SB Nation User Blog: The Navigator

Uggla v. Feliz: fair trade?

The Navigator — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 00:16:26 -0000

No, no, of course it's not a fair trade. But is it a good idea - could Dan Uggla fully replace Pedro Feliz's performance on both sides of the ball?

Jemagee, FuquaManuel and I kind of got into this a little bit on the 10/4 game thread. FM, I believe it was, said that Uggla could play 3d; I voiced concern about replacing Feliz's defense with Uggla, and was challenged to come up with some stats to substantiate my concern. They probably thought I would just go away and take my uninformed opinions with me. No such luck!

I did some digging, and I therefore present for your consideration some numbers to consider when adjudging whether Uggla could replace Feliz on defense. I'll leave offense for another FanPost, or another day.

I figured I'd get numbers for Uggla and Feliz as well as, for comparison's sake, since they play different positions, one other generally well-regarded defensive player for each of their respective positions, - Utley and Ryan Zimmerman - and I'd get stats for each of the last two seasons. I got Runs Allowed Above Average 2 (adjusted RAA) from Baseball Prospectus; Ultimate Zone Rating from FanGraphs; and Range Factor from ESPN (also available as RF/9 on Baseball Reference). I was able to find NL rankings for 2B and 3B for the latter two stats but I can't find where BP gives rankings for RAA2.

RAA2 UZR UZR rank RF RF rank

Uggla 08 4 1.6 3d of 7 4.86 6th of 7

Uggla 09 13 -12.6 11th of 11 4.44 11th of 11

Utley 08 15 20.2 1st of 7 5.18 1st of 7

Utley 09 -8 11.2 1st of 11 5.05 3rd of 11

Feliz 08 -6 7.2 1st of 11 2.72 3rd of 11

Feliz 09 25 5.8 4th of 9 2.83 3rd of 10

Zims 08 -6 2.1 7th of 11 2.91 [would be 1st]

Zims 09 10 18.9 1st of 9 2.97 2nd of 10

And this tells us............ um, I dunno, you tell me. Between 08 and 09, Uggla and Feliz both supposedly get better by RAA2, but worse by UZR. Feliz and Zimmerman are supposedly six adjusted fielding runs below average in 2008 - the same season that Feliz was in the top three in the league by both UZR and RF. Utley's numbers are consistently very good, except for being 8 adjusted fielding runs below average this year. Uggla meanwhile has generally lousy numbers except for being 13 RAA2 in 09 and 3rd out of 7 in the league by UZR in 08.

Feliz comes out as best in the league (among qualifiers) at UZR in 2008, but not so good in RAA2 that year. The next year he was 25 adjusted runs above average :) but only 4th of 9 qualifiers in UZR :(.

In terms of my discussion with Jem and FM, there's evidence here that one could point to as support for a claim that Feliz is a good defender and Uggla a bad one, and that therefore we would have to assume that, in addition to the presumed difficulties of learning a new position, Uggla would bring along his generally subpar defense, and that that Phils defense would measurably and noticeably suffer.

But the data is ambiguous enough that I think you could equally well set it all aside as conflicting and inherently unreliable. So - I've met Jem & FM's challenge to dig up some numbers. But those numbers don't consistently support my argument that the Phils' defense would measurably and noticeably suffer if we swapped out Feliz for Uggla at 3rd base.

2 startling facts

The Navigator — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 03:30:02 -0000

A couple things I've noticed this evening that threw me for a bit of a loop:

1. The Phils, after the games of Sept. 3, are 23 games over .500. I mean, damn. Last year IIRC the Phils wound up 92-70, which was the second best record in the NL, but was still just 22 games over .500. Now we're 77-54. I'm still not sure how this happened - last year's highly productive bench, unusually good pen, and dominant closer have all been AWOL this season, and yet here we are, in September with an 8-game lead and 23 games to the good.

