SB Nation - Tony Batista

The Baltimore Orioles All-Awful Lineup: 2000-2009

Stacey — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 21:51:31 -0000

More photos » by Chris Pizzello - AP

He has the WS ring and perhaps the last laugh, but he is still the worst 2B the O's had in the 2000s. (AP Photo/Chris Pizzello)

Browse more photos »

I've encountered a number of articles around the web regarding the top 10 best things about this decade, be it movies, baseball players, or one-hit wonders. It's fair to say that I'm not above stealing someone else's idea, but given the that Orioles have spent the last decade in the toilet, it seems more appropriate to name the worst players of the decade, not the best. If there is one thing this Orioles fan likes to do, it's revel in failure. But if you're looking for a silver lining to the All-Awfuls, here it is: None of them came from the 2009 team and none of them will be on the team in 2010.

Catcher: Brook Fordyce

The candidates: Charles Johnson (2000), Brook Fordyce (2000-2003), Geronimo Gil (2002), Javy Lopez (2004-2006), Ramon Hernandez (2006-2008), Matt Wieters (2009)

Fordyce came to the Orioles in 2000, traded from the White Sox along with a handful of scrubs for Charles Johnson and Harold Baines. In 312 games from 2000-2003, Fordyce hit .257/.306/.379 (OPS+ 81). 2001 was especially awful for Fordyce as he hit just .209/.268/.322 in 95 games. Whatever the Orioles had in mind for Fordyce. it didn't work out. He was a complete failure as both offensively and defensively as he only managed to catch 58 base stealers out of 307 (18.8%) as an Oriole.

First Base: Rafael Palmeiro

The candidates: Will Clark (2000), Jeff Conine (2000-2003), Rafael Palmeiro (2004-2005), Kevin Millar (2006-2008), Aubrey Huff (2007-2009)

The numbers on the field may not back this up, but the only possible answer is Rafael Palmeiro. His positive steroid test in 2005, the subsequent denials and throwing of a fellow player under the bus, the ear plugs to drown out the boos, and his quiet departure from the team all help make the decision easy. Straight numbers-wise, the award probably goes to Aubrey Huff. He wasn't good in 2009 and league average in 2007 while splitting time at first with Kevin Millar. Although honestly, none of them was great shakes, so Palmeiro wins for emotional abuse of the fans.

Second Base: Jerry Hairston

The candidates: Delino DeShields (2000), Jerry Hairston (2001-2004), Brian Roberts (2003-2009)

This award has to go to Jerry Hairston. We all know the value of Brian Roberts, and Delino DeShields had a very solid 2000 at 2B. Hairston could never quite take advantage of his chances. He went from getting the majority of the playing time at 2B in 2001 and 2002 to losing time to Brian Roberts to being used as a utility man to being traded for Sammy Sosa. Overall he played 474 games for the Orioles in this decade with an OPS+ of 89.

Third Base: Cal Ripken

Candidates: Cal Ripken (2000-2001), Tony Batista (2002-2003), Melvin Mora (2004-2009)

Ok so here's the thing. Both Cal Ripken and Tony Batista were pretty lousy in their two year spans. I want to give the Awful Award to Tony Batista, I really do. But I don't think that I can. Cal Ripken was straight up bad in 2000 and 2001. As bad as Batista was, Cal was worse. From 2000-2001, he hit .246/.290/.347 with 29 HR and 32 2B. Batista hit .239/.290/.425 with 57 HR and 56 2B. The power is really the only difference, but it's enough to give Cal the edge in the awards voting. Argue with me if you like, but know that I feel bad enough about it already.

Shortstop: The Five Headed Monster

Candidates: Mike Bordick (2000-2002), Deivi Cruz (2003), Miguel Tejada (2004-2007), Brandon Fahey/Juan Castro/Alex Cintron/Luis Hernandez/Freddie Bynum (2008), Cesar Izturis (2009)

Deivi Cruz had this award all but locked up until 2008 rolled around. In 152 games in 2003 he hit a lousy .250/.269/.378 with 14 HR and 13 BB, a dark spot at SS between Bordick and Tejada. But after the trade of Tejada, the Five Headed Monster set out to prove that no matter how bad one player can play a position, five guys can play even worse. In 2008 they hit a combined .217/.257/.277 with 3 HR and 18 2B. Well done, guys, you put together one of the worse offensive seasons at SS in history.

Outfield: Jay Payton, Luis Matos, and Sammy Sosa

Candidates: Brady Anderson (2000-2001), Jeff Conine (2000-2003, 2006), B.J. Surhoff (2000, 2003-2005), Albert Belle (2000), Chris Richard (2000), Melvin Mora (2001-2003), Chris Singleton (2002), Gary Matthews Jr. (2002-2003), Jay Gibbons (2001-2007), Luis Matos (2001-2006), Larry Bigbie (2001-2005), David Newhan (2004-2006), Sammy Sosa (2005), Nick Markakis (2006-2009), Corey Patterson (2006-2007), Jay Payton (2007-2008), Adam Jones (2008-2009), Luke Scott (2008-2009), Nolan Reimold (2009), Felix Pie (2009)

The Orioles outfield has pretty much been a hot mess this entire decade. If I ever get the urge in 2010 to complain about Reimold, Jones, Markakis, or Pie, someone please direct me to this list. I mean, look at some of those names. Minus the oldest names and the newest names, it's basically a list of players I can't stand. I immediately wanted to crown Jay Gibbons the winner , but honestly he wasn't the worst, not by a long shot. That honor goes to the other Jay, Jay Payton. From 2007-2008, Jay Payton played in 258 games for the Orioles in the outfield, second only to Nick Markakis' 318 games. Over the two year span he hit .250/.292/.363 with an OPS+ of 72. That combined with his chronic whining and the time he picked a fight with Melvin Mora in the dugout give him the title of worst Oriole outfielder of the 2000s. Congrats, Jay Pay!

Much like his BFF Cal, Brady Anderson's last two years as an Oriole were nothing be proud of. Unlike Cal, there have been enough lousy outfielders since then that Brady escaped this list. Luis Matos and Sammy Sosa, come on down! From 2000-2006 the injury prone Matos played in 494 games for the Orioles with a robust line of .256/.313/.375. One decent season afforded him 2.5 more years of horridness before the Orioles finally got rid of him. Sosa only spent one year (and not even really that) as an Oriole, but it was one of the more pathetic seasons I can recall. Anyone wondering why he was obtained for the bargain price of Jerry Hairston and Mike Fontenot found out why after seeing him play. He missed a number of games due to injury, the games he played were awful, and by all accounts he stirred up quite a bit of strife in the clubhouse with Miguel Tejada. Sosa was MIA for about the last month of the season, and one of my favorite stories from the Baltimore Sun of the whole year was about how the Orioles couldn't find Sammy Sosa.

