Position Roundtables: Starting First Baseman
We continue our overviews of each roster spot with a look at the Mariners shiny new $50 million first baseman today.
Jeff: Starting First Baseman: Richie Sexson
If there is a bright side to getting nothing for a position, here it is: whoever takes over afterward is almost certain to look good by comparison. The revolving door-sinkhole that was first base last year (and how’s that for a mixed metaphor?) has given way to Richie Sexson. However observers felt about his exorbitant contract, he’s just about certain to be a performance upgrade, given just two words as a caveat.
Those words are: If. Healthy. And unfortunately, it’s far from certain that he will be.
Sexson is a huge man who generates tons of power with his swing. So much power, in fact, that just checking his swing popped Sexson’s shoulder out of joint, causing a bone bruise upon reattachment. As age sets in — he turned 30 in December — likelihood of injury doesn’t decrease. Even if the maladies aren’t of the season-ending variety, a power outage similar to Shawn Green’s is possible.
When watching Sexson this year, think: this is the season when his productivity is likely to be highest.
Maybe a combination revolving door-sinkhole isn’t such a bad image for this position after all. It conveys something spinning, spinning and heading ever downward.
Derek: Didn’t we think the same thing about Spiezio being an upgrade over Cirillo at third, though?
I’m going to ignore for now the issues of his contract, and his DUI.
What Sexson is likely to contribute next year would be great: a
power-hitting right-handed bat who’s also a top-tier defensive first
baseman. That’s what the Mariners are paying him for. If you place your
faith for a moment in the team’s doctors, figure in some decline from
aging, maybe a slow return from having not played regularly for a year,
the bottom of a healthy Sexson expectation is .260/.320/.500. That would have
made him the second-best hitter on last years team, behind only Ichiro! The best
outcome for a healthy Sexson is a return to peak form, maybe a
.270/.360/.550 season.
The unhealthy Sexson scenarios get ugly quick: Spiezio as a regular
no-hit first baseman, Ibanez as a no-glove option, possibly some
combination of players — it’s all unappealing.
To the larger long-term picture, though, maybe we are better off with no
solution here, even it means ugly play now. I’ve heard the argument that
Sexson, because he displays what are commonly called “old player”
skills, should age well because those skills will expand. But on the
largest level, that’s not what happens. Players who, while young, hit
for average, power, and have speed tend to lose speed as they age while
they draw more walks and hit for more power. Then as strength and
reflexes erode, the average and power decline.
A young player with low contact numbers, no speed but power, who relies
on walks as a big part of their game have in general shorter careers.
They don’t add walks and power. Sexson isn’t going to become infused
with Super Old Man powers and draw 200 walks and hit 90 home runs at age
33 — we’ve likely already seen close to his max there.
If Sexson’s healthy next season, he’ll be an asset to the team and
contribute to returning them to respectability. In future seasons, I’m not so sure.
Dave: Sexson requires two different discussions, really. We should know fairly
quickly if the shoulder is going to be a performance issue. There is a
possibility that he’ll perform at a lower level than expected, ala Shawn
Green, but I’d guess that the more realistic scenarios involve him either
being 100 percent healthy or spending significant time on the DL. If he
shows up to spring training, taking hundreds of cuts a day and whacking the
ball all over the field, I’ll feel a lot better. If something in the
shoulder pops early on, well, this will go down as one of the biggest free
agent blunders in recent memory.
So, in the discussion of healthy Sexson, what should we expect? As Derek
said, Sexson’s contact issues point to a historical trend that his type of
hitter does not age particularly well, but let’s also put this in context;
he’s 30, which is just barely past his prime years and not even
significantly into the decline phase yet. While the discussion of aging
patterns of players with old man skills is interesting and relevant to his
contract, it isn’t particularly pertinent to his 2005 performance. The
difference between the expected performance of a 28-year-old healthy Richie
Sexson and a 30-year-old healthy Richie Sexson aren’t going to be
tremendously different. His 2000-2003 performances paint a fairly
consistent picture of his prime level of production; .270/.340/.530 or so.
Those are good but not great numbers for a first baseman, but his defense
was well above average by most metrics (though not by UZR, probably the best
of the flawed metrics we have for measuring defense at the moment, which had
him as the equivalent of Jason Giambi with the glove).
So, depending on which defensive metric you think is most likely to nail
Sexson’s worth with the glove, we should reasonably expect Sexson to be
worth something like 5-7 wins over replacement level. If he’s healthy.
If he’s not, well, I don’t think its quite as dire as Derek makes it sound.
Speizio isn’t nearly as bad as he was last year, and Ibanez’s problems with
the position would probably be minimized by regular playing time at the
position. But we certainly don’t want IbanZio in the lineup at first base
too often. If the M’s hope to contend at all this year, they need a healthy
Sexson.
Derek: I’d say this, though — we don’t know what his level of performance is
going to be. The Mariners think they do, or they wouldn’t have signed
the deal, but until he’s out there we don’t know if we get a 100%
Sexson, a 70% Sexson, or a 0% Sexson. That scares me a lot.
As for Ibanez at first — here’s my problem with the “regular playing
time improves play” argument. How often is that really true? Are there
that many cases of a player who looked horrible at a a position
initially getting better? Even an improved version of Ibanez at first is
pretty bad.
Dave: I don’t know that this type of injury lends itself to the likelyhood of
there being a 70 % Sexson. To me, it seems like the shoulder’s either
permanently broken, taking his career down the drain with it, or it’s not,
and he’s fine. I think if we’re going to assume that Sexson is playing
regularly, that would lend itself to the assumption that we’ve got 100 %
Sexson.
Players changing positions, struggling initially, and improving as the year
goes on? How about Randy Winn, circa 2004?
Playing first base just isn’t all that hard, especially if you have some
kind of lateral mobility. Ibanez isn’t quick by any means, but he’s got the
athletic skill to move side to side better than most major league first
baseman, and I fail to see why his reactions wouldn’t improve with
repitition.
