. Find me a player beyond 1920 who put up higher OBP than SLG and hit for a below .300 average that actually had a career. I put these requirements in because (1) it describes Gardner and (2) it is important. The batting average is important because it shows an ability to make contact and put in play a variety of pitches, not just the one he waits for.

Here's a hint: It almost never happens because those players are too limited for long major league careers. They either develop power (we have no basis to believe Brett Gardner will do this) or they become backups. Brett's baseball reference comps who have OBP close to equal to their SLG didn't last in the league. The hope for Brett Gardner is that he is Brett Butler's illegitimate son, though that is unlikely becuase Butler would hit .300 from time to time, walk more, and played in an era where offense was harder to come by. Maybe Otis Nixon would be OK, though he wasn't as good as Ellsbury.

Maybe Gardner learns to make more and better contact and Ellsbury totally flames out. It's possible. But if you are going to bet on a guy in the future, you can't just take the most recent season and say done. You take into account guys he is comparable to, his player profile, his past seasons (Ellsbury has had some pretty good ones). Brett Gardner is a guy who just had the season of his life. Even after having that season, his offense was about as good as Ellsbury's 2009 (.354 wOBA, 32 oRAR for Ellsbury in 2009; .358 wOBA, 26 oRAR for Gardner in 2010). So Ellsbury, a year before Gardner, had Gardner's level of offense, except he also hit with some power while Gardner couldn't hit with power in one of the stadiums designed for LHH power.

As I said, I would take Ellsbury in the future.

[No Guru No Method]

I expect Gardner will soon return to his normal level of mediocrity and within four years will be the grittiest, grittiest bench coach in all of AA baseball.

But I will be happily bumping this thread way before then.

[Phranchise]

Alternate, that is a very well thought out post and I appreciate the time you took to write it up.

Not sure how much you follow Gardner, but it is known that he doesn't master his league until his second go 'round, while usually struggling somewhat in his first attempt. Check out his improvement from one full season to the next from AA, AAA and MLB. He has shown the ability to learn and improve at each level. He's done the same in the majors from his short stint in 2008, all the way through the end of the 2010 season. You'd think that given more playing time, he'd be exposed by strike throwing machines who'd love to avoid walking him at all costs. It just hasn't happened yet. Do I think there is more room for improvement? Yeah, I do. His wrist injury really hurt his numbers in the second half of 2009 AND 2010. I don't think there is much more power left in the bat, however.

When looking at my old posts on the topic, did you see what started this debate between glennhoffmania and I? He stated that given the choice TODAY, he'd unequivocally choose Ellsbury over Gardner. The fact that glenn was able to say this as if it was a slam-dunk choice is what I took exception to. He then said that Gardner is not an above average baseball player, while Ellsbury is. I wanted proof of this in numbers. Why would I put forth some stats when I was the one asking for someone else to back up their own (incorrect) statement with stats?

I was about to go find a player since 1920 who had a BA under .300, OBP lower than SLG and had a successful career...but then I realized you answered your own question with the Butler and Nixon examples.

[rembrat]

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, so Brett Gardner just takes a while getting settled and then the next time around he masters the league. Why didn't you say that in the first place!

Fuck me, I should have seen that. You are right. There it is. In each of his second go-a-rounds, he even manages to improves his own BABIP, what a crafty little bastard. You know what? I'm totally behind you too. I think the guy with no power, high on base skills, will keep on improving too, I mean, he swings the bat less than any other majorleaguer and has no power but that doesn't matter! He just needs more time to learn the league!

Oh, look, outside my window, it's a Reggie Willits and he is riding a double rainbow. What does this meannnnn

I'm fucking done with this topic.

[billy ashley]

I can understand the frustration- it seems that no one really is concerned the K rate coupled with the low ISO.

Only a handful of guys match Gardner's numbers over the past 60 years and they all pretty much sucked at hitting. It'll be interesting to see if it's sustainable.