Hell of a lineup. We Orioles fans have had it rough this decade. I think we're finally due for some happiness, don't you?

(Note: I tried to include pitching in this but it was just too daunting of a task. Perhaps some other time.)

2009 In Review: Indianapolis Indians

Charlie — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 22:18:32 -0000

More photos » by David Zalubowski - AP

Browse more photos »

This will undoubtedly be the most controversial of the minor league reviews I've written, because it involves perhaps the two most controversial Pirates right now, Garrett Jones and Neil Walker.

A note before we begin: I believe minor league stats matter, and I believe minor league stats, and particularly AAA stats, are very valuable tools. See here for a good primer on Minor League Equivalencies, which Bill James showed closely approximate major league statistics. I also believe that what you did over the last month generally matters a lot less than what you did over the past two or three years.

Let's begin by comparing the Indianapolis statistics of two players:

Andrew McCutchen: .303/.361/.493

Garrett Jones: .307/.348/.502

These are very similar numbers, and yet my attitudes toward these three players throughout the season were very different. I loved McCutchen, but was actively hostile to Jones.

Neither of these lines look particularly good in translation. For example, if you adjust Jones' AAA numbers to Pittsburgh, you get .259/.295/.410, which is pathetic. (Remember, that's not a prediction of what he'd do in Pittsburgh, it's a translation of what he actually did.)

Of course, translating minor league numbers to the majors often makes players look pathetic. The reason they're in the minor leagues in the first place, at least in theory, is that they aren't good enough to play in the majors yet, so it's only natural that translating their numbers would make them look bad.

The reasons why I clamored for McCutchen and not for Jones, then, are twofold. First, McCutchen is 22 and Jones is 28. Players generally improve until they are about 27 or so, and then they start to go downhill. So there was good reason to think that McCutchen might actually outplay his equivalency as he improved throughout the year (which is, in fact, what happened); there was no reason to think Jones would do so, at least not judging from his numbers. Also, McCutchen is an outstanding defensive player, whereas Jones has no real defensive value. McCutchen can post a .750 OPS and still be valuable, whereas Jones can't.

Obviously, Jones, who has hit .301/.366/.607 for the Pirates so far, has exceeded any reasonable expectation. But why did it happen? It's not like the equivalency was "wrong"; remember, the equivalency is a translation, not a prediction, and the existence of outliers like Jones doesn't disprove it. He's hit for a higher OPS in the majors than he ever did at any minor league level, which is really strange given how old Jones is. Possible explanations:

1) Genuine improvement. At this point, this explanation deserves some attention, since 19 homers in 239 at bats are very hard to explain away.

2) "He learned it on the plane." I'm copping the title from a message board poster many years ago who was trying to understand why Tike Redman hit so well after being promoted in 2003. There was nothing in Redman's minor league history to suggest that he really was the sparkplug he briefly seemed to be in the majors, so the opinion of this poster was that if Redman had learned anything that caused his great half season in 2003, he must have learned it on the plane from Class AAA Nashville. Of course, Redman hadn't learned anything on the plane, which was exactly the point--his 2003 performance was a huge fluke. A complete fluke isn't as likely for Jones as it was for Redman, whose excellent half-season was driven mostly by batting average. But it's certainly worthy of consideration. For example, Jones' major league equivalency suggests he would have been a .259 hitter if his stint in Indianapolis had actually been in Pittsburgh. If he'd hit .259 in Pittsburgh but generally retained his power, that would make a lot more sense to me given his minor league profile.

At this point, the smart money has to be on a blend of "genuine improvement" and "he learned it on the plane." This isn't so bad for Jones, but I do think the Pirates should probably pencil him into the lineup next year rather than writing that name in ink. Besides, even if his hitting for the Pirates this year has mostly been legitimate, players who develop late often have very short peaks.

We should also be wary of Neil Walker, who has parlayed one great month at AAA in two years there into a big league callup. Walker's profile, going back years and including his terrible .311 OBP at Indianapolis this year, suggests he has no idea how to control the strike zone, and big league pitchers will have little trouble exploiting him. He does have legitimate power, with 47 extra base hits at Indy, but not so much that he's worth the effort. He currently compares unfavorably to players like Tony Batista or Pedro Feliz, who both play good third base defense and have excellent power but frustrate their teams with .250 batting averages and .290 OBPs. Walker currently has less power than either of them, so he should stay in the minors for now. The fact that Andy LaRoche isn't exactly tearing the cover off the ball is neither here nor there; he's very probably a better player than Walker right now, and Walker needs to prove, at the very least, that his terrific August represented real improvement rather than simply one great month.

In the second half of the year, Indianapolis' lineup also featured Jose Tabata (who did what he does, hitting for average and little else) and Jeff Clement, who tailed off badly after a strong start after coming to the Bucs in the Jack Wilson deal.

Indianapolis' best pitcher was... well, actually, it was Tom Gorzelanny, who had already exhausted the Pirates' patience and is gone now. After that, it was Daniel McCutchen. No Relation pitched well enough to overcome some rather glaring issues with flyballs, and earned a spot in the Pirates' rotation, where his flyball issues quickly reared their ugly head--he's allowed three homers in his first two starts, although he's pitched pretty well otherwise. Elsewhere, Brad Lincoln took some time to adjust to AAA after a great start at Altoona, and he finished his season with two great AAA starts. Virgil Vasquez, meanwhile, pitched like the decent AAA pitcher he is. The best pitcher out of the bullpen was Chris Bootcheck, who mowed down International League hitters before running into a wall in the majors.

Angels Smear Twins Pitching All Over 35W & 94E Interchange

Jesse — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 10:22:24 -0000

More photos » by Paul Battaglia - AP

4 months ago: Los Angeles Angels' Sean Rodriguez is safe as he dives back to first on a pick-off attempt by Minnesota Twins relief pitcher R.A. Dickey during the sixth inning of a baseball game, Saturday, Aug. 1, 2009, in Minneapolis. The Angels won 11-6. (AP Photo/Paul Battaglia)

Browse more photos »

As far as interchanges go, it doesn't get much worse.

After allowing 11 runs in extra-innings on Friday night, the Twins decided to break everyone's heart in regulation on Saturday and allow 11 runs in the allotted nine innings. It allowed everyone to get an earlier start on their Saturday night.

Orlando Cabrera's Debut

It wasn't a bad night for O-Cab. He looks good in a Twins uniform, although this might have something to do with the fact that I now compare everyone to Tony Batista and how he looked. It's a low bar.

At the plate he collected a pair of hits, scoring on a Justin Morneau single in the third and then plating Nick Punto in the eighth. His double in the third was a shot going the other way, slicing down the right field line and into the corner. Denard Span went from first to third, with Cabrera flashing some decent speed behind him. In the field he was largely as advertised, making four put-outs in four attempts. According to his THT stats, he made one play out of the two in his zone (not great), but he also converted a pair of outs outside of his zone (which balances it out a bit). He looked good moving to his left, and on his first play in the top of the first made a play on a tough hop as he ranged toward second base before making the throw to first.