Jason: The consensus seems to be that if Sexson’s healthy, he’ll hit; it’s
simplistic, I suppose, but I agree. He’s established himself as a .270′s
type of hitter with some walks and power. Sort of a Jay Buhner-lite, if you
will — more contact and a higher average, but fewer walks (though it’s
worth noting he walked 98 times in 2003). Even taking a bite out of his
numbers for Safeco, I think he can hit in the .260/.350/.500 range. Not
stellar, of course, but not awful for the position.
As for his health, I’m with Dave in that it’s probably an all-or-nothing
affair. If you look at Sexson’s career, he’s been quite durable — 148 games
played in 2000, 159 in 2001, 157 in 2002 and all 162 in 2003. If the
shoulder’s fine, there should be no reason he won’t play 150 or so games
next season.
If the shoulder’s not? I’d rather not think about that.
Comments
80 Responses to “Position Roundtables: Starting First Baseman”
Setting aside the injury caveat, allow me to provide some perspective to the data. As an ardent NL Central observer, Richie Sexson was a pleasure to watch.
Why? Because he so obviously worked to get better. He worked on controlling the strike zone and his walks increased. He worked on his defense and went from awful to pretty good. He worked on fighting off the inside pitch which previously tied him up and ended up driving enough over the fence pitchers had to adjust.
Richie’s shoulder is an issue. But his work ethic should still be in tact. For all your fussing about the M’s largesse I think you will be surprised at the return on the investment. Pleasantly.
What about park effects? I know nothing about the stadium in Milwaukee, but how do y’all think Safeco will affect those best-case scenario numbers?
A comment on Sexson, and one on Ibanez. Re: Richie, don’t assume that we’re out of the woods if he hits reasonably well in camp. He could hit decently for 375 ABs, and on the 376th blow his shoulder all over again. To the reports I saw in the papers, for what they’re worth, it was _a lot more_ than a ‘bone bruise’: it was a torn labrum due to the force of his follow-through when he came back from the _initial_ dislocation. Richie will have a bunch of scar tissue in his shoulder socket where healthy muscle fibers used to be. The issue is really how well that scar tissue holds up to the force of his swing over time. Until Sexson has a year of ABs under his belt, I don’t think anyone, most especially the Tall Timber himself, can project how he’ll last physically. From the kinds of test the Mariners medicos were doing, I have the feeling that they were assessing nerve damage and blood flow, i.e. does he have normal muscle function in the shoulder. —But that reall won’t tell them jack about how well that scar tissue will hold up. I really don’t like to think about this, but the money is spent, so there it is. Sexson’s injury is, to me, the worst of anybody who was on the market this offseason. Now, Richie may come back, and come back all the way, and _stay_ back near the peak of his game. But we won’t know until a year from now. I wouldn’t put any money on that outcome, not that I wish Sexson any ill will, but as I said the money’s spent so there’s no point moaning now.
Re: Raul’s D at 1B, the issue with playing first base well is not lateral range. As far as I can tell, range is of minimal importance at first. The issue(s) are: a) quick hands for the bad hop, and most especially b) sealing off the low ball. What made Ole Olerud so good was that he as incredibly effective at gloving the low ball, and secondarily that he had great extention to haul in errant throws. Now Sexson also had that great extension, and seemed fairly quick-handed, especially for a big man; I believe that his defense was superior, and since his _right_ arm and feet are unaffected his D should continue to be superior. Raul’s problem at first isn’t his lateral range, which may or may not be that good, it’s that he’s miserable at getting low for the low ball, and doesn’t seem to have much hand quickness, either. Even in the outfield, I recall Raul being very poor on daisy cutters and otherwise getting low. To put it simply, Raul does not have the physical package to play 1B defensively period. More PT there isn’t likely to improve the apparent fact that his knees are stiff and his low back stiffer after his time as a catcher, or whatever. Bucky Jacobsen also seemed to really lack hand quickness over at first; balls bounced OFF his glove. Spezio is the only guy other than Sexson who appears a defensive option at 1B, and again Scott has that 3Bmen’s hand quickness and knack for the low ball—but I fully expect Spezio to be gone by the end of spring training, so I don’t count on him being around for a rebound, assuming that _his_ back is sound, which I wonder seriously about.
Pray that Richie is healthy, or this whole nexus will be one of grayest woe for the homeside in ’05.
“Maybe a combination revolving door-sinkhole isn’t such a bad image for this position after all. It conveys something spinning, spinning and heading ever downward.”
Didn’t you just describe a toilet?
Also, isn’t the 70% Sexson scenario equivalent to Shawn Green? Healthy enough to play, but without the power of old.
The injury caveats seem urgent enough that you wonder why the Mariners weren’t prescient enough to write an “out” clause into Sexson’s contract the same way the Tigers did with Magglio Ordonez. The two are similar in some ways … close in age, coming off a catastrophic injury in 2004, at about the same place in the perceived star pantheon. Why would one potentially get $50 million for doing what could well be nothing?
I’m not even sure that his shoulder is the biggest risk, here. I mean, does anyone think Sexson’s going to repeat his 2003 season for the next four years? Because that’s what we’re paying him to do.
I’m guessing he winds up similar to Jeff Bagwell of the last two years; overpaid but still productive, which will shield him from criticism.
What about Scott Hatteberg as someone who started TERRIBLE at 1B and ended up not too terrible? Or am I fooling myself because he had a nice (offensive) season last year?
If you believe the DT translations, Hatteberg was an abysmal defensive 1B last year. Worse, in fact, than in each of the previous two seasons.
#2 ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE SAME DOCTORS WHO SAID OMARS KNEE WAS NO GOOD? THINK BACK WE COULD HAVE HAD OMAR ARE SANTIAGO?MAYBE WE NEED A NEW MEDICAL STAFF TO GO WITH THE NEW TEAM.
What’s with all the “Sean Green-type decline” talk?
I’m not exactly sure when Green’s injury happened, so lets see if the stats tell the whole story.
Green:
1998: 72 XBH, .510 SLG
1999: 87 XBH, .588 SLG
2000: 72 XBH, .472 SLG
2001: 84 XBH, .598 SLG
2002: 74 XBH, .558 SLG
2003: 70 XBH, .460 SLG
2004: 57 XBH, .459 SLG
Between 02-03, he had a big SLG drop. His AVG stayed pretty consistant those years, and XBH stayed pretty close, so the droppoff in SLG was really just his HR dropping just before the wall and going for doubles. I’m going out on a limb here** and saying this is when his injury happened.
