325 replies to this topic

[bosockboy]

Sox after LaRoche:

http://msn.foxsports...ng-offer-110712

[SoxFanPJ]

So LaRoche is turning down 1/$13.3M, had a career best 4.0 WAR season and is looking at his last best chance to score a big contract. Hard to see how this fits in with the Red Sox rebuilding plans unless they plan to massively overpay on a 2-3 year deal.

[OttoC]

...
I would rather wait a year, see what we have in Lavarnway, Iglesias and Kalish, possibly trade Ellsbury for more prospects once he gets his value back up, and use Jackie Bradley Jr. in center. We'll also have a better idea of what we have in Bogaerts and Barnes. Perhaps we could pencil them in somewhere in 2014. That way we could build up our farm system and have cost controlled players under contract for the next six years. That sounds much more appealing to me than giving away prospects to acquire expensive players who will be under team control for one year.

I've already expressed opinions on rebuilding similar to these of Edelpiddle. Building from within helps keep the payroll down, allowing the club to overpay for the right missing piece free agent as well as allowing the farm club to build up a surplus of talent that could be used for trades.

If Lester and Buchholz bounce back, Doubront builds on his first full season, and Lackey recovers well from his surgery, the club could have strong enough pitching to be interesting, if not contend. Of course, there are offensive pieces missing but Ortiz, Pedroia, Ellsbury, Middlebrooks can provide a solid foundation and they won't need to break the bank to fill in the holes while they wait to see how Iglesias, Lavarnway, Kalish respond and how well Bogaerts, Bradley, and others along with the young arms develop. In THE event that Iglesias shows sufficient bat for the majors, they can thin k about moving Bogaerts to another position. If Ellsbury puts up numbers approaching his 2011 (or even 2009) season his trade value goes up *and they might even want to keep him...they could afford to).

[Savin Hillbilly]

I think there's a middle ground. We don't have to completely punt 2013 or leave major holes unfilled to stick, by and large, to a build-from-within strategy. And 1B is the most obvious instance of this. I invite everyone to spend some time going over the names on the organizational 1B depth chart over at soxprospects.com, and come back and tell me who you think is going to be our starting first baseman any time soon (or, possibly, ever). Unless you're a Travis Shaw believer, it looks like a vast wasteland to me. I don't think we really have a choice about going outside the organization for a first baseman right now, and because there don't appear to be any phenoms in the low minors, we should feel free to go as long-term as we like, as long as the contract makes sense on its own terms.

[Corsi]

Mike Napoli and Adam LaRoche on Red Sox first base radar.

https://twitter.com/...543056193454080

[Savin Hillbilly]

Cafardo this morning:

Mark Reynolds, 1B/3B/DH, free agent — The strikeout-prone slugger had some big hits for Baltimore in August and September and played very well at first base. The Orioles may discuss a deal with Reynolds, but it would have to be for far less than the $11 million option they turned down. Some have suggested the Red Sox as a possible fit, but they usually don’t care for big strikeout guys. Still, his power at Fenway would be interesting to watch.

It's interesting to me that Reynolds' name hasn't come up once in the 4 pages of this thread.

The cons are obvious:

• one of the highest K rates in ML history, resulting in a consistently abysmal BA
• mediocre (though not downright awful) 1B defense.

The pros, though, make him worth at least a few seconds' thought:

• Plate discipline. While the BB rate obviously can't come close to the K rate, it's still consistently good (career 11.9%, last year 13.6%). And unlike some high-K guys (e.g. Carlos Pena), Reynolds' BABIPs are usually fair to good. So he has some ways of getting on base besides going deep. His career OBP is thus just mediocre (.332), not as bad as you'd expect for a .235 career BA guy.
• Power. Career .240 ISO and 20.6 HR/FB.
• That combination of power and PD translates to a .349 career wOBA. What is Adam LaRoche's career wOBA, might you ask? Answer: .350. Obviously LaRoche is the better defender of the two, but is that difference worth as much in wins as it is likely to cost in dollars and years?
• Likes Fenway. Career line in 88 PA: .276/.364/.566/.929.
• He's fairly young (not 30 till next August).