2. There's a guy named Hoover on the 25-man roster. He's the third catcher, apparently. I count myself as someone who pays reasonable (not ridiculous) amounts of attention to the Phils, and has a good sense of who their players are, but... Paul (I think) Hoover? Who is this person? How did he get here? Why is he on a team where Jayson Werth can fill in in the extremely unlikely occurrence that the starting and backup catchers both have to leave a game? Is there genuinely not someone out there who could hit better than Eric Bruntlett while playing a passable 3d or 2d base, or whatever? I do not understand. But I credit this Hoover fellow, if that really is his name, for his role as a Startling Phillies Fact.

Outplaying, importance thereof: Cholly speaks

The Navigator — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 16:43:36 -0000

At least some of the following was in today's Inky, quoting our fearless leader about the upcoming Braves series:

"They beat us down there earlier, they swept us, and we beat them last year about nine or 10 games in their yard, so we know we can beat them," Manuel said. "And I guess they think if they play good they can beat us. Bottom line is, we have to outplay them."

"Now, I know that might sound unusual," Manuel continued. "Usually, it ain't that way. But with those Braves, that's just how it is - you gotta outplay them."

"But take the Brewers - that's a different story there," the manager went on. "It's not important if you outplay 'em - don't matter if you do. What you gotta do is, you kinda get some people in the stands to hold up mirrors and reflect light in their relievers' eyes when they're stretching in the bullpen. Bottom line is, when they come out, they're not properly warmed up, they can't throw it straight, and we come from behind to win. Simple as that."

"Or Arizona. You don't really outplay those guys - you just kinda stand around and shout "Drop it!" until they make a bunch of sloppy errors, which they always do. Then you take your unearned runs back to the hotel." "But you take one of those AL East teams," Manuel said, leaning back in his chair. "Hell if I know how to beat 'em. You can outplay 'em til the sun come up. Bottom line is, they're still gonna win, no matter what you do - at least if it's June they are. Even if you play good. October might be a different story, though." Manuel concluded by noting that it was possible that the reporter had misinterpreted his West Virginia drawl and that he did not actually say any of the above except for the first three sentences.

New stat: POSSIBLE - a Matt Swartz tribute

The Navigator — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 04:43:56 -0000

Ed. note: Promoted from the FanPosts section. I need some more time to digest this, but it's worth some discussion. -- WholeCamels

Reading Baseball Prospectus the other day, I was struck by something about the difference in the way top prospects are viewed in contrast to other minor leaguers. I was inspired, partly by the sterling example of TGP's own Matt Swartz, to take a stab at a new stat - in this case, one that would express that difference. I present it here as a small token of appreciation for Matt's labors, and a tribute to his BP Idol appearance in two senses: I'm throwing something out there that plays off of BP's efforts in an attempt to say something new (and, in my case, extremely minor), and I'm giving you all the chance to critique my shortcomings and tear me a new one!

The idea here is that many writers (in this case, Christina Kahrl) about this time of year like to recommend that bottom-feeding clubs take the last two or three months of the season to dump their vets and some of their minor leaguers a trial to see if they're worth keeping around, if the club "has anything" in player X. I was struck by the contrast to the oft-expressed view, e.g. in relation to the All-Star game, that two or three months can easily be a fluke and that it's silly to base firm conclusions on such a small sample size. So my quest is for a stat expressing the number of plate appearances that, according to the implied logic at work here, any given prospect ought to be given to demonstrate his ability before the club gives up on him. Obviously, a #1 draft pick who's brought up prematurely at age 21 won't be released just because his first season goes terribly - the club will figure he's got so much promise that they have to give him more time. On the other hand, you have the guys still in AA at 24 who finally get a cup of coffee - they're not long for the Show if they don't produce. So what the dealio? Is half a season enough time to forecast someone's future productivity or not?

