Sunday, February 25, 2007
Rotational Thinking
Not much news Nats-wise this weekend. Since the snow here in Arlington completely screwed up our house shopping, I figured it was as good a time as any to produce a rare weekend post. The most interesting recent Nats developments to me have been the various innuendos from the beat writers and team sources about which pitchers are impressing. Most notably, Acta finally released his rotation for the upcoming intrasquad and Grapefruit League games. According to the Times' Mark Zuckerman:
Is Zimmerman's power developing? Svrluga certainly seems to think so. Keep an eye on how many of his doubles turn in to homers as the Grapefruit league unfolds. Most of the projection systems see him as a consistent mid-20's home run guy for his career. I wouldn't be surprised to see him outperform that.
Some Respectful Disagreement
I'd like to address a comment that Capitol Punishment's Chris Needham left on Friday's post. Essentially, Chris took issue with my agreement with Baseball Prospectus's Christina Kahrl that it would be a good idea for Felipe Lopez to shift to center field, have D'Angelo Jimenez play short instead of Guzman, and start Belliard at second.
First of all, infielders make successful transitions to the outfield all the time. Cases in point that jump immediately to mind: Alfonso Soriano (2006) and Craig Biggio (2003-04). Second, Jimenez isn't necessarily a bad fielder and he played games at shortstop as recently as last season. It would have been more accurate for Chris to say that he hasn't been a regular starter at short in 6 years.
Most important, however, is Chris's suggestion that Jimenez would hurt the team more at short than either Guzman or Lopez. This is an interesting argument that bears further analysis. Allowing for all the caveats that go with using defensive metrics, here's a comparison of Lopez, Guzman, and Jimenez's career numbers at shortstop:
The chart requires a bit of explaining. First off, fielding % is a bit of a misleading statistic, and I included it in the chart as a way to illustrate why it is easy to label Jimenez as a sub-par SS with the glove versus Lopez or Guzman. Fielding percentage is calculated as the sum of putouts plus assists divided by total chances. The Wikipedia entry on the statistic does a good job of explaining why this is not a very reliable statistic:
I don't think it takes a sabremetric analysis to conclude that Lopez is a better hitter than Nook Logan. As the two examples I cited above illustrate, replacing Logan with Lopez in center would not necessarily be a defensive disaster in the making. Yes, Lopez is probably not as good with the leather as Logan, but I believe that Lopez's greatly superior offense would offset the defensive loss at the position. As I mentioned on Friday, most projections agree that Jimenez is likely to outperform Guzman at the plate by a significant degree. Furthermore, by adding Belliard to the starting lineup at 2B, you further ameliorate the losses of Logan and Guzman from the batting order.
Finally, I hate to put a lot of stock in these "clubhouse cancer" allegations. I certainly saw the press about his difficulties in Cincinnati, but then again Jose Guillen came to DC with a similar label and mostly behaved. Soriano was on the verge of getting the dreaded "CC" label last season, but that got worked out. I have high hopes that Manny Acta will be able to bring a good deal of chemistry to the team and deal effectively with its varied personalities.
To summarize, here are the basic planks of my argument:
1) Replacing Guzman with Jimenez at SS would not be a big drop-off defensively.
2) Replacing Nook Logan with Lopez in CF would, but...
3) A lineup that replaced Guzman's and Logan's bats with Belliard and Jimenez would end up as a net-plus when the runs created minus runs allowed are calculated.
4) "Clubhouse cancers" are benign until proven malignant and Acta is a hell of a doctor.
Discuss amongst y'selves.
