Before their recent success against the Devil Rays, Rangers fans were already lamenting about the team’s lack of production. Texas scored only 7 runs against the Angels in their opening series, and dropped that total to 6 against the Red Sox later in the week. While you could argue their pitching has been more of an issue, as both Vicente Padilla and Brandon McCarthy are at about ½ of what their normal K/9IP rates are through their first two starts (they’re going to get better, don’t worry), I’d like to take a closer look at this offense.
A couple of days ago, Rangers’ GM Jon Daniels was on a local Dallas station (AM 1310, The Ticket) saying that, although they haven’t scored many runs (this was before the Devil Rays games, mind you), he was pleased at the number of pitches that his team had seen. I decided to take a look at the team by team splits this morning, and if I were Daniels, I’d like what I saw too.
As of today, the Rangers have seen 1,223 pitches this season, which is good for 3rd in all of baseball. However, this can be misleading due to different number of games, extra innings, etc. Indexing this to the number of plate appearances (PA) yields 4.03 pitches/PA. The only other team to average more that 4 pitches/PA is the Cleveland Indians (4.08 pitches/PA). Keep in mind that, due to the snow last weekend, the Indians have played about half as many games as Texas.
Of course, both of these are very small sample sizes, but that’s exactly what makes this statistic important. This stat reveals the process over the end result. These 8 games of the 2007 season have told us relatively little about what the Rangers will be, but do shed light on their approach. A good example of this can be found in last night’s Braves-Nats game; specifically 2 of Jeff Francoeur’s ABs (I mentioned these in last night’s post). Francoeur came to the plate twice last night immediately following a walk in cases where pitchers were clearly having control issues and had worked themselves into jams while putting multiple men on base. In these two ABs he went 1 for 2 with a three run homerun. The issue here, though, is that his ABs were over both times after the first pitch. The result was nice, but the process makes me want to throw something through my TV. This is what I mean about sample size: Francoeur isn’t going to SLG 2.000 in these situations, but you can bet that he’ll be hacking and making far more outs than a more efficient mindset would yield. These ABs reveal something about his approach at the plate.
This same thinking carries over to the Rangers. Blalock hasn’t been a very useful player since the 2004 season (except for at home in 2005, but he was even terrible there last year), Young’s reliance on AVG scares me, and watching Sosa swing at a breaking pitch is funny/sad; but they have guys to wear pitchers down and the more you see of a bullpen, the better off you are. Wilkerson particularly catches a lot of criticism but is a pitch siphon at the plate (4.29 pitches/PA career), still gets on base, and can even slug a little if healthy.
The Rangers probably aren’t going to the World Series…no shock there. But they do play in what I think is the second weakest division in baseball (NL Central being the first) and have a decent shot at taking the AL West. Their offense isn't going to lead the league in runs (obviously), but don’t look for them to slide to the 2.17 runs per game they averaged against the Angels and Red Sox either.
Showing posts with label Rangers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rangers. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Young Extension a Mistake for Texas
The Texas Rangers recently signed SS Michael Young to a 5 year extension worth ~$80 million. The extension runs from 2009 through the 2013 season (as he was already under contract for $3.5MM this year, with a $5MM club option for 2008).
Forgetting the fact that Rangers had two more seasons to execute this deal (why would you not want observe his age 30 and 31 seasons to watch for regression?), this extension still doesn't make sense. Even more so when considering that several free agent SS (including Renteria and Furcal) hit the market after the 2008 season.
Young's range at SS has never been above average (or even average, really), as shown by John Dewan's range factors. Additionally, he has two offensive indicators that, I think, hint that his range will soon get worse than it already is:
1) His 3B (triples) have dropped off in the past few years (9, 9, 5, 3 in the past four seasons, respectively)
2) His GIDP (grounded into double play) amounts have jumped significantly; 27 in 2006 (T-2nd in all of baseball), 20 in 2005 (T-10th). These are up from 11 (2004), 14 (2003), and 14 (2002).
I realize that different situations throughout a season could skew these numbers, but we're going to assume that opportunities with men on base, etc. are similar from season to season.