Should we even consider Reynolds, and if so, what kind of contract would be reasonable?

[jacklamabe65]

Would he ever take one and an an option?

[RedOctober3829]

I'd take a chance on Reynolds on a short deal. I thought his glove at 1B was really good in the games that I saw him play in the playoffs to go along with the power that he has with the bat. He is much better defensively at 1B than he is at 3B. With that line in Fenway albeit SSS, it's a good gamble as a stopgap kind of guy.

[OttoC]

Cafardo this morning:

It's interesting to me that Reynolds' name hasn't come up once in the 4 pages of this thread....

I thought about this when I read Carardo this morning. Why not, if he is "cheap" and will take a shorter term deal?

[SoxLegacy]

IMHO, I really hope the Sox stay far away from Mark Reynolds. While I can see his obvious power, he's a feast or famine kind of guy, and despite his performance in the playoffs, not a very good fielder at 1B. He should never see the field at any other position. I noticed that his HR totals were really odd as well--7 before the ASB and 16 after. 11 of those dingers came at Camden Yards, and he feasted off Boston and New York pitchers--he hit 6 off the Sox and 7 off the Yanks which says a lot (to me at least) about the quality of the opposing pitchers. A .221 BA/.335 OBP and 159 K's? No thanks.

edit: clarification

Edited by SoxLegacy, 11 November 2012 - 08:18 PM.

[OnWisc]

No thanks on Reynolds. Despite some of his HR totals, he's a corner infielder and likely just 1B going forward whose career best OPS of .892 was accompanied by a 26% HR/FB rate, and whose second best OPS of .843 came with a BABIP of .378, which exceeds any other BABIP he's posted in the major leagues by 40 points. And it's an intangible, but don't love that his comment on breaking the MLB season strikeout record (previously held by himself) was "so what." Also worth noting that while HR/FB rate may stay in the 20% neighborhood, his FB rate has trended 54.9%, 47.8%, 42.5% over the last three seasons.

I'll pass, unless it's an extremely short-term, short-money deal.

Edited by OnWisc, 12 November 2012 - 08:28 AM.

[geoduck no quahog]

For those of you who also think Saltalamacchia is a better option than Lavarnway - could you imagine a lineup with both Saltalamacchia AND Reynolds? We could be looking at 300 K's in 1,000 plate appearances.

Edited by geoduck no quahog, 12 November 2012 - 05:18 AM.

[Savin Hillbilly]

No thanks on Reynolds. Despite some of his HR totals, he's a corner infielder and likely just 1B going forward whose career best OPS of .892 was accompanied by a 26% HR/FB rate, and whose second best OPS of .843 came with a BABIP of .378, which exceeds any other BABIP he's posted in the major leagues by 40 points.

OTOH, his worst season OPS is .753, and his career OPS is .807. I know those numbers don't sound great, but they may sound better in the light of who the likely alternatives are, what their numbers are, and how much they are likely to cost in dollars/years/talent.

I don't think anybody would suggest (I certainly wouldn't) that Reynolds is an option we should be enthusiastic about--only that there's more to be said for him than I thought at first, and that he's worth considering if the price tags on other, more preferable but still unexciting options seem too high. There are no Fielders or Pujolses walking through the door this year--only various flavors of fair-to-good.

[Trlicek's Whip]

I'll pass, unless it's an extremely short-term, short-money deal.

I'm not in the tank for Reynolds but as you and others have mentioned, on short money he's great value. Just as they seem to be selling high on Salty, they would be buying low on Reynolds.

To play devil's advocate:

1) This past season Reynolds was officially DL'd for a strained oblique, but was benched (not officially DL'd) several other times during the season for precautionary reasons including a sore back, swollen wrist/hand, and sore calf (the latter two related to hit-by-pitches). It's possible that his Youkilis-esque ding-and-dent style of play in 2012 contributed to his underperforming (for him) 2012 season. In his 2011 Orioles' season and the 2nd half of 2012, his slash line is much more consistent with what one expects from Reynolds:

AVG/OBP/OPS
2011 Season = .221/.323/.806
2nd Half 2012 = .234/.332/.797

The OBP is low but it isn't an entirely empty shell of production. Reynolds, despite the low BA, still managed to average 74 walks each season with the Orioles. Kevin Youkilis, in contrast, hasn't broken the 70+ BB mark since the 2009 season.

