Brendan Ryan

Dave · December 12, 2010 at 12:51 pm · Filed Under Mariners 

Last week, I started writing up a post on why the Mariners should acquire Brendan Ryan from St. Louis. Because of the craziness of the winter meetings and being totally whipped on Friday, I didn’t finish it. Today, the Mariners acquired Brendan Ryan. I guess you’ll have to take my word for it that I would have endorsed this deal even before it went through.

So, let’s talk about Ryan. The first thing people are going to notice is just how bad he hit last year, and I’m sure we’ll hear moaning from the “we need offense!” crowd, as Ryan is nothing like a big bat kind of player. Like Jack Wilson, most of his value comes from his abilities in the field, and you live with the bat in order to get the glove in the line-up. Unlike Jack Wilson, Ryan can actually stay on the field for more than a few days in a row. And, despite his miserable offensive season last year, there actually is some reason for optimism about his abilities at the plate.

In February of last year, Ryan had surgery on his right wrist, and while he was able to make it back on the field for opening day, wrist problems are among the worst any hitter can have. They are notorious power-sappers, and they can linger for months even after a player is back on the field. It is quite common for a player to hit far below his normal levels when returning from a wrist problem. And that’s exactly what we saw with Ryan, whose offense took a big step back from 2009. He should be totally healthy this year, and it will be interesting to see what a full-strength Ryan looks like again. In addition, there are some statistical suggestions that Ryan’s offense is better than his 2010 numbers.

One of the first things I started doing after we rolled out splits leaderboards over on FanGraphs was to look at how different players performed over the last few years on different batted ball types. We’ve all seen guys hit line drives right at people and say “man, that’s unlucky”, and I was curious if there was any actual year to year correlation in a stat like batting average on line drives. So, I pulled all the numbers from 2007 to 2010 and ran some correlations, finding that – as you might expect – there seems to be almost no year to year predictive ability from a guy’s BA on line drives. The actual correlation was .15, so it’s not completely random, but it’s close. With very few exceptions, almost everyone gravitates back towards an average of about .725 on line drives. Guys who get “lucky” hit as high as .850 in any given season, and guys who got “unlucky” hit closer to .600, but they almost always regress right back to normal the next year.

Brendan Ryan was one of the “unlucky” guys last year, hitting just .627 on line drives, third worst in baseball among full time players. Only Carlos Lee and Alcides Escobar were worse, and before you scream that this is just evidence that these guys suck, other underachievers on line drives include Buster Posey, Ryan Ludwick, and Andre Ethier. Oh, and there’s the fact that Ryan hit .778 on line drives in 2009, so it’s not like this is a yearly problem for him. I’d argue that it was almost certainly a fluke, and we should expect his line drives to find more gaps next year, leading to expectations for a bounce back season.

He probably won’t hit .292/.340/.400 like he did in 2009 again. That was out of the norm that he’s established over the rest of his career, but I wouldn’t be at all surprised by a .270/.320/.380 line from him. That isn’t world-beating offense, but given that he’s an elite defensive middle infielder, it would make him a pretty useful piece. Keep in mind that Ryan’s UZR at shortstop in nearly 2,400 major league innings is +23.1. Even regressing that number to account for the sample size and imperfections in UZR, he’s still likely +5 to +10 runs better than an average defensive major league shortstop, and if you put him at second base, he’d probably be among the best defenders in the game at the position.

If his bat rebounds at all, he’s something like a league average player. Even if it doesn’t, he’s a pretty solid utility infielder and part-time player off the bench. He also gives the Mariners the flexibility to use him as the starting second baseman to open the year, then shift him into a different role once Dustin Ackley proves he’s ready for the big leagues. If Jack Wilson gets hurt and/or traded, Ryan is an easy fit for the starting shortstop gig, basically giving you the same skillset with better health for a fraction of the salary. If Wilson is playing well and is actually able to take the field when Ackley forces a promotion, Ryan can become the primary reserve infielder, giving Ackley days off against tough LHPs and Wilson days off when his (whatever) hurts.

There’s also the added bonus that Ryan is cheap. He’s arbitration eligible for the first time this winter, and the M’s will control his rights through 2013. Given his miserable offensive season last year, he’s not going to get more than $2 million in arbitration, and he might not even get that. He’s a low cost guy who won’t eat up the rest of the team’s payroll, but fills their most glaring need on the roster.