[EvilEmpire]

I can understand the frustration- it seems that no one really is concerned the K rate coupled with the low ISO.

Only a handful of guys match Gardner's numbers over the past 60 years and they all pretty much sucked at hitting. It'll be interesting to see if it's sustainable.

But, but, he doesn't even try to hit the ball until he has two strikes...

I agree that the K rate is alarming. Being able to see the ball so well is certainly a gift, but it doesn't do much good if he can't hit it when he needs to. Anecdotal observations aren't worth crap, but it to me it just seems like he is so focused on talking a walk that he lets too many hittable pitches go by. Once he has two strikes he has to go after borderline pitches that he can't handle. Many of which he knows he can't handle and just takes as a called third strike, hoping to get the call.

[Shelterdog]

Fuck me, I should have seen that. You are right. There it is. In each of his second go-a-rounds, he even manages to improves his own BABIP, what a crafty little bastard. You know what? I'm totally behind you too. I think the guy with no power, high on base skills, will keep on improving too, I mean, he swings the bat less than any other majorleaguer and has no power but that doesn't matter! He just needs more time to learn the league!

He was also fairly age advanced by the time he was able to play well at each level - his 23/24 season in AA and his 24/25 season in AAA.

Edited by Shelterdog, 27 December 2010 - 01:27 PM.

[Alternate34]

Alternate, that is a very well thought out post and I appreciate the time you took to write it up.

Not sure how much you follow Gardner, but it is known that he doesn't master his league until his second go 'round, while usually struggling somewhat in his first attempt. Check out his improvement from one full season to the next from AA, AAA and MLB. He has shown the ability to learn and improve at each level. He's done the same in the majors from his short stint in 2008, all the way through the end of the 2010 season. You'd think that given more playing time, he'd be exposed by strike throwing machines who'd love to avoid walking him at all costs. It just hasn't happened yet. Do I think there is more room for improvement? Yeah, I do. His wrist injury really hurt his numbers in the second half of 2009 AND 2010. I don't think there is much more power left in the bat, however.

When looking at my old posts on the topic, did you see what started this debate between glennhoffmania and I? He stated that given the choice TODAY, he'd unequivocally choose Ellsbury over Gardner. The fact that glenn was able to say this as if it was a slam-dunk choice is what I took exception to. He then said that Gardner is not an above average baseball player, while Ellsbury is. I wanted proof of this in numbers. Why would I put forth some stats when I was the one asking for someone else to back up their own (incorrect) statement with stats?

I was about to go find a player since 1920 who had a BA under .300, OBP lower than SLG and had a successful career...but then I realized you answered your own question with the Butler and Nixon examples.

And I'm saying that Ellsbury is unequivically the right choice. Both players in the past have had approximately the same value. If you are going to project them based merely on their past contribution to winning, it is a wash. There really is no reason to pick one or the other.

The other side of it is to then see if either one could be projected to do better. The answer to that question, considering stats and scouting reports, is unequivocally Ellsbury. He is just as fast as Garnder. He hits for more power. He did well earlier than Gardner. His good seasons have no suspicious BABIP attached to them. His statistical profile is one that projects better than Gardner and his physical skillset is one that projects better than Gardner.

Gardner is not likely to be an above average baseball player. Otis Nixon pulled that off in 3 or 4 seasons. The rest of the time, he was an overrated speedster. You'd have to hope for Brett Butler, which is extremely unlikely.

All of this being said, I certainly cannot predict the future. Gardner could be Brett Butler 2. But that possibility doesn't refute the overwhelming case for Jacoby Ellsbury.

Edited by Alternate34, 27 December 2010 - 01:16 PM.

[tmorgan]

As far as the case for being equally fast or equally good base runners goes they both have a career SB% OF 85%. Gardner attempts steals in almost a quarter of his opportunities while Ellsbury attempts in almost 30% of his opportunities. Ellsbury also steals 3rd more often so he is actually a better base stealer due to getting the same results from higher frequency. OTOH Gardner scores 45% of times on base vs. 41% for Ellsbury, has a higher % extra bases taken and grounds into fewer double plays. So it is actually a wash between them as runners.