2) Reynolds isn't 1987 Wade Boggs at the plate but the Sox won't mandate equally stellar plate discipline for all 1-9 batters in their lineup if they bring value in other ways. We already have seen that with the Dave Ross signing - another Three True Outcomes hitter that's cheaper and probably better defensively than Salty. For Reynolds it's his solid power and enough OBP (or value via platoon/matchups) to mitigate it.

3) You hope Reynolds can manage 1B adequately (where he's much better) and that he'd only ever be at 3B as an emergency backup or fill-in, because he'd likely hit enough to offset the subpar glove. This differs from Salty's One True Outcome behind the plate, at a position where his crappy defense is arguably much more prohibitive, and probably led to the Dave Ross signing.

4) The "clubhouse chemistry" card is a nice subjective intangible for the Sox to play, especially after their 2012 season. Reynolds is a veteran, has spent two years with a new winning culture in BAL, by all accounts is a positive presence, and is still only 28.

5) SSS-alert: he hits well in Fenway. Based on his HR chart he would pepper/clear the Green Monster in ways that mimicked SoSH favorite Cody Ross.

6) And if the Sox sign Reynolds' unique skill set, there's precedent. Not only with Cody or Dave Ross. But from memorable championship seasons past. Using an unfair name replacement and re-quote:

Mark Bellhorn's career best OPS of .886 was accompanied by a 20.1 % HR/FB rate, and whose second best OPS of .817 came with a BABIP of .364, which exceeds any other BABIP he's posted in the major leagues by 43 points.

[MHead81]

That combination of power and PD translates to a .349 career wOBA. What is Adam LaRoche's career wOBA, might you ask? Answer: .350. Obviously LaRoche is the better defender of the two, but is that difference worth as much in wins as it is likely to cost in dollars and years?

Just to put it into perspective, here are the career wOBAs of the other likely 1B options:

Kevin Youkilis: .377
Mike Napoli: .371
Nick Swisher: .359
Justin Morneau: .357
Adam LaRoche: .350

According to that, signing Youkilis would be a no-brainer. Point being, I don't really see the value in using career numbers to assess this. I would think using numbers for maybe the past 3 years would be more useful.

Edited by MHead81, 12 November 2012 - 09:59 AM.

[MartyBarrettMVP]

Olney:

The Red Sox are doing extensive background work on Mike Napoli, who could fit them as C or 1B or combo 1B-C-DH vs. lefties.

https://twitter.com/...023816695988224

[Corsi]

The Red Sox are doing extensive background work on Mike Napoli, who could fit them as C or 1B or combo 1B-C-DH vs. lefties.

https://twitter.com/...023816695988224

[OnWisc]

OTOH, his worst season OPS is .753, and his career OPS is .807. I know those numbers don't sound great, but they may sound better in the light of who the likely alternatives are, what their numbers are, and how much they are likely to cost in dollars/years/talent.

I don't think anybody would suggest (I certainly wouldn't) that Reynolds is an option we should be enthusiastic about--only that there's more to be said for him than I thought at first, and that he's worth considering if the price tags on other, more preferable but still unexciting options seem too high. There are no Fielders or Pujolses walking through the door this year--only various flavors of fair-to-good.

I do agree that based on what's available, he warrants consideration. My initial thoughts (in addition to being composed at 1am after returning from the Bears game) were more of an assessment of Reynolds in general, as opposed to in light of our situation and the market.

