One of the things that always piques my interest is a conversation in regards to “value”. It can be discussed in the abstract sense (leadership, personality, energy, grittitude) or more specifically (WAR, Runs Created, Runs Prevented, Ass Slaps Dished Out To Teammates).

But in my mind, whether you fall into the “pay for intangibles” camp or not, one thing we all ought to be agreeing upon is that salary matters. A guy on a rookie contract is far more valuable than a veteran making $20 million if their on-field production is equal. Having the former allows the GM to go out and spend that money on filling another need for the team.

So I hope to have several of these types of discussions throughout the early portion of the Hot Stove calendar. Today, I’m kicking things off with one guy who I think is one of the most interesting cases – Chone Figgins.

It would not surprise me to learn that the majority of baseball fans still consider Figgins to be a fairly young player. Fact is, he’s not. He didn’t get his first taste of the bigs until he was 24 and didn’t have his first full season until he was 26. By the time Spring Training comes around, Figgins will be 32 years old. For a player whose speed is often touted as the most desirable aspect of his game, this does not bode well for Chone nor anyone who signs him to a multi-year deal.

Looking at the greatest baseball website of all time, they have Bip Roberts, Patsy Tebeau, Jack Rothrock, Mookie Wilson, and Sam Mertes as Figgins’ top statistically comparable players through the age of 30. Out of those five, only Mertis was able to produce at the league average level once they hit 33 years of age and that year (1906) was still a steep dropoff from his previous levels of production.

Another aspect of Figgins’ reputation that I personally feel is overvalued is his versatility. Is there value to this? Absolutely, as long as he isn’t awful (I mean, Adam Dunn can call himself a shortstop. Doesn’t mean you want him there). It does give managers and GMs some flexibility when you know that a certain player can be moved around the diamond without much negative repercussions.

But is Figgins really that player? Or is it essentially a myth that continues to be propagated? We know that Figgins is a pretty good third baseman. Both UZR and +/- has him as above average at the position. He is also respectable at second base as well, although information is limited due to the fact that he doesn’t play second very often anymore. And as he grows older, we’ll see him there less and less. He hasn’t played SS or CF since 2006, and again, as he approaches his mid-thirties, we should expect this to continue. So at this point, he’s pretty much a 3B full time who can be a 2B in a pinch (think Mark Teahen, but, you know, good).

However, there is one aspect of Figgins’ game that does tend to age well. His plate discipline has actually been improving over these past couple of seasons. In 2007, Figgins swung at 22.3% of pitches thrown outside the stroke zone according to FanGraphs. For a guy with as little power as Figgins, this is too high. So he came back in 2008 and performed much better, to the tune of 16.5% and followed that up with a 14.9% this season, 4th lowest among all qualified hitters. This is important since not only has this resulted in a career high .395 OBP in 2009, it allows him to maintain a higher than normal BABiP (making contact with pitches out of the zone will often end poorly unless you are Vlad Guerrero).

So with all this information at our disposal, I ask – what’s the value of Chone Figgins? Since 2007, FanGraphs calculates that he has been worth a total of $50.9 million, with a high of $27.4 million in 2009 (while getting paid a paltry $5.78 million). But with Figgins finally eligible for free agency, would you pay Figgins $50 million over the next three years?

Let the discussion begin!

This is just a tad disturbing:

Venezuelan authorities reportedly will exhume the body of former major league pitcher Geremi Gonzalez to probe whether he was killed last year by lightning, as an autopsy determined, or was the victim of a deadly robbery.

How does a coroner confuse the two?

Coroner: It’s clear to anyone who sees this body that he was electrocuted by lightning.

Assistant: But he has a bullet hole in his head.

Coroner: It’s lightning.

I’m confused. Is Gonzalez’ family grasping at straws? Did the coroner lie? And if so, why? Questions, questions…

It’s bizarre enough that the Astros actually picked up the 2010 option for pitcher Brian Moehler. But even for GM Ed Wade, this quote is bat-sh%! insane:

(Moehler)’s a solid pitcher whose value doesn’t always show up in the numbers. He keeps you in games and gives you a chance to win.

His “value doesn’t always show up in numbers”? He “gives you a chance to win”?

You know what gives you a chance to win, Ed? Not spending $3 million or giving any innings to a 38-year old pitcher who has had a 5.29 ERA since the start of the 2007 season. That would probably help.

Note: For the record, anyone, even I, could give a team a “chance to win”. It’s only a matter of how much better your chances become.

It’s been too long since we’ve done a UFH post at UmpBump. So in tribute to the playoffs, when the entire nation can marvel at players’ levels of determination and enhanced upper-lip decorations, we give you grit-meister Brendan Ryan of the St. Louis Cardinals.

May his stache forever live in October lore.

