* My apologies for the late posting of San Diego’s Top 10 prospects… but I think the wait was well worth it, especially if you picked up a copy of the FanGraphs Second Opinion fantasy baseball companion (It’s 582 pages)!

General Manager: Jed Hoyer
Farm Director: Randy Smith
Scouting Director: Jaron Madison

FanGraphs’ Top 10 Prospects:
(2009 Draft Picks/International Signees Not Included)

The Padres organization doesn’t get a ton of ink or love, but it has some really solid prospects – especially in the Top 5 of the Top 10 list. On the downside, the club has a big backlog at third base and the corner outfield positions.

1. Simon Castro, RHP, Low-A
DOB: April 1988 Bats: R Throws: R
Signed: 2006 non-drafted international free agent (Dominican Republic)
MLB ETA: Mid-2012 40-Man Roster: No Options: 3
Repertoire: 90-95 mph fastball, slider, change-up

Castro took a big leap forward in 2009 at low-A ball as a 21-year-old pitcher. The right-hander posted an impressive 2.80 FIP while allowing just 118 hits in 140.1 innings of work. Castro also showed excellent control (2.37 BB/9) while missing a lot of bats (10.07 K/9). The prospect has a big, strong pitcher’s frame at 6’5” 200 lbs, but he’ll have to watch that he doesn’t get too big. It won’t be such a big deal while pitching in San Diego, but Castro’s ground-ball rate was a tad below 40% so it would be nice to see him improve his worm-burning rate.

2. Logan Forsythe, 3B, Double-A
DOB: January 1987 Bats: R Throws: R
Signed: 2008 supplemental 1st round – University of Arkansas
MLB ETA: Late-2010 40-Man Roster: No Options: 3

Forsythe or Darnell. Darnell or Forsythe. Take your pick. Along with Edinson Rincon, the club has impressive depth at the hot corner. The big league club also has a pretty good young player at the position in the Majors in Chase Headley. Of the trio in the minors, Forsythe is my pick. He had a solid ’09 season while playing in both high-A and double-A. At the junior level, the right-handed hitter batted .322/.472/.504 in a very good hitter’s environment. Moved up to double-A, he hit .279/.384/.377 in 244 at-bats. Although he held his own against all pitches, Forsythe enjoyed facing southpaws in ’09, with a .951 OPS (compared to .821 versus right-handers). The drop in power after his promotion (ISO from .182 to .098) is a little worrisome, but Forsythe should still hit for average and get on base (20% walk rate in high-A). He even showed some smarts on the base paths with 11 steals in 13 tries. The 23-year-old prospect will need to cut down on his strikeouts (25.8 K% in double-A).

3. James Darnell, 3B, High-A
DOB: January 1987 Bats: R Throws: R
Signed: 2008 2nd round – University of South Carolina
MLB ETA: Mid-2011 40-Man Roster: No Options: 3

A step behind Forsythe, Darnell began the year in in low-A as a 22-year-old and hit .329/.468/.518 in 222 at-bats. He then batted .294/.377/.553 in 235 at-bats after a promotion to high-A. Although Darnell does not project to hit for average as consistently as Forsythe, he has a little more reliable pop in his bat (ISO of .189 in low-A, .260 in high-A). Like his fellow third base prospect, he shows patience at the plate, but he whiffs less often (16.2% in high-A). Darnell is the more athletic of the two third basemen so he’s more likely to switch positions (second base, right field) and Forsythe has a solid defensive profile (including a strong arm) for the hot corner.

4. Jaff Decker, OF, Low-A
DOB: February 1990 Bats: L Throws: L
Signed: 2008 supplemental 1st round – Arizona HS
MLB ETA: Mid-2012 40-Man Roster: No Options: 3

Because of his age (19), Decker was kept in low-A ball all season despite solid numbers. He posted a triple-slash line of .299/.442/.514 in 358 at-bats. The left-handed hitter showed above-average patience at the plate with a walk rate of 18.7% but his strikeout rate was a tad high at 25.7%. With that said, he does show power potential after posting an ISO of .215. At 5’10”, 200 lbs, Decker is going to have to watch his conditioning if he’s going to stick in the outfield. He also doesn’t hit quite as well against southpaws (.881 OPS) as he does against right-handers (.962 OPS).