Avoid the temptation to look at Ryan as another no-hit infielder. He’s a quality player, and the Mariners are instantly better for having made this move. He probably won’t have the same breakout that Franklin Gutierrez had after coming over, but he’s got the chance to have a similar impact on the pitching staff if he plays regularly. This is a good move for the team.

Comments

74 Responses to “Brendan Ryan”

  1. eponymous coward on December 12th, 2010 11:37 pm

    We have seen this before – how did it work out last year?

    No, actually, last year, we tried using a guy with very poor injury history (Jack Wilson) at short, backed up by a guy who is essentially Willie Bloomquist without having graduated from South Kitsap HS (Josh Wilson).

    This was pretty obviously a mistake at the time (I wasn’t very happy about the infield depth and said so).

    THIS year, we have the same two guys PLUS a 1.5ish WAR player (Ryan) able to cover short and second, with Ackley breathing down necks as a 2B option, and Figgins being moved to 3B where he belongs (instead of playing 2B badly).

    There are offseason moves you could argue weren’t all that good (*cough*Olivo*cough*). I might even accept that you might have wanted to bring Russell the Muscle back instead of Cust if you could have worked out a deal (Branyan can at least play a defensive position without being a complete embarrassment). I don’t think this is one of them, though. We weren’t getting Hanley Ramirez, and given a choice between Ryan and, say, Nick Punto, I’ll take the one who’s under team control for pretty cheap for a while.

    The simple fact is that there isn’t anyone in the M’s system who can play short who’s better than Ryan. Nick Franklin’s not close, so the idea that you can put some kid out there… well, there isn’t one.

  2. vertigoman on December 12th, 2010 11:44 pm

    I think Dave and co. Can use more mr.baseball trolls. Really riles up the locals here. More hits. Maybe not

    That kind of troll doesn’t understand WAR or process vs results so y’all are wasting carbon on him.

  3. ldom on December 13th, 2010 2:43 am

    This s one long-time Cardinal fan’s perspective on Brendan Ryan:
    Why did the Cards trade him? The answer to this is simple–he was not a Tony LaRussa favorite. He didn’t fit Tony’s preferred “type” (gritty, dirt player) and he ruffled Tony’s “old school” feathers. Ryan is energetic and exuberant. Evidently that annoys Tony. But, he brings an energy onto the field and he plays with a joy & exuberance that we don’t see much anymore.

    The Offense: What has rarely been reported is the fact that the Cardinals’ new “hitting coach” Mark McGwire, remade Ryan’s swing last offseason after the kid hit a perfectly respectable .292 in ’09 and .280 in half a season of ’08. Then, Ryan had the wrist surgery.

    The Tony Treatment: When Ryan struggled to regain his swing after rehabbing the wrist, he started losing confidence, all the while looking over his shoulder in the certain knowledge that LaRussa wouldn’t cut him much slack. Add more stress, a couple of benchings, and more lost confidence and you have a player who looked utterly lost at the plate.

    “Cardinal” sin? Ryan quit working with Big Mac and instead started working with Mike Aldrete, Cardinals asst. hitting coach. Aldrete had him on the road back and by the end of the season, he was looking better. But, for Ryan to turn away from Tony’s pet coach, McGwire, probably did him in for good. Make no mistake, this was a Tony LaRussa move.

    The Defense: Is…in a word, stellar. Tremendous range, highlight reel plays AND the routine plays. Dewan & Baseball Info Solutions rating system estimated Ryan saved the team 24 runs in 2010. Best in major leagues. Ryan has speed and athleticism. On a team where the presence of Albert Pujols combined with the AL management style of LaRussa doesn’t prohibit base stealing, Ryan could very well increase his stolen base total, if given opportunity. Only problem with Ryan’s defense is an occasional quirky sidearm throwing motion that is sometimes not on the mark. Corrects with coaching.