On batting though it's hard to argue against the player with the lower k rate and higher slg.

[jon abbey]

People keep mentioning BABIP, but one reason for the increase there is his increased ground ball rate/decreased fly ball rate, while still managing to increase his line drive rate:

LD% GB% FB%

2008 17.0 % 47.9 % 35.1 %
2009 18.1 % 49.0 % 32.8 %
2010 18.6 % 53.4 % 27.9 %

I could easily see him improving again in 2011, closer to his first half 2010 form, assuming his wrist is 100 percent.

[LondonSox]

Wait his arm in improving at his age in the outfield in the big leagues??
Is that in terms of accuracy or strength? If strength I say bullshit.

I really don't understand why Yankees fans want to defend all the average players that ever get in the team. He's a dubious player going forward, with his value tied to his cheapness and his defence (assuming it stays very good).
Long term it's just very unlikely a guy like him is going to be successful.

Is this Melky again? Or Wang? Where everyone points to history and says really he's a one of a kind? Or he's lucky/ going to fade. Or the Yankees say he's young and improving balh blah

I don't agree he's below average, because he was a solid good player last year, but expecting this to improve because he got better in his second go around of AA at an old age for the league? I mean come on.
WAR numbers (including some big number for D) are good. But he's a fourth outfielder long term.

[Bob420]

Projections for Gardner?


I will go with

550 PA .285/.385/.390 48 SB

[Brianish]

Projections for Gardner?


I will go with

550 PA .285/.385/.390 48 SB

If it's just what you're going with, it's not a projection. It's a guess.

[cromulence]

Wait his arm in improving at his age in the outfield in the big leagues??
Is that in terms of accuracy or strength? If strength I say bullshit.

I really don't understand why Yankees fans want to defend all the average players that ever get in the team. He's a dubious player going forward, with his value tied to his cheapness and his defence (assuming it stays very good).
Long term it's just very unlikely a guy like him is going to be successful.

Is this Melky again? Or Wang? Where everyone points to history and says really he's a one of a kind? Or he's lucky/ going to fade. Or the Yankees say he's young and improving balh blah

I don't agree he's below average, because he was a solid good player last year, but expecting this to improve because he got better in his second go around of AA at an old age for the league? I mean come on.
WAR numbers (including some big number for D) are good. But he's a fourth outfielder long term.

I'm so fucking tired of this. How is your perspective any less biased than all the Yankee fans you're blasting? Citing Wang as "average" and acting like Yankee fans overrated him is absolutely idiotic. Wang was an unusual pitcher due to his low K rates, but there is absolutely no doubt that when he was healthy he was a very good pitcher - a #2 starter on most teams. The fact that he screwed up his foot running the bases then consequently tore up his shoulder doesn't prove that you were right about him and that he was never good. As for Melky, it's projection. Sure, there are some stupid Yankee fans who thought Melky was really good, but there's also Sox fans who thought Daniel Nava was about to break out last year. Ignore the idiots on both sides and we'll all be happier.

[rembrat]

Projections for Gardner?


I will go with

550 PA .285/.385/.390 48 SB

Career marks in batting average, on base average, slugging percentage and stolen bases. Nice to see your expectation level is tepid.

[Bob420]

Career marks in batting average, on base average, slugging percentage and stolen bases. Nice to see your expectation level is tepid.

Yes. His wrist injury hampered him. With successful surgery behind him, I expect a slight improvement across the board.

[rembrat]

Alright, buddy!

[Bob420]

So what numbers do you think he will put up? Write them down.

[rembrat]

I like Marcel's numbers for him. .269/.357/.378

I think this year, the league will come to the conclusion that there is no reason not to throw this guy strikes. He can't hurt you with power or batting average, he can only hurt you with his speed. They'll throw him strikes, his strikeouts will go up and his OBA will go down. And he'll end the season splitting his time with Jones.