5. Wynn Pelzer, RHP, High-A
DOB: June 1986 Bats: R Throws: R
Signed: 2007 9th round – University of South Carolina
MLB ETA: Mid-2011 40-Man Roster: No Options: 3
Repertoire: 89-93 mph fastball, slider, change-up

Pelzer has risen rather quickly through the system and should begin 2010 in double-A. The right-hander uses a solid two-pitch repertoire (and a developing change-up), as well as a solid ground-ball rate (53%) to produce nice minor league numbers. He posted a 3.30 FIP in high-A despite playing in a very good hitter’s park. He showed average control and posted a walk rate of 3.52 BB/9 and a respectable strikeout rate of 8.78 K/9. His HR/9 rate of 0.36 was very encouraging. Pelzer has some work to do against left-handed hitters (1.49 vs 1.03 WHIP).

6. Edinson Rincon, 3B, Short-season
DOB: August 1990 Bats: R Throws: R
Signed: 2007 non-drafted international free agent (Dominican Republic)
MLB ETA: Mid-2014 40-Man Roster: No Options: 3

With Headley, Forsythe, and Darnell ahead of him, the organization can be patient with the raw Rincon. The right-handed hitter had a lot of success in short-season ball in ’09 after two years in rookie ball. The teenager hit .300/.415/.468 in 267 at-bats and showed solid patience with a walk rate of 14.2%. His strikeout rate was high at 22.5% but he showed some developing power with an ISO rate of .169. Rincon has a strong arm but he may soon out-grow the position and move to right field (or first base, but his arm would be wasted there).

7. Cory Luebke, LHP, Double-A
DOB: March 1985 Bats: R Throws: L
Signed: 2007 supplemental 1st round – Ohio State University
MLB ETA: Late-2010 40-Man Roster: No Options: 3
Repertoire: 87-91 mph fastball, slider, change-up

Luebke, a southpaw, started the year in high-A and allowed 73 hits in 88.1 innings. He also posted a FIP of 2.58. He showed excellent control (1.73 BB/9) and posted a good strikeout rate of 8.15 K/9. Moved up to double-A, he had a 3.83 FIP and was a little more hittable (38 hits in 41.1 innings). Although he posted allowed a similar batting average against both right-handed and left-handed hitters on the year, Luebke showed a better ground-ball rate against lefties (58.2 vs 47.8%) and a more impressive strikeout rate (10.00 vs 6.70 K/9). He projects to be a No. 3 or 4 starter in the National League.

8. Aaron Poreda, LHP, Majors
DOB: October 1986 Bats: L Throws: L
Signed: 2007 1st round – University of San Francisco (Chicago AL)
MLB ETA: Now 40-Man Roster: Yes Options: 2
Repertoire: 89-95 mph fastball, slider, change-up

A prized acquisition from the White Sox (in the Jake Peavy deal), Poreda has a good arm even if some of the shine has come off of him a bit since being drafted in the first round. The left-hander sacrifices some velocity for control but he can still reach the mid-90s with his heater. The big issue with him, though, is that his secondary pitches have never been overly strong. After making 11 starts in double-A at the beginning of the year, Poreda had mixed results in triple-A. He also made 14 appearances, all out of the ‘pen, at the MLB level for both the White Sox and the Padres. In 13.1 innings, he posted a 4.45 FIP and allowed 10 hits and 13 walks.

9. Lance Zawadzki, SS, Double-A
DOB: May 1985 Bats: B Throws: R
Signed: 2007 4th round – San Diego State University
MLB ETA: Late-2010 40-Man Roster: No Options: 3

A personal favorite of mine, Zawadzki is on the cusp of making the Majors, possibly as a utility player. The shortstop had a solid line in double-A in 09 and hit .289/.372/.416 in 346 at-bats (He began the year in high-A and had 145 at-bats). The switch-hitter does a little bit of everything but nothing overly well. He stole 14 bases in 15 tries and showed a nice line-drive swing. His strikeout rate is high (21.4%) for his modest power (.127 ISO). Zawadzki had more success against southpaws in ’09 but his BABIP played a big part (.408 vs .293).

10. Sawyer Carroll, OF, Double-A
DOB: May 1986 Bats: L Throws: R
Signed: 2008 3rd round – University of Kentucky
MLB ETA: Mid-2011 40-Man Roster: No Options: 3

Carroll beat out a couple of other outfielders for the 10th and final spot on the prospect list. A corner outfielder, he had a nice offensive season while playing at three levels during his first full pro season. The left-handed hitter produced a triple-slash line at low-A (where he had his most at-bats) of .316/.410/.464. He continued to hit above .300 at all stops and he stole a total of 19 bases in 27 tries. He also laced 40 doubles and showed a good eye at the plate with a walk rate above 13%. If his power doesn’t develop a little bit more, Carroll should slid into a fourth outfielder’s role in the Majors.