6) And if the Sox sign Reynolds' unique skill set, there's precedent. Not only with Cody or Dave Ross. But from memorable championship seasons past. Using an unfair name replacement and re-quote:

Fair enough. And the Bellhorn thing worked out. But we just as easily (or perhaps more easily) could have gotten the numbers he put up throughout the rest of his career outside the '02 and '04 seasons. And while Reynolds floor is likely substantially higher than Bellhorn's, I imagine his price tag will be as well.

Regarding your first point, if both sides are in agreement on that being Reynolds likely production, and the contract value reflects that, then it could be worth a flier, especially given that there probably is some upside potential to that.

EDIT: FWIW, Bill James projects 2013 Reynolds at .231/.336/.463, so pretty much in line with your suggested baseline.

Edited by OnWisc, 12 November 2012 - 11:31 AM.

[Trlicek's Whip]

Regarding your first point, if both sides are in agreement on that being Reynolds likely production, and the contract value reflects that, then it could be worth a flier, especially given that there probably is some upside potential to that.

EDIT: FWIW, Bill James projects 2013 Reynolds at .231/.336/.463, so pretty much in line with your suggested baseline.

We're on the same page. Like I said, I'm not pushing hard for Reynolds outside of the value of signing a guy that doesn't look cooked, isn't too old, and can be had short and cheap.

Within those parameters, guys like Youkilis (cooked, older) or LaRoche (probably not as cheap) are less attractive.

[someoneanywhere]

https://twitter.com/...023816695988224

I like Napoli more than the other options, despite the defensive concerns, mostly becuase I am comfortable going three years, or three and an option, on him. The others, not so much. If he's adequate there for two years, you can slide him over to DH when Papi retires and still expect decent power and patience numbers. He may indeed prefer to catch, but some of that surely has to do with not being exposed for his Iimitations, an understandable point when you're talking about pro ballplayers, and especially in Boston.

And speaking of understandable points about pro ballplayers: a few million will buy him out of that.

Edited by someoneanywhere, 12 November 2012 - 12:22 PM.

[Savin Hillbilly]

Olney:

The Red Sox are doing extensive background work on Mike Napoli, who could fit them as C or 1B or combo 1B-C-DH vs. lefties.

https://twitter.com/...023816695988224

Napoli's platoon splits are downright weird. Here are his wOBA splits by year (negative number is a reverse split):

2006: -.024
2007: .019
2008: .003
2009: .095
2010: .113
2011: .001
2012: -.073

Notice that he has never had a split with an absolute value greater than .024 but less than .073. The guy knows no middle ground--either he has little or no platoon split, or a big one, either of which can be in either direction. All of which adds up to a mild normal career wOBA split of .390/.364.

Speaking of splits, here's one in his favor: if Reynolds likes Fenway, Napoli likes it even more. Career 1.107 OPS with 7 HR in 73 PA.

[OttoC]

...
Speaking of splits, here's one in his favor: if Reynolds likes Fenway, Napoli likes it even more. Career 1.107 OPS with 7 HR in 73 PA.

But how much of that is the pitchers he faced? Did he kill a couple of Red Sox pitchers at Fenway but not face them at home? 1/73 = .0137, or almost 14 points in OBP. for every time on base.

[Corsi]

Mike Napoli, the Texas #Rangers free-agent catcher, is drawing interest from the New York #Yankees

https://twitter.com/...089878837854209

[Trlicek's Whip]

https://twitter.com/...089878837854209

Of course Napoli's drawing interest. That tweet writes itself. But if the NYY are serious about staying under $186 million or whatever it is, I get the feeling Napoli's too rich for their blood.

Edited by Trlicek's Whip, 12 November 2012 - 03:58 PM.

[The Boomer]

Just to put it into perspective, here are the career wOBAs of the other likely 1B options:

Kevin Youkilis: .377
Mike Napoli: .371
Nick Swisher: .359
Justin Morneau: .357
Adam LaRoche: .350

According to that, signing Youkilis would be a no-brainer. Point being, I don't really see the value in using career numbers to assess this. I would think using numbers for maybe the past 3 years would be more useful.