Not really sure what’s going on between 03-04. His HRs actually started to come back a little, but doubles fell off big. His AVG also fell in 04, and he’s two years older than Sexson, so part of the drop is probably just normal decline that Sexson will hopefully be able to hold off for a couple years. This is just a completely blind guess, but he may have just been swinging for the fences last year, hoping to get his HR power back.
All you guys keep talking about Green being the worst-case scenario, but if “HRs turning into doubles” is the worst case, I can think of a lot of worse things to happen to a ballplayer. $12 million is a whole lot of money to pay for a double-hitting 1B, but Green also hasn’t missed more than 5 games a year since his injury, so assuming Sexson’s isn’t too much worse, I’ll assume good health until another injury happens (knock on wood).
** Sarcasm is so hard to convey in the written word.
Forgive me if this is an ignorant question (and it may well be!), but does Bucky Jacobsen figure into this equation at any point? Is he too hopeless with the leather to be part of the Ibanzio alternative at first?
Long time reader, first time poster here:
Sometimes I tend to question the intelligence of the front office, however in the case of Sexon’s contract, I have to believe the M’s took out insurance before signing him to such money. Thoughts?
No insurance for a pre-existing injury.
JSM,
The only problem with insurance is that insurance companies are less and less willing to insure contracts after some hefty contracts they’ve picked up in the past. From what I’ve read, the days of insured deals are fewer and fewer, particularly with a guy like Sexson and his shoulder woes.
That said, while I don’t like the dollar amount they signed Sexson to, I’m sure they did their homework. IIRC, Sexson commented on the depth and detailed physical the Mariners gave him before signing him to the contract. I trust the medical abilities to thoroughly test the shoulder, although replicating his injury would be difficult.
If there was any question that his shoulder wasn’t healed, I just don’t see a conservative team like the Mariners pulling the trigger on the deal. I think (and hope) he’s fine.
the only “insurance” they took out on sexson was intense probing by the doctors. the day and age of teams getting great deals on player insurance from companies like Lloyds of London is long gone. The insurance industry realized that it wasn’t cost-effective for them, hence no more insurance allowed on already pre-injured players…
and i want to provide an optimistic bent. i’m going on the concept of him being healthy. question: when was the last time Richie had support around him in a batting order? wouldn’t the additional support of an excellent lead off hitter, a good #2 (Winn/Reed) and a definite upper tier #3 hitter (Beltre) along with a solid #5 #6 (Ibanez/Boone) lead to some growth in Sexson’s stats. Particularily his walks?
I know that when a player has support he doesn’t try to do as much himself, and perhaps this could lead Sexson to actually reach toward that .280 range, with higher OBP and maybe ever a career high in runs scored with better low-order support to knock him in.
I’m really unconvinced that defense at 1B is the huge plus people make it out to be, unless you are Keith Hernandez and can play halfway to second base (and effectively, you get close to an extra infielder). There’s a reason why lummoxes who have good bats get stationed at 1B- it’s where lack of defense hurts you least (as opposed to putting a lummox at short).
Thus, the “OMG Ibanez and Bucky are TEH SUXX0R on D” if Sexson goes down…well, I’m not so worried, as long as we’re not talking Dick Stuart “Dr. Strangeglove”-esque levels of incompetence, but merely “meh, a better 1B would have gotten that one” every couple of weeks. I think the fact that Ibanez and Speizio are pretty bad at the plate for a 1B (and would could be sucking time away from Bucky, possibly) would be more of a concern to me. It seems to me the logical thing to do is go with Bucky at 1B, Spiezio as the defensive replacement and 1B against lefties (with Bucky sliding to DH), and limit Ibanez to DH duty against righties.
In general, it’s impossible to insure contracts longer than 3 years, as well, so even without the pre-existing injury, Sexson’s a guaranteed cost, regardless of productio or health.
Every time I get the chance, I ask Will Carroll for more information on Richie’s shoulder. This sort of subluxation apparently always reoccurs (as Richie’s already did), even with surgery (which Richie has had), and while it’s an unusual injury in baseball, giving us fewer immediately relevant data points, it’s quite a common injury among rugby players (Go Wales!), where we can watch player after player go down with it.
So, Dave and Derek are right to expect an all or nothing Richie Sexson. He should be able to play at 90-100% until he suffers another subluxation, which he almost certainly will. But when?
Ideally, Richie has figured out that he can’t check his swing. Not again, not ever. If he never checks his swing, that will remove the majority of the injury risk.
And, if you’ve seen the footage of either of Richie’s first two injuries, you know how painful it is. If Richie’s injury reoccurs, we should know about it within seconds.
rEMEMBER THESE GUYS SAID OMARS KNEE WOULDNT HOLD UP!!!!!!!!!YES IM REPEATING THIS STATMENT FOR A REASON ARE LET ME SAY 50 MILLION REASONS!!!!!
While Sexson’s injury is different than the injuries that Bagwell and Green suffered, (both Green and Bags injuries were on the inside shoulder), they do provide an interesting comparison. Bags and Green both had shoulder surgeries in late October (2001 and 2003 respectively). Both players performed under their career norms in the first half of the following year, but as the season progressed their performance improved, especially Green (.253/.335/.399 vs .281/.371/.529). Since Sexson had surgery back in June, he will have had ample recovery time and will return to some form of his old self sooner rather than later.
#17: If Richie has “figured out he can’t check his swing. Not again, not ever”, should we reasonably expect that because of this his strikeout rate will increase proportionally to an even higher level?
#5 “you wonder why the Mariners weren’t prescient enough to write an “out†clause into Sexson’s contract the same way the Tigers did with Magglio Ordonez”
Jim — I’m sure the Mariners would have loved to have put an injury clause in the Sexson deal (much as they’d have loved to have added a
“won’t suck” clause in Jeff Cirillo’s contract before approving the trade with Colorado). But plain and simple the reason they didn’t get it is that Sexson would never heve signed a deal in December with that clause. In recent memory, only two players have agreed to these “out” clauses and both guys (Ordonez this year and Pudge last year) signed in late January or early February with an organization that very few players want to play for. The only reason those players signed those deals was that there were no comparable long-term offers and Boras chose those deals over one-year contracts from other clubs. With Baltimore also hot for Sexson it doesn’t appear that the M’s would have been able to get Sexson to agree to a deal with an “out” clause even if they’d waited.