    Fan Reaction: Many fans are very unhappy with this move. A lot of us thought the upgrade should come at 2B, where Skip Schumaker, a prototypical “Tony type” player, plays below average defense as a converted outfielder (Tony’s idea–can’t admit he was wrong). Defensive metrics ranked Skip 28th or 29th among major league 2B. Limited range, needs Ryan’s huge range to close up the middle IF. Next yr with Theriot’s lesser range and Skip at 2B will be painful to watch, I fear. Schumaker also struggled offensively. BA on the season was .230’s,

  4. samregens on December 13th, 2010 3:09 am

    If the M’s could pick up this guy for almost nothing (in this seller’s market this year), then why the heck did GMZ fork over 2 years 10 million dollars to Jack Wilson last year??

    That deal is looking worse and worse.

  5. ivan on December 13th, 2010 4:28 am

    If the M’s could pick up this guy for almost nothing (in this seller’s market this year), then why the heck did GMZ fork over 2 years 10 million dollars to Jack Wilson last year??

    That deal is looking worse and worse.

    Then is not now. Ryan wasn’t available when Wilson came here, and considering that the players Seattle gave up wouldn’t be helping, it wasn’t a bad deal at all, let alone “worse and worse.”

    Or maybe you’d rather have Ronny Cedeño playing shortstop every day.

  6. samregens on December 13th, 2010 5:46 am

    No, I meant that Jack Z overpaid for Wilson.

  7. ivan on December 13th, 2010 6:07 am

    What was the alternative?

  8. Mister Baseball on December 13th, 2010 7:06 am

    Roll the dice and hope you get lucky with a kid who otherwise would be buried at AA/AAA.

    There are lots of players who DESERVE to be buried at AA/AAA as organizational filler- essentially, these are replacement level players (0 WAR). Wasting time on someone like that when you can pay a million or two dollars for a 1-2 WAR player is stupid.

    For THIS organization, do you really think that the long term goals would be better served by trotting out Jack Cust or Greg Halman/Mike Carp/??? We ain’t going no where. We don’t need incrementally better bad players. Perhaps after 400+ at bats one of rookies will give us something useful. Maybe they will develop into useful trade bait. Maybe they will be worthwhile enough to even keep.

    Jack Cust’s lifetime hitting stats: .248/.380/.460
    Jack Cust last year: .272/.395/.438

    Matt Stairs lifetime hitting stats: 264/.357/.481
    Matt Stairs last year: 232/.306/.475

    Obviously I was speaking of Matt Stairs as a PH, not as a DH. If Jack Cust is our 9th inning PH and not a DH, fine, sign him up. But from all the noise I have heard on this the intention is for him to be our DH.

  9. Mister Baseball on December 13th, 2010 7:13 am

    # vertigoman said –

    That kind of troll doesn’t understand WAR or process vs results so y’all are wasting carbon on him.

    I almost fell out of my chair. I guess on a number of fronts, this is really an interesting comment.

    But maybe I should ask a few clarifying questions first – 1. Are you praising a process which yielded a 61-101 record? 2. Are you saying that results are not as important as having a really cool process?

    A focus on process over results is a losing focus. Process needs to be the slave to success. In this town, with this team, process is all you’ve got.

    Never confuse effort with success.

  10. LongTimeFan on December 13th, 2010 7:17 am

    Dave,

    I for one, am very pleased that it appears the front office is finally going to take one season and let the kids play. I’ve been hoping for just that for about 6 years now. Is it as exciting as signing the marquee free agents? No. But the pain of the Adam Jones trade and other moves are all too recent in my memory. Some times it’s better to just bite the bullet and reload. We wasted a one-of-a-kind, HOF talent in Ichiro, during the Bavasi years, but the moves GMZ is making this off-season (although quiet) are the right moves. Let the kids play. We’ll have money to spend next year.

    Dave, since it seems like we’ve checked off all the boxes on our off-season to-do list, could you give us a run-down on possible moves we could still make this winter and some that might present themselves mid-season?

  11. gwangung on December 13th, 2010 7:21 am

    A focus on process over results is a losing focus.

    No, it isn’t.

    Never confuse effort with success.

    Never confuse results with success either. That’s Bavasi, 2008, all over.

    You DON’T understand baseball. Obviously. Remember, a Rod Carew in his prime GETS OUT AT THE PLATE HALF THE TIME HE GETS AN AT BAT. But you still send him out there because he’s your best option; you don’t bench him because he’s been a slump for the last two games. That’s focussing on process on the in-game level–you’re arguing you don’t do that at the GM level, which is ludicrous.