Anthony Swarzak's Night

Everything he threw just wasn't good enough. It's harsh, but I can't lie; nine hits in three-plus innings on just 64 pitches looks more like batting practice than it does anything else. He struck out one (lucky guy, Bobby Abreu, although at least two of those pitches looked like balls to me), and to his credit didn't walk anybody. Although, well...he didn't have to. Nobody wanted to take a walk with all those pitches coming through the zone. Swarzak gave up a double and a triple in addition to his seven singles. But he didn't give up any of the three home runs. So we're ending on a positive.

Joe Saunders' Night

He was pretty much what I expected, which was a good thing. It was just unfortunate that the Angels hit Swarzak harder than the Twins hit Saunders.

Les Bullpenne

That's French for "the bullpen". R.A. Dickey (2.1 IP, 3 R, 1K, 3 BB, 1 HR) and Bobby Keppel (2.2 IP, 5 H, 2 R, 2 HR) couldn't keep it close. For the first half of the game the offense was keeping the Twins in it, and after five it was just 6-4. Dickey had just thrown a scoreless fourth (not counting the one Swarzak let in after two batters), although he did make it interesting; Dickey had also thrown a scoreless fifth. Then came that damn sixth inning.

Something named Sean Rodriguez singled, Chone Figgins walked, and then Maicer Izturis (yes, MAICER IZTURIS) decided that four home runs on the season wasn't enough, because five is his favorite number. With nobody out it was suddenly 9-4, and a game well within reach was suddenly a massive uphill battle.

Keppel's first two jobs were to get Juan Rivera and Kendry Morales. It went like this: strike-ball-ball-home run; ball-strike-strike-home run.

Joe Mauer

Joe was the only Twin who didn't get a hit on Saturday night. He also didn't walk. I guess even Joe can regress to the mean. Tears.

The Rest

Jesse Crain pitched a scoreless ninth, making him the only Twins pitcher to not allow a run. Morneau collected a trio of hits, including his 27th home run which made it 11-5. Carlos Gomez picked up another triple, and Mike Redmond joined Cabrera in the doubles club. Span, Cabrera, Morneau, Redmond and Punto all collected multi-hit nights.

Stars of the Game
Honorable Mention: Carlos Gomez (1-for-4, 3B, RBI, SB, .074 WPA)
#3: Justin Morneau (3-for-5, HR, R, 2 RBI, .057 WPA)
#2: Orlando Cabrera (2-for-5, 2B, R, RBI, .071 WPA)
#1: Mike Redmond (2-for-3, R, RBI, BB, .160 WPA)

The Dark Side
#1: Anthony Swarzak (3+ IP, 9 H, 6 R, K, -.511 WPA)
#2: R.A. Dickey (2.1 IP, 3 H, 3 R, 3 BB, -.062 WPA)
#3: Joe Crede (1-for-5, -.083 WPA)

Twins Sign Mark Grudzielanek to Minor League Contract

Jesse — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 20:37:22 -0000

I'm surprised. Are you surprised? We shouldn't be surprised, it's a quintessential Twins move.

Mark Grudzielanek

#?? / Second Base / Minnesota Twins

Height: 6-1

Weight: 200

Bats: R

Throws: R

Born: Jun 30, 1970

The following occurred between 12:45 and 12:46 pm CDT today:

Jesse: Grudz?
Jesse: Really?
Seth: Ya...just had it confirmed, too.
Jesse: Why am I surprised?

I don't want to set anyone up with the wrong idea here, because there are merits to this signing and I'll get to them later, but honestly: why was I surprised? The Twins organization has done a fantastic job over the years of acquiring veterans in twilight in the hope that they can provide some kind of depth or leadership. I could also add production, but that hasn't always been the case.

These signings have all fallen under one of two categories. Either these veterans were A) washed up and we all knew it (James Baldwin, Jesse Orosco, Juan Castro, Bret Boone, Ruben Sierra, Tony Batista, Phil Nevin, Jeff Cirillo, Ramon Ortiz, Sidney Ponson, Craig Monroe, Livan Hernandez, the return of Eddie Guardado, Luis Ayala, Sean Henn) or B) all things considered weren't a bad gamble (Tom Prince, Rick Reed, Kenny Rogers, Henry Blanco, Jose Offerman, Terry Mulholland, Pat Borders, Mike Redmond, Rondell White, Jason Tyner, Mike Lamb, Adam Everett, R.A. Dickey). Of course, whether or not any of column B actually worked out is another matter altogether. But you're catching my drift, and I didn't even list all of Joe Mauer's third catchers.

Now we can officially add one Mark Grudzielanek to that list. I think the reason this signing surprised me is because Grudz was a free agent. It was almost too easy. Of course if the Twins were in contact with Grudz, you can bet they were probably in contact with Ray Durham, too. Let's get to the actual analysis of this deal.

Contract

Minnesota has offered Grudzielanek a minor league deal, and he'll report to a Gulf Coast League squad in Florida. He made $4.5 million with the Kansas City Royals in 2008, but suffice it to say he won't be making anywhere near that much this year. Financial terms haven't been disclosed, but I'd be surprised if it cracks the one million mark. It sounds like he did have offers in the off-season, being a Type B free agent, but he declined those offers.

Age

This is the bit that everyone is going to focus on: Grudz is 39. Most guys are out of the league by this time, whether that's by choice or not, but here's something to keep in mind: even at 38 he was a good player.

Offense

Patience & Discipline: Grudz hasn't really been a guy who walks a lot over the course of his career, but he makes up for that by being a great contact hitter. He makes contact on over 90% of his swings, and goes outside of the zone at right around the league average rate. Again, the walk rates (5% of plate appearances) are low, but Alexi Casilla (6%) and Brendan Harris (7%) aren't walk machines, either. He sees roughly 3.5 pitches per plate appearance.

Power: He's a career .395 slugger, .106 isolated power. As a full-time player he's always been good for plenty of doubles, but as far as the long-ball goes he's a middle infielder. This is a secondary concern for anyone playing second base.

Batted Ball: Grudz is a line-drive hitter. A lot of analysts will say that hitting line drives isn't a repeatable skill, and that might be accurate, but when you're hitting them at a rate that's better than league average year after year after year, something is going well.

Defense

Arm: This has never been a problem. He spent a lot of time at shortstop for the Expos earlier in his career, but for a guy who would be playing exclusively at second base, the arm is fine.

Range: Oddly enough, for a guy who was 38 last season his range didn't fall off too much. The problem is that he is a bit older, and having lost that first step does mean something. That's reflected in defensive metrics like UZR/150, which came in at 5.3 in 2008. Still above average, which is very much in line with Grudzielanek's history, it's just not what it was.