Up Next: The Seattle Mariners

Despite what you might have heard earlier this off-season, the Tigers are not broke. That notion was refuted back in December, as was the idea that the the team would hold a fire sale. Yes, they traded both Curtis Granderson and Edwin Jackson, but those two wouldn’t have had an enormous effect on the 2010 payroll. The much larger contracts of Miguel Cabrera, Magglio Ordonez, and Carlos Guillen still remain. In fact, not only did the Tigers keep those significant salaries, but they actually increased payroll during the off-season.

In 2009, the Tigers opened the season with a $115 million payroll. From that group they shed about $12.5 million when Placido Polanco, Brandon Lyon, Fernando Rodney, and Adam Everett became free agents, and another $1.2 million because Ordonez’s vested option comes in below his 2009 salary. Players due raises, however, more than made up for the $13.7 million in savings. Cabrera, Guillen, Granderson, Dontrelle Willis, Brandon Inge, and Nate Robertson will earn a combined $15.3 million more in 2010 than in 2009. Then there are arbitration cases, many of them in Years 2 and 3, meaning a few players were set to become even more expensive.

Seeing the potential issues ahead, the Tigers made some moves in December. They traded Granderson and the remaining $25.75 million on his contract to the Yankees, while at the same time trading Jackson and his arbitration raises to the Diamondbacks. In return they got players making the league minimum (though it appears Max Scherzer will make $1.5 million from his draft contract). That helped them fill holes, but the team was still incomplete — and payroll was still around the 2009 level. Since then the Tigers have signed free agents Jose Valverde, Adam Everett, and Johnny Damon, and signed Justin Verlander to a five-year, $80 million contract that will pay him $6.85 million in 2010.

All told, according to Cot’s, the Tigers will open the year with a payroll around $130 million, or about $15 million higher than in 2009. How, then, can the team justify trading two productive players in Jackson and Granderson? Why not just keep Granderson, who will earn $5.5 million in 2010, and not sign Damon, who will earn $8 million? The answer is that the Tigers are paying today in order to save on payroll in 2011 and beyond.

Of the 16 Tigers who will earn more than $1 million in 2010, eight or nine will hit free agency in 2011. These include Willis, Robertson, Damon, Inge, Everett, Gerald Laird, Bobby Seay, and Jeremy Bonderman, for a total savings of about $54 million. Signing Damon means having four players — in addition to Ordonez, Guillen, and Ryan Raburn — for two corner outfield and one DH spot. That should allow the Tigers to keep Ordonez’s plate appearances under 540. They could then decline his option and shed another $18 million, bringing the total to $72 million.

Had they kept Jackson and Granderson, the Tigers would have been on the hook for an additional $16.5 million in 2011, assuming the $8.35 million Jackson will earn with the Diamondbacks. They also might not have signed Damon, which would have made it harder to hold Magglio’s plate appearances under 540, perhaps costing them another $18 million. Assuming the worst, that would bring the Tigers 2011 commitments from $55 million to $89.5 million, while their 2010 payroll would still, even without Damon, be around $130 million.

While the Tigers’ financial situation isn’t as harsh as some assumed earlier in the winter, it’s still probably a looming concern. Instead of selling off their expensive players for 50 cents or less on the dollar, they made a few moves to help save on future payroll. This will allow them to remain competitive in 2010 and more flexible come 2011. With a much stronger free agent class on the horizon, the Tigers will be glad they made the moves they did this winter. They might have set the foundation for a strong future.

FanGraphs Audio surprises even itself sometimes.

Episode Six
In which the panel considers pitchers young and old-ish.

Headlines
Second Half Jackson
Scherzer to the Max
The First Word in Johan is Yo (Almost)
Roy Halladay Is an Asian Freak
… and other hilarious misunderstandings!

Featuring
Matt Klaassen
Jack Moore

Finally, you can subscribe to the podcast via iTunes or other feeder things.

Audio after the jumpity-jump.

Read the rest of this entry »

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

Since a fantastic autumn in the Arizona Fall League, I would argue no prospect has been lauded more this winter than Cubs SS Starlin Castro. The hype machine is in full force in Mesa, as just this week we’ve seen Carrie Muskat of MLB.com profile his Spring Training debut, and Paul Sullivan of the Chicago Tribune interview Ryan Theriot on potentially moving to second base. Thankfully, the notions of Castro beginning the season in the Majors have passed, but living a mile south of Wrigley Field, I can report Cubs fans will be clamoring for the call-up everyday the soon-to-be 20 year old gets two hits in Des Moines while Mike Fontenot gets none in Chicago.