[Foulkey Reese]

406/553/735

[glennhoffmania]

I like Marcel's numbers for him. .269/.357/.378

I think this year, the league will come to the conclusion that there is no reason not to throw this guy strikes. He can't hurt you with power or batting average, he can only hurt you with his speed. They'll throw him strikes, his strikeouts will go up and his OBA will go down. And he'll end the season splitting his time with Jones.

I totally agree with this. I don't see how he'll have another BB rate of 14%. Marcel's 11% seems at least a little more reasonable. For a guy with no power who strikes out around 20% of the time, you'd think that teams will pitch to him and make him try to put the ball in play.

I'll go .270/.345/.375, because I think even Marcel's BB rate is too high.

[billy ashley]

I am copying and pasting one of my prior posts because I don't think many of our friends among Yankeefandom have bothered to read or consider this point. A point, I'll be arrogant enough to say, is probably the most interesting in this entire thread...

Here it is with some slightly new material for a touch of flavor:

Just some data on my point about Gardner-

At the moment, he's got a career ISO of .100 and a career K% of 20.1. Both were marginally higher last year.

Looking at fan graphs, the only players to have 2000 PAs and a K rate around 20 and a ISO around one are the following:


Nixey Callahan:
Career OPS+ of 93. His last game was in 1914

Rich Becker (ISO, .116):
Played from 1993-2000, our first contemporary player on the list. Career OPS+ of 89. At 24, he was actually a starting OF and posted an OPS+ of 108.

Paul Bako:
Played from 98-2009. Career OPS+ of 62. He hung around as a back up catcher forever. Never appeared in 100 games in the majors for a season.

Gary Pettis:
1982-1992. OPS+ of 80.

Warren Spahn
I'm not delving in this, you all know who he was.

Jerry Kindall:
1956-1955, career ops+ of 62.

Tim Keefe:
Another amazing starting pitcher, this one died a relatively old man during FDR's first hundred days in office.

Pud Galvin:
Yet another member of the Hall of Fame. Galvin's pitching career end in 1892. He retired from this plane ten years later. Roosevelt's apparently hate 19th century pitching greats.

Ed Swartwood:
Posted a career OPS of 142, played his first game in 1881. If his first name was Dick, he could have been the 1880's version of John Holmes. He had one hell of a mustache.

Phil Roof:
Retired in 1977, kicked around the league as a back up catcher after a couple indistinguishable years as a starting backstop for KC in his mid 20's.

Damian Jackson (.114)
D-Jax retired in 2006. He had a very good career as a utility man, posting an OPS+ of 81. He had a couple seasons of regular playing time and didn't embarrass his team on those occasions.

Bobby Knoop:
1964-1972. Career OPS+ of 83. A respected fielder during his prime, he might have actually been a pretty fine player from 26-29. He never hit much though. He posted an OPS+ of 100 once, which was probably pretty valuable given that I believe there were more banjo hitting middle infielders during that era than there are now (I could be wrong on this)

Darrel Chaney:
1969-1979. Career OPS+ of 61.

Mike Benjamin:
Somehow started the majority of games for Boston in 1998, yuck. Played from 89-2002. Career OPS+ 61.
Herm Winningham:
1984-1992, Career OPS+ of 74

John Kennedy:
1962-1974, Career OPS+ of 70.

Ramon Vasquez:
Jesus, another recent Red Sox. 2001-2009. Career OPS+ of 83.

Gerald Laird:
2003-Present, Back up catcher OPS+ of 72.

Duffy Dyer:
1968-1981, career OPS+ of 71

Mike Matheny:
1994-2006, Another catcher. OPS+ 64

Bob Melvin:
85-94, yet another catcher. OPS+ 68

I'm deleting my prior conclusion as it would be repetitive: I like Garnder, a lot actually. I truly believe he's an exceptional defender in left, among the best in baseball. However, I think that last year's performance probably represents his absolute peak in offense.