Conclusions

There are a lot of positives here; just not as many as we'd hoped as fans rooting for someone like Freddy Sanchez. This is a move that has zero risk for the Twins, who are still counting on Casilla to get the job done. If Casilla faulters again, it's not as though Minnesota would be wasting a roster spot by calling on Grudzielanek. The biggest focus as far as positives go though, and it's a big one, is this: it's not going to take much to improve on what the Twins have been given from second base this season. If Grudz is ready by the middle of August, comes up and hits .280/.330/.380, that's an improvement. As far as his defense goes, there would have to be something desperately wrong for him to have suddenly turned into a negative player in the field. For a guy like this, his offensive skills may disappear, but the glove will linger on.

What does leave me slightly disappointed is the fact that this is such a by-the-numbers move for the Twins. There's no risk here, but sometimes that's exactly what a team needs for a boost: a risk. A sign that, yes, dammit, this organization believes in you so much that we went out and put our own asses on the line. Sometimes I get the sense that the front office forgets that everything about baseball is a two-way street, it's all a relationship, from the fans to the players to the front office.

Baseball is a business. By that definition, picking up a guy like Grudzielanek is a good move simply because getting a guy to play league average anything at second base constitutes an upgrade. But I just had my sights on something a bit more substantial.

There's still time.

Poll

Which list does Grudz belong on?

A) He's washed up and we all know it.

53 votes

B) All things considered, not a bad signing.

245 votes

C) I've already ordered my "Grudz" jersey.

33 votes

331 votes | Poll has closed

Crede deals with ghosts of Twins third basemen past

Jon Marthaler — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 12:00:21 -0000

Last year, about this time, we took a look at Mike Lamb's 2008 season - and concluded that he wasn't doing much more than Tony Batista had been doing in 2006. The Twins cut Batista loose after 50 games in 2006, and dropped Lamb after 81 last season.

So, while no one is suggesting that he be dropped, it's only fair to examine Joe Crede, as he is Minnesota's 2009 solution at third base. Crede has had 192 plate appearances this year, just three fewer than Batista got in 2006 (and five more than Lamb had at the time of last year's article), so the timing's about right.

Here's the tale of the tape*:

	BATISTA ('06)	LAMB ('08 thru 6/3)	CREDE ('09)
BA	.236	.247	.228
OBP	.303	.283	.297
SLG	.388	.335	.456
OPS	.691	.618	.753
HR	5	1	10
RBI	21	24	27
Runs created	24	23	24
OPS, last 20 games	.685	.707	.770
BABIP	.276	.266	.221
Line-drive %	21.9%	18.2%	16.3%
UZR/150	-13.5	-18.4^	34.3

*Statistic sources: UZR/150 from Fangraphs.com, BABIP/LD% from The Hardball Times, all others from Baseball-Reference.com
^Lamb's fielding number only available for entire 2008 season

A few things jump out at me from this comparison, so let's discuss:

Crede is so much better on defense than either Lamb or Batista, there's just no comparison. Both Batista and Lamb were absolute liabilities at third base. Meanwhile, if you go by Ultimate Zone Rating (the number above is per 150 defensive games), Crede has been the best defensive third baseman in baseball. Strictly in the field, Crede's been worth 15 runs more than Batista in 2006, and likely about the same number more than Lamb last season at this point.
Crede's power numbers dwarf his predecessors, though his on-base numbers are just as bad. This is a function of his home run numbers, and nothing else. He has about the same number of extra base hits as both Batista and Lamb; it's just that his few have flown over the wall.
Crede hits an extraordinary number of fly balls (almost half the time), and has done so for several years. He hits the fewest ground balls on the team (35.6%), and so few line drives that even Delmon Young hits more. Consequently, his batting average, even when he hits the ball (BABIP, or batting average on balls in play, above) is horrible, since most of the time the ball either ends up in the stands or in an outfielder's glove. Crede's 10 home runs are many more than either Lamb or Batista, but for example, he's hit fewer doubles and triples than either one.

Ultimately, the conclusion I draw from the numbers is that Crede's contribution this year has been about 15-20 runs over what the Twins got from either Batista in 2006 or Lamb in 2008. That's about equal to two wins. (Not to mention that if Crede wasn't playing, Brian Buscher might be, and that would have translated into probably 2-3 fewer wins, as well.)

Are you frustrated with Crede? That .228 batting average could vex the calmest among us. But take heart - he's much better than the guys who've manned third base in the past.

Return of the Son of the Revisitation of the Myth of the RBI Guy: Careers Overrated by RBI Totals

devil_fingers — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 17:29:46 -0000

Okay, okay, you probably figured we were done with this. And we are. Really. After this. To recap: First, taking a clue from a piece by Jonah Keri, I looked at the most overrated individual seasons since 1972 when judged by their RBI. Last week, I used some of the more recent "advanced stats" (I hate that term, for some reason), to look and see if perhaps the "RBI Guys" had a special knack for situational hitting. In both cases, we found that the real secret to getting to 90 or 100 RBIs in a season doesn't appear to lie in any particular skill, but instead in being in the right spot in the lineup at the right time. I thought I was done with this thing, but then Sky Kalkman of Beyond the Box Score fame asked if I had any careers numbers. With that in mind, as an epilogue, let's take last look (for a while, anyway) at the topic by examining a list of players whose careers were overrated by their RBI numbers. If you're sick of this, blame Sky. If not, then credit me.

For this project, I again used the custom linear weights scripts I used in my earlier posts (see the first post for more details). To narrow down the database query so that it wouldn't take forever to calculate and also becaue the linear weights are closer together since the mid-1950s, I restricted myself to summing up seasons after 1954. So if a player's career began before 1955, the RBI and Runs Created totals only include those seasons 1955-.

Without any further ado, HERE IS THE GOOGLE SPREADSHEET.

What Do These Numbers Mean, Again?

I'll keep this brief, since most of this material is covered in the previous posts on this topic. The simple explanation (and taking into considerations some suggestions from this thread), is that I've taken each player individual career RBI and divided them by this total runs created. The higher the ratio of RBI:Runs Created is, the more his RBI overstate his actual offensive production (probably due to being in the middle of the lineup, etc). So the players at the "top" of the rankings are the most overrated by their RBI. For the sake of interest, I restricted the search and made two lists, one based on players with 1000 or more RBI, and another for players with 500 or more RBI.