Just between Muskat and Sullivan’s articles, we have been thrown comparisons to Edgar Renteria, Hanley Ramirez and Miguel Tejada. That’s 13 All-Star games between the three of them, for a man that has just one year of full-season baseball under his belt. Castro hit .299/.342/.392 between the Florida State and Southern Leagues last season (a brief aside to link to Justin Inaz’ great article at the Hardball Times yesterday concerning Minor League run environments. There, you’ll see Castro was narrowly above-average in both leagues.) But I think we can do better than lazy comparisons to three Latin shortstops, none of whom mirror Castro’s developmental path.

I set out to find some proper comparison points to Castro, given the assumption that the hype machine propels him to the Majors this season. Using my newly renewed subscription at Baseball-Reference’s Play Index, I queried for players that made their Major League debuts and crossed the rookie threshold at the age of 20. This yielded a total of 52 players. If I limit this to middle infielders, the list goes down to 12. One step further still, seven of them have some Minor League data available through Baseball-Reference. What would we do without Sean Forman?

Dalton Jones, Garry Templeton, Danny Ainge, Roberto Alomar, Jose Reyes, Jose Lopez and Elvis Andrus. Collectively, this is a group that hit .261/.301/.364 as 20-year-old, Major League rookie middle infielders. The previous season, at 19 in the Minor Leagues, our comparison group hit .281 and slugged .397. The majority (Alomar, Andrus, Lopez and half-seasons of Reyes and Templeton) played in Double-A, and hit .300 and slugged .429. Castro’s batting average is right in line, given his superior ability to make contact with the baseball. But his isolated power, just .108 in Double-A and .093 overall, are below the level of the players I’ve compared him to.

Looking further, I want to note that Jose Reyes and Garry Templeton had very similar development paths as Castro, splitting time between the Florida State League and Double-A in their age 19 season. Let’s look at how they did:

FSL H-A      AVG/OBP/SLG   BB   SO   XBH   PA
Reyes        288/353/462   30   35    27   327
Castro       302/340/391   19   41    23   387
Templeton    264/288/338   12   42    16   361

And in Double-A:

Double-A   League   AVG/OBP/SG   BB   SO   XBH   PA
Templeton   Texas   401/424/531   6    2    15   184
Reyes        East   287/331/425  16   42    26   295
Castro      South   288/347/396  10   12     9   122

It’s clear that the Cubs prospect is Reyes’ inferior; Baseball America would rank Reyes its third overall prospect after the 2002 season, while Castro came in at 16 when the magazine released their list yesterday. Reyes displayed more patience and more power, Castro a better knack for contact. What interests me is the comparison between Templeton and Castro – both were impatient contact hitters with questionable power profiles.

In 1976, the St. Louis Cardinals returned Templeton to their Double-A affiliate, and he hit .321/.351/.483 in 106 games. On August 9, with the Major League squad 25 games behind in the standings, they called up Templeton and inserted him at shortstop, asking veteran Don Kessinger to move to second base. Templeton hit .291/.314/.362 down the stretch, and would play the next five years holding down the position, posting a 104 OPS+ with two All-Star appearances in that time. Templeton never developed home run power, he never developed patience, and when his speed started to go (and the BABIP with it), Templeton was no longer a useful player. Using the WAR historical database, we see that Templeton was 25.2 wins above replacement player in his 16-year career. I think Castro can be better than this (he’s already a little more patient than Templeton, and walks are preached more than ever nowadays), though his four-year peak of 14 WAR seems appropriate.

The Cubs should follow the Templeton model out of Spring Training, and re-assign Castro to the Southern League. It’s simply not fair to assign him to face older pitchers after 122 decent plate appearances and a great BABIP-driven Arizona Fall League sample. But for a team that doesn’t figure to be 25 games back on August 9, calling up Castro for more than a September cup of coffee doesn’t seem prudent. Let’s keep the talk of Castro, the Major Leaguer, to a minimum, and see if the Templeton comparison still holds water a year from now.

Thanks for the input in the comments section yesterday. As spring training develops, we may see more and more out of options players either hit the trade market or battle for starting spots. Here are the two guys that I picked out among the pitchers as the most interesting targets for today.