Read the rest of this entry »

My reactions to today’s press conference at Citi Field with Mets’ COO Jeff Wilpon and GM Omar Minaya. Consider this my quick and dirty obituary of the 2009 New York Mets:

1. Mets’ front office execs using the word “inexcusable” in October is officially an American tradition. Greeting cards soon to follow.
2. “The payroll is what Omar needs” = “let’s lock up Alex Cora and Jeff Francoeur to three-year deals”
3. If you go from a line of .313/.397/.473 in 2008 to .266/.313/.427 in 2009 like Daniel Murphy did, Omar Minaya will be “encouraged”  by what you showed him.
4. “Minaya believes he and his staff must look at every aspect of the team, while putting better talent on the field.” This is a brilliant plan. Follow it. Can’t go wrong.
5. And clearly, I’ve wasted my time even paying attention.

When the Tampa Bay Rays signed LF/DH Pat Burrell to a 2-year $16 million contract this past off-season, I thought that the defending AL champs had gotten a steal – especially in comparison to the 3-year $31.5 million deal that his replacement in Philadelphia, Raul Ibanez, would garner from Burrell’s old team. And while I won’t make final judgments until these two contracts are completed, it’s looking like I was wrong. Very, very wrong.

While Ibanez was posting career-best numbers as a 37-year old Phillie, Burrell was doing the exact opposite in Tampa. His walk rate is below career norms, he’s striking out more often than he has in several seasons and his power has seemingly disappeared (.385 SLG? Who are you?).

To his credit, the guy isn’t making excuses for himself. But that also means that we don’t quite know if there’s something wrong that can be fixed during the off-season.

There are, however, potential explanations for his dip in performance that could portend a much better season in 2010:

1. The talent gap between the AL East and NL East. Especially over the past few seasons, the quality of pitching in the NL East has been slightly underwhelming. Johan Santana didn’t enter the division until 2008 so the only top-level SP that Burrell had to face consistently over the last few seasons was John Smoltz. Now in the big boys league, he has to face the likes of C.C. Sabathia, Roy Halladay, Jon Lester and Josh Beckett. Can Burrell adjust to the higher quality pitching at the age of 33? I haven’t the faintest.
2. Hiding an injury. You wouldn’t expect a player to have such a dramatic drop in power numbers from one season to another and especially not at Burrell’s age. This is a guy who had slugged over .500 from 2005-2008. How does he become a sub-.400 slugger seemingly overnight? If he had a serious injury, that would explain quite a lot.
3. He’s done this before. The main reason why I don’t believe that Pat Burrell is washed up is because of his 2003 season. A year prior to that, the then-26-year old had a very strong line of .282/.376/.544 with 37 HRs. He had become on of the  better offensive threats in the National League. But he followed it up with a very disappointing season where he batted .209/.309/.404 with 21 HRs. And despite a wrist injury in 2004, his numbers rebounded very well and he was a solid hitter for the rest of his stay in Philadelphia. No actual reason (none that I saw, anyway) was ever really given for his sharp drop in production in 2003.

I am not going to say that any of these potential reasons are correct because at this point, I have no way of knowing anything. But I will say that Burrell most likely is not done, simply because it’s rare for a 33 year old hitter to fall off such a steep cliff. There’s got to be a reason aside from “decline” that ruined Burrell’s 2009 season. I just don’t quite know what that reason may be.

Because people will be upset if I wrote about Burrell and didn't include this photo...

It’s been going on for over a year now, but the multitude of man-crushes heaped upon Mets first baseman Daniel Murphy still perplexes me. There is, of course, the website ohmurph.com, which has apparently decided to take it up a notch and literally sniff the inside of Murphy’s cleats.

But it’s not just these guys. Matt Cerrone of MetsBlog.com, which is probably the best place to go to gauge the opinions of the average Mets fan, will not give up on Murphy. Yesterday, Cerrone wrote (italics and lack of caps his):

i think, with protection in the lineup, and a more stable season, using what he’s learned and lived through this year, murphy can hit above .280 with at least 30 doubles…

I have several issues with this mindset. For one, Murphy is on pace to hit 34 doubles already this year, so he’s already hit one of those qualifiers and we’re still not happy with his performance. He’s also on pace to have 510 ABs, which means that for him to bat over .280, he would have had to have roughly 145 hits. So assuming that he won’t magically become speedier and start racking up triples, in Cerrone’s estimation (he also thinks Murphy can hit 15HRs), Mets fans can hope for 232 total bases (92 from singles, 68 from doubles, 12 from triples, and  60 from HRs). Over 510 ABs, that’s a .454 slugging percentage… which would be “good” enough for 20th among the 24 qualified first basemen in 2009.

What about OBP in this instance? If he maintains his current walk rate of 7.5% as well as his HBP and sac fly numbers, that would still only give him a .334 OBP, which is 22nd among the 24 qualified first basemen. And what if I were to assume that his walk rate will improve to say 8.5%? That’s a .346 OBP (21st out of 24).

