Minimizing Risk In Atlanta
This afternoon, I mentioned that there may be an opportunity for teams to improve their rosters through diversification rather than purely pursuing upgrades. Let’s take a look at one of the specific opportunities and how this could work practically.
Atlanta, Left Field
The Braves want to upgrade their output for 2010, and the natural spot to do that would be left field. Garret Anderson didn’t produce at all in the position last year, posting a .305 wOBA while UZR hated his defense. They can certainly do better, and there are some big name run-producing outfielders on the market this winter.
However, they also have Jason Heyward, the best prospect in baseball, who happens to be a corner outfielder. He’s just 20 years old and has less than half a season of experience above A-ball, but his natural abilities and 2009 performance put him squarely in the 2010 picture.
There’s some real upside to handing Heyward the left field job and letting him run with it, but his projection necessarily has to include significant amounts of risk as well. He’s a classic high variance type of player, and the relatively high probability of failure drives down his expected value to the point where you can make a good case that he should be replaced, at least for 2010.
However, this is a situation where I’d argue for depth rather than replacement. Instead of bringing in an established player to perform at a level above what you’d expect from Heyward, the Braves may instead be able to bring in a player that allows them to minimize the cost of Heyward’s downside while still allowing them to give him an opportunity.
Randy Winn, for instance, is a low upside, low variance veteran that won’t command a large contract as a free agent. You generally know what you’re going to get from him – good contact, good defense, and no power. Having Winn on the team would allow the Braves to give Heyward a shot without bearing the full risk of collapse, as his steady but unspectacular production would serve as a stop loss if Heyward proves to not be ready for the big leagues.
By adding a player like Winn, the Braves minimize the variance that would be attached to giving Heyward a real look at the LF job. Removing risk in that way is significantly cheaper than doing so by pursuing a superior player with a steadier projection. It’s not free, of course – Winn will require some money to sign, and carrying both Winn and Heyward would cost the Braves an extra roster spot that consolidating into a better player would not.
In this case, though, I’d argue that the benefits probably outweigh those costs. A Winn/Heyward pairing in left field for Atlanta could provide a similar expected return to pretty much any of the non-Holliday free agent outfielders at a fraction of the cost.
This is just one example of a situation where pursuing depth is preferential to upgrading talent. Hopefully, it helps illustrate the point I was trying to make this afternoon. We’ll talk more about this next week, as we flesh out some of the issues that we didn’t have time to cover today.
Dave is the Managing Editor of FanGraphs.
Hi Dave – Excellent article, I found it very interesting. I am curious as to your description of Heyward as a “classic high vairance type of player”. Everything I have read seemed to indicate his floor is exceptionally high, and thusly I was confused by your “relatively high probability of failure” tag.
Maybe I am just misunderstanding based on context… it is Friday evening and I am still at work for some reason. Obviously doing work.
This is just referring to 2010. Long term, he’s a good bet. For next year, as a 21-year-old with minimal experience even in the high minors, he comes with quite a bit of risk.
That makes a lot of sense, thanks for clarifying. I also think Winn is the perfect fit for this role, and it would let Atalana bring up Heyward at a point which protects them from a potential Super Two situation.
While Jason Heyward could possibly play LF next year, I’d say the odds of it happening are slim and none. The Braves see him as the future and will use him in RF which is his position. They won’t switch him from LF to RF IMO and considering how bad of a defender Diaz is in RF I see no reason for Heyward not to start RF. Only person on the team who may be able to out-field him there is Schafer.
Winn is not a horrible option but my personal preference is a strict platoon of Diaz and Church, would cost a total of roughly 6 million and if they hit to their career norms could possibly produce a .820+ OPS. I’d say the odds of them being better then that are high, but I’m just making a conservative estimate. Diaz absolutely smokes LHP and Church hits RHP well. Defensively Church plays and excellent RF, so no reason he can’t be excellent in LF, and Diaz is below average but not terrible defender in left. From a 2009 performance perspective you’re basically looking at a Carlos Lee with better defense, better baserunning and costs about 10 million less.
They could do a lot worse then that.
A Diaz/Church platoon was the first thing I thought of when I read the headline.
Yeah, I wasn’t sure why Dave was putting Heyward in left – DC, are you assuming Diaz, Church or a platoon in right?
Call me crazy, but my hunch is that if Heyward isn’t up to start the year Schafer will be starting in RF. His wrist injury sidelined him in 09, if he’s healthy he can be a very productive player with plus defense at the corners
If Schafer’s up, wouldn’t it make more sense to play him in center and shift McLouth to the corner he belongs in?
Oh I forgot, he won a Gold Glove. *eyeroll*
McLouth was well regarded as a fielder in the minors and was above average according to UZR this year. He rated quite poorly in UZR in the past. With just over two years of playing center in the majors with a -7.1/150 games plus watching him play a decent amount I haven’t given up on the idea of McLouth being able to stick in center competently
Regardless, Schafer’s likely the better of the two in CF – thus, he should play it if he’s up.
Heyward = RF. And I am 99.9% sure they will not platoon him.
I think it would depend on how much Winn would cost. I would think someone like Endy Chavez would be an even cheaper option and someone who would be more accepting of a 4th outfielder role if necessary.
I don’t know if you’d be saying that if you watched a lot of Giants games this year. Winn was pretty bad and even he said himself he shouldn’t be in the line-up. 36 and falling fast. I think there are many better and cheaper options. Church/MDiaz works better than Winn, even if he came for 1mil.
Winn’s 2009 season was the product of an absolutely terrible BABIP against LHP…considering his career splits (essentially dead even), its almost a guarantee he bounces back at least a little bit in that category. He still hit RHP quite well in 09.
Winn had a HR/FB percentage of 1.4%. That has to be some kind of record.
Juan Pierre and Jason Kendall are astonished by such a HR/FB percentage.
I was arguing with people about how while signing Jarrod Washburn wouldn’t be the greatest thing in the world, there is some value there (for the Twins). This article summed up my thoughts nicely. Now instead of banking on a Liriano resurgence AND a continuation of last years performance for Duensing, they only have to look at one of the two. This is why the Twins always sign guys like Livan Hernandez (Note: I am not condoning the signing of Livan Hernandez) when it seems that they have better in-house options.
I know this would probably be adding risk, but how about signing Rocco Baldelli? He won’t stay healthy all year, but once he does get hurt, Heyward can step right in. I can’t imagine Baldelli costing too much after the whole mitochondrial condition, but he has the ability to play well if he gets consistent, but probably not too much, playing time.
I agree with Dave, I think Winn still has something left in the tank. Where I like his fit is with the Mariners in LF as a backup/replacement for Saunders.
A one-year fix for left field could work for the M’s. It wouldn’t hurt Michael Saunders to spend some more time in AAA, and Winn wouldn’t get in the way if you wanted to get Saunders some playing time. Although we already have someone quite like Winn in Langerhans.
I don’t know about Bobby Cox’s managing style, but it seems like in what you’re suggesting there’s a dissonance between theory and reality. While this would be a good idea, there are SO MANY major league managers that seem to give veteran players every opportunity to fail before turning things over to a talented rookie (my manager, Jim Leyland, seems to be the worst with this). If the Braves were to sign Winn, while it seems like a good idea to have him has a safety net in the event Heyward fails, would Cox/the Braves ACTUALLY use him in that manner? Or would they either start the year with Winn and only go with Heyward if he fails? Or, go with Heyward and if he has one rough month, go with Winn and ride it out with him? It seems to me that if rookies either don’t hit the ground running, or enter a situation with no clear competition, they have a hard time breaking into a starting job against a veteran, no matter what.
If Heyward is up, Cox will play him. While Cox, like most managers, has affinity for his veteran players, he has also shown, time after time, that he will bring up and play kids, even when they are pretty young and don’t have much time in the high minors: Andruw Jones, Brian McCann, and Jeff Franceour are three examples that come to mind.
Hi Dave. Thanks for the piece and for getting to the Braves early in the series. They don’t seem to be a good fit for this approach though. As many commenters have observed, they already have outfield depth (where “depth” means a group in which each member may not produce much in 2010) in Schafer, Church, Diaz, McLouth, and Heyward. They also have depth in the rotation and need actual offense from their corner OFers, so they will most likely trade a solid veteran starter for a decent OF bat whom they can count on. This approach costs them no additional dollars and seems to give them everything you’re targeting plus an actual hitter.
Of course, if they had the sense to choose an outfielder who could produce on offense and not be a butcher in the grass, they wouldn’t have pursued Griffey and signed Anderson for 2009. Sigh. Does anyone know that Anderson won’t even take a walk with the bases loaded? Look at his career numbers. At least Winn can defend, but the Braves need a power bat. If you can’t get power from your 1B and corner outfielders, you are doing something wrong.
Yeah, when you’re talking adding depth and keeping the risk low, isn’t offering arbitration to Ryan Church even cheaper? Whereas any free agent might ask for 2+ years, you can simply sign Church for one more year, and he’s got a career wOBA of .341. He’s a good corner OFer, can play CF in a pinch as well. You run the injury risk with him the same as you do with an older player, but having him as your fourth OF reduces the risk of handing the job to Jason Heyward. If Heyward is a great success, then you can platoon Church and Diaz in LF-and you still have Jordan Schafer waiting in the wings to push McLouth to one of the corners.
Winn and Church both have career UZR/150 ratings of 5.7. I can’t say if one is a superior defensive player to the other.