    Moreover, you DON’T understand the process of baseball. Get the major pieces, yes. But you don’t stop getting the minor pieces in the process–most of the time, they’re the way that you CAN get the major pieces (through trades, etc.). And it’s just plain DUMB to throw away chances to improve yourself at minimal cost.

    That’s the kind of DUMBNESS where I fall out of my chair.

  12. halflink123 on December 13th, 2010 7:21 am

    @Dave 6:51PM

    IMO, you are not being objective which is not surprising considering you are a Mariner fan and I’m being negative about your team.

    Overall I like Jack Z as a GM but think he’s a bit myopic when it comes to overstressing the importance of defense.

    How about instead of looking at last year’s OPS for shortstops, take a look at active shortstops’ career OPS? You get a longer list of shortstops with close to .750 career OPS –

    Marco Scutaro (.721)
    Yunel Escobar (.761)

    Also this ignores players that might not be considered “pure” shortstops but could probably be serviceable –

    Jed Lowrie (.761)
    Chone Figgins (.735) – yes, maybe move him and sign a real 3B.
    Omar Infante (.714)

    This is a list I compiled in 2 minutes. It’s already a decent sized list.

    Also the argument about how teams that made it to the playoffs had above average UZR. Yeah, but how many of those teams had above average OFFENSES, too? My statement about the M’s last season was intended to show that a PURE defense team doesn’t work. You NEED offense, not just defense.

  13. gwangung on December 13th, 2010 7:29 am

    My statement about the M’s last season was intended to show that a PURE defense team doesn’t work. You NEED offense, not just defense.

    You need run differential, not just offense. Focus on that, not just one part of the equation.

    (Hm. I’d also say your players aren’t adding that much to your argument; still not a great number of players there—which get halved because of their availability. I think Dave’s point is still valid–what you want isn’t that freely available).

  14. The Ancient Mariner on December 13th, 2010 8:52 am

    A focus on process over results is a losing focus.

    You obviously stopped taking math in about fourth grade.

    This is a list I compiled in 2 minutes. It’s already a decent sized list.

    Yeah, but the “2 minutes” part shows, in the absence of any further consideration. Scutaro would cost far more than Ryan (especially in money); and if the Red Sox decided to keep him and deal Lowrie instead, they would want a lot more in prospects. The Jays aren’t going to be moving Escobar unless someone knocks them off their chairs, since he’s their starting SS and they only picked him up a few months ago. Omar Infante would also cost a lot more than Ryan, and given the age difference, I don’t see any reason to think he’d be a better player. And Chone at SS? Give me a break. That’s just a joke. Put the dude back at 3B where he should be able to get back to being a good player — don’t overstress him by sticking him at a position he can’t play adequately, that would only put him in position to fail.

    My statement about the M’s last season was intended to show that a PURE defense team doesn’t work.

    Your statement ignores the fact that the M’s last season were no such thing. The fact that the team as a whole gave us a worst-case scenario at the plate doesn’t magically make them a “PURE defense team,” it just makes them a team that hit a lot worse than they should have.

  15. vertigoman on December 13th, 2010 9:03 am

    I almost fell out of my chair. I guess on a number of fronts, this is really an interesting comment.

    If only you hit your head, again.

    But maybe I should ask a few clarifying questions first – 1. Are you praising a process which yielded a 61-101 record? 2. Are you saying that results are not as important as having a really cool process?

    Goes to show that you don’t understand what you are talking about. It’s ok, it’s a little advanced.
    A focus on process over results is a losing focus. Process needs to be the slave to success. In this town, with this team, process is all you’ve got.
    Never confuse effort with success.

  16. vertigoman on December 13th, 2010 9:06 am

    I almost fell out of my chair. I guess on a number of fronts, this is really an interesting comment.

    If only you hit your head, again.

    But maybe I should ask a few clarifying questions first – 1. Are you praising a process which yielded a 61-101 record? 2. Are you saying that results are not as important as having a really cool process?

    Goes to show that you don’t understand what you are talking about. It’s ok, it’s a little advanced.