Reynolds as a converted SS (that's what he played at UVA and at the beginning of his minor league career) ought to be at least decent at 1B. I haven't seen him there enough to know. His power and plate discipline might be a reasonabl trade-off for his K's. He might be more cost effective on a short term basis than these other alternatives. If so, you need to consider him. If he is devalued enough as a free agent, he might be the best bargain of the bunch.

[SoxScout]

Free agent catcher Mike Napoli says he prefers to catch, but will play any position that gets him in the lineup regularly. He also still has interest in returning to the Texas Rangers.

Napoli, 31, said Monday that he's received interest from "a bunch of teams," though he didn't name them.

The latest team to join that fray is the Boston Red Sox, a source told ESPN The Magazine's Buster Olney. The Red Sox, like some other teams, might look at Napoli as someone who can play catcher, first base or be a designated hitter. Napoli said he's willing to play those spots if it means it gets him in the lineup.

"I just want to play," Napoli said. "I feel the most comfortable behind the plate because that's where most of my reps have been. Do I think I can be good at first base if I had reps and practiced it all the time? Yes. But it's not like I'm saying I have to be a catcher. I just want to be in the lineup and play. If it helps at catcher, I'll catch or at first base, I'll play there. But I like catching. I look at myself as catcher."

http://espn.go.com/b...eye-mike-napoli

[Jordu]

No thanks on Napoli for 3 years/$27M. Not with a 25% K rate. The walks & occasional power don't make up for the Ks.

[Doctor G]

No thanks on Napoli for 3 years/$27M. Not with a 25% K rate. The walks & occasional power don't make up for the Ks.

the 25% i'm concerned with is the 25% of flyballs going for HRs. I will take the Ks given that Napoli only grounded into 9 DPs in 417 ABs.
This team needs hitters who make that big wall feel a lot closer for opposing pitchers

Edited by Doctor G, 12 November 2012 - 11:50 PM.

[czar]

No thanks on Napoli for 3 years/$27M. Not with a 25% K rate. The walks & occasional power don't make up for the Ks.

Strikeouts are essentially a net zero linear weight.

Of the top 45 guys in K% last season, only 7 of them had a wRC+ below 100. (Stubbs, C. Pena, Espinosa, K. Johnson, Rasmus, Viciedo, Jennings).

[Corsi]

General manager Ben Cherington said at last week’s GM meetings that Jerry Sands could be a platoon option at first base.

His versatility is certainly attractive to the Red Sox. But, what is his best position and what can he offer the Sox offensively? Several scouts weighed in:

“I like his power but contact issues are a concern,” said one scout. “His walks are up, which is a positive. Played a solid left but limited to left field/right field . He can also play first base, but much better in left field. I was a little higher on his “D” than most but he is an average defender at best. Runs well for a big man but not a threat. I had him as an extra/fourth outfielder type. Those power numbers in Albuquerque are a little exaggerated due to the light air but he has 20-plus home run power. I do not think he will ever hit for much of an average -- .240 - .250 type.”

“Sands has been brought up and given a little chance,” said another scout at the time of the trade. “He always did well in the minor leagues, but never produced. He never impressed [the Dodgers] enough to keep him in the big leagues.”

“He’s a big power-type guy. That’s a big part of his game,” said a third scout. “I think eventually he’s going to be OK. I know [the Dodgers] had some situations with him where if he doesn’t hit, he wants to start changing things, and they were trying to be patient with him doing that. But I think he’s going to get everything straightened out, and he’s going to be a pretty good offensive-type guy. He’s a playable defensive guy. He’s one of those guys, if he hits and hits for power, his defense is going to be good enough. He’s more of a fringe defender in the outfield. But if he hits 40 home runs, then he’s a very good outfielder. I think he’s got some promise to him.”

http://www.csnne.com...?blockID=801101

[Savin Hillbilly]

So it sounds like Sands is basically Kevin Millar with worse contact and maybe a shade better power.