SP Dustin McGowan, Blue Jays

In 2008, Dustin McGowan was a big part of a pitching staff that ranked #1 in the Major Leagues in WAR. Although his traditional stats didn’t look like much, McGowan had done a great job of suppressing fly balls and therefore home runs, keeping his FIP below 4.00 in both 2007 and 2008. In the 270 IP he had compiled in those two years, McGowan put up a 6.2 WAR, making him a legitimate #2 or #3 starter in most rotations. A shoulder injury and a knee injury derailed McGowan for all of 2009, and now it remains to be seen if he will be ready for the 2010 season.

There’s a large cast of characters competing for the starting jobs in Toronto, including Ricky Romero, David Purcey, Jesse Litsch, Shaun Marcum, Marc Rzepcynski, Dana Eveland, Scott Richmond, Brett Cecil, and Shawn Hill. Given that others in this group aren’t out of options, I would predict that McGowan starts the season with the Jays. If McGowan can make a full recovery, he should be a valuable asset to either a young, rebuilding Jays team or another team willing to deal for a starting pitcher.

SP Charlie Haeger, Dodgers

Everybody loves knuckleballers, from Hoyt Wilhelm to Tim Wakefield; from Charlie Hough to R.A. Dickey. Charlie Haeger has a chance to be the next one in what seems like a dying breed. CHONE projects Haeger at roughly 1.0 WAR, putting him in roughly the same boat as Eric Stults (also out of options), Giancarlo Alvarado, and Russ Ortiz, all of whom could compete for the 5th starter spot in Los Angeles.

Haeger’s only had 53 IP worth of opportunities in the major between 4 stints and 3 teams. His big issue in the majors has been poor control – 33 walks in those 53 innings – and he has a 5.26 ERA and 6.03 FIP to show because of it. In those same 4 years and over 600 minor league innings, Haeger’s overall BB/9 rate is closer to 4. Although he doesn’t strike out too many batters, numbers like that in the majors could work for Haeger. Home runs haven’t been an issue in the minors (although they have in the majors), and he’s shown an ability to suppress BABIP, never having allowed a full-season BABIP over .296 in the minors. Only more MLB innings will tell us if he these positive minor league indicators can translate to the show.

Maybe I just want to be indulged and see another knuckleballer in the major leagues, but I would really like to see Haeger in some sort of ML role by the start of the season. His production deserves a spot in somebody’s starting rotation.

This Lenten Season, I — like many Catholics — have given up a vice. But it’s neither chocolate nor beer from which I’ll be abstaining for these forty or so days. I don’t particularly care for the former and view the latter less as a vice and more as a type of awesome medicine.

Here’s what I’ve given instead: apologizing for my interest in fantasy baseball.

Of course, given the amount of time I spend thinking about it, “interest” might be a bit of an understatement — but let’s leave that consideration for another day. There are real benefits provided by fantasy baseball that no other pastime, so far as I can see, is capable of providing.

Having meditated real hard all up on this line of thought, I could discuss said benefits at some length. For the sake of brevity (relatively speaking, of course), here are three actual reasons why fantasy baseball is of legitimate benefit to your life. Keep them at the ready in the event that your wife/parents/boss confronts you with what they’ll inevitably call your “problem.”

1. It’s Good for the Mind Grapes

Yes, while rotisserie almost exclusively concerns baseball — in terms of content, that is — it’s clear to anyone who’s ever played that other skills are necessary to fantasy domination than a simple knowledge of players and their stats.

In fact, fantasy baseball offers a number of the same benefits that Steven Johnson (in Everything Bad Is Good for You) attributes to video games like Sim City or Grand Theft Auto — that is, games which feature open-ended narrative structures and, therefore, require a greater deal of player interaction.

Because he’s smart, Johnson hands the mic over to John Dewey for the theoretical underpinnings. It’s in Experience and Education that Dewey writes:

Perhaps the greatest of all pedagogical fallacies is the notion that a person learns only the particular thing he is studying at the time. Collateral learning in the way of formation of enduring attitudes, of likes and dislikes, may be and often is much more important than the spelling lesson or lesson in geography or history that is learned. For these attitudes are fundamentally what count in the future. The most important attitude that can be formed is that of desire to go on learning.

By way of commenting on the collateral benefits of video games, Johnson himself goes on to say that, “far more than books or movies, games force you to make decisions.”

He continues:

All the intellectual benefits of gaming derive from this fundamental virtue, because learning how to think is ultimately about learning to make the right decisions: weighing evidence, analyzing situations, consulting your long-term goals, and then deciding.