    A focus on process over results is a losing focus. Process needs to be the slave to success. In this town, with this team, process is all you’ve got.

    There you go, you got one right. process is the only thing a GM has. They don’t actually play the games. 2 points for you!

    Never confuse effort with success.

    Not even sure what that means. Somehow, I think you’re actually saying that they are somehow disconnected.

  17. vertigoman on December 13th, 2010 9:11 am

    But seriously Mr. Baseball. I don’t think you need to agree with the writers here or all the different people that post here. However, you should probably understand some of the principle subjects they discuss. For one you should understand commentary on process vs. results. It’s pretty much what this kind of site is all about.

    Apologies about the double post above. Ignore the first one, this site obviously is not optimized for Safari.

  18. JH on December 13th, 2010 9:25 am

    For THIS organization, do you really think that the long term goals would be better served by trotting out Jack Cust or Greg Halman/Mike Carp/???

    Yes. Absolutely. Not even close. Cust is a major league hitter. Those guys aren’t. There’s no long-term value to watching Greg Halman put up a .230 wOBA in the majors next year.

    We don’t need incrementally better bad players.

    There’s good evidence that Brendan Ryan isn’t a bad player. We just acquired him for nothing, and if he pans out we have a cheap, league-average shortstop for the next three years. Also, a team needs 25 players. Every move can’t be for an impact guy. Show me the better option at SS that doesn’t blow the team’s entire offseason budget.

    There are no roles here which require a good fielding, poor hitting middle infielder,

    Yes, there are. If he’s your best option at shortstop, we call that role “shortstop.” If he’s your best option for a stopgap second baseman, that role is “stopgap second baseman.” This isn’t complicated.

    Another example, we don’t really need a good fielding 4th outfielder for late inning defense, because it is so seldom that we have a lead in the late innings. We would be much better off selecting a guy who can actually successfully pinch hit simply because our offense SUCKS!!! and we are likely to go into the ninth inning behind.

    You realize a bench can have multiple players, right? You need a 4th outfielder to spell your players when they’re hurt/ailing and take spot starts from time to time. For the sake of efficiency, it makes sense to have one guy who can play all three OF positions. Late-inning defense is a plus, but every team needs a guy who can credibly play the position in case a regular goes down.

    What I don’t think you’re getting here is that there’s NO opportunity cost to this move, and very minimal actual cost. The team gave up virtually nothing for a guy who fills a need and should be a substantial improvement. He doesn’t block anyone. He doesn’t eat up a huge amount of salary that will stop the team from making other moves. He in no way impedes the team from pursuing impact moves if they present themselves. The downside to this move is Brendan Ryan’s bat doesn’t trend back towards where it was in 2009. If that happens, we either play him if he’s still our best option, or cut him loose if he isn’t. Either way, the only cost was a guy who’s several years away and an extreme long shot to reach his ceiling as a setup man.

  19. gwangung on December 13th, 2010 9:41 am

    What I don’t think you’re getting here is that there’s NO opportunity cost to this move, and very minimal actual cost. The team gave up virtually nothing for a guy who fills a need and should be a substantial improvement.

    What I think is happening is that the guy you’re responding to isn’t confident about the measuring sticks we have on defense. Ryan’s a “defensive” specialist? So’s Wilson; they’re the same. Never mind that the scouts would say the Ryan’s defense is much greater than Wilson’s; ya can’t measure it like OBP or OPS, so it doesn’t make an impression.

    The problem is that GMs nowadays ARE taking advanced fielding stats more seriously; you really do have to keep up with the Jones’ on this. Folks are taking a quantitative approach to defense, and they would have anyway—any way to reduce uncertainty and gain an advantage over others.

    Ultimately, this comes down to playing to your strengths; i.e., Safeco Field, where defense holds more value than other places. Needless to say, I think some of the detractors have emphasized this themselves, generating a little irony.

  20. fermorules on December 13th, 2010 11:28 am

    Memo to Mister Baseball: I very much enjoyed your comments and agree with most of what you said. The Mariners do seem to add players as if they’re tweaking a 90-win roster, not the worst offensive team in 50 years.

