Updated throughout the day with quick takes from staff.
Pudge Rodriguez, retire? Not any time soon. Not voluntarily, anyway.
Ivan Rodriguez is not ready to think about retirement. Not even close — even if the Washington Nationals catcher is 39 years old and entering his 20th season in the majors.
The star known as Pudge says he's feeling fine. Asked Wednesday if he still has a lot of years left, Rodriguez said, "Absolutely."
There's a big difference between feeling fine and playing fine. It would be fun to see Pudge hang around for two or three more seasons and reach 3,000 hits -- right now he's 183 short -- but he just can't hit anymore, at all, .286 on-base percentage over the last two seasons.
I feel fine, too.
11 comments
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
Scoreboard data copyright © 2012 by STATS LLC. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of STATS LLC is strictly prohibited.
OpenCalais - Powered by Thomson Reuters
•
Odds Shark 
Comments
That's Misleading, Rob
Rob,
Your post is unfair and misleading. I realize you’ve long had a problem with Pudge given his less-than-stellar ability to get on base (certainly, the man has not been known to take a walk), but why do you continually ignore Pudge’s defensive contributions and overall worth in your random assaults on his skills? Doesn’t Pudge’s overall worth (i’m talking WAR here) say more about his abilities than your cherry-picked offensive totals? (And, yes, any time you make a determination about a player’s overall worth based solely on offense, you are “cherry-picking.”) Pudge’s WAR takes into consideration his .294 on-base percentage. As long as Pudge is better than a replacement-level player, he warrants playing time in the major leagues. (Perhaps at a lower salary, but that’s neither here nor there, since in your post you say nothing about Pudge being over-paid. Instead, you suggest that Pudge should not be playing for a major league team at any salary. In any case, according to FanGraphs, Pudge was actually worth $3.9 million last season.)
Your post implies quite strongly that Pudge has no business playing in the major leagues anymore because he can’t get on base. But his 0.2 oWAR last season (according to Baseball Reference) suggests that, even given his .294 on-base percentage, he can still help a major league team on offense. And his 1.0 WAR last season indicates that Pudge is still playing at a high enough level OVERALL to warrant playing time.
i find your inconsistent approach to evaluating players disappointing. You champion closer and more serious looks at defensive contributions of players you support (Jim Edmonds comes to mind), yet choose to ignore the defensive contributions of a player you don’t seem to care for. You openly root for Jamie Moyer to continue playing two years from now, despite the fact that he has been less than worthless for his employer the past two seasons (while making nearly $15 million), yet condescend (“I feel fine, too”) to Pudge for wanting to continue playing for another season or two. Pudge is embarking on the last stages of a journey toward 3,000 hits, something no catcher in the history of baseball has ever done. And he is doing it while still playing at a high enough level to warrant playing time. I’d call that “amazing.” Why can’t you get behind something that is so clearly worth getting behind, Rob?
by hooperx on Feb 16, 2011 5:23 PM EST reply actions
He didn't say his overall value should prevent him from playing
He simply pointed out that he may feel fine, but he may not play particularly well. Which is true. Pudge has cost his team runs with this hitting since 2004. Does he still have some positive value behind the plate? Maybe. Probably? I don’t know. Total Zone says yes, DRS says no, UZR has no comment.
Catching defense is exceedingly difficult to quantify.
But the Nationals have a decent young(er) catcher named Jesus Flores who’s overall value last season (in just 29 games) was indistinguishable from Pudge’s from a WAR standpoint.
Pudge is playing at, essentially, replacement level. By definition, that’s a level of play that should be easy to, you know, replace.
Are the Nationals going to continue letting him catch 100 games until he doesn’t want to anymore? That seems a little silly. Especially when there’s a guy in the organization who can basically do the same thing for less money. Pudge is getting piad $11m in 2011. Flores is getting paid $750,000.
For the Nationals, it’d probably be beneficial if Pudge decided to retire.
by stophittingyourself on Feb 16, 2011 7:34 PM EST up reply actions
That's Just Inaccurate
Wow. That’s worse than misleading. Your information is so grossly inaccurate that I really don’t know how to respond other than to simply correct your misstatements of fact. Why even bother citing statistics if you are just going to make them up?
Pudge is getting paid $3 million in 2011, not $11 million. And since FanGraphs indicates that Pudge was worth $3.9 million to his team last season, I’m not sure how you can argue with a straight face that the Nationals would have been better off if Pudge had decided to retire. In any case, a $3 million salary is considerably less than an $11 million salary.
Jesus Flores did not play a single game for the Nationals last season. Not one single game. He was injured and missed the entire season. He was in no way, shape, or form “indistinguishable” from Pudge last season.
Pudge absolutely has NOT cost his team runs with his hitting since 2004. According to Baseball Reference, Pudge has been worth 73 Offensive Runs above Replacement Level since 2004. That’s positive-73, not negative-73. In fact, in no season has Pudge ever cost his team runs with his hitting. I know because I actually took the time to look at his stats.