I’m probably preaching to the biggest ever choir when I say that, n’doy, fantasy baseball requires decision-making skills. The fantasy owner must understand the scoring mechanisms of his league, must weigh that information against the players available, must understand what skills those players have, must understand those skills separate from context (team, ballpark), must understand those skills separate from luck, must assimilate news reports about a player’s projected playing time or injury status, blah to the blah to the blah. And that’s even before the draft/auction begins.

2. It’s Good for Male Friendships

As a rule, I’m averse to hugging. Oh sure, there are some exceptions. Like, I’ll hug either of my parents. I’ll hug someone who’s just gotten married (more for consolation than congratulation). Sometimes, if she makes me, I’ll even hug my wife. But generally speaking, I’m not what you’d call a casual hugger.

And yet, especially as I get older and see my friends getting older, see some of them, in fact, getting sick in ways that can be a little frightening, I’ve begun to realize that it’s sometimes advisable — indeed, necessary — to tell these same friends that I care about them. Having had little experience with this sort of venture, however, my attempts are a little clumsy.

Luckily, fantasy baseball allows people like me — that is, with little in the way of emotional intelligence — to display affection in a highly ritualized, but still very real, way.

For example, I’ve been in this one keeper league going on about five years now. In said keeper league, I own Jeff Clement, who still qualifies at catcher even though he’ll almost definitely begin the season as the starting first baseman for the Bucs. This, as you might know, is a boon to Clement’s value, as he won’t be subject to the physical demands of the catcher position.

I’ve recently utilized the the league’s message board to inform the rest of the owners in the league about how Clement qualifies at catcher and about how he’ll be starting at first base and about how awesome that’s gonna make my team compared to their dumb teams.

To this, another owner has replied that Clement is a piece of junk. A third owner has suggested I have a fun time finishing in fourth place. I, in turn, have invited both of these guys to “cram it.” While, to the outsider, this might seem like open hostility, any sociologist worth his salt will see all the goodwill spilling out of us. Basically, what we’re really saying to each other is stuff like: “You’re a good guy” and “I’m happy you’re my friend.” It’s like Love Fest 2010 over here.

3. It’s Unimportant in the Good Way

Very often we’re asked — and by “we,” I mean middle-to-upper-middle class, college-educated men* — we’re asked to care deeply about things over which we have very little control. This is, to some degree, the entire modus operandi of media: to draw our attention outward.

*According to Sociologist Donald Levy of the University of Connecticut, overwhelmingly the demographic that plays fantasy baseball.

To illustrate, consider three headlines from this past Sunday’s edition of the New York Times:

– Burmese Refugees Persecuted in Bangladesh
– Portugal Landslides’ Toll Rises to 42
– Pakistan Kills 30 in Airstrike on Militants

Suffice it to say, these are legitimately terrible things happening to very real people. The thing is, my ability to do anything about their respective predicaments is minimal. Still, there’s an ethic that is popular among the class to which I belong, an ethic which holds that it’s one’s duty to “stay informed.” In lieu of affecting change in far-off places (largely impossible), we make offerings of our own well-being as penance. We say, in effect, “Though I’m unable to help, I’ll set aside a part of my day to consider you and your problems.” I’ll argue that, while the intentions of such an act are good, the practice itself is not.

Fantasy baseball provides almost the exact opposite experience. With the exception of my opposing managers, there are exactly zero people who care about my fantasy team. Yet, for every problem that arises — an injury to a starting pitcher, a second baseman traded to another team — I’m fully equipped to deal with it. I go to the waiver wire, I propose a trade: whatever the solution, it’s fully within my capacity to affect change.

Some might suggest that I’m burying my head in the sand. I think that’s untrue. I contend that it makes me a healthier citizen. I spend a great deal of time dealing with situations that are wholly within my control. I find that I’m able to take problems in stride, with the idea that, through some combination of patience and ingenuity, I’ll be able to solve them. In turn, the world does not appear to be such a dark, forbidding place.

Baseball America released their list of the overall top 100 prospects in baseball today. The link to it is here.

Generally, I am not much of a fan of prospect lists. Lists are an easy way to deliver content and I think the goal of most prospect lists is to inform people about some various players that they might not otherwise be exposed to. That’s a good goal, but it strikes me that often most of the ensuing discussion revolves around minute differences in opinion on the ranks themselves, rather than about the varying merits of the players. Maybe people keep track of prospects better than I do and so everything on these lists is old news to them, but is it really important to debate whether Stephen Strasburg should be number 1 instead of number 2?