Could I be incorrect, absolutely. Gardner could be the first player in 130 years to be an excellent offensive player while posting the K rate he does, coupled with pretty much zero power. Or he could cut down on his K's or hit for more power, but given his track record; that doesn't look all too likely.

If anything, I'm probably being way too generous when I look at Gardner's skill set. If we eliminate pre- WW1 players and pitchers, we're left with a collection of utility infielders, back up catchers and one or two starters.

The bottom line is if Brett Gardner simply repeats his 2010 season for the next 7 years he'll be 1) and exceptional player and 2) truly unique.

Once in a while the latter comes to fruition, Ichero for example sports a skill set that's hard to compare to any player in the past 30 years.

But to bank on Gardner making a big offensive jump next year means that one has to expect his power and the amount of time he puts the ball into play to improve or for Gardner to be an Ichero, an anomaly.

[rembrat]

They'll just ignore your "facts" and hold on to "hopes and dreams."

[Snodgrass'Muff]

406/553/735

My first thought when reading this was "406 and 553 don't add up to 735."

Then I realized you were being sarcastic.

[Sprowl]

Projections for Gardner?


I will go with

550 PA .285/.385/.390 48 SB

Career marks in batting average, on base average, slugging percentage and stolen bases. Nice to see your expectation level is tepid.

I think we've found Breakout Bob.


What data could support a Gardner breakout? It would have to be plate discipline, the ability to wear out a pitcher even if he throws strikes. Gardner was fourth in the majors in 2010 in lowest swinging strike %, and ninth in contact% -- he's hard to strike out, even when a pitcher challenges him.

Scutaro was first in both categories, of course, and both Gardner and Scutaro serve the same purpose in powerful lineups. Gardner is valuable to the Yankees' lineup as much for wearing out pitchers as for his OBP. In fact, Scutaro isn't a bad comp for Gardner at the plate, though Gardner's speed and defense make him closer to Ellsbury's value overall.

[jon abbey]

Just to follow up on that, Gardner led the league by a sizable margin in P/PA at 4.61, Scutaro was 16th at 4.04.

http://espn.go.com/m...nded/order/true

Edit: That 4.61 is the highest number in the AL since at least 2001 (that is how far back the ESPN stats go), that would point to something of a unique skillset if he keeps it up.

[judyb]

He strikes out a lot for someone who's really hard to strike out, though.

[Wake's knuckle]

He strikes out a lot for someone who's really hard to strike out, though.

In his defense, he sees a LOT of pitches and gets very deep into counts. To be successful doing that, you have to be able to make good contact.

[jkshute]

My first thought when reading this was "406 and 553 don't add up to 735."

Then I realized you were being sarcastic.

[jkshute]

".406 " didn't ring any bells? That's Ted's line from 1941, for an OPS of 1.287 .

[glennhoffmania]

In his defense, he sees a LOT of pitches and gets very deep into counts. To be successful doing that, you have to be able to make good contact.

That's true, but this is a guy who regularly had a K rate over 20% in the minors. In his first full season in the majors he was at 21%. So even if he fouls off a lot of pitches and still strikes out more than once every five ABs, he isn't putting the ball in play enough.

[Doctor G]

Gardner power chart at home My link. He almost never hits the ball over an outfielder's head. He also has alienated a large pct. of umpires with his Papi like histrionics on called strikes.

i would expect .272/.340/.355 Given the off-season surgery and his 2010 season, I think opposing pitchers will be a bit more aggressive inside and up with Gardner out of the gate in 2011. I think gardner took advantage of pitchers reluctance to walk him early in the year last season. I think pitchers will have a better book on him in 2011.

Edited by Doctor G, 19 February 2011 - 01:48 AM.

[Brickowski]

Gardner is what he is: a singles hitter who also walks a fair amount, steals bases, and, for a lefty, hits leftties pretty well. Takes alot of pitches. He scored almost 100 runs last year batting ninth, with Jeter having a crappy year hitting behind him. He's a good outfielder, too, plus he's cheap.

