More Hickey
Speaking of John Hickey, he was on KJR this morning (yeah, I’m doing the stay-at-home Dad thing right now, so I listen to too much KJR). On the subject of Campillo, he said the M’s see him competing for the 4th/5th starter job. “But who’s out of the rotation, then?” you must be asking yourself. Apparently the M’s have discussed the possibility of moving — gasp — Ryan Franklin back to the bullpen.
Regardless of Campillo, that they’re even considering yanking Franklin from the rotation seems like a good start to me.
PI: Hickey on Felix, me on Bucky
One, Hickey on King Felix, talks to the phenom:
Already he’s been dubbed “The Franchise” and “King Felix,” among other nicknames. So what’s it like to have such things said about you?
“It’s strange to hear all that,” Hernandez said. “I’m just Felix.”
Ah, such humility. You don’t see that often enough in royalty. Remember folks, if you were a USSM reader, you were a Felix Hernandez fan way before it was cool.
Second, my latest PI column went up yesterday. It’s a careful, fairly detailed look at the Winn-Ibanez-Bucky tradeoff the team faces, and bizarrely was linked on the Foxsports.com Rumors page.
As always, I’d like to mention that if you want these columns to keep going, or if you’d like to see this stuff in print, a totally random passer-by offered places you can write to express your opinions.
Campillo
As we initially reported last week, the Mariners have signed Jorge Campillo.
We didn’t jump the gun. The M’s just weren’t ready to announce the signing at the time.
Jeremy Reed on KJR
The M’s probable centerfielder was on KJR this morning, doing the usual “get to know the new player” interview. For what it’s worth, I thought he came across as well-spoken, intelligent and humble. He spoke repeatedly about not being handed the job, and needing to go out and “make the team” above all else. I also like that when asked about his approach at the plate, he said he loved to draw walks, used a line-drive swing and would hit to all fields. He said he’ll pull the ball when neccessary and thinks that more power will come eventually, though he certainly doesn’t consider himself a power hitter.
The usual fluff, I know, but he certainly said all the right things. Oh, and he was already in Arizona working out, even though he doesn’t have to be there for a few more days.
MLB’s fantasy rampage
If you’re at all interested in the ongoing war between MLB’s web arm (MLBAM) and everyone who wants to play fantasy baseball, Neil deMause wrote an article on this available (for free) at Prospectus on what’s going on and what the issues are. Check it out.
Position Roundtables: Starting Second Base
Dave: Starting Second Base: Bret Boone.
2004 was a disaster for Bret Boone, especially in light of his recent
performances, including his excellent 2003 season. His performances
went down across the board, dropping to a mediocre .251./317/.423
line. More disturbingly, there doesn’t seem to be a single culprit
that led to the struggles; he just got worse across the board. He
swung more often and made less contact. When he hit the ball, it
didn’t go as far, and it was turned into an out far more often. Even
his stolen bases fell, but he was caught more often. In addition, his
defense appeared to have purchased a 20 game plan, only bothering to
come to the park on select days.
He turns 36 before the third game of the season. He’s played almost
1700 games at a position known for wearing down players earlier than
expected. I know Boone thinks he just had an off year, and he’s done
the lasik thing to claim that his increased vision is going to help
him return to previous levels of stardom, but I just don’t see it.
The Bret Boone of 2001-2003 is just a memory at this point, and all
we’ve got left of that Boone is the jersey and the contract.
I don’t expect another massive slide for Boone, at least not this
year. I think he’ll hit something like he did last year or maybe a slight improvement, say
.260/.320/.440, which is still a pretty decent second baseman. With
the impending move of Jose Lopez to second base, however, Boone’s
replacement is waiting in the wings, so this is probably his swan song
in Seattle. It was a great run, but I just don’t see Boone hooking up
the juvenation machine and reliving the glory days again.
Derek: I agree, though I also think there’s a bounce possible. Even the
bad-hitting pre-Mariner Boone hit better than last year’s version.