Quickly revisiting some definitions:

wOBA (Weighted On-Base Average) is simply the linear weights a players offensive contribution per plate appearanec expressed as a rate stat set to an on-base percentage scale so that one can get a quick read of a player's contribution. This is the players career average 1955-, but the weights I derived using Tom Tango's SQL (adapted by Colin Wyers) adjusts the weights each year for the particular run environment -- very cool stuff. This number is not park adjusted.
wRAA (I called this BRAA in earlier posts) is "wOBA Runs Above Average"). Using the formulae posted in earlier articles, this is the linear weights runs above/below average the player created over his career. This number is park-adjusted using terpsfans' park factors. This is not directly involved in the RBI calculations, but is there to give an a better idea of how good or bad a player was with respect to his particular run environment during his career. wWAA is wRAA converted to a wins scale based on the runs-to-wins conversion for each individual league and season, further specifying the player's relation to his run environment
wRC is wOBA Runs Created. Rather than runs above or below average, this figure is the "absolute" number of runs a player created based on the custom wOBA caculations during his career. This is the figure used in the key "ranking" stat for this project:
RBIperwRC is the key stat as explained above: his career RBI numbers divided by his absolute runs created. The higher the ratio of RBI:Runs Created is, the more his RBI overstate his actual offensive production (probably due to being in the middle of the lineup, etc). So the players at the "top" of the rankings are the most overrated by their RBI.

With the boring stuff out of the way, let's take a look at the lists.

The 1000 RBI Guys

We being with a huge upset here. Sky thought my SQL might be broken when he saw an earlier version. How could Joe Carter not come in first? As it is, he "only" ended up at #4, although I'm sure that won't make Phillies fans feel much better.

Ruben Sierra at number 1? Who knew? Of You look at the guy's numbers and you say, "well, he was above average for his career." Still, a .332 wOBA for his career? That's barely better than Royals' catcher John Buck has at the moment (.331). Hanging around for 20 seasons can help a guy out. David Kingman makes #2 on the 1,000+ list. I hope I don't get a rat in the mail. Can they be emailed? The relatively anonymous Tommy Davis comes in at #3

If Joe Carter fans think "only" being #4 on this list somehow vindicates their man, perhaps they should check the man right at #5: Gary Gaetti, Ageless Wonder and Object of Devotion. Here's a guy who has almost the same wRCperRBi as Joe Carter, yet hit more than 20 runs below average for his career. It's fitting that George Bell is also in the top 20, as well as George Foster. Jose Canseco, Tino Martinez, B. J. Surhoff, Carlos Lee, and Harold Baines rounding out the Top 25 of a list of Overrated RBI guys? I don't know about Jose, but I sure feel Vindicated.

It's is at least as instructive to look at the "bottom" of the list -- the players most underrated by their RBI numbers. RIcky Henderson is at the bottom. Enough, said, probably. Wade Boggs right in above him. How about this: third from the bottom MIckey Mantle. ZOMG JOE CARTER >>>>> THE MICK.!!!!!1111ONE1 Pete Rose... Wow, I can't believe I came up a list which shows Pete Rose as underrated... I mean, one not composed by Pete Rose himself (yes, I know he Craig Biggio, the former object of Bill James' affection, is also on here. Eddie Matthews, Rod Carew... Its very interesting to see guys like Bonds, Mantle, Matthews, etc. on this list because they did hit in the middle of the order (and all of these guys have over 1000 RBI, remember), so it might be more accurate to say that they "outhit" their RBI. Lots of stuff to see here. Derek Jeter, underrated?

The 500 RBI Guys

As you might expect, this is a much longer list. It's interesting to see more active players in and about. Bengie Molina slides in at #8. Hammerin' Jose Guillen #31 out of 542. As for the underrated active guys, Jason Kendall's presence gave me pause, but it's easy to forget, given his present state, what a good OBP guy he was when he was younger. Jimmy Rollins at #500 out o#542 -- another underrated leadoff guy, and we're not even talking about his excellent defense yet. The eternally underrated Tim Raines is #525 out of #542 -- he just missed being on 1000 RBI list by 20.

Just one final note -- Stan Musial is at the bottom of the list (remember this is only 1955- numbers). Wow. And really, my whole point about RBI could have been made by simply making this list and noting that Stan Musial is at the "bottom," and my man Tony Batista is at the top.

Revisiting the Myth of the RBI Guy (Revisited), Part Two: Situational Hitting and RE24

devil_fingers — Tue, 26 May 2009 18:30:36 -0000

In last week's post on the Myth of the RBI Guy, I used a crude method inspired by Jonah Keri's piece in Baseball Between the Numbers to generate groups of individual seasons by players since 1973 and in 2008 who were overrated by their gaudy RBI numbers. The point of the piece wasn't so much to "expose" individual overrated players, but rather to show that, using traditional linear weights, one can be a pretty terrible hitter and still accumulate big RBI numbers. For example, in 2003, Tony Batista hit .235/.270/.393 and still had drove in 99 runs.

While I think last week's piece (and those like it) pretty much make the case, there may by some out there thinking that despite the base "three-slash" lines or linear weights numbers some of the guys had, that perhaps such approaches are overlooking the skill these players have with regard to situational hitting, that they have superior skills when runners are on-base. Is there a stat other than the "BA w/ RISP" chesnut that we can look at? Why, yes, yes there is...

If you haven't looked at Part One, I recommend doing so, since I'll be assuming some familiarity with those concepts in this post. Basically, to judge how much a a player's single season performance might be overrated or underrated by RBI, I divided his RBI by his batting runs above replacement. The more RBI per runs above replacement, the more the player's RBI overrate his offensive contribution. The results can be found in this spreadsheet (explained more fully in last week's post). This week, I want to look a a more contextual approach.

RE24 to the Rescue?

At the amazing FanGraphs, they have a stat named RE24. "RE24 is the difference in run expectancy (RE) between the start of the play and the end of the play," they say. Um, what?

Let's back up. Linear weights, such as those I used last week, measure the average runs a player creates (either absolute or above/below average) without considering the specific game context in wihch the player performed. Yes, they can be adjusted for the run environment of the season and park-adjusted, but what they don't take into account is how many players are on base when the event occurs. For traditional linear weights, a home run with 2 outs and no one on base counts the same as a home run with the bases loaded and one out. While certain methods of generating linear weights take into account the average run expectancy of each event over the years, the individual impact of such events are obviously different. How can we measure the differences between events and their impact?

There are 24 base-out states (hence the "24" in "RE24"): eight different combinations of baserunners (e.g., runner on first, bases empty, runners on second and third, etc.) multiplied by the three out states in which hitter might have that situation (no outs, 1 out, 2 outs). RE24 measures is the difference in Run Expectancy from the beginning of the play until the next play. Here's how it works in an RBI situation, quoting the Tango article linked above:

For example, with a man on 2B, and 0 outs, the RE for that situation (the start state) is 1.2 runs . If the batter hits a double, the RE for the end state is of course 1.2 runs. As well, a run scored. So, the run impact of this particular batting event is 1.0 runs. If you have a man on 1B with 1 out, the RE is 0.57 runs. A double-play brings us to the end of the inning, and an RE of 0 runs. The double-play in this case is worth -.57 runs.