So really, even in this possible-but-optimistic scenario, Daniel Murphy would still be among the worst regular first basemen in baseball. And it’s not like his minor league numbers were good enough to project him as an average first baseman so his current performance is really what you’d expect against superior pitching. He can potentially give you numbers that would be quite good if he were a middle infielder. Problem is, he’s not. He wasn’t able to handle third base in the minors so they moved him to left. He couldn’t cut it there either so they moved him to first and now he has nowhere else to go.

Despite their troubles, perhaps the best thing that the Mets have going for themselves is the abundance of talent at premium positions. With third base (Wright), shortstop (Reyes) and centerfield (Beltran) all manned by potential All-Stars, the Mets have a distinct advantage over many teams that would kill to have that nucleus. But by running guys like Murphy, Jeff Francoeur, and Angel Pagan out there to play positions typically fielded by the best hitters that MLB has, they give that advantage right back. I’m not saying that the Mets need Albert Pujols. But if they’re serious about winning in 2010, they should have someone better than Daniel Murphy at first.

A few days ago, I received my copy of the most recent ESPN The Magazine in the mail and read the article written by Tim Keown describing the current mindset in Arlington in regards to pushing their pitchers physically beyond the comfort levels of the average Major League franchise.

The article is worth reading in its entirety, but in a nutshell Keown surmises that by not coddling their arms with restrictive pitch counts and pushing stronger cardio and long-toss work in the hot Texas sun, the Rangers, led by team President Nolan Ryan’s imposed regimen, have turned around a staff who have for years been considered among the worst in baseball.

But this post is not about the Rangers, and I am only mentioning them because of what the Yankees are currently doing with Joba Chamberlain. By now, I’m sure most of you are aware of the phrase “Joba Rules”, referring to the annual innings limits that the club imposes upon their potential future ace. It is thought that if you allow a young pitcher to increase his workload dramatically from year to year, the risk of future injuries escalates. And in today’s baseball world where the enormous value of quality talent making the league minimum is well understood (yes, even by the Yankees), no one wants to be the guy who ruined a promising career – or, more accurately, several seasons of cheap yet dominant performances.

In 2008, the Yanks limited Chamberlain to 100 innings, and this year, it was already up to 130 prior to his start on Sunday. So what did the Yankees do? Oh, just your average “pull your starter after 35 pitches” routine. That’s right. The Yankees had Joba on a 35-pitch limit, which was enough for three innings (surprisingly). Me thinks they overreact.

It’s certainly understandable that teams want to protect their assets to the best of their abilities. And with the Yankees as mortal locks for the playoffs, they can experiment with this without real repercussions in the standings. However, is this really the best solution?

The most drastic scenario that I hope wasn’t even considered for more than two seconds is to have shut down Joba for the rest of the regular season. The Yankees could obviously use Chamberlain in the rotation come playoff time, and simply shelving him for the next month could very well leave him unprepared for that. Another potential route was the one we initially thought the club would take, which was to give Joba a longer period of rest in between starts than normal. But they scrapped that idea as well and simply decided to start him on normal rest albeit with the stipulation of the 35-pitch count. I suppose that with the rosters expanding in September, that finding relievers to come in after Joba maxes out isn’t much of an issue at the moment (the Yankees now have 15 pitchers in the bigs). But why are they reinventing the wheel?

The most traditionally sensible thing to do was of course simply put him into the bullpen until the playoffs. There really aren’t many truly “high-leverage” situations that the Yanks should be facing with such a cushy lead, but at least the guy could get his work in when he was needed.

So why was this option nixed? This is pure speculation on my part, but I wonder if no one in that front office wanted to deal with the worst (okay, maybe not) case scenario – what if he was great in that role? The “should Joba be a starter or reliever” debate should never have even happened (200 innings vs. 70 innings. Which workload do you prefer your best pitchers handling?) but ridiculously, it still is happening in the papers and on talk radio. Perhaps the Yankees simply didn’t want to add fuel to those ridiculous flames. Or, less conspiratorially,  it was simply a case of being able to guarantee Joba routine work. But that’s no fun, is it?

In the end, there really is no easy answer. But I do know this – a month ago, I thought that capping annual innings for young pitchers wasn’t a bad idea. But actually seeing it in practice in such a severe form as this is making me seriously consider the alternatives. Maybe there is something to what Nolan Ryan is preaching. Maybe clubs are coddling their young arms too much which in turn makes them less capable of handling the workload necessary to be the best players possible. At the very least, it is safe to say that there is no such thing as a fail-proof plan. Each pitcher is different and some can handle the workload while others can’t.

So the true question is, how do you know which is which? For the Rangers, you push them to see who doesn’t break. For the Yankees, you impose a gradual process that may never test their limits. I suggest that we all keep a close eye on what’s going on in Texas. If their young pitchers are still effective and healthy in a few years, we may see this approach take hold around the league.

Or maybe expecting every pitcher to emulate the work habits of a legendary fireballer who, despite pitching over 5300 innings over his 27 year career, was still able to throw a 95-mph fastball in his mid-forties, is just bat-shit insane.