Boone’s an obvious example of a player that didn’t peak at 27-28. While
on a larger scale we know that players peak then and then decline, and
we can talk about the shape of careers (as we did in Sexson’s case) many
players peak early, or late, and in general a player who had a nice,
easily distinguishable career year at 27 and then declined softly and
steadly until 35, when they crashed would be the exception. When Boone
was supposed to be at his best, in 1995-1997, he wasn’t: his 1994 year
was really good, his 1995 good, and then he stunk it up for two years
until he put up some decent numbers, and then 2001 and 2003 were
stellar. 2002, by istelf, was impressive but wouldn’t have been
unbelievable on its own. Compared to 2001 and 2003, it looks anemic.
My point is that Boone’s career may have taken an unexpected late turn,
but I look at his 13-year career and in trying to guess at what next
year’s performance would be like, I keep looking back at the bad and
decent years that have made up the bulk of his lines. If he hit
.240/.300/.350 next year, that wouldn’t be surprising.
Really, are there cases where LASIK has dramatically improved a hitter’s
performance this late in their career?
Other interesting fact, though: while nearly every defensive stat you
can point to showed Boone as a below-average defender and in many cases,
far below average, UZR had him at +5 which I think has to be some kind
of fluke. Defensive metrics are all subject to strangeness. As much as
I’ve looked to UZR in the past for answers, in this case I think there’s
something odd going on.
Lopez should be a good player and a contributor to the next truly
competitive team, and there’s an excellent chance he’ll be promoted
during the season if he takes to second well and Boone doesn’t rebound well.
Jeff: Once again, I am in concordance with what Dave and Derek have said. One small addendum: I think continued productivity by Jeff Kent (a player of similar vintage, and Boone’s top PECOTA comparison) indicates that a rebound is possible.
To help undermine the site’s reputation as a source for factual information, though, I also offer this parody of Robert Service’s poem ‘Boon Soul.’
***
Boone Soul
With profound apologies to Robert Service
Behold! He is old; frosted hair soon white;
Bret’s years-eroded swing
a sometimes troubling sight,
absent now what it once did bring.
The raucous second baseman’s skills
held through select all-star years,
one-hundred sixteen wins, viewed thrills
where facing Boone ranked in pitchers’ fears.
But in watching him this year you’ll see
(along with an inevitable decline, belated)
observers muse of how next year he’ll be
himself among the For Assignment Designated.
***
Yes, I know that letting a player walk in free agency is not the same as designating him for assignment. Poetic license.
Jason: For starters, I think we should be glad 2005 is the last year of Boone’s
current contract. Maybe he just looks young, but I was marginally surprised
to see he turns 36 in April; not that I thought he was 30 or anything, but
he just doesn’t seem 36.
Moving on. As I said at the USSM Feed a few months back, Boone’s not as good
as he was in 2003 but not as bad as he was last season, either. Nobody’s
mentioned this yet, but he was slowed by nagging hip/back injuries that
certainly hurt him at the plate, even though he still managed to play 148
games. Assuming those problems are gone, we should see a small bounce back
in his offensive numbers. I think we should look for something similar to
his 2002 season — I’ll say he posts a .270/.340/.480 line.
That sort of production won’t mean he’s worth his $9M salary, but it’s
certainly not awful for the position. It also helps that he shouldn’t have
to be the team’s only power option next season; you can afford to have that
line from your fourth- or fifth-best hitter (Ichiro, Beltre, er, Sexson…),
but not from your second-best.
I don’t think we’ll see much of Lopez in 2005 unless Boone’s hurt or the M’s
fall way back in the race the way they did last season. I suppose there’s a
third option as well: Boone’s playing well but the M’s aren’t, and Bavasi
manages to unload him in July.
Peter: For some reason my memory had displaced just how
stinky Boone’s 2004 had been. Then I see him ranked
7th in the AL VORP for 2B, sandwiched between Adam
Kennedy and Omar Infante. Yikes!
The holy books of baseball history leave much to be
desired when it comes to 36-year-old second basemen.
Hmm… let’s see. There’s the 1939 version of Charlie
Gehringer. He played on l18 games for the Tigers, yet
put together a .308 EqA (adjusted for all-time). In
1923, Eddie Collins batted a .302 EqA (again,
era-adjusted) in a full season of 152 games. Those
fellas are enshined in Cooperstown, though, and a Hall
of Famer Bret Boone is not.