In any event, the Mariners could not have afforded to have waited to have signed free agents this year (and w/o Sexson they might not have gotten Beltre) or they’ve have jeopardized a large portion of their season ticket base (as it is, even with the Beltre and Sexson signings it appears season tickets are down a bunch).
#20: Probably.
There are two ways that can happen. If he approaches the at-bat as he always has, but just never checks his swing, we’ll see more Ks and fewer hits and walks.
If instead he adopts an überpassive Mike Cameron/John Olerud approach, where he swings the bat very rarely, we should see an increase in both Ks and walks, which would have very little impact on his overall value.
What would be the impact of a DUI conviction on 1) his 2005 season; and, 2) any contract terms which could void the contract?
What would be the effect of a DUI conviction on 1) 2005 playing time; and, 2) voiding his contract?
Answer either question. I’m not picky.
I don’t see how they can convict him of a DUI. The guy passed the breathing tests twice. Unlike Carlos who did everything wrong it sounds more like Sexson new what to do to get out of it.
As for his performance this year lets just say I’m going to cringe every time I see him check his swing. We could probably go another 100 posts on his health.
The whole “Beltre might not have signed if Sexson hadn’t” thing is just patently untrue. I flat out guarantee you that Beltre was signing here for the same price regardless of whether Sexson signed or not.
The fact that the M’s had made an offer to Sexson and Delgado was a positive factor in recruiting Beltre, but there was no need to sign Sexson before Beltre in order to get Adrian to put his pen to paper.
First, two caveats:
I haven’t done a lot of research on Richie’s specific injuries and I am not a doctor.
However, I’ve subluxated my left shoulder numerous times. In fact, I did it again yesterday while playing basketball. I’ve done it on the soccer field, basketball court and on my bike (well, I wasn’t exactly on the bike when it happened.)
Most of mine were minor subluxations, but every time it gets worse. My doctors have always stayed away from surgery and told me to do exercises that strengthen the muscles around my rotator cuff after I let it heal in a sling for 3 weeks. They stayed away from surgery mainly for one reason and the reason was the same with three different doctors: surgery is not a guarantee to fix the problem.
Unlike how broken bones are often stronger once they heal, tendons and ligaments stretch when they are damaged. Cartilage tears and does not repair itself in the same way bone does. Thus it often becomes easier to subluxate or dislocate your shoulder.
Depending on the success of the surgery, Richie’s rehab regimen and his work ethic regarding keeping that area strong he could avoid seriously reinjuring his shoulder in the future or his arm could fall off the first time he checks his swing or misses a line drive through the gap and catches himself on a stiff arm.
I have to agree that his return to form will either be all or nothing. Until it happens again, and it most likely will during the life of his long contract, there may be nothing to worry about. From what I’ve read his injury and surgery was different than Shawn Green’s so I don’t see that as a good comparison. Green basically had his labrum removed. There was a noticeable hitch in his swing after and he lost power. There is no reason to expect that from Richie. He will most likely feel and perform fine and then when it happens again he’ll be out until it heals or they do surgery again. That sounds like common sense when I type it, but I am trying to make the point that in my opinion it won’t affect him at all, until it happens again.
Let’s just hope for his sake and the Mariners’ that it doesn’t happen in the next five years and it’s not serious when it does.
Sorry, I hope for the Mariners’ sake he doesn’t reinjure it in the next four years, not five. And for his sake, I hope he never does it again. It hurts and slings suck.
Keep in mind the D’Backs had an offer on the table to Sexson that was similar to Ordonez’s (in that not all the money was guaranteed if his injury flared up).
It didn’t fly- so why would one from the M’s fly?
What I’m rooting for is that we draft a corner player who’s going to progress fast through the minors with our high draft pick- a Jeff Bagwell type. That way, when Sexson is hitting .240/.310/.475 and providing little value as a DH in 2008, it won’t hurt so much…if you don’t mind the tangent, any idea who this could be aside from Mayberry Jr.?
Alex Gordon, 3rd baseman, Nebraska. If you want a big slugging corner infielder who can get to the majors quickly, you’ll love him.
Spunds good. I’m a bit tired of our best players coming up or being drafted being variations on “speedy, underpowered outfielder” (Reed, Snelling, Choo) and “loads of athletic talent without a solid projection for major league position” (Tui, Morse, Balantien), along with “trainwreck of high school pitcher” (Ryan Anderson, Sam Mays). Give me a guy who can mash for a change.
re using Jacobsen in a platoon with Ibañez. I’ve mentioned before and I’ll continue to mention it periodically.
Jacobsen has historically hit right-handed pitching significantly better than left-handed pitching.
#26- they can convict him of DUI if a court/jury finds that he was impaired. The fact that he tested under the limit certainly is helpful for him but a person can be impaired at a BA of under .08. He apparently flunked the physical tests at the scene which suggests impairment.
I’d expect a plea bargain to a lesser charge.
Certainly this is a concern for the team but given the number of athletes getting into more serious criminal trouble, why would a DUI (1) in the offseason, (2) not involving an accident, (3) involving a low BAC, have any effect on his playing time, his performance, or his contract?
Clearly he needs to do some things including getting an alcohol assessment and some counseling and an apology — and a better one than Giambi gave — but this shouldn’t affect his on-field performance.
Assuming, of course, that it isn’t a sign of an alcohol problem. I would think, if he had a significant alcohol problem, we’d have heard something about that by now.
Uh, I was suggesting platooning Ibanez with Spiezio, not Bucky (sliding Bucky to DH and putting Spiezio in at 1B with a lefty on the hill). Ibanez historically has REALLY sucked against lefties- and while his 2004 data appears at odds with his 3 year splits, his BB/K ratio and lower power leads me to believe he got lucky with some singles in 2004 to boost his BA, and he’ll fall back to earth some. Spiezio, OTOH, has a bit better numbers against lefties in his 3 year splits, and you’d be giving him a defined role where if he does bounce back.