In addition, with Young’s .150 career ISO (Isolated Power), keep in mind that he’s never had over a .180 in a single season, once he regresses with age to around a .275 hitter (which will be sooner than later), that leaves him slugging at a .425 clip (and that’s assuming that his power doesn’t diminish as well…which it will). I think that’s fine for a SS position provided that a) the SS plays above average defense (which he doesn’t), and b) the SS is being paid like a league-average SS (which he isn’t).
One good note on this, however, is that the % of his hits that have been singles has dropped over the past four years as follows: 72.5%, 70.4%, 68.8%, and 68.2%, respectively. I note this because singles are the hits that are most likely caused by luck. Although that may be a good trend, I compared these rates to another shortstop: Miguel Tejada (note: Tejada signed a contract prior to the 2004 season for $72MM over 6 years, he will turn 34 in May of 2010). Both are 30 and both have consistently good averages (I say this only because this is the stat that people inevitably point to when arguing for Young being a premier shortstop). Tejada’s % of hits that were singles the past four years are as follows: 61%, 63.5%, 59.3%, and 71.5%. A big jump in that last year for him, but that’s just because he got lucky more in 2006. This proves the point even more: last year when he hit .330, that was Miggys’ highest AVG by ~20 points, but dropping his AVG doesn’t hurt him. That AVG was 13% higher than his career AVG, while his SLG was only 3% higher than his career SLG. Take some lucky singles away from Miggy and he’s fine because they account for ~10% less of his base hits than Young’s do. This power in a SS allows him to move positions as he ages.
Average propped or not, Young has been a useful offensive player the past few seasons (particularly in 2005). However, Young is signed through his age 36 season (and has a no-trade clause), but his bat won’t play at a corner position, and the Rangers will find out in the next few seasons that his glove can’t cut it at SS either.
Forgetting the fact that Rangers had two more seasons to execute this deal (why would you not want observe his age 30 and 31 seasons to watch for regression?), this extension still doesn't make sense. Even more so when considering that several free agent SS (including Renteria and Furcal) hit the market after the 2008 season.
Young's range at SS has never been above average (or even average, really), as shown by John Dewan's range factors. Additionally, he has two offensive indicators that, I think, hint that his range will soon get worse than it already is:
1) His 3B (triples) have dropped off in the past few years (9, 9, 5, 3 in the past four seasons, respectively)
2) His GIDP (grounded into double play) amounts have jumped significantly; 27 in 2006 (T-2nd in all of baseball), 20 in 2005 (T-10th). These are up from 11 (2004), 14 (2003), and 14 (2002).
I realize that different situations throughout a season could skew these numbers, but we're going to assume that opportunities with men on base, etc. are similar from season to season.
In addition, with Young’s .150 career ISO (Isolated Power), keep in mind that he’s never had over a .180 in a single season, once he regresses with age to around a .275 hitter (which will be sooner than later), that leaves him slugging at a .425 clip (and that’s assuming that his power doesn’t diminish as well…which it will). I think that’s fine for a SS position provided that a) the SS plays above average defense (which he doesn’t), and b) the SS is being paid like a league-average SS (which he isn’t).
One good note on this, however, is that the % of his hits that have been singles has dropped over the past four years as follows: 72.5%, 70.4%, 68.8%, and 68.2%, respectively. I note this because singles are the hits that are most likely caused by luck. Although that may be a good trend, I compared these rates to another shortstop: Miguel Tejada (note: Tejada signed a contract prior to the 2004 season for $72MM over 6 years, he will turn 34 in May of 2010). Both are 30 and both have consistently good averages (I say this only because this is the stat that people inevitably point to when arguing for Young being a premier shortstop). Tejada’s % of hits that were singles the past four years are as follows: 61%, 63.5%, 59.3%, and 71.5%. A big jump in that last year for him, but that’s just because he got lucky more in 2006. This proves the point even more: last year when he hit .330, that was Miggys’ highest AVG by ~20 points, but dropping his AVG doesn’t hurt him. That AVG was 13% higher than his career AVG, while his SLG was only 3% higher than his career SLG. Take some lucky singles away from Miggy and he’s fine because they account for ~10% less of his base hits than Young’s do. This power in a SS allows him to move positions as he ages.
Average propped or not, Young has been a useful offensive player the past few seasons (particularly in 2005). However, Young is signed through his age 36 season (and has a no-trade clause), but his bat won’t play at a corner position, and the Rangers will find out in the next few seasons that his glove can’t cut it at SS either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