The run expectancy for each situation can change by run environment, of course, just as in traditional linear weights, and I believe FanGraphs implementation of RE24 acccoutns for this. In any case, one can see how this might be relevant to "RBI Guys," as it is a stat which takes into account situational hitting by base/out state -- if there are players who have "special skills" with runners on base, RE24 would seem to be the sort of stat that would capture this in a way that traditional linear weights would not.

[Note that this is similar to the way in which the difference between traditional linear weights and another FanGraphs stat, WPA/LI, measures "Little Things" as I discuss in an earlier post. However, WPA and WPA/LI differ from RE24 in that they reflect the game situation (score, innings, etc.), while RE24 takes only the base/out state into account.]

Back to 2008

In Part One, I started by looking at some of the worst 90+ RBI seasons since 1972 before moving on to the worst of 2008. At the suggestion of Tom Tango and terpsfan101 at the Book Blog, I also posted the same rankings using absolute runs rather than runs above replacement (the "BRC" versions of the spreadsheets). While this isn't' a comprehensive statistical approach (nor was last week's), I want to take a similar approach here. Because RE24 isn't something I currently calculate myself, I'll use all FanGraphs statistics to generate my tables. This also means I can't do an extended study over 30 years. Well, I can, but FanGraphs only lets you export one year at a time at the omment... but that would take forever.

Let's start with 2008. I will simply use "absolute runs created" according to wOBA runs.

[The next few lines are very simple math, but if it bores you, fell free to skip it.]

Recall from last week's article that to get a player's runs created above/below average, one simply uses

((wOBA-lgwOBA)/wOBAScale)*PA

[wOBAScale is usually around 1.15]

This is what FanGraphs calls wRAA (I called it BRAA in my version, which is basically the same thing).

To get total runs created, by the player (what FanGraphs calls wRC), one simply adds in the league average runs per PA to the runs above/below average:

(((wOBA-lgwOBA)/wOBAScale)*PA) + (lgR/lgPA)

To we get a total runs created number for RE24, which is also an above/below average stat, then, we can simply do

wRC-wRAA+RE24

for each player. Let's call this 24RC.

Here is the spreadsheet I'll refer to for 2008. The first sheet is a replay of the reworked version of last week's info on 2008. We aren't as concerned with the rankings as the general group of players over- or underrated by RBI totals. I've only used those who had 90 RBI or more last season.The highlighted columns are the ones relevant for the sort order -- basically, they are sorted in descending order of the yellow column, in this case, RBI per wRC (wOBA Run Created). Mike Jacobs is in the "lead" here.

Now look at the second sheet. It focuses on 24RC, and is sorted by RBI per 24RC. It's basically the same group, but with Jose Guilen at the top.

The initial thought is that, while there are some ordering differences, it's the same group of guys -- there isn't much difference here. Keep in mind that just because a guy is "overrated" by his RBI according to this stat, that doesn't mean he's was a bad hitter in 2008. Mike Jacobs was above average according to both wRAA and RE24. Ryan Howard is a good hitter. THe point is that compared to their raw production, just looking at their RBI would overstate their real offensive value. Indeed, the arbitrariness of the list of the guys at the top is revealing in itself says something. Good hitters like Ryan Howard, 22 runs above average according to wRAA and 38.8 according to RE24, are in the same general "rank" as below average hitters like Jose Guillen and Garrett Atkins.

You may also have noticed the "Situational" column to the right. Like my attempt to quantify Little Things, this number attempts to get at if the player is underrated by traditional linear weights as opposed ot his RE24 number, to see if he added more value in situations with guys on base, etc. If you look at the numbers for Jose Guillen, Bengie Molina, and Mike Jacobs, you might get that idea, although the difference isn't big. However, notice that there are some guys up top whose "situational" numbers are negative -- Atkins, Ordonez. What's the deal?

Keep in mind how RE24 works -- aside from the run expectancy before and after the play, it also gives a run for each run driven in. Since these guys have a lot of RBI, their RE24 is actually being helped. And how did hitters like this get more RBI per run created than guys at the "bottom" of the list like Pujols, Berkman, Sizemore, etc. The old-fashioned way -- they were in the right spot in the batting order, as Tom Ruane shows (Tom Tango also directed me to this article on RBI by Ruane which covers similar ground to what I've covered here and comes to similar conclusions).The "situational" difference between RE24 and wRAA in this case doesn't show much more than the "RBI" guy being in the right place at the right time, and in some cases (Atkins, for example), he didn't even take advantage of that.

Final Thoughts

I realize that this post has been a bit more scattershot than last week's, but hopefully it gives an idea of how RE24 might be useful, even if it doesn't vindicate bad-hitting "run producers," which it shouldn't anyway. In any case, I want to leave you by looking at four of my "favorite" 90+ RBI seasons from last week (switching back to my own BRAA) and seeing if RE24 is friendlier to them:

Name	Year	RBI	BRAA	RE24	Sit.
Tony Batista	2003	99	-22.6	-18.6	4.0
Joe Carter	1997	102	-18.8	-0.6	18.2
Tony Batista	2004	110	-15.0	-4.1	10.9
Joe Carter	1990	.299	-11.5	7.4	18.9

I was a bit shocked when I saw the "situational" numbers, and Carter's 1990 RE24 numbers. And I may have misanaluzed the results above. Still, keep in mind that RE24 gives the player credit for the runs he drives in -- and in all four of these seasons, Carter and Batista were put in position to drive in more runs than the average player. And note that only one of these seasons has an RE24 above average -- RE24 is an above/below average stat. So while further research on situational hitting is needed, even counting RBI in, RE24 shows that one can still be a far below average hitter and get to 100 RBI.

Thanks to Tom Tango and terpsfan101 for their comments and suggestions at The Book Blog, and to Sky Kalkman for suggestions and encouragement. I am, of course, solely responsible for the "quality" of the piece.

Revisiting the Myth of the RBI Guy, Part One

devil_fingers — Mon, 18 May 2009 17:11:16 -0000

If that's one of my worst mistakes -- to sign somebody who has 20 home runs and 97 RBIs -- I'll take it.

-Royals' General Manager Dayton Moore, on Jose Guillen's 2008 performance.

Everyone knows that RBI are, if not worthless, way down the list of ways to judge a players offensive performance, right? There's tons of stuff written on it, but here is a really good, non-technical piece written by America's Greatest Living Sportswriter, Joe Posnanski.

Nonetheless, it is hard not to be impressed by RBI numbers, to see a player as an "RBI man" who produces runs. To get that man runs across the plate, he has to have some skills, right? Sure, he's getting more opportunities because he's in the middle of the order, but a truly terrible hitter wouldn't have driven in all those runs, right? Let's take a look-see.

In Baseball Prospectus' Baseball Between the Numbers, Jonah Keri takes an illuminating angle on this issue. He takes all the individual 100 RBI seasons since 1972 (I'm not sure why -- perhaps the introduction of the designated hitter rule?) and divides the RBI by the player's VORP (BP's Value Over Replacement Player stat) for that season. The higher a number of RBI/VORP a player has, the more overrated his value is by his RBI. The results are predictable -- famous "clutch hitter" Joe Carter having the highest number of most overrated 100 RBI seasons since 1972. It's a good piece and approach to the "RBI issue."