That is not to say that I don’t look at the rankings, but I like to look them more as groupings than as strict delineations. For instance, Miguel Sano coming in only in the mid-90s after all the hype that he got? That surprised me and drove me to read some more recent reports on him to try and understand BA’s ranking. I liked how Brett Wallace was ranked 27th and Michael Taylor 29th. I guess BA sees that trade as pretty even?

Aroldis Chapman all the way up at 22? I am a bit skeptical that he should be that high, but I can understand why scouts would drool over him. Similar to Tanner Scheppers being all the way at 42. To me, nobody with his injury history should be that high until he shows himself well past the recovery phase, but I think that could be a fun debate.

And now for the National League’s forgotten five.

C Gregg Zaun Brewers

2010 marks Zaun’s 16th season in the majors. Baseball Prospectus once tagged him as the ideal back-up catcher and I think that’s apt. Zaun has recorded more than 500 plate appearances once in those 15 seasons, more than 400 once, more than 300 five times, and more than 200 nine times. That from someone with a career on-base percentage of .344 while catching. True, his throwing arm is morbid, much like his Rush fascination, but isn’t it a bit unjust that Brad Ausmus has 14 seasons with at least 300 plate appearances while being a one-dimensional catcher, while Zaun is similar in the depth of his skills and yet he’ll be lucky to finish with half of that?

The Brew Crew faithful will witness a transition from Jason Kendall to Zaun at a similar price to Rod Barajas’ deal with the Mets. Zaun is drawing Social Security, and catchers generally don’t age well, so there is some risk placed with overreliance on the 39-year-old. Still, Zombie Zaun (Zaunbie, if you will) can outhit Jason Kendall.

2B Akinori Iwamura Pirates

The beginning of Iwamura’s American career was fascinating. When he signed with the Rays, the stories about his constantly altering hair color, frat boy like insistence on necklaces, Phallus-worshipping hometown, and appetite for cigarettes popped up like no other. Then he arrived to spring training with sunglasses that featured a built-in MP3 player, an alligator-skinned glove, and green circled bats. He hit something like .100/.200/.100 in spring and everyone fretted over what quickly became water under the bridge since Iwamura recorded a hit in each of his first nine regular season games and reached base in the first 12.

Since then he’s posted wOBA of .338, .323, and .338. His simplistic game and consistent nature make him a dependable asset. He’s not going to awe often, although his footwork in the field is stellar and makes up for the fact that his range and arm lack a bit, and his ability to turn a double play is impressive given that 2010 will only be his third season at second base. The Pirates received Iwamura for a middle reliever who quickly turned into Rafael Soriano. He’s a free agent at year’s end and who knows whether he ends the year playing his home games at PNC Park, but he’s a quality player at a bargain price.

Read the rest of this entry »

As the Red Sox stocked up on defensive players and pitching this winter a common question has been, “Do the Sox have enough offense to beat the Yankees?” As we have talked about here, this question is wrongheaded. Teams do not need a baseline level of offense (or defense or pitching). They simply need to score more runs then they give up. A run saved is just as valuable as a run scored.

That is not to say that the Red Sox would not like to score a ton of runs. And one place they will hope to get more production from this year is the DH and David Ortiz. Ortiz had a down year in 2009: a wRC+ of 104 just doesn’t cut it from a DH. People have focused on Ortiz’s power drop, but equally troubling were his lowest walk rate since 2004 and highest strikeout rate since 1998. Those lead to his pedestrian .332 OBP, taking away a huge chunk of his offensive value.

The problem is that Ortiz has been swinging at an increasing percentage of pitches out of the zone. In 2004 he swung at a very low 15.2% of such pitches. But it has increased every year since to 22.6% in 2009. (Average is 25%, so he is still better than average but closing in). Using the swing and contact contours from my Marco Scutaro post we can see where those extra swings have been.

This shows a big increase to swing rate on up-and-in pitches. Although he made slightly more contact on these pitches in 2009 than 2007-2008, these are still pitches that he whiffs at a high rate. In addition, the region where he makes contact 90% or more of the time was much smaller in 2009. Swinging at more pitches out of the zone (up-and-in pitches) and making less contact on pitches in the heart of the plate resulted in Ortiz’s poorer strikeout and walk numbers.

While writing on the “three true outcomes” (walk, strikeout, and home run) leaders and trailers from 2007-2009, I was reminded of a toy idea that I’d had earlier to create something like FIP (Fielding Independent Pitching), using the same basic components, except for hitters. I finally got around to doing it recently, and the results were interesting. I’m not saying this is any more than a junk stat. But it might be interesting, who knows?