Tuesday (intrasquad game): Joel Hanrahan vs. Matt Chico, with Beltran Perez, Jason Bergmann, Bill Hall, Winston Abreu and Emiliano Fruto among those pitching in relief.Now, as The Beltway Boy himself ably pointed out, just because someone looks good in spring training doesn't mean they're going to be worth much in the regular season. That said, given the wide-open nature of the Nationals' rotation, this kind of news carries a bit more weight that in would for, say, the Yankees. It's still far too early to tell, though every journalist and blogger who's been down in Viera seems to have one or two pitchers who the think are standing out from the rest. Without some game-situation data to go on, however, I'm not ready to predict a rotation. What is especially interesting from Zuckerman's list is that guys like Simontacchi and Colby Lewis, who I had thought would be starting rotation options, will be coming out of the bullpen. Granted, with dozens of guys competing for rotation spot, 6 starting slots in the 4 upcoming games, don't leave much room, so you can only read those particular tea leaves so much.Wednesday (intrasquad game): Jerome Williams vs. Tim Redding, with Jason Simontacchi, Colby Lewis, Mike Bacsik, Chris Booker, Mike Hinckley and Levale Speigner among those coming out of the bullpen.
Friday (Grapefruit League opener vs. Dodgers): Shawn Hill starting, followed by Chris Michalak and others.
Saturday (vs. Orioles): John Patterson starting.
Is Zimmerman's power developing? Svrluga certainly seems to think so. Keep an eye on how many of his doubles turn in to homers as the Grapefruit league unfolds. Most of the projection systems see him as a consistent mid-20's home run guy for his career. I wouldn't be surprised to see him outperform that.
Some Respectful Disagreement
I'd like to address a comment that Capitol Punishment's Chris Needham left on Friday's post. Essentially, Chris took issue with my agreement with Baseball Prospectus's Christina Kahrl that it would be a good idea for Felipe Lopez to shift to center field, have D'Angelo Jimenez play short instead of Guzman, and start Belliard at second.
First of all, infielders make successful transitions to the outfield all the time. Cases in point that jump immediately to mind: Alfonso Soriano (2006) and Craig Biggio (2003-04). Second, Jimenez isn't necessarily a bad fielder and he played games at shortstop as recently as last season. It would have been more accurate for Chris to say that he hasn't been a regular starter at short in 6 years.
Most important, however, is Chris's suggestion that Jimenez would hurt the team more at short than either Guzman or Lopez. This is an interesting argument that bears further analysis. Allowing for all the caveats that go with using defensive metrics, here's a comparison of Lopez, Guzman, and Jimenez's career numbers at shortstop:
| Fielding % | Zone Rating | RATE2 | |
| Lopez | .959 | .817 | 90 |
| Guzman | .972 | .808 | 96 |
| Jimenez | .954 | .805 | 94 |
The chart requires a bit of explaining. First off, fielding % is a bit of a misleading statistic, and I included it in the chart as a way to illustrate why it is easy to label Jimenez as a sub-par SS with the glove versus Lopez or Guzman. Fielding percentage is calculated as the sum of putouts plus assists divided by total chances. The Wikipedia entry on the statistic does a good job of explaining why this is not a very reliable statistic:
While a high fielding percentage is regarded as a sign of defensive skill, it is also possible for a player of lesser defensive skill to have a high fielding percentage, as it does not reflect or take into account a player's defensive range; a slow-footed first baseman, for example, might have a high fielding percentage simply because he rarely drops a thrown ball or makes an errant throw. Likewise, a relatively slow outfielder might have a high fielding percentage even though he doesn't reach many of the fly balls which a faster player would catch. Conversely, a highly skilled fielder might have a comparatively low fielding percentage by virtue of reaching, and potentially missing, a greater number of balls.I included Zone Rating and RATE2 to show that while specific defensive metrics have differing results for each of the three players, all three are fairly comparable (and below average) at the position.
I don't think it takes a sabremetric analysis to conclude that Lopez is a better hitter than Nook Logan. As the two examples I cited above illustrate, replacing Logan with Lopez in center would not necessarily be a defensive disaster in the making. Yes, Lopez is probably not as good with the leather as Logan, but I believe that Lopez's greatly superior offense would offset the defensive loss at the position. As I mentioned on Friday, most projections agree that Jimenez is likely to outperform Guzman at the plate by a significant degree. Furthermore, by adding Belliard to the starting lineup at 2B, you further ameliorate the losses of Logan and Guzman from the batting order.