More modern and mortal examples include Willie
Randolph (1991, 124 games, .315 EqA), Lou Whitaker
(1993, 119 games, .314 EqA), Tony Fernandez (1998, 138
games, .299 EqA) and Randy Velarde (1999, 95 games of
.286 EqA for Anaheim and 61 games of .306 for
Oakland). However, none of these guys resemble Boone’s
skillset or career arc.
On the other hand, his ginormous season of 2001 seems
to have warped our historical perspective of what we
Mariner fans should expect from their second basemen.
Prior to Booney, the best offensive season we had seen
from a second sacker was Joey Cora of the Kingdome
(1997, 11 HR, 54 RBI, .284 adjusted EqA). In that one
season, Boone hit more homers than Cora did his whole
career.
One interesting tidbit from Boone’s latest tenure in
Seattle: The trend in his
pitches-seen-per-plate-appearance is going up, yet his
plate-appearances-per-strikeout is tanking
dramatically. He saw 3.96 P/PA last year, the very
same as Edgar Martinez.
2001, 3.69 P/PA, 6.27 PA/K
2002, 3.68 P/PA, 6.61 PA/K
2003, 3.93 P/PA, 5.64 PA/K
2004, 3.96 P/PA, 4.87 PA/K
Perhaps he was pressing in a lost, nighmare year.
Perhaps his vision was terrible. And maybe the Lasix
will help. And maybe the presence of Beltre and Sexson
in the lineup will take some pressure off. I’d like to
think so.
PECOTA has Boone pegged around .260/.330/.450 and 25
homers in 490 AB. I, for one, wouldn’t cry to see that
line from Booney. As has been read in this space
before, PECOTA is based on comparable players, and
there just aren’t that many for Boone.
If Boone can manage those solid numbers and the
Mariners find themselves swimming ’round .500 by July,
flipping Boone for some prospects isn’t out of the
question. It would have made for a good run.
I am going to love double plays this summer. I’m just
imagining Dave Niehaus tripping through “Booney to
Pokey, Pokey to Booney.” It’s gonna be great.
Dave: Actually, I think Lou Whittaker is a pretty decent comparison. Not
perfect, but decent. Boone doesn’t possess Whittaker’s ability to
control the strike zone, but both were .270-.300 hitters with some pop
despite not being over 6’0 tall. And though he couldn’t stay healthy
at the end of his career, Whittaker was a pretty good hitter until the
day he retired. So maybe I’m underestimating Boone a little bit.
And, also, I think we’d be remiss to not mention the fact that Boone
is the case study for the type of right-handed power hitter who isn’t
affected by Safeco Field. From 2002-2004, he hit .274/.340/.471 at
home and .276/.342/.478 on the road. That’s a statistical tie, for
all intents and purposes. Why? Look at his hitting
chart. He’s peppering the ball to right field consistently, the
part of Safeco that favors hitters.
By my subjective count, Boone’s career extra base hit numbers at Safeco Field:
Left Field Line: 18 doubles, 0 triples, 2 home runs
Left Center Gap: 14 doubles, 1 triple, 16 home runs
Center Field: 4 doubles, 0 triples, 10 home runs
Right Center Gap: 11 doubles, 2 triples, 15 home runs
Right Field Line: 17 doubles, 1 triple, 15 home runs
Now, trying to divide center field from right center gap by looking at
a hitting chart isn’t perfect, and squinting to see if there are one
or two “D” marks on the chart is a challenge, so these numbers
probably have a 5% margin of error. But the general idea is still
true. Boone drives the ball the other way far more often than he does
to left field. He’s the tailor made Safeco Field power hitter. If
the M’s want right-handed bats who aren’t going to be affected by
Safeco, they should find hitters like Bret Boone.
Jose Canseco’s Wax Shadow
The word “sincere” comes from two Latin words, sin and cere, that together mean “without wax.” Artisans working with stone could fix errors by binding cracks with melted paraffin, a tactic that created statues and bowls with beauty — but no staying power, no durability. A sin cere work of art was one that not only looked good, but would stand the test of time.