However, there are significant problems with VORP, both in its approach to positional adjustments and its incorrect weighting of walks, home runs, and doubles. Keri's approach is straightforward and illuminating, but can be improved by using a better measure of offensive value.

What would that measure be? Readers of this space arely likely anticipating wOBA as my answer, while while it's on the right track, we're looking for a counting stat -- runs created above some baseline. Fortuneatley, just like there's a relationship between batting average and total hits using at-bats, there's a relationship between wOBA and runs created above average (wOBA is basically linear weights expressed as a rate stat). At FanGraphs, they call this "wRAA, here," I call it BRAA since I'm not sure if my results are exactly the same, and I use different park adjustments. The "1.15" is there because it is what forces wOBA onto an OBP scale, and to convert to runs above average, that needes to be undone (the custom lineare weights script used here and at FanGraphs uses a customized "wOBAScale" for each season).

Thanks to previous work by Tom Tango, Colin Wyers, and terpsfans' park factors , I was able to calculate BRAA for all seasons back to 1955 (Thanks, guys!).

To get my lists of "most overrated" and "most underrated" seasons by RBI, I simply followed Keri's lead and divided the players RBI by his BRAA (Keri used VORP, of course). The more RBI per BRAA a player has, the more his RBI overstate his offensive contribution. This is a "junk stat," of course, but while there might be more sophisticated ways of doing it, I like it for its straightforward simplicity. The problem, of course, is that many players on the list are below average, which means I'll end up with a negative number for some bad players with lots of RBIs -- we want a positive number for them. So I had to add something proportionally do each player so that they would all end up "positive." I could have picked any number to add, but I decided instead to go with pseudo-"replacement level" (pseudo because there are no replacement level hitters or fielders, only replacement level players) by adding in 22.5 runs for every 700 PAs each player had that season. This also parallels Keri's piece, which works not from average, but from replacement level (defined differently, of course, and with positional adjustments with which I disagree). Still, there was one particularly "great" season that came up negative -- Keri ran into this problem with RBI/VORP as well, so I adopted his solution -- to simply add 10 to the number I got. So, the final version of the junk stat is RBI/(BRAA+(PA*(22.5/700))+10) = RBI per BRAR (Batting Runs Above "Replacement").

Here are the results. There are separate sheets for the Most Overrated RBI Guys 1973-, Most Underrated, and 2008's 90+ RBI Guys sorted by Overrated to Underrated. The columns are mostly obvious: wOBA is each players' unadjusted wOBA for that season using the custom weights, BRAA is his park-adjusted linear weights runs created above what a league-average hitter would have created in the same number of plate apperaances, and RBIperBRAR is RBIs per BRAA scaled as discussed in the previous paragraph. Again, the higher the RBIperBRAR number is, the more a players RBI numbers (generally) overstate his offensive ability.

There is much to "admire" here, particularly some wonderful performances from the Most Overrated list. Let's extract a few for discussion:

Player	Year	Team	PA	wOBA	BRAA	RBI	RBI/BRAR
Tony Batista	2003	BAL	670	.283	-22.6	99	11.07
Joe Carter	1997	TOR	668	.297	-18.8	102	8.05
Pedro Feliz	2006	SFN	643	.299	-17.9	98	7.68
Tony Batista	2004	MON	646	.305	-15.0	110	6.98
Vinny Castilla	1999	COL	674	.344	-14.0	102	5.77
Joe Carter	1990	SDN	697	.299	-11.5	115	5.50
Jeff Francoeur	2006	ATL	686	.308	-12.4	103	5.24
Sammy Sosa	1997	CHN	694	.329	-3.8	119	4.17
Sammy Sosa	2007	TEX	454	.332	-1.5	92	3.98
Paul O'Neill	2000	NYA	628	.329	-4.1	100	3.83
Tino Martinez	2000	NYA	632	.325	-6.5	91	3.82

The first few are simply the "top"seasons, then I picked some that looked interesting. Starting at the bottom: I probably don't hate Paul O'Neill enough to be a real non-Yankees fan, but man, do he and Tino's ever illustrate how much batting order effects RBI numbers: both were clearly below average, but O'Neill hit right behind Derek Jeter (.416 OBP in 2000) and Martinez behind Bernie Williams (.391 OBP).

I included Sammy Sosa on this chart not because I want to pick on him or anything, but I just found it interesting that he had two seasons this high up on the Overrated chart, and they pretty well bookend his incredible run from 1998-. Jeff Francoeur probably doesn't care about being on the list, since, unlike RBI (and OBP), they don't put RBI per BRAR or wOBA on the scoreboard. Still, it's sort of sad (in a "ha-ha" way) to think that Frenchy's got a long way to go to even return to his .308 wOBA of 2006.

Vinny Castilla, well, there's a shocker. There's no need to point out that Pedro Feliz is a bad hitter. In fact, he's about an average player once you factor in his excellent defense. I just thought it was curious that so many third basemen were at the top of this list.

Finally, we come to one classic example and my persoinal favorite.

The "classic" overrated RBI guy is Joe Carter. Bill James tackled how overrated Carter was due to his reptuation for "clutch-ness" in the New Historical Baseball Abstract, and his take on it is in many ways unsurpassed. Still, even James may have overrated Carter as a player, as he doesn't even make Rally's Top 300 Position Players since 1955 by WAR list. Not that he didn't have some good seasons... but we aren't dealing with those. Here's a guy who drove in 102 runs hitting in the middle for the order for Toronto in 1997 with a .297 wOBA. You don't like wOBA? You think a .284 OBP might be okay? How about this -- he drove in 102 runs in 1997 and 115 in 1990 in while not even slugging .400 either season.

While Carter makes the point about the "value" of a "guy who just knows how to drive in runs" the best because of his fame, my personal favorite is the guy I had to do the +10 thing to get on the list: Tony Batista. I loved the goofy batting stance, the willful all-or nothing approach, the nickname given to him by Batgirl. It is a fitting symbol of MLBl's treatment of Montreal's baseball fans* that in the Expos' last season there, their cleanup hitter had a .305 wOBA with a .241/.272/.455. I guess it was better than fellow Blue Jay alumn Joe Carter's 1997.

* And don't give me that "Montreal just wasn't into baseball" nonsense. They had decent attendence through 1994 and were in first when the strike happened. Ater that, Jeffrey Loria and Bud Selig happened.