* You want real sabermetric research? Read Matthew Carruth, Dave Allen, or one of the many other intelligent researches writers here and elsewhere. Trying to waste time at work? You came to the right place. Tom Tango may have created wOBA and FIP, but this a stat that gives me joy.

The basic formula for FIP is ((HR*13+(BB+HBP-IBB)*3-K*2)/IP) + 3.2, where “3.2” is a season/league specific factor to put the league FIP on the same scale as the league ERA. To make it suitable for hitters, I made a couple of minor modifications: 1) I scaled it to RA rather than ERA. The RA scale for the 2009 MLB was 3.52. 2) For IP I used outs made by the hitter (divided by 3 to get on the IP scale): AB-H+SF+SH+GIDP (I left out CS because I want to deal with the pitcher/hitter matchup). Ladies and gentleman, I present the formula for Defense Independent Offense, or DIO:

((HR*13+(BB+HBP-IBB)*3-K*2)/(Outs/3)) + 3.52.

Who (among qualifying hitters) led the league in DIO for 2009? Remember that for hitters, a higher number will be better.

1. Albert Pujols, 9.18
2. Prince Fielder, 8.66
3. Adrian Gonzalez, 8.55
4. Alex Rodriguez 8.32
5. Carlos Pena 8.31
6. Adam Dunn, 8.11

So far, so good, those are some great hitters. Here are the trailers:

150. Yuniesky Betancourt, 4.26
151. Michael Bourn, 4.12
152. Randy Winn, 4.03
153. Cristian Guzman, 3.92
154. Emilio Bonifacio, 3.73

Some of these names — Betancorut, Winn, Bonifacio — aren’t surprising. But what about Michael Bourn, for example? Didn’t he have a decent season at the plate in 2009? Hold on to that thought.

Just as a player’s wOBA can be compared with league wOBA to give up the player’s runs created above average (wRAA), we can compare a players DIO with the league’s runs per game (4.61 in 2009) to produce a DRAA: =(DIO-lgR/G)*(Outs/27).* Here are the 2009 leaders in DRAA and with their wRAA figures for sake of comparison.

* One can also calculate absolute runs created (wRC) with DIO * (Outs/27).

1. Albert Pujols 69.9 DRAA, 69.7 wRAA
2. Prince Fielder 65.6 DRAA, 54.9 wRAA
3. Adrian Gonzalez 62.2 DRAA, 41.5 wRAA
4. Mark Teixeira 53.5 DRAA, 42.9 wRAA
5. Adam Dunn 53.2 DRAA, 35.9 wRAA

The Pujols figures are almost dead-on, and given the crudeness of DIO, Fielder and Teixeira aren’t that far off, but Gonzalez and Dunn seem to be quite overrated by DIO-Runs. The general “in the neighborhood-ness” isn’t that surprising, given that FIP (and thus DIO) are based on linear weights of the relevant events, and wOBA is just linear weights expressed as a rate stat. But what about the discrepancies? Does the perhaps mean we should be rethinking wOBA/wRAA in favor of my awesome new offensive metric, or at least use it more prominently, just as FIP is generally favored (around here) over ERA?

In a word: no. Going back to the origins of DIPS-theory, pitchers generally have little control over balls in play, and thus DIPS, FIP, tRA, etc. are attempts to remove the defense-dependent elements from pitcher evaluation. However, while BABIP generally has less year-to-year correlation for hitters than, say, walk rate, it does correlate far better than for pitchers. That is why traditional linear weights (like wRAA) are preferable for hitters. DIO systematically underrates hitters like Michael Bourn not only because it ignores steals, but because it assumes that the players contributions on balls in play are league-average, whereas Bourn’s contributions in those areas are well-above average. DIO’s also badly underrates hitters like Joe Mauer (40.5 DRAA vs. 54.9 wRAA in 2009) and Ichiro Suzuki (-2.2 DRAA vs. 22.6 wRAA), as well as overrating (still very good) hitters like Adrian Gonzalez and Adam Dunn.

DIO has interesting aspects. It highlights how many good hitters get most of their value from hitting home runs and walking, for example. There is also much to be said for using a rate stat baselined against outs rather than PA (I wouldn’t go so far as to make the mistake of generating a DIO-based Offensive Winning Percentage, although it was tempting). For me, it was worth it just to walk through and see how well the stat did in ranking hitters. Most of all, it was a good reminder of the difference in BABIP as a skill relative to pitchers and hitters. Without reminders like these, I’d be left on my own, like a rainbow in the dark.