Though books are often termed works of literary art, Jose Canseco’s effort merits neither that term or the term “sincere.” As such, it will fade into obscurity as the ramblings of a deluded, greeded huckster. Ball Four? More like bollocks.
So why write about his prattlings? Because the developing party line in sports journalism appears to be “sure Canseco is unreliable, but we can’t really dismiss his allegations.” With reporters the calibre of Larry Stone taking this easy out, a one-and-done condemnation of the messenger and his message seems worthwhile.
First, Canseco has zero credibility. He’s broke, reduced to selling off his Rookie of the Year ring and AL MVP plaque (and selling out former teammates) in a desperate bid to raise cash. Worse, he can’t even keep basic ‘facts’ undergirding his stories straight. In the 60 minutes interview, we learn that Canseco either injected Mark McGwire with steroids “often,” “more times than [he] can count” or “twice,” depending on whether we believe the written or spoken versions of his lurid tales.
One could conclude that the timing of the book’s release, which comes as baseball implements a new steroid policy, is a coincidence. Of course, you would also have to conclude that Canseco said George W. Bush knew about the steroid abuse simply out of Canseco’s concern for the truth, rather than as a cynical book promotion strategy. If you conclude that way, though, I have a night in the Lincoln Bedroom to sell you.
The Romans had another two word phrase that they used to determine what was behind certain phenomena: cui bono (who benefits)? Indeed, who has the most to gain from inciting an opportunistic moral panic over a hot topic? Certainly not McGwire, or Bret Boone, or Major League Baseball. The list of beneficiaries seems to start and end with a list of Ozzie Canseco’s twin brothers.
Some try to put the burden of proof on the victims. Assuming the allegations are untrue, it is said, we should expect McGwire, Boone or others at whom Canseco has directed mud to sue for libel. If they do not, the argument goes, that tells us something.
Maybe players implicated will choose a legal remedy. There are two very strict legal standards, though, that have made it very tricky to win libel cases. First, you have to prove that something is false, and it’s extremely difficult to prove a negative. Could you prove you have never done steroids?
A public figure defamed by the book would also have to prove that Canseco acted with “actual malice,” showing a “reckless disregard for the truth.” That’s tough to prove, too, because it’s tough to see inside someone’s mind.
Finally, to win a libel suit is also difficult and time-consuming. Even if a party was confident they would prevail, it would take years, and would have the counterproductive effect of keeping the allegations in above-the-fold headlines. If you’re Rafael Palmeiro, a four-year court battle might look much less enticing than allowing dismissiveness and derision of Canseco win the day.
It’s possible that someone will sue. But we shouldn’t draw any conclusions based on whether someone files a libel suit, and to think in this manner reverses the necessary presumption of innocence.
Let me state the obvious: of course there are steroid users in baseball. No one doubts that. But it is unwise and unfair to let that truism kick critical analysis out the window. Legitimate concern over drugs in sports should lead one to investigate how best to curb abuse, something that crass opportunism undermines. Information is never completely separate from its source.
Reporters know that. It’s their business. To acknowledge that Canseco may be less accurate than a stopped clock — but to implicitly endorse the line he pushes — is disingenuous.
If drug abuse is anywhere near as widespread as Canseco claims, then there are numerous other witnesses — ones without book deals and disasteful histories. Ones that might hold some semblance of sincerity.
Jose Canseco does not, and neither does his book. He might be riding high on attention from the 60 Minutes interview, but there’s an old story about flying with wings made of wax.
It ends badly.
Blackley out for 2005
Confirmed by two seperate sources, I’ve learned that Travis Blackley had surgery to repair a torn labrum last Tuesday and will miss the entire 2005 season. This was pretty easy to see coming, as I wrote last September:
“surgery for Travis Blackley is most likely inevitable. It just won’t happen soon.”
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; light a candle for King Felix.
Madritsch
In case you missed it, the New York Post’s Joel Sherman lists Bobby Madritsch as a player poised to break out this year. Definitional quibbling aside — can he really “break out” if he was the team’s best pitcher down the stretch last season? — I have to say that he’s the Mariner pitcher I’m most excited about watching.
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.