But Batista's 2004 greatness was nothing compared to what he had already achieved for the Orioles in 2003. This is the season for which I did the +10 modification, and the reason I lowered the bar from 100 to 90 RBI: 99 RBI in 670 PA, .283 wOBA for -22.6 bRAA and a .235/.270/.393 line. Let's put that .283 wOBA in perspective: Adam Everett has a career wOBA of .290. If that isn't enough to ween a person of RBIs as a measure of offensive value, I don't know what is. Or maybe the Tigers should be hitting Everett cleanup this season...

Perhaps you still think that some players just have a "knack" for situational hitting, i.e., with runners in base or in scoring position, such that a high RBI/bRAA ration speaks in favor of their hitting abilities. I guess you'll have serious issues with the guys on the mmost underrated by RBI list, then. Look who appears 6 times in the top 10. 'Nuff said.

In conclusion, let's look at 2008's players with more than 90 RBI. Look at the bottom, first. Grady Sizemore, Lance Berkman... Albert Pujols. OK, obviously, Sizemore hits leadoff, and Berkman and Pujols had good years even for them, so they might be expected to "out-wOBA" their RBI numbers. Still, any ranking that has them at the bottom has to make you think that being at the bottom is a good thing, right?

And who is that the top? The worst mistake Dayton Moore will take: Jose Guillen.

Still not convinced? I'll revisit this next week using a more contextual approach to situational hitting to see if there's anything there.

Thanks to Sky Kalkman for his stylistic and methodological suggestions on this piece, and to terpsfan for his park factors and instructions on how to implement them. Neither of them, of course, is responsible for my screw-ups.

Update, 5/18/2009, 11:40 p.m. EST: At the Book Blog, Tom Tango suggests that it would be better to just use RBI per absolute runs created rather than above average/replacement. I had considered doing so when working on this piece originally, but decided not to for various reasons.

However, Tango’s point is a good one, so I’ve quickly caculated Batting Runs Created. It’s the same formula as above average, but adds in the league average R/PA for each plate appearance:

(((wOBA-lgWOBA)/wOBAScale)/PA)+(lgR/PAPA)

The spreadsheet has been modified accordingly. The old ones are still there and are useful, I think, in that they reflect a similar methdology to that of the Jonah Keri piece that inspired this post. Those that are sorted by RBI/BRC are labeled with "BRC." I didn’t bother to park adjust those numbers, which causes some anomalies, but what I’m going for are the basic groups of players who are "better" or "worse" than their RBI numbers indicate. The players are basically the same. Batista's 2003 is the most RBI-riffic season on both lists. Joe Carter holds the #2 spot in BRC version, but this time its his 1990 season. For 2008, Jose Guillen has "dropped" to the fourth spot and is replaced by... wait for it... Mike Jacobs.

Thanks to Tom Tango and terpsfan for their suggestions, and there will be more on this topic next week (and hopefully in the comments this week!).

Crede Signs With Twins; Cruz In the Works?

Jesse — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 00:53:23 -0000

Were you lulled to sleep, too?

What a massive weekend for the Twins! If, like me, you completely missed the Joe Crede signing yesterday, where did that come from?

Joe Crede

I'll let LaVelle explain the details of the one-year, incentive-laden deal:

The Twins will sign Crede to one-year deal with a base salary of $2.5 million with the chance to earn as much as $7 million with appearance bonuses. The bonuses begin once Crede reaches 250 plate appearances and tops out at $7 million when he makes his 525th plate appearance.

Here's the big thing with how this contract works out--if Crede manages to keep himself off the disabled list and healthy, he's going to get his $7 million. If he's healthy enough to log all those plate appearances, I'm optimistic he's also healthy enough to provide some pretty good defense at the hot corner as well. If the worst happens and he's unable to shake his injuries, then there's nothing about this contract that will handcuff the organization.

What the biggest detractor will be for Crede as a member of the Twins will be fan expectations. For his career, Joe isn't that amazing of a hitter--.257/.306/.447. Try that on for size against Tony Batista (.251/.293/.453) or Craig Monroe (.253/.301/.444), and that should really put things in perspective for everyone. Yes, I hear you--his defense has the potential to save runs and, perhaps, change the outcome of a game from time to time--but even in today's game, defense is going to have a hard time making up for not meeting fan expectations.

As Neal mentioned this afternoon, Joe Crede is a mammoth specimen of a man. At 6-2, 230, it's easy to see why he can launch baseballs into the stratosphere. But for many baseball fans, they're not expecting to see a Joe Crede who hits like Craig Monroe, they're expecting to see Joe Crede The Twin Killer. Here's a guy who hit .400/.429/1.050 in 40 at-bats against Minnesota in 2008, and going back to 2001 when he made his professional debut against the Twins it's been a lot of the same.

Year	OPS vs MIN
2001	1.000
2002	.517
2003	.625
2004	.696
2005	.772
2006	.790
2007	.692
2008	1.479

Oh, wait. According to these numbers, it'd be hard to call Crede any sort of Twin Killer. In fact, it certainly appears that his offensive reputation has outgrown who he actually is. I'm placing this blame on his post-season performance of 2005, when he blasted four October home runs...and still only hit .250/.250/.250.

Don't get me wrong here, because I'm actually in favor of this signing based on what Crede could provide, and based on the terms of his contract. I just want to ensure that our heads aren't floating in the clouds, because over the course of this summer there's going to be plenty of "Crede's not doing his job!" crap going around on sports talk radio.

Juan Cruz

There's been a bit of buzz surrounding the strikeout-happy Juan Cruz since Arizona started discussing a sign-and-trade deal with the reliever, but Neal put the hammer down on those rumors this afternoon as well:

As for reliever Juan Cruz, reports that the Twins are close to a sign and trade deal aren’t true, according to a person with knowledge of talks. And all indications are that this deal will be hard to pull off. It’s going to be hard enough to agree to terms with the agent. Getting the Diamondbacks to agree on a trade might be even tougher. Things could always change but, for now, there’s little reason to feel optimistic that the Twins can land Cruz.

Ignoring the potential cost in dollars and prospects for the moment, the addition of a guy like Cruz to the Minnesota bullpen would provide immediate stability throughout the ranks. With Cruz sliding into the set-up role, Jesse Crain, Craig Breslow and Matt Guerrier would be pitching exclusively out of roles they've been suited for: leverage innings in middle relief. There's talent and depth in the Minnesota bullpen, but none of it stacks up to what Cruz could bring to the table.

But, back to reality (whoop, there goes gravity) and it's pretty clear that this situation has it's share of thorns, too. While this scenario would ensure the Twins wouldn't lose their first-round draft pick this June for signing a Type-A free agent, the Diamondbacks put themselves in primise position to pick up a decent prospect anyway. In regards to performance, in opposition to all those sexy strikeouts are all those scary walks, which is something Minnesota pitchers aren't accustomed to handing out.

If, for some miracle, the Twins and Diamondbacks are able to find a way to make this all work, I'll consider the bullpen to be vastly improved. If not, well...it's already been a big weekend with the squad landing a pretty big free agent fish.