[Mugsys Jock]

Free agent catcher Mike Napoli says he prefers to catch, but will play any position that gets him in the lineup regularly. He also still has interest in returning to the Texas Rangers.
...
The Red Sox, like some other teams, might look at Napoli as someone who can play catcher, first base or be a designated hitter. Napoli said he's willing to play those spots if it means it gets him in the lineup.

http://espn.go.com/b...eye-mike-napoli

Red Sox:C/1B types = Patriots:Tight Ends

Play 'em all at the same time and make the other team figure it out!

Edited by Mugsys Jock, 13 November 2012 - 02:01 PM.

[Jordu]

Strikeouts are essentially a net zero linear weight.

I have no idea what this means. Guess I've got some homework to do.

OK, I'm back. Just did 20 minutes worth of reading and have tentative grasp on the concept, and I take your point that Ks pretty much have net zero linear weight.

But, for the sake of discussion, I found this 2011 FanGraphs blog post called "Why strikeouts stink": http://www.fangraphs...rikeouts-stink/

Second & third grafs from the blog post:

"So the sabermetric truism has stuck: strikeouts aren’t that bad. Hitters can have high strikeout rates and still contribute loads of offensive value through their plate discipline. After all, the end goal is not making an out, right? It shouldn’t matter how a player does it, simply as long as they reach base at a high rate and avoid making outs.

"But there’s a problem with this logic. While a player can be valuable even he strikes out frequently, strikeouts still decrease how often a player reaches base and can have an adverse effect on a player’s on-base percentage. They’re not as harmless as casual saberists typically assume."

In the matter of Napoli, his career OBP has been about +.015 league average, with the notable exception of 2011. The K rate suggests it won't get any better.

[Trautwein's Degree]

If a player strikes out, he doesn't ground into a double play. Hitting a homerun is the best possible outcome of an at bat. The returns diminish all the way down to simply getting on first base. The downside, however, does not stop at an out. A hitter who creates multiple outs in an at bat is worse than a hitter who creates a single out via a strikeout. Said another way, it is better for slow guys like Napoli, Salty, and Adam Dunn to strike out than put the ball on the ground.

And if Adam Dunn or Mike Napoli walked more and struck out less they'd be Barry Bonds circa 2002 but they're not.

Edited by Trautwein's Degree, 14 November 2012 - 07:52 AM.

[OttoC]

From 2007 through 2011, there were 481 batters who reached first base after striking out, (368 to 1st, 12 to 2nd, 1 to 3rd). Given that there was more than 160,000 strikeouts in that period, reaching base on a strikeout is rare. There were also 743 double plays recorded on strikeouts in that time. That is not the same as grounding into a DP but the fact that the batter failed to put the ball in play could assign part of the blame to him.

[Alcohol&Overcalls]

From 2007 through 2011, there were 481 batters who reached first base after striking out, (368 to 1st, 12 to 2nd, 1 to 3rd). Given that there was more than 160,000 strikeouts in that period, reaching base on a strikeout is rare. There were also 743 double plays recorded on strikeouts in that time. That is not the same as grounding into a DP but the fact that the batter failed to put the ball in play could assign part of the blame to him.

Aren't all of these outcomes contained within the (essentially net-)zero linear weight given to Ks?

[ToeKneeArmAss]

Logan Morrison reported to be the next piece of this year's Marlins dismantling. Possible fit at 1B? http://nesn.com/2012...e-sense-as-fit/

[dylanmarsh]

Logan Morrison reported to be the next piece of this year's Marlins dismantling. Possible fit at 1B? http://nesn.com/2012...e-sense-as-fit/

I've never been a fan of Morrison and it seems to me we have the right-handed version of him in-house: Jerry Sands.

[Papelbon's Poutine]

Logan Morrison reported to be the next piece of this year's Marlins dismantling. Possible fit at 1B? http://nesn.com/2012...e-sense-as-fit/

I brought this up in the thread about the trade. If he's being shopped, I hope the Sox are in on him. Take on Nolasco if need be and subsidize and flip him elsewhere. LoMo would be a tremendous buy low candidate.

[OttoC]

Aren't all of these outcomes contained within the (essentially net-)zero linear weight given to Ks?

I simply put a dimension to the (essentially net-)zero linear weight given to Ks. Is that not permitted?