For these purposes, I'm not focused on signing bonuses and other amounts invested in the players - obviously that affects clubs' thinking, but what I'm interested in here is the manner in which the way the player is viewed determines people's thinking about how much time he should get to show what he can do in the majors. I'm proceeding on the assumption that this is primarily a function of the consensus view of his ability, not how much money he got when he first signed with the club. Yet, previous investment plays some sort of role here.

So I figure, as a general rule of thumb, if you come out of college at 21, you are at some point ranked as the #1 prospect in America, you spend a reasonable amount of time in the minors, you're brought up at 23, they're gonna give you, what, two solid years to fall flat on your face before they cut bait? So that's, let's say, 1200 plate appearances. Guys who were never ranked higher are gonna get less than that. Also, as I say, if you're a former #1 who's brought up at 21 and you land splat on your noggin, they're not going to give up that easily - you'll get more seasoning and more PAs, while the guy who topped out at #100 on Baseball America or Sickels or BP won't get that leash (and, of course, most likely won't be brought up at 21 in the first place).

[Side note: I've only worked this out for hitters so far; don't have a pitcher formula.]

I'm thinking we should go by the highest prospect ranking achieved, rather than original draft status, for a couple of reasons - one, there's no international draft yet, and two, the prospect rankings are a closer approximation of how they're actually expected to do; I don't think a top ten pick who floundered in A ball would be given a long leash if he ever reached the Show merely because of the team's poor draft day decision.

So, the #1 ranked prospect gets 1200 PAs to show what he can do; if he's brought up earlier than age 23, maybe he gets more time. Also, to a lesser degree, the team will give him a little bit longer tryout the more they invested in him.

Here's what I have: 200 PAs + [1000 - 10x] + 200 [23 - y] + 100 [z/$1 million] = Prospect's Opportunity to Strut Stuff In Big League Endeavors (POSSIBLE)

where x = prospect ranking at time of debut, y = age ( in years) at major league debut, and z = signing bonus.

Thus, a guy who was given a $2 million signing bonus, made it to #20, and then got brought up for whatever reason at age 21, would get 1000 plate appearances based on his high prospect status, plus an extra 400 by virtue of being so young when he started, plus another 200 because, even if he's looking terrible after 1400 PAs, dammit the team sunk $2 million into this guy and they just wanna give him another third of a season to show them something, anything, to make them believe before they waive him. Thus, 1600 POSSIBLE.

Getting back to the idea that last-place clubs should give their minor leaguers a two-month tryout to see if they're worth keeping around, I'm assuming that we're talking about guys who are not considered future stars. They're probably low-ranked or maybe not in the top 100 at all, they're probably 23 or older when they get a shot, they probably didn't get a sizeable signing bonus. Hence, by this formula, they get just the 200 PAs to make an impression. A mere 200 POSSIBLE.

(Hey, I didn't say it was a brilliant insight. Matt did much better than this. There's a reason I didn't try out for BP Idol. It's just something I've been fooling around with. That said, fire away.)

How the Phils stack up in my lifetime

The Navigator — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 04:34:13 -0000

A guy on my Phils discussion listserv group reflected recently on something that I think a lot of Phillies phans have cause to consider: just how good, or bad, has the team been historically? At least, in recent times - cutting out the horrible 1918-1948 stretch where ownership was actively sabotaging efforts to compete? I decided to look at how the red pinstripes stack up against the other teams that have been around since the auspicious year of 1973.**

> in terms of what I can actually remember and experienced as a kid, the
> Phillies were a regular NL power who finally won a World Series - and
> got back there quickly too. But somehow I knew better, and we have
> listmembers in their 20s who also learned that. (Of course, saying
> this, you have to wonder - reduced to a 30 year period, it has in fact
> been a very successful franchise hasn't it? Two championships, two
> other WS appearances, a handful of other postseason berths).