I’d have been cool with this arrangement coming into ST in the alternate universe where we DON’T sign Sexson but DO sign Beltre and Reese, with two other signings- a low cost additional bench bat to give us an additional option, and decent utility IF to replace Bloomquist and sub for Reese during his 30 games on the DL, and spending the rest of the money on Matt Clement. To put it another way- if Sexson is 5-7 wins over replacement value, I think a Bucky/Ibanez/Spiezio 3 headed platoon for DH and 1B is maybe 3-5…plus what you get for Clement and a deeper bench.
But we don’t live in that alternate universe…oh, well.
Another nice discussion. I really like this roundtable format. Well done.
I was pleasantly surprised that three of your four looked at the first base situation without simply writing the whole contract off as a sure-fire albatross. Sure, they overpaid. Nobody reall denies that. However, it seems like a lot of the discussion on the blogosphere seem to suggest that there is a 50/50 chance that Sexson will never play baseball again, and if he does, he will be only a marginal improvement over Spiezio.
I agree with Dave that we should know a lot about Sexson’s healthy right away. If he is hitting like he is capable (when healthy) through spring training and a month or so into the season, I think that the M’s are in the clear. Plus, if he starts off slow, he could strengthen as the season goes on, as Shawn Green seemed to do. Sure, Sexson could reinjure himself in 2006. However, I think that it is safe to say that every month that Sexson plays baseball at a high level, the chances of him reinjuring his shoulder goes down. Lets just hope that he comes to camp healthy and hits immediately.
One thing that I totally disagree with that seems to be persistent in these comments is the notion that Sexson – or any baseball player for that matter – automatically enters a ‘decline phase’ the day he turns 30. People seem to treat this as if it is a real thing, like menopause. The idea of a ‘decline phase’ is that every player will reach a point where their performance begins to decline independently of injury or other factors besides age. However, every player enters this phase at different times. Barry Bonds, at age 40, is still not in his decline phase. Thus, you can’t really tell when a player is in decline until they are already close to the end or their career, and you can’t be 100% sure until they are retired. Some people might see this as just a semantic tangent, but many on this blog seem to think that players follow some ‘real’ bell curve of performance that exists independently of each individual player.
Sexson is not in decline. His 2004 season was a waste because of injury, but he had his best ML season in 2003. From 2001-2003, his BB rates and BB/SO rates improved each year. Although for some reason in 2002 he hit a lot more doubles and a lot less HRs, you can see a gradual improvement in his peripheral stats every year of his career, with the only exceptions being when he changes leagues in 2000-2001 and last year, when he was injured.
Thus, when Jeff asks, “I mean, does anyone think Sexson’s going to repeat his 2003 season for the next four years?”, perhaps a better question is to ask, “Why can’t Sexson improve on his 2003 season in 2005 and 2006?” Really, barring his injury season, there is a clear trend in his stats that suggest that he was becoming a better hitter, especially with plate discipline. This is important because plate discipline is A) the biggest hole in Sexson’s game and B) what happens to good players as they get older.
For some reason, people seem to think that players will ALWAYS peak at age 28, with deline setting in precisely at age 30. However, there are loads of similar players who have managed to continue to play at a very high level, and improve, after age 30. I will not even talk about Barry Bonds, because he is such a strange case. Jim Thome is one of the few guys in baseball who is more of a ‘pure slugger’ than Sexson, and he has had some of the best years of his career at age 30-33 and is still going strong. Carlos Delgado, who also has the classic ‘old player’ skillset, had one of his best seasons at age 31, and finished 2004 hitting as well as he ever has. Mark McGwire started his career with a bang, had several bad years, then had by far his most productive years between age 31-35. Jeff Bagwell also had his best years after age 30, and was still a very good player at age 34. Andres Galarrage and Rafael Palmiero didn’t really start to play at a high level until they were well past 30 (although Coors and roids could play a big role with both). Even the posterboy for the ‘old player skills’ argument, Mo Vaughn had big seasons when he as 30-32, and was still a decent player until he was 34.
If Vaughn is the worst case scenario, then the M’s should be OK with Sexson. However, it is not realistic to think that Sexson has hit some immovable wall just because he is past age 30. For a big slugger, he is a pretty athletic guy, and has been very durable over the course of his career. I am not saying that Sexson is a sure-thing to have career years for the next few seasons. However, it is by no means beyond the realm of possiblity.
The Mark McGwire comparison is not actually that unrealistic. If you compare Sexson and McGwire at the same points in their careers, Sexson was actually a better player than McGwire, who in his supposed ‘peak’ in 1993 put up numbers similar yet not quite as good as Sexson did a decade later, in 2003. McGwire then had a series of injuries for the next two years, after which he started to really hit the ball well. From age 32-35, he had four seasons of 50+ HRs. McGwire and Sexson are both huge guys, although Sexson is a better athlete. I know that a lot of people must be thinking “lets get Sexson on Andro ASAP, wink wink” but I don’t think that you can attribute all his production to steroids.
The point is, 2003 is not the absolute ceiling for Sexson. Further, there is nothing magical about age 30, and there is not one single shred of data that supports the contention that Sexson is in decline. Sexson does have a lot of question marks. However, if you are going to dwell on worst-case scenarios, you should at least consider the best case scenarios.
The decline isn’t a worst-case scenario. It’s an expected mean. If we had 100 players like Sexson, we should expect all of them, taken generally, to decline. Some of them won’t, sure; that’s the best case scenario. The worst case scenario is that he suffers a career-ending injury in spring training.
A steady decline is a happy medium, and the most likely outcome given what we know about players like Sexson. Don’t misrepresent it as a worst-case scenario. Far from it: several big things have to go right for Sexson to decline gracefully as the contract runs.
So yeah, best case, Sexson returns to his pre-injury upward trend. But the worst case is that Sexson never again faces another competitive pitch. Predicting something between those two seems somehow more sensible.
#33 HOW TO YOU CALL 160 ATBATS HISTORICCALLY MASHING RHP?THE GUY HAS TO PROVE HIMSELF FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS BEFORE WE START DROOPING HISTORICALLY ON THEM DONT YOU THINK?
Bucky has significantly more than 160 at-bats against RHP in the minor leagues. Bucky’s playing time at the major-league level is still a remarkably small sample size, given the man’s obvious skill. Looking at his minor-league stats, he clearly does not have the big platoon split that would make a Bucky/Ibanez platoon sensible.
#38 – The record:
vs LHP:
204 AB
.255 AVG
.500 SLG
vs RHP
515 AB
.297 AVG
.551 SLG
It’s pretty unlikely that Jacobsen all of sudden forgot how to hit against RHP. That 515 AB vs RHP compiled in 2002 and 2003 is much more statistically significant than is 160 AB is over about two months in 2004.
Did you think I didn’t bother to look up his stats before posting?
I am still unclear as to why Bucky is going to be a bench player and not, at the very least, the DH more often that Ibanez. He’s cheaper, and Ibanez’s numbers don’t figure to be that much different than Winn or Reed’s. Sure, he’s got less experience in the majors, but he has an excellent minor league track record, especially in 2004. By trading Ibanez or Winn, you sacrifice some average, yes, but add much more power. Not to mention that Choo might be ready to take an outfield spot maybe near the end of 2005.
And on a side note, there is a reason for the Caps Lock tab.
#41: And spell check.
—
And in regards to the Ibanez/Bucky DH qualm, I would like to allow Ibanez to start at DH for the first part of the season. Give Bucky lots of at bats as the Designated Pokey Pinch Hitter, and allow Ibanez to falsely bolster his value. Then, come July, we could theoretically flip him off (with other guys (prospects) of course) for either a front line starter (if we’re in contention) or a shiny prospect (if we aren’t), and give Bucky, who has been quietly mashing the ball on the bench, the starting job at DH. Bucky can provide us with some pop, and we’ll have a good pitcher. The team will look real good come August 1st. Before that, we’ll still have a decent lineup. Ibanez isn’t that bad. Bucky is better, but long term, if we can dump Ibanez to make room for Bucky to have a guaranteed job, I’d rather start Ibanez for the first few months, if only to bolster his trade value.
You make a very good point about the trade value with Ibanez but I have to agree with Saul on this one because Bucky Jacobsen is too valuable of a player to be sitting on the bench and there is no way he can ever be a utility man so he needs to be starting at DH and here is how the Ms should do that. Trade Randy Winn for a prospect or a veteran reliever then you keep Ibanez in left because he has a much better arm from left then Winn ever had. Winn has always been a solid player but I would much rather have Ibanez with his stronger more accurate arm in left than have Winn(who i am not saying is a bad player but he is spotty on the defense and Reed is amazing at tracking fly balls and covering center). Then you give Bucky the DH position because even though he had surgery on his knee he is a tough SOB and will ultimately have similar averages with Winn but will have MUCH better power numbers. In my opinion, in 162 games he could put up 35+ homeruns. Ibanez showed what he can do last year when he is healthy and I know we will eventually trade him but having him healthy is a huge asset to the Team and Winn is way to incosistent in my mind to be more deserving of Ibanez’s Reed’s or Bucky’s spot.
And the Caps Locks is quite handy so don’t playa hate
That is my personal preference, but the M’s FO seems very reluctant to part with Winn. I would like to wait until the middle to end of the spring and see where we fall. I don’t think we necessarily need a veteran reliever, but I don’t think Winn is worth a starter that would be any better than what we have. I would try to trade Winn for a good, lefty hitting utility guy (Mike Lamb? Preferably someone who can play short, though) and a lower level pitching prospect.
Can somebody, anybody, anyone at all give me some sort of historical precedent involving a man with Sexson’s physique and the injury sustained? I’m not argueing the contract or anything else, I just want something to either pin my hopes to or lose them all together.
While Winn may be inconsistent in terms of his pre and post-All-Star splits, he has been incredibly consistent over the last three years:
2002: 152 Games, 607 AB, 87 Runs, 181 Hits, 39 2B, 9 3B, 14 HR, 75 RBI, 27/35 SB, .298/.360/.461
2003: 157 Games, 600 AB, 103 Runs, 177 His, 37 2B, 4 3B, 11 HR, 75 RBI, 23/28 SB, .295/.346/.425
2004: 157 Games, 626 AB, 84 Runs, 179 Hits, 34 2B, 6 3B 14 HR, 81 RBI, 21/28 SB .286/.346/.427
I’m still torn about whether or not to keep Winn or Ibanez when one of them inevitably has to go, most likely via a trade. Ibanez has more power potential and a better arm, but Winn it very consistent and can steal bases and run well. however, Ibanez has been fairly consistent over the last seasons as well. Assuming the trade is mid-season, Ibanez could be traded as was mentioned in #42 for a good deal and we could count on Winn’s second-half production that has been historially more solid over the last two seasons. Alternately, if Ibanez is doing much better than Winn, we could keep Ibanez in left with a bit more power and sell Winn based on what I’m assuming will be decent numbers and a recent history of second-half improvement. As long as Bucky become a full-time DH as soon as possible, I’m happy.
I’m thinking a guy like Craig Counsell, but obviously not him as he can’t be traded yet.
Trade Randy Winn for a prospect or a veteran reliever then you keep Ibanez in left because he has a much better arm from left then Winn ever had.
Since we’re on the digression I contributed to (sorry), let me point out that arm strength has NEVER been a requirement for LF. Lou Brock basically had a HOF career with a wet noodle of an arm in LF.Typically, the only reason you have a good arm in LF is you have a better arm in RF.
Anyway, to tie this in with Sexson, Bucky’s problem is Sexson blocks him, and Bavasi still doesn’t grok minor league performance numbers the way a sabremetrician would- thus overvaluing FA talent (Sexson) and undervaluing free talent (Bucky). Hopefully Mats Olkin will change this, and somehow Bucky and Sexson mash 50+ HR’s this year…
You do make a good point about the Arm strength and Lou Brock but I believe that even though Ibanez is much slower than Winn he is a much better all round player. But agreeing with Saul again I would trade either to get Bucky at bats and I think that if Bucky does get at bats the middle of our lineup can fair with any other in the Majors. Boone is in a contract year so he should be solid. Sexson an amazingly powerful hitter. Beltre someone who should of had broke out 2 years ago if not for surgery then Bucky who looks like the guy on the Brawny paper towels and at least twice as good as baseball.
The reason to prefer Winn over Ibañez in left field is range. Center field gets the most plays, but left field gets more than right field. Being able to get to more balls (catching balls before they drop or keeping them from getting into the gap) is more important than having a strong arm.
Yeah but when you think about it no team is gonna try to sac fly to right against us and i just would like a stronger arm in left because the M’s organization knows how to build a winning team on defense. But I will agree with Steve about the range Winn has and Winn can really build momentum with his stealing ability. SO the only thing that can ever determine this is if one goes down in Spring Training
I’m not sure how Ibanez is a “much better player” than Winn. Winn is better defensively by any measure other than arm strength and had a VORP of 34.6 compared to Ibanez’s 30.1 last year. Sure, VORP isn’t everything, but, particularly since Ibanez’s performance last year was a bit aberrent from a hit rate standpoint, he’s probably going to regress in 2005. You can point out that Ibanez is left-handed, but so is Winn in the only situation in which Ibanez isn’t pitiful — against RHP. Winn is a switch-hitting, solid offensive player with some measure of pop, speed, and the range of a center fielder. Ibanez is a solid offensive player without much defensive value and, for someone with his lack of speed, a lack of power. I like Ibanez and think he’s decent. He is not, however, “much better than” Winn.
You know, I now regret almost every bad thing I’ve ever said about Randy Winn on the blog. The fact that he’s so underrated by our readers just astounds me.
The man is a good player. Trading him for a utility player, a middle reliever, or a prospect just to give more at-bats to Bucky Jacobsen is, well, stupid.
Randy Winn is incredibly underrated. He would improve almost every team in baseball as a starter, either in left or center, including the Yankees.He is also an excellent value. We should only trade him if we get a good starting pitcher or prospect in return, or in order to dump Spiezio’s salary. We absolutely should not be simply looking to get rid of his contract.
Well since I guys just handed it to me I will admit that now my view on Winn is different but how is trading Winn for a reliever stupid???? The M’s have an amazingly crowded outfield and why not use an outfielder to help build up our biggest weakness?
We don’t need any relievers. We’ve got a lot of relievers to sort through this year and adding another just hinders our ability to figure who is worth keeping.
#52, 53, 54
Thank you, thank you.
I too have gotten tired of all the glib disparaging of Randy Winn. The M’s outfield may be crowded, but keep in mind that the Winn-Cameron-Ichiro configuration was one of the best in the league.
To reiterate from 52-54, Winn is a good and valuable player, both offensively and defensively — trading him for a reliever may or may not be stupid, but it’s hardly something the M’s should automatically do simply because the outfield’s “amazingly crowded.”
RE #53:
Perhaps it is stupid to trade Winn for more at-bats by Bucky, but is it stupid to trade Ibanez then for the same purpose? We have minor leaugers that are nearly ready to be fourth outfielders, and as we all know, the primary purpose of the DH is to hit. Neither Winn or Ibanez can slug like Bucky will be able to.
The Mariners are going to see a steady diet of RHP this year and have only SEVEN guys on the spring training roster who can be expected to have above replacement level OBP against righties. Three of these are Winn, Ibanez, and Reed. So those guys are going to play most every day (one at DH). Their value to the team can’t be overstated–and so none of them is going to be traded.
Bucky has value only when a leftie is pitching, which won’t be very often. Minor league stats don’t translate so well when you’re talking about hitting a major league curve ball.
#53 – Amen to that. I don’t necessarily think it was you blog or any blogs fault for that matter, but there seems to be an army who believe that Winn’s usefulness falls somewhere in between Dustan Mohr and Ricky Ledee.
Minor league stats don’t translate so well when you’re talking about hitting a major league curve ball.
And you’re proof of that statement is ……?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but won’t all minor leaguers face big league cureveballs when they make it to the majors? If that premise is correct (and I’m pretty sure it’s correct), then by your logic aren’t all minor league hitting stats suspect?
Steve – where can you find splits like that for minor leaguers? Thebaseballcube’s pretty limited in the stats they offer. I’d like to know where you get that kind of information.
Ok but would any of you be surprised if the Mariners did trade either Ibanez or Winn before opening day?
I would be very surprised if they traded Ibanez but not at all if they traded Winn.
#63 – go to sportsillustrated.cnn.com, then go to the team pages. There you will find links the minor league clubs. When you click on the link to the minor league, there are some additional links for some situational data for that team.
Data are there for 2003. I understand the 2004 data got screwed up and will never be posted. I’m not sure if earlier data are archived anyplace.
Here’s a link that has Bucky’s 2002 and 2003 data: Bucky 2002 and 2003 splits
If that premise is correct (and I’m pretty sure it’s correct), then by your logic aren’t all minor league hitting stats suspect?
I believe that’s called the traditional argument against sabremetric interpretation of minor league/college stats in favor of scouting, the “MLB is SUCH a different game” argument you hear from, say, our GM (who’s asserted something like this in the past with respect to minor league stats).
It’s not a statement particularly well-grounded in fact (minor league hitting performance of individuals DOES highly correlate with major league performance of the same indidivuals)… but hey, why let that stop you?
he has a half year at triple a ….suggesting solid #s at double a are anywhere near majorleagues is a joke 75% of these guys never sniff the bigs and 5% have 3 year mlb careers.Lets just watch the buckster go i say he is in tacoma by the ned of april at the latest…
#67 – Wel, JC. That’s just not true. There’s quite a bit of data that shows there is a direct correlation between a players performance in AA ball (as well as AAA and A ball) and how the player will do in the majors.
#68 you can pull out all the stats you want the competition and level of it is the point…..Bucky has a half season at triple a and a quarter season in the bigs he hasnt faced the best pitchers in the world long enough to get a real #s data for most people who are realistic about competition faced…that is my point #s at the lower levels are just that most of those pitchers you never see again…are in laymans terms that guy in low a ball with the good change and breaking ball who wins 17 games and cant get anyone out in double a because he has only enough to trick the young kids and not the older guys…just a example…….
JC- No point in going further. It’s clear that you have made up your mind that minor league stats can’t be used to predict major league success, and you have no interest that there is a wealth of information that proves that assumption is incorrect
your right because stats are stats and players play the game…all the stats in the world cant tell you what kind of instincts a player has are what kind of guts he has…im sorry thats why scouts and the human eyes are more important then any stats..remember the dodgers had all those so called power hitters coming thru albuqurque in the 80s well stats said they would do it in the bigs but they forgot they were playing in a launching pad just a example how do stats work then?
Ever heard of park effects? Translated statistics?
Seriously, this is basic, basic stuff. It has been proven, several times, that properly translated minor league statistics are every bit as accurate at predicting major league performance as major league statistics. That doesn’t mean they’re perfect, obviously, but if you’re going to be convinced that someone is for real based on their major league performance, you should be willing to be convinced by their minor league performance as well. The raw numbers themselves aren’t very helpful, but when you understand which statistics project future potential well, and translate them for age, level, league, and park effects, you get a very useful tool to predict major league performance.
One way Sexson can avoid being injured again is to give up on checking his swing. This is easier said than done, of course, because that’s a reflex he started learning in little league and is going to be very hard to conciously override. But let’s assume he manages it — professional athletes have great focus, right? — and just doesn’t check his swing for fear of injury. If he was going to check his swing but didn’t, he’s unlikely to make contact. Now some of those pitches would have been called strikes anyway, but not all of them. So that means his strikeout rate goes up and his BA and OPS goes down. I have no idea how much, but even if he otherwise returns to form that’s going to mean a decline in his numbers from his peak years back around the turn of the century.
Albuquerque is a wonderful example of to use, because the correlations show how Albuquerque translates to the big leagues – they show how much you have to downgrade Albuquerque to get the major league equivalent.
The Dodgers didn’t recognize the correlations; they paid the price for not using the information.
Reading your post, it seems that you may be misunderstanding part of the issue. The minor league correlations don’t say that hitting .340 in AA ball is the same as hitting .340 in MLB. Rather, that .340 number gets knocked down to an equivalent MLB number, incorporating the level of play, the overall offensive characteristics of the league, and the park factors in which a player plays.
The correlations also include influences that you are concerned with. For example, a guy who doesn’t make good contact gets a worse translation. If you strike out frequently as a minor leaguer, that problem will almost assuredly get worse in MLB. So a guy who merely feasts on mistakes at lower levels, but doesn’t manifest key skills such, gets penalized.
In the end, what you are left with is the rather straightforward result that the guys who hit most successfully in MLB were also the guys who hit most successfully in minor league ball. The guys who are less successful at the MLB level were also less successful in minor league ball :cough:WillieBloomquist:cough:
Furthermore, the correlation is quantitative, not just qualitative. You can, with reasonable accuracy, translate those minor league stats to major league performance. Which is to say, that if you are looking at two 25-year olds who have similar BA/OBP/SLG (after correcting for league and park factors), those guys will probably perform pretty similarly at the major league level, and they will perform about on a par with players who posted similar numbers in the minor leagues. The correlation isn’t perfect, but it’s far from random.
And as you’re Albuquerque example illustrates, teams that ignore that information do so at their own peril. The reason why the Dodgers have been so incapable of producing hitting talent over the last ten or twenty years is likely because they’ve been consistently fooled about their minor hitters because they haven’t recognized park factors. Many of the Dodgers minor league parks significantly favor offense, and the Dodgers appear to have consistently judged their minor leaguers as better hitters than they’ve proven to be. Similarly, the Mariners appear to have consistently overrated their pitchers because most of the Mariners minor league parks favor pitchers.
One important piece that is not included is player age. Justin Leone’s 2003 season at San Antonio makes the same translation regardless of his age. But the fact that he was 26 in 2003 makes it a lot less significant than if he had been 23. Being 26 means that his projection to the big leagues is about the peak that could be expected for him. (BTW – as I recall, Leone’s major league equivalent for his 2003 season at San Antonio was about .230, pretty close to what Leone actually appears to be.)
Bucky’s minor league don’t say that he will be a star. They suggest that he will be a serviceable major league bat – performing at close to league average overall output. But he has huge power and makes minimum salary. Also, when you look at numeric data you also need to consider which direction the numbers could be off. He has a couple of seasons in his minor league career which suggest they might understate his effectiveness. Coupled with his creditable performance during his callup last year (on a bum knee) makes him a very good investment for a $300k contract.
And there is no reason to consider that his minor league lefty-righty splits won’t carry to MLB.
BTW – here’a another writeup on tranlating Bucky’s minor league stats.
Re #69:
I remember a game last year thinking the same thing when I was visiting Oakland to see my dad and we went to a game when the Ms were in town. Bucky hit a home run to dead center in his first at bat against Mulder, who is hardly one of the lower-level pitchers in baseball.
Granted, Mulder had an off second half and any pitcher can make a mistake, but still…
FIGHT THE POWER ALEX
Bucky will be near the league average in BA but he will be above it in homeruns I think we all can agree on that
I say bucky will be in tacoma by the end of april..No one thinks im right but i will be back at the end of april to talk …i hope im wrong but bavasai and his band of fools evans and crew dont give me the imprssion they think the buckaroo is for real….just my thought i hope im wrong….
JC – I don’t disagree that Bucky will be in Tacoma in April – the Front Office has almost said as much. That’s because they roster logjam and because they he will probably still be rehabilitating his knee.
The point is that he shouldn’t be there because of the roster logjam.
Saying Bucky WILL be in Tacoma and Bucky DESERVES to be in Tacoma are two different things.
And as Steve says, Bucky SHOULDN’T be in Tacoma. The reasons that are given may not really hold up when you think about ‘em (as in, strikeouts are a worse out than any other out…..).
And needless to say if Bucky rides the pine early in the year, gets 5 at bats a week, and after 3 weeks is hitting (say) 3 for 15 with 7 strikeouts and 0 HR, that would not be an indication that he DESERVES to be in Tacoma. Though it would be given as a reason for his demotion.