I agree that pitchers will challenge him alot more next year. They will throw strikes in on his hands. It remains to be seen if he will respond to the challenge.

Edited by Brickowski, 19 February 2011 - 05:02 PM.

[jon abbey]

Two interesting sentences in the BP annual (which I got today) on Gardner:

"The recorded history of taking pitches goes back only 23 years, but in that time, no hitter saw more pitches per plate appearance than Gardner's 4.62."

"The truth of what Gardner is probably lies close to his overall 2010 rates."

[Sampo Gida]

A few thoughts.

First, a team would trade for Brett Gardner because he has a great chance to be a player of average value for substantially less than the cost of what an average player is. His VORP was 28.1 which somewhat above average and there is no doubt that he is a great defender. His offense probably has little room for improvement and a substantial chance for decline, but even a decline to somewhat below average for his offense with his defense would leave him around average.

Can't say I understand how some folks can say a 26 yo has little room for improvement. Yaz never hit more than 20 HR until he was 27 when he hit 44. I remember folks saying Youk would never hit more than 20 HR and then he hits 29 at age 29. Players get stronger and learn to hit as they hit the late 20's.

Second, I don't even know what Carl Crawford has to do with this. Even assuming that 2010 was an unsustainable peak for Carl, he still has far more power potential than ol' Brett and much lower risk of decline. High OBP guys without power are at severe risk to decline because they are basically one dimensional and that one dimension the pitcher has more control over i.e., pitchers may just start to pound the strike zone with no respect for Gardner and he could be exposed.

One dimensional? I thought that was reserved for slow power hitters who did not walk and could not play defense. Gardners OBP is from speed, plate discipline, BA and he plays very good defense. His OBP is actually more valuable than a slower player with the same OBP because he can steal and score more easily.

Crawford was only 28 last year, and if he can change his approach and take advantage of the wall in LF, he could improve on his 2010 season. I was somewhat surprised to see BP projecting a significant regression for Crawford in 2011 with a WARP of 3.2 (don't have the book with me, but it was definiteley in the low 3's), not that I hold that much stock in such projections.

Third, I might take Brett over Jacoby because of their respective contract situations, but straight up player comparison, you would be crazy to take Brett over Jacoby. Jacoby has shown far more power potential and the ability to hit for average and all of the skills of Brett aside from plate discipline, which often develops later for players anyway.

Gardner seems to be a better defender and OBP guy than Ellsbury, but Ellsbury is the better base stealer and has a bit more power. I don't think we have seen the best from either player though, and the key for both players is health.

Jacoby's best year (full year) power wise was a 415 SLG, Gardner 379. Not a huge difference. Gardners high OBP and ability to work the count (4.6 P/PA) is more valuable than Ellsbury's slightly better average (277 BG vs 301 JE- best year).

I do agree that Gardner needs to make pitchers respect him more, but even if they pound the zone on him, he has the ability to foul pitches off, and better pitches might result in a higher average.

[PedroSpecialK]

I still think it's too early in either of their careers to declare one a significantly better player. Gardner's ability to take pitches has already made him something Ellsbury isn't - a viable leadoff hitter. I would expect Gardner to have a .360 OBP again (James and Marcel combined project .367), and with his basestealing abilities and efficiency (86/101 career, same as Ellsbury's 85%) he's an extremely valuable table setter.

I'd bet that Gardner ups his SB totals, as he had 569 PA last year vs. Ellsbury's 693 in 2009. Gardner was on pace for a respectable 57 had he matched Ellsbury's PA total (70 SB for Ellsbury). Gardner's 2010 also doubled Ellsbury's 2009 WAR (5.4 to 2.7). While I'd probably take Ellsbury long-term over Gardner, I don't think it's nearly as cut and dry as many are making it out to be.

Also, Gardner has an abnormally gigantic neck: