The Yankees Disadvantage at DH
The Yankees have a problem with their offense, though you wouldn’t know it by looking at the aggregate numbers. They not only lead the AL in scoring, but they are the only team that has scored more than five runs per game. Their lead over the next closest team is nearly a third of a run. Their team .345 wOBA leads the majors, and even with a park adjustment their 117 wRC+ leads as well. They are the only team that has three players with double-digit home runs, and two of those players rank in the top four. Pick any offensive measure and they’re sure to grade out at or near the top. So where’s the problem? Strangely enough, it involves the one position reserved solely for hitters.
The transition from catcher to designated hitter has not gone smoothly for Jorge Posada. He started looking his age during his first month in the role, producing a .267 wOBA that was fueled almost completely by his six home runs. The last of those six came on April 23rd, and he has yet to hit once since. He’s shown some improvement in other aspects of his game, hitting a mostly powerless .293 wOBA in May, but the word improvement is used in a strictly relative sense. Even then, much of the uptick comes from his new role as not just a DH, but a platoon DH. He’s 0 for the season against left-handed pitching, and has sat every time the Yankees have faced a lefty in the past two weeks. It has made his numbers appear nicer, but it does little to solve the underlying problem.
How big can the problem be? you might be asking. After all, the Yankees do have that sizable lead over the competitions’ offenses, and so they can probably afford to punt the DH spot. My hope is that everyone saw the sheer irrationality of that notion. Posada is a legacy, a lifetime Yankee who has produced some of the best numbers and biggest moments in recent team history. But he’s doing little to help the current team achieve its goal of winning the World Series. Even as the Yankees cut his playing time, they’re still not getting much production out of the DH spot, period. The team has a .286 wOBA in that spot, which ranks dead last in the league. Considering the Yankees’ vast resources, this is a missed opportunity.
For a moment let’s set aside the drama involved in excising Posada from the roster and focus on what the Yankees can do. The DH spot is, after all, probably the easiest to fill at this point in the season, and it represents the best opportunity for the Yankees to turn a weakness into a strength. Imagine their offense if they had even the fourth-best DH in the AL. They have a number of options both within and outside the organization that could help bring about this improvement.
The Option from Within
If the Yankees want the simplest fix to their problem, they could recall their best prospect, Jesus Montero. He ranks among the best prospects in the game, and even made the No. 3 spot on Keith Law’s updated list. Last year, as a 20-year-old in AAA he got off to a slow start but rallied in the second half to finish with a .375 wOBA. This year he’s been a bit better from the start, but is a bit under expectations at a .343 wOBA through 189 PA. If he heats up similarly in the second half he could not only help the Yankees solve their DH problem, but he could make them more flexible.
The one knock on Montero is his poor defense behind the plate. While the Yankees maintain that he can be an average defensive catcher in the majors, they are the only entity that holds that claim. Every other scouting body, from anonymous ones to Keith Law to Baseball America to Kevin Goldstein, believes that he’ll be quite terrible in a full-time catching role. If the Yankees want to continue his defensive development while bringing him onto the major league roster, they could employ him in the same manner as the Tigers have Victor Martinez. That is, backup catcher and primary DH.
Having one man fill both spots would give the Yankees incredible roster flexibility. They could option Francisco Cervelli, leaving another spot on the bench open for Eric Chavez when he returns. That way they could keep Chavez and Chris Dickerson (or Justin Maxwell if they want a right-handed bat) as a fifth outfielder. The deep bench would allow them to continue giving Alex Rodriguez and Derek Jeter half days off at DH while Montero catches or takes a breather. In that way it seems like the ideal solution. They get to 1) call up a top prospect, 2) presumably improve their biggest weakness, 3) continue rotating veterans at DH, 4) maintain a deep and flexible bench, and 5) still have reasonable playing time for everyone.
Of course, relying on a youngster, especially a 21-year-old, to step in and produce immediately can end in disappointment. Young players develop at different rates, and that sometimes involves struggles upon initial promotion. Since the primary aim of this exercise is to improve the DH spot, the other effects become less attractive if Montero doesn’t hit from the get-go. The prospect of his struggles could have the Yankees looking elsewhere.
Outside the Organization
This week we have spent time running down trade candidates that can help contenders. I found it curious, though, that neither the 1B/DH nor the corner outfielder post mentioned the Yankees as a possible destination for any of the targets. Both Eric and Jonah wrote about a number of players who could fit right into that DH spot. Furthermore, a couple of them would make the Yankees more versatile. I’ll list them form least to most likely.
Carlos Pena. The Cubs had their eyes on the NL Central crown when they signed Pena to a one-year, $10 million contract this past off-season. That plan has clearly gone awry. They’re currently 23-31, three games behind the Pirates and 8.5 games out of first. Pena could be one of the first guys they trade. They might find trouble finding a team to pay $5 million for a half season of Pena, but money is rarely, if ever, an object for the Yankees when they seek to improve. Pena is familiar with the AL East, and his pull-heavy ways would play well at Yankee Stadium. He would essentially replace Posada as the platoon DH against righties, while also being capable of giving Mark Teixeira a breather at first with little lost on defense.
Andre Ethier. This might seem even less likely than Pena, since Ethier would cost a great deal more in prospects if the Dodgers decide to make him available. He and Nick Swisher could split time between right field and DH. Ethier does have a considerably career platoon split, which would also leave room for him to sit against lefties so that A-Rod, Jeter, and Jones could get time at DH. Why, though, would the Yankees pay a considerably sum in prospects for Ethier? It would make sense if they planned to decline Swisher’s option after the season.
Jim Thome. The Twins had their eyes on another AL Central crown when they brought back Thome this winter, but as with the Cubs, that plan is no longer in play. They do have a few chips that could help improve future teams, as both Eric and Jonah noted. Thome could fetch them something useful, as he can still mash taters. That tater mashing ability would go a long way at Yankee Stadium. He’s currently on the DL with a hamstring issue, but he should be back in plenty of time for trade season. He might not be an ideal solution, since he would essentially be a one-to-one replacement for Poasda. But he should represent a significant improvement.
Carlos Beltran. Since the day Beltran returned to the field in April there has been speculation linking him to the Yankees. He would be one of the more versatile options available, since he can still play a quality outfield. In fact, a Brett Gardner, Curtis Granderson, Beltran outfield would represent one of the best defensive units in the league. The Yankees could keep the pressure off Beltran’s knees, too, with regular reps at DH. The only downside, if it can really be considered one, is that it leaves less room for A-Rod and Jeter to get half-days off as DH. But if Nick Swisher continues struggling against righties, he might render that point moot.
I’ve spent the past ten or so paragraphs pretending that the Yankees can simply cast Posada aside and insert a better DH into the lineup. It makes for fun hypotheticals, but the reality of the situation will make replacing him more difficult. Still, there comes a point, and it’s not too far off, where the Yankees simply have to do something. There are only so many areas where a contending team can improve, and there is no clearer area than DH for the Yankees. He still has a few weeks to turn things around, and we’ve seen older players, most notably David Ortiz, shake off unimaginably slow starts to turn in productive seasons. But that’s the exception, not the norm. If Posada continues struggling, the Yankees will have an opportunity to greatly improve their team. While there are sentimental ties to Posada, they’d be doing their team and its fans a great disservice by not doing anything about their DH problem.
Joe also writes about the Yankees at River Ave. Blues.
Actually, 3 players with double digit homers.
Yep. My bad. Don’t know why I typed two (it wouldn’t even be true).
Wilson Betemit.
They could also call up Jorge Vazquez, currently leading the minors in HR.
K’s too much in minors. Doesn’t walk. Would get obliterated in the majors.
Billy Butler.
Billy Butler is too young and under too much of a team-friendly contract for the Yankees.
I laughed
Ryan Doumit.
LANCE BERKMAN AGAIN!
Josh Willingham – if the A’s fall out of contention.
I’m not sure my give a fuck meter could be any lower.
I’m sure the rest of the country feels the same way about your favorite team too.
#callupmontero
#tradeMonterotousforEthier
I’d be surprised if the Yankees haven’t made a local call to check on the availability of both Beltran and K-rod. With the way Posada is hitting and with Soriano/Feliciano getting injured, both players would make a huge difference in the Bronx. Money shouldn’t be an object, and with Rivera as a closer it would prevent K-rod’s option from vesting. It seems like it would greatly improve the Yankees, and the Mets would get a few prospects and salary relief.
The title of the article made me do a double-take. “Yankees” and “disadvantage” do not belong in the same paragraph, much less a title.
Felix Hernandez
Let’s just all agree with Joe that if you’re not for sabermetrics you’re probably for slavery.
joepawl.tumblr.com
“Follow this to its logical conclusion
It won’t be long before we get the first wave of nonsense from stat-crazed dunces claiming there’s nothing to be learned from a batting average, won-loss record or RBI total. Listen, just go back to bed, OK? Strip down to those fourth-day undies, head downstairs (to “your mother’s basement and your mother’s computer,” as Chipper Jones so aptly describes it) and churn out some more crap. For more than a century, .220 meant something. So did .278, .301, .350, an 18-4 record, or 118 RBIs. Now it all means nothing because a bunch of nonathletes are trying to reinvent the game?
-Bruce Jenkins of the San Francisco Chronicle
For more than a century Americans owned slaves. I guess Bruce Jenkins approves of that, too. “
Americans, as in citizens of the USA, didn’t own slaves for more than 100 years. Close, but not quite 100.
The point remains that Bruce Jenkins is an idiot though. Lots of people thought cigarettes were really cool and good for you, and some people hold to that still. Doesn’t make it true though.
“The point remains that Bruce Jenkins is an idiot though.”
That might be true, but so is Joe Pawlikowski. Someone wrote something you didn’t like about SABR. OBVIOUSLY, the NATURAL COMPARISON to make is the brutal institution of slavery in the United States.
These poor, put-upon stats geeks. WE SHALL OVERCOME!
Do you understand how analogies work? The point of the analogy is that just because something was done for a long time doesn’t make it good. That’s the logical conclusion. Your conclusion that Joe believes “if you’re not for sabermetrics you’re probably for slavery” misses the point entirely.
“Do you understand how analogies work?”
I do understand how analogies work. I’m not convinced Joe Pawlikowski does.
The plight of a SABR blogger is in no way, shape, or form analogous to the history of slavery in the United States.
It was a very poor, very arrogant, very misguided, and very stupid analogy to make. Joe Pawlikowski needs to stick to baseball.
No Matthew, I hadn’t heard of analogies until you enlightened me.
Let’s substitute ‘slavery’ with the plight of your people, and see how that sits with you, though.
“The plight of a SABR blogger is in no way, shape, or form analogous to the history of slavery in the United States. ”
Give me a break. The plight of a SABR blogger is not being compared to slavery. Slavery as such is irrelevant to the point. Jenkins argues that x has been used for over a hundred years, and Joe points out in a reductio that y existed as long and was bad. To get hung up on the horrors of slavery is to miss the analogy.
“To get hung up on the horrors of slavery is to miss the analogy.”
Any way you look at it, it was an incredibly stupid analogy. I’m all for analyzing stats and numbers, but I hate the holier-than-thou attitude that often accompanies such analysis.
Pawlikowski wrote, “For more than a century Americans owned slaves. I guess Bruce Jenkins approves of that, too.”
It was an incredibly stupid and ridiculous thing to write. I honestly can’t believe you’re defending it. Just because someone can analyze linear weights and measures doesn’t make one a good writer.
Pawlikowski had his feelings hurt because someone dissed his precious stats, so he responded like so many SABR analysts do: with self-righteous stupidity.
“Pawlikowski wrote, “For more than a century Americans owned slaves. I guess Bruce Jenkins approves of that, too.”
It was an incredibly stupid and ridiculous thing to write.”
I don’t want to beat a dead horse, but I don’t agree. I don’t think its meant to be holier than thou, and I don’t see the stupidity. The statement “I guess Bruce Jenkins approves of that too” is absurd. As is Jenkins position that an 18-4 record meant something for over a century, etc. That’s how a reductio works. I’ll grant that its not a brilliant reductio but I fail to see what makes it arrogant, stupid, etc.
@Matthew:
can we substitute ‘slavery’ with the plight of your people — would that make it clearer for you?
“The statement ‘I guess Bruce Jenkins approves of that too” is absurd. As is Jenkins position that an 18-4 record meant something for over a century, etc…'”
Both statements might be absurd, but one statement is more clearly so. There were other, intelligent, avenues that Pawlikowski could have chosen to prove his point. Implying that Jenkins rejection of SABR means that he probably supports (or supported) the institution of slavery is thoroughly stupid to the point of being outrageous.
Sadly, many SABR analysts seem more concerned with being snarky and condescending than they are with advancing intelligent dialogue. I’m not stupid. I played the game of baseball through high school. I got my first copy of “Bill James’ Baseball Abstract” when I was nine-years-old.
Yet, countless times, whenever I have deigned to challenge some new sabermetric theory, I have been met with the odious attitude that Pawlikowski displays (in the statement at issue). Frankly, I don’t need to sit here and take someone’s BS just because they’re really into linear weights and measures.
Obviously, I value SABR analysis, otherwise, I wouldn’t be writing on this website. However, SABR doesn’t always discount other areas of baseball knowledge. Far too often, SABR practitioners like Pawlikowski give the attitude that “either you agree with every single thing I say, or you’re some backwards hick who couldn’t possibly understand the first thing about baseball.”
I’m going to try one more time. “The plight of your people” is irrelevant to the argument. Slavery is irrelevant to the argument. Joe could have said “for hundreds of years people rode horses instead of cars. I guess he believes that people should still be riding horses.” Joe is not in any way talking about the plight of the SABR blogger to anything. The only point being made is that the amount of time something is done doesn’t mean anything. PaulScarfo sarcastically states that he didn’t know what an analogy was until I enlightened him, but I’m not sure that he does as substituting the plight of my people is irrelevant to the point. Maybe slavery is so emotionally charged that Joe should have used another example, but this whole discussion is ridiculous. I’ll go back to the original point. Follow the argument to its logical conclusion. It has nothing to do with slavery per se or anyone’s belief in its legitimacy.
Matthew,
Substitute ‘America, 100+ yrs, slavery,’ with ‘the world, x# of yrs, the Holocaust,’ and run it by your parents.
Perhaps they can explain to you what a stupid, narcissistic douche the author sounds like here.
Yes, Matthew, we get that “The only point being made is that the amount of time something is done doesn’t mean anything.”
but it’s not “MAYBE slavery is so emotionally charged that Joe should have used another example.”
“Slavery is irrelevant to the argument. Joe could have said ‘for hundreds of years people rode horses instead of cars. I guess he believes that people should still be riding horses.'”
Mr. Pawlikowski could have said a lot of things, and most of them probably wouldn’t have been as mind-blowingly stupid as, “For more than a century Americans owned slaves. I guess Bruce Jenkins approves of that, too.”
Both Bruce Jenkins and Joe Pawlikowski were guilty of behaving like immature jackasses, IMO. To state that anyone who’s interested in SABR obviously never played the game and lives in his parents’ basement is a pointless and ridiculous statement to make. Pawlikowsi’s response was equally as pointless and ridiculous.
You write that the statement “has nothing to do with slavery per se or anyone’s belief in its legitimacy.” If that’s the case, why mention slavery at all? There are countless other analogies Pawlikowski could have made. Some of them might have been as odiously condescending, but they wouldn’t have been as stupid or offensive.
Al Martin
Trade for Vogelsong. Two birds one stone.
Luis Polonia
Nick Johnson!
The obvious choice. OBP man when healthy. Whenever that is, which is not often.
Is Mel Hall out of prison yet?
Prince Fielder would be the best solution.
Jim Thome? Not likely.
When you go to the Twins homepage at mlb.com the standings portion is missing and there is a career HR count for Thome is in its place. And for a good reason, watching Thome is THE reason to go to Twins games now.
You will know in less than 8 weeks what the Yankees will do, since that is the trade deadline. Actually, the Yankees have made their moves in early July the last couple of seasons to avoid the overpay for desirable players.
I expect Swisher to be putting up much better numbers by then, and the last ex- Mets who worked out for the Yankes were David Cone and Darryl Strawberry. (Sorry, Carlos). I would rate the Montero call-up the most likely outcome if Posada doesn’t pick up his game soon, with a surprise deal the second most likely move.
Carlos Zambrano: 4-day DH, 5th-day starter. BOOM.
LOVE this idea.
Why not let CC bat?
Pat Kelly!
He’s dead on right about the stats geeks.
Been watching and playing bb for 45 years, don’t need no stinking oWHO (or whatever the fudge they use) to tell when someone is a ballplayer or not.
Ruining the game as non bb fans are quickly alienated by the obscure (and silly) statistics that have become ‘normal’ in lots of reporting.
“Get off my lawn, you damn kids!”
Move the Yankees to the National League and let the pitchers hit. Or get rid of the DH. Or lose Posada. Or lose the AL East. Pick one.