My response went as follows:

That got me thinking, and I decided to do a chart for my lifetime -
dating back to the 1973 season. There were 24 teams then in the majors.
So how have those 24 compared over that 36-season stretch?

team                playoffs pennants championships
ATL                  15    5 1
CHC              6 0 0
CIN                6 3 3
HOU              9 1 0
LAD               12    5 2
MON/WAS        1 0 0
NYM                  6 3 1
PHI                 9 4 2
PIT                  6 1 1
SDP                  5 2 0
SFG                  6 2 0
STL                10    5 2
BAL                 6 2 1
BOS                  12    4 2
DET                 3 2 1
CHW               5 1 1
CLE                 7 2 0
KAN                    7 2 1
LAA/CAL            8 1 1
MIL                 3 1 0
MIN                 6 2 2
NYY                18    9 6
OAK                13    5 3
TEX                  3 0 0

Phils are tied for seventh in playoff appearances, with 7; tied for
sixth in pennants, with 4; and in a five-way tie for fourth in
championships, with 2. That's all out of 24 teams, so by all three
measures, we're in the top third of teams in baseball.

The teams most hurt by this cutoff would be the Orioles and Pirates,
both of whom won WS titles and multiple division titles in 1969-1973.
In fact, I hadn't realized before just how good the Pirates were
throughout the 1970s.

It's also interesting, looking at this chart, that the Royals looks like
a normal franchise, and that between Minnesota and Texas, it was the
former that baseball proposed to contract at one point.

** Actually 1973 seems to have been a generally rotten year all around.

Should Kendrick have bunted?

The Navigator — Wed, 14 May 2008 14:52:28 -0000

Tues. night, bottom of the sixth, Phils up 4-3 at the time. Kendrick has made it out of the top of the sixth with the lead and he's due up second. Carlos Ruiz manages to reach base. Now what do you do? Kendrick's probably done no matter what happens, because it's after an off day and the bullpen is all set to go JC, Flash, Lidge.

We could save a bench player for later, in what looks to stay a close game, and have Kendrick bunt Ruiz over. But here's the thing: Kendrick is, like all Phillies pitchers younger than 45, a terrible bunter. And it's only a one-run lead and we need to increase it, with nine outs to go and the bullpen not likely to be perfect forever. And a pinch hitter is more likely to be able to swing away if that becomes necessary.

But here's another thing: we're confident we don't need to change up plans and have the hitter swing away. Even if Ruiz moves up to second on a PB or something, there's still none out and the best move with the nine hole is to bunt him to third. With a strong bullpen due up, stretching a one-run lead to two by playing for one run is a pretty good move with your nine-hole hitter, and as long as you're going to bunt for sure, why not use the pitcher?

Because he's a terrible bunter. We can't be taking gambles with the thinnest possible lead and a long way to go in the game - we need someone we're confident can get the bunt down.

But here's one other thing: Kendrick's not going to get better at bunting unless he practices bunting. He's got to get up there in game situations and work at it, so that maybe when it really, really counts in late September he'll be competent at it. And no, this isn't a safe time like a ten-run lead, but bunting with a ten-run lead is bad baseball manners anyway. Saving the pinch hitter for later, letting Kendrick give it a try when there's none out and you're leading with your bullpen set up might be the right move.

Is it? I can't quite decide. I think the answer is, no, you can't gamble with a one-run lead; if Kendrick's not pitching the seventh, you need a sure bunter up there. You don't save bench players - at least, not when you've still got a full bench - for later when you'e got a clear use for them now. But I'm not sure about this. Because the Phils pitchers have to, have to, have to get better at bunting somehow, just like Utley had to hit lefties poorly for a while to figure them out.

As it happens, we sent up Taguchi and he laid down an acceptable, albeit not great, bunt. But I have a thought: maybe we don't burn Taguchi there. Maybe we send up someone else to bunt, someone who's shown he's good at it. Someone who's old enough to be Kendrick's daddy. Yeah, that's right: pinch hitter Jamie Moyer.

What's Moyer worth?