Finally, I hate to put a lot of stock in these "clubhouse cancer" allegations. I certainly saw the press about his difficulties in Cincinnati, but then again Jose Guillen came to DC with a similar label and mostly behaved. Soriano was on the verge of getting the dreaded "CC" label last season, but that got worked out. I have high hopes that Manny Acta will be able to bring a good deal of chemistry to the team and deal effectively with its varied personalities.
To summarize, here are the basic planks of my argument:
1) Replacing Guzman with Jimenez at SS would not be a big drop-off defensively.
2) Replacing Nook Logan with Lopez in CF would, but...
3) A lineup that replaced Guzman's and Logan's bats with Belliard and Jimenez would end up as a net-plus when the runs created minus runs allowed are calculated.
4) "Clubhouse cancers" are benign until proven malignant and Acta is a hell of a doctor.
Discuss amongst y'selves.
# posted by JammingEcono @ 12:26 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
Christina Kahrl is a very intelligent, astute baseball observer (and, as an added bonus, is close enough to the team to know what's going on), but this seems more like noodling than a plan. It might have made some sense back in November, but now . . .
Additionally, I suspect Ronnie Belliard is closer to done than viable as a plus-offensive second baseman.
Additionally, I suspect Ronnie Belliard is closer to done than viable as a plus-offensive second baseman.
Well, I don't remember arguing half those things, but let's assume anyway... ;)
On the transition -- Biggio was an all-time bad centerfielder. Lopez could do it, but he's no lock either. Soriano was pretty good in left. I'll give you that one.
You're picking nits on the Jimenez at short thing. Sure, he's played it a few times since then, and Doug Mientkiewicz has played some second base? So?
eh... What's the point. Basil's point is correct. It's a meaningless never-gonna-happen plan from the people that brought us the Rich Becker/Giambi/Giambi outfield. ;)
(Do some googling about rate2 and all of BPro's defensive stats to see why most people don't like them)
On the transition -- Biggio was an all-time bad centerfielder. Lopez could do it, but he's no lock either. Soriano was pretty good in left. I'll give you that one.
You're picking nits on the Jimenez at short thing. Sure, he's played it a few times since then, and Doug Mientkiewicz has played some second base? So?
eh... What's the point. Basil's point is correct. It's a meaningless never-gonna-happen plan from the people that brought us the Rich Becker/Giambi/Giambi outfield. ;)
(Do some googling about rate2 and all of BPro's defensive stats to see why most people don't like them)
Here's the comment that got me writing:
OK, so we take an error-prone shortstop, move him to the OF where he's never played, then fill in his spot with an inferior bat who's terrible defensively and hasn't played shortstop in about 6 years (not to mention he's someone who has a rep as a clubhouse cancer!)?
Granted, perhaps you didn't make the arguments explicitly, but the implicit arguments you made, IMO, were:
1) Moving Lopez to CF would be a bad idea b/c he's an error-prone SS with no experience at the position.
2) Jimenez is an "inferior bat" (compared to Lopez and Guzman, I assumed you to mean) who is "terrible defensively."
3) Jimenez shouldn't be on the team because he's a "clubhouse cancer."
If I'm misrepresenting any of your implicit arguments, please let me know.
Post a Comment
OK, so we take an error-prone shortstop, move him to the OF where he's never played, then fill in his spot with an inferior bat who's terrible defensively and hasn't played shortstop in about 6 years (not to mention he's someone who has a rep as a clubhouse cancer!)?
Granted, perhaps you didn't make the arguments explicitly, but the implicit arguments you made, IMO, were:
1) Moving Lopez to CF would be a bad idea b/c he's an error-prone SS with no experience at the position.
2) Jimenez is an "inferior bat" (compared to Lopez and Guzman, I assumed you to mean) who is "terrible defensively."
3) Jimenez shouldn't be on the team because he's a "clubhouse cancer."
If I'm misrepresenting any of your implicit arguments, please let me know.
<< Home