    I lost confidence in this website last year when it published a lengthy piece regarding the fine play of catcher Rob Johnson. I know it was authored by an outside source, but a few years ago it would have been unthinkable for such an article to appear on ussmariner. Not only did it appear, but most of the comments defended a catcher who might have been the worst player in Major League Baseball.

    And the Mariners have fed us a steady stream of these marginal players the last decade. They’re virtually shoved down our throats: Willie Boom Boom, The Paper Boy, Hyphen, et al.

    Perhaps Brendan Ryan will prove to be a great acquistion, and if he does I’ll glady admit I was wrong. For now, though, this excites me about as much as when the Argyros regime axcquired Jerry Dybzinski in 1985.

  21. JH on December 13th, 2010 12:01 pm

    Anyone remember when the Mariners focused their entire offseason on making impact moves, instead of trying to make a bunch of good, prudent ones? That totally worked out. All the team needed was Adrian Beltre and Richie Sexson, and they’d be contenders overnight!

    Whups.

    The Mariners do seem to add players as if they’re tweaking a 90-win roster, not the worst offensive team in 50 years.

    Again, every move won’t net you an impact player. Brendan Ryan won’t single-handedly compel the team back into contention, obviously. But he’s not a 1-year stopgap, either. He’s around for 3 arbitration-eligible years where he should more than justify his salary. If the team’s young core develops well enough to give us a window of contention during that time, he’s an excellent complementary player to have at a position of extreme scarcity. If he doesn’t work out, he won’t be tendered a contract in the future, and the team will still have the flexibility to look elsewhere.

    I lost confidence in this website last year when it published a lengthy piece regarding the fine play of catcher Rob Johnson.

    The whole point was to introduce a different viewpoint. The same week, Dave wrote a lengthy piece on the guest author’s site explaining why Rob Johnson sucks. If you don’t like opposing viewpoints, don’t read the guest columns.

  22. eponymous coward on December 13th, 2010 12:37 pm

    For THIS organization, do you really think that the long term goals would be better served by trotting out Jack Cust or Greg Halman/Mike Carp/???

    The better player. Cust is a MLB hitter. Carp and Halman aren’t.

    Also, why isn’t a .248/.380/.460 guy adequate for a DH?

    Or, to put this another way:

    Cust’s wOBA: .365
    Player A’s wOBA: .366
    Player B’s wOBA: .349

    I pretty much guarantee if Jack had signed player A, you’d be saying it was a “commitment to winning” with a superior player… even though he really isn’t worth much of a premium over Cust. But he was an overpaid Yankee with rings, so hey.

    We don’t need incrementally better bad players. Perhaps after 400+ at bats one of rookies will give us something useful. Maybe they will develop into useful trade bait. Maybe they will be worthwhile enough to even keep.

    Cust isn’t a bad player. Neither is Ryan. And just because Halman or Carp are “kids” does not magically turn them into good players, either now or down the road- playing time in the major leagues before you are ready means you get to watch players (like Lopez) suck for extended periods of time, and playing time when you are NEVER going to be ready (like the Pride of South Kitsap, or Josh Wilson) also means you get to watch players suck, and yes, having a worse team in 2011 hurts the Mariners in 2012. If either Halman or Carp eventually turned into the finished product equivalent of Cust (capable of being a league average DH/OF/1B at around 2 WAR), they’d be doing pretty well. But that is not likely to happen in 2011/

    Finally, let’s assume that Carp or Halman annihilates pitching in spring training and for a few weeks in Tacoma, and Cust does a complete belly flop. Great, we DFA Cust, promote the kid. Or let’s say Nick Franklin and Dustin Ackley blow Tacoma away, and it’s July 1. So how does having MORE talent hurt us?

  23. gwangung on December 13th, 2010 1:13 pm

    The better player. Cust is a MLB hitter. Carp and Halman aren’t.

    Also, why isn’t a .248/.380/.460 guy adequate for a DH?

    That’s what gets me. Ignoring that kind of line isn’t making an argument. It’s aggressive stupidity. It doesn’t even make sense on its own terms.

  24. Pilate on December 20th, 2010 8:45 am

    If you consider that while Beltre was here he got $13M/year, and his line in those five years was .266/.317/.442, I’ll take Ryan at $2M for a one year look-see. If Dave is right, and he comes in around .270/.320/.380, it’s a win in my book.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.