The Navigator — Tue, 06 May 2008 17:33:19 -0000

If you were Ruben Amaro Jr., would (that is, should) you sign a league-average pitcher to a multi-year deal for 2009+? And would it make a difference if that pitcher was currently 45 years old?

Moyer is, so far this year, almost the definition of a league-average pitcher. His ERA is 4.15 in a league with a 4.34 average; his WHIP is 1.59. He's throw at least 199 innings in each of the last seven seasons. Watching him last night, I found myself appreciating how slender and flexible he is - I hope to match that when I'm 45 - and admiring his approach at the plate. Set aside his two hits, although they were pretty tasty; focus on that bunt. How rare is it to see a Phillies pitcher who regularly lays down good bunts?

Anyway, the point is, he looks like he could keep this up for another three or four years. Throwing that 76-MPH slop up there can't be taxing his arm too much. The guy I saw last night looked like a good candidate to be throwing 175+ innings of league-average ball in 2010.

So, how crazy would it be to offer a multi-year deal to a guy who'd be 46 in the first year? That's insane, right - baseball malpractice? I'm just posting this here because I caught myself thinking that it might not be insane, and that we could actually regret <i>not</i> resigning Moyer next year, a la Lohse.

Tell me you're not jealous

The Navigator — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 03:17:31 -0000

The wife and I made last-minute plans for an overnighter to Pittsburgh and I can finally see PNC Park. I'd love nothing more than to see the Phils do well. So who are the Saturday night Phils I get to see? Evidently they're gonna look something like:

Eric Bruntlett, Brad Harman, Carlos Ruiz and his .484 OPS, Greg Dobbs, Utley, Burrell, Worth, Jenkins, [the three top relievers are unavailable after two days on in a row, so once Kendrick leaves in the fourth, I guess Durbin goes two, then Madson, Condrey? Seanez for sure!] and starring...

Kyle Kendrick! Woo-hoo!

At least I'll get to see PNC and have a Primanti Bros. sandwich with french fries inside. Oh, and we're facing Matt Morris and his 9+ ERA. Damn. Actually that's good - I think my wife gets bored with pitching duels - no chance of that! Although she also gets sick of games that go on for four hours...

anyone seen an All-time Phils Tournament?

The Navigator — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 14:58:01 -0000

I was sure there was one around here somewhere, but I just can't remember when the last time I saw it was.... Maybe it's been lost, or stolen by Scott Rolen devotees; I just hope it hasn't been forgotten...

That's really all I wanted to say, but The Good Phight prohibits short diaries, so I have to add more text here. Let me note, then, that while I don't expect to come away with Phils tix, I wouldn't at all mind getting hooked up with a new Phillies hat to join the three I already have. Hence, I remain eager to see the results of my expected Abreu-Schmidt-Allen-Delahanty Final Four.

The catbird's seat - what it is

The Navigator — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 18:00:02 -0000

This is rather off-topic, but there was a good question in the Rumors thread: PhoenixPhilly posed the plaintive ponderable, "(what the heck is a cat-bird's seat anyway?)"

The Internet is a marvelous tool, boys and girls:

>"...Red Barber announces the Dodger games over the radio and he uses those expressions....'sitting in the catbird seat' means sitting pretty, like a batter with three balls and no strikes on him."
Red Barber, for you non-baseball fans, was not a fictional character. He was a popular radio announcer for the Brooklyn Dodgers in the 1940s and '50s. Barber had a musical, soft Southern accent that somehow seemed perfect for Dem Bums, and he in fact did use those Southern expressions. After he retired, he wrote about his long career in baseball in Rhubarb in the Catbird Seat. Barber claimed to have picked up the phrase from a fellow poker player. It's definitely Southern, and probably 19th century, but is officially listed as "origin unknown."<

Based on that description, I'm not sure that Gillick is actually in the catbird's seat - as of this writing, we still have Burrell and everyone knows we don't want him - but it's a nice place to shoot for.