[Savin Hillbilly]

Morrison is an interesting hitter. A few tidbits:

He swings less often than almost everybody: in overall Swing%, he ranks 221 out of 230 hitters with 1000 or more PA over the past three years. But his contact numbers, while good, are not nearly as good as most of the other guys who swing that little. And he gets called out on strikes a lot: his percentage of K's that are called is well above league average for his career (31% to 24%).So while plate discipline does not appear to be a problem, pitch recognition/selection might be. Still, his BB and K ratios are pretty good: 11% and 18%, respectively, for his career.

His BABIP went all the way down from .351 in his 287-PA 2010 debut to .265 the following year, and further down to .248 this year. He is trending toward becoming more of a flyball hitter.

He doesn't have big platoon splits, but he does have more pop vs. RHP.

Perhaps more interesting is his home/road split from 2012. It's safe to say that he really didn't like the new ballpark: .608 home/.820 road.

He definitely looks like more of a 1B than a LF going forward, which fits our needs well. He's 25 and won't be arb-eligible till next year.

On the minus side, he has a very popular Twitter feed that he frequently uses to remind the world that he's an immature dipshit.

[xjack]

Logan Morrison would be great, but given the very good Jays prospects the Marlins got back for their big contracts, what do you think they'd want in return for a cheap major leaguer like LoMo? If I were them, I'd hold out for Doubrant.

[czar]

But, for the sake of discussion, I found this 2011 FanGraphs blog post called "Why strikeouts stink": http://www.fangraphs...rikeouts-stink/

Second & third grafs from the blog post:

"So the sabermetric truism has stuck: strikeouts aren’t that bad. Hitters can have high strikeout rates and still contribute loads of offensive value through their plate discipline. After all, the end goal is not making an out, right? It shouldn’t matter how a player does it, simply as long as they reach base at a high rate and avoid making outs.

"But there’s a problem with this logic. While a player can be valuable even he strikes out frequently, strikeouts still decrease how often a player reaches base and can have an adverse effect on a player’s on-base percentage. They’re not as harmless as casual saberists typically assume."

In the matter of Napoli, his career OBP has been about +.015 league average, with the notable exception of 2011. The K rate suggests it won't get any better.

Couple points.

Correct, striking out isn't good. All the linear weights imply that is that (in aggregate) striking out contributes about zero to the overall ledger (I think it's like -0.02 runs or something insanely small). What Steve is arguing in the piece is that there's an overcorrection by the saber community that strikeouts don't matter. That's not the correct argument.

However, the flaw (not really a flaw, but more why his estimate isn't realistic) in Steve's argument there is that he holds BABIP and HR/FB fixed. Which produces an insanely obvious result -- if all things are equal, and batter A strikes out more than batter B, of course batter A will be of less value.

However, for guys who get to the big leagues with high K% there is *not* a negligible relationship between K's and BABIP/HRs. Guys who strike out 30% of the time and then don't square up the ball when they make contact flame out before hitting MLB. Guys who strike out 30% of the time but have a 25% LD% rate end up with high BABIPs and solid HR/FB rates which offsets the loss of hits due to losing the chance to put the BIP. So when you look at the K% leaderboards of guys with established big league careers, you find that they (as a group) have a higher BABIP and HR/FB than guys of similar speed with less K's.

[Jordu]

Couple points.

Correct, striking out isn't good. All the linear weights imply that is that (in aggregate) striking out contributes about zero to the overall ledger (I think it's like -0.02 runs or something insanely small). What Steve is arguing in the piece is that there's an overcorrection by the saber community that strikeouts don't matter. That's not the correct argument.

However, the flaw (not really a flaw, but more why his estimate isn't realistic) in Steve's argument there is that he holds BABIP and HR/FB fixed. Which produces an insanely obvious result -- if all things are equal, and batter A strikes out more than batter B, of course batter A will be of less value.

However, for guys who get to the big leagues with high K% there is *not* a negligible relationship between K's and BABIP/HRs. Guys who strike out 30% of the time and then don't square up the ball when they make contact flame out before hitting MLB. Guys who strike out 30% of the time but have a 25% LD% rate end up with high BABIPs and solid HR/FB rates which offsets the loss of hits due to losing the chance to put the BIP. So when you look at the K% leaderboards of guys with established big league careers, you find that they (as a group) have a higher BABIP and HR/FB than guys of similar speed with less K's.

Well thank you. That an interesting way to look at I hadn't thought of.

[Yo La Tengo]

I'll take a pass on Logan Morrison, but I am curious about Garrett Jones.

Career v. RHP: .279 .348 .504 .852


2012 v. RHP: .289 .332 .556 .888


He's 31, can play 1B and OF, and is arbitration eligible through 2015. He could provide some productive flexibility and I'm guessing would not cost a ridiculous amount (I've seen the speculation about the Pirates needing a catcher). I'm imagining something similar to Brian Dauback circa 1999-2002.

Edited by Yo La Tengo, 14 November 2012 - 09:23 PM.

[Trlicek's Whip]

Morrison is an interesting hitter. A few tidbits...
He definitely looks like more of a 1B than a LF going forward, which fits our needs well. He's 25 and won't be arb-eligible till next year.

He shouldn't be viewed as an OF part, so that's less flexibility than our in-house option with Sands. Morrison's OF defense has been awful.

The other reason he should only be considered a 1B - and my other worry - is the mileage and injuries he's already accrued at this early age.

In 2011 he suffered a listfranc foot sprain. After the 2011 season he had surgery to repair a partial patellar tendon tear to his right knee. In 2012 during spring training there were complications from the surgery and knee inflammation. In July 2012 he finally was DL'd for the right knee inflammation, underwent season-ending surgery to the knee in September, and then stated that he returned too quickly and was battling the knee all year long.

He's young, but he's already had 2 knee surgeries at age 25. This article speculated that Morrison's use in the OF probably didn't help the knee injury, and that with all his lower-back dings-and-dents that he'd be best suited to be called a corner infielder sooner rather than later.

He's a flyer, and he's got multi-tool talent, but I'd want to make sure his knee was not something that would exponentially lead to a Youkilis-type cliffdive in a few years. And this injury uncertainty should be used to keep the price from being fleece-worthy to the Marlins' benefit.

Edited by Trlicek's Whip, 14 November 2012 - 09:31 PM.

[Savin Hillbilly]

Sounds like the Nats are not blowing LaRoche's doors off:

Negotiations between the Nationals and first baseman Adam LaRoche are going slowly, according to a source familiar with the talks.

The source said LaRoche's top priority is to re-sign with the Nats, but the slugger is also thinking about his family, which includes two children.

LaRoche already turned down the Nationals' qualifying offer of $13.3 million, and he wants at least a three-year deal. LaRoche has talked to several teams, but the source declined to name them. It has been reported that the Red Sox have interest in LaRoche.

http://mlb.mlb.com/n...rtnerId=rss_was

Interesting that we are the only other suitor the article mentions. It would make sense if we outbid the Nats for him, since really, we need him more than they do.

[SoxScout]

James/BIS has Berkman at 508 PA, .273/.389/.485, 21 HR.

Would people rather pay Berkman 1/$10 or LaRoche 3/$36?

[Savin Hillbilly]

James/BIS has Berkman at 508 PA, .273/.389/.485, 21 HR.

Would people rather pay Berkman 1/$10 or LaRoche 3/$36?

If we had any 1B prospects in the pipeline, or if next year's 1B FA class looked significantly better than this year's, I might be tempted to say the former (though Berkman really is a DH at this point, and we don't need one of those). As it is, we might as well bite the bullet and stabilize the position for a few years with unexciting competence.

[bosockboy]

James/BIS has Berkman at 508 PA, .273/.389/.485, 21 HR.

Would people rather pay Berkman 1/$10 or LaRoche 3/$36?

I'd go LaRoche, because it's very difficult to have any faith that Berkman can stay on the field. And as already mentioned, he's purely a DH at this point.