Pudge is not playing at, essentially, replacement level. By definition. Last season, he was worth 1 Win above Replacement Level. That is not “replacement level.” By definition.
You point to DRS as indicating that Pudge has no positive value behind the plate. That comes from FanGraphs. But you ignore rSB, which is another metric that FanGraphs uses to indicate that Pudge does in fact offer positive value behind the plate. You can’t choose to look at one and not the other.
Total Zone (Baseball Reference) rates Pudge above-average defensively. Overall, even FanGraphs (DRS and all) rates Pudge above-average defensively. And Beyond the Box Score rated Pudge as baseball’s 2nd-most valuable catcher in its defensive rankings last season.
I agree that catcher defense is notoriously difficult to evaluate. But most (admittedly imperfect) indications are that Pudge provides defensive value to his team. To suggest otherwise without any supporting data whatsoever is careless.
Sorry if my tone is a bit caustic. (In case it isn’t already obvious, I am an unapologetic fan of Pudge.) It is one thing to misinterpret data (I may be guilty of it myself, especially when it comes to defense), but it is quite another thing to provide data that is on its face inaccurate.
by hooperx on Feb 16, 2011 8:35 PM EST up reply actions
Runs above replacement
“Stophittingyourself” only said that Rodriguez is costing him team runs with his hitting, which is true. Being 73 runs above replacement since 2004 is easy to do because replacement level catchers are terrible. Rodriguez is actually -59 batting runs over that stretch.
I am not sure he really has much left at this point in his career.
by PentePro on Feb 16, 2011 11:06 PM EST up reply actions
But it's all relative
You can’t evaluate Pudge’s batting runs in a vacuum. You have to compare his production (negative or otherwise) to a replacement level catcher, especially since that is essentially the gist of Rob’s original post. (That Pudge should not be occupying a roster spot in the league anymore, thus freeing it up for some other, presumably “better” player.)
Since 2004, Yadier Molina has produced negative-66 batting runs.
Since entering the league in 2007, Jesus Flores (in limited playing time) has produced negative-10 batting runs.
The fact that replacement level catchers are so terrible offensively proves precisely why Pudge still has value, even offensively (and even while generating -59 batting runs since 2004). He isn’t “costing” his team runs while hitting if the player who would presumably replace him would “cost” his team even more runs.
by hooperx on Feb 16, 2011 11:29 PM EST up reply actions
That’s a fair point. Perhaps Rob was basing his post on the expected decline of Pudge this coming year, or on Projected values for his performance this coming year? I’m not crazy about the Molina example because Molina accumulated 46 of those negative batting runs during two dreadful offensive seasons in which he only had a total WAR of 1.1. Though, 1.1 WAR is still better than a replacement player, as you have noted.
What makes Moina’s glove valuable though is that he has managed to up his offensive production so that in his last three seasons he was only -9 batting runs, resulting in 6 WAR over the last two seasons instead of essentially having his offensive deficiencies cancel out his defensive prowess.
Also, a team like the nationals that won’t contend shouldn’t be paying millions of dollars to a player with an UPSIDE of 1 WAR and possibly less. The playing time should go to a developing player making half a million.
by PentePro on Feb 17, 2011 1:38 AM EST up reply actions
Splits
Pudge’s numbers still look pretty good against lefties, so he at least justifies a platoon. Add in his defense, experience, and all out gameriness and he deserves a roster spot.
by Jay Essman on Feb 16, 2011 5:30 PM EST reply actions
Cherry-picking?
Hooperx, saying that I-Rod has a .286 on-base average the last two years is “cherry-picking stats?” You have an odd definition of cherry-picking.
by Shawn Wright Weaver on Feb 16, 2011 5:38 PM EST reply actions
That's not what I meant
Shawn,
Apologies if I was unclear about what I meant by “cherry-picking.” If Rob’s post had just been about Pudge’s abilities on offense, I would not have claimed that Rob was cherry-picking stats by highlighting Pudge’s on-base percentage. But Rob’s post was not just about Pudge’s offense; it was about Pudge’s OVERALL worth. And in making a determination about Pudge’s overall worth by focusing solely on Pudge’s offense (while ignoring his defensive contributions), Rob cherry-picked one aspect of Pudge’s overall worth.
by hooperx on Feb 16, 2011 5:48 PM EST up reply actions
Give Hooperx a break, he has a valid point. Rob often advocates the use of WAR for player evaluations. Though to be fair, forward projections for a 39-year-old catcher should be done cautiously.
by Ince on Feb 17, 2011 4:35 AM EST up reply actions
The state of catching
in MLB is abysmal. Pudge is bad but he is still one of the top 50 catchers on the planet.
I was a Ranger fan when being a Rangers fan wasn't cool.
by JTodd on Feb 17, 2011 4:34 PM EST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed