Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Win or Lose, Boston Celtics' New Big 3 Era A Success

Pirates Finding New Ways To Lose; Also, No More "Scholarship"

Typical--the Bucs didn't get blown out by San Diego tonight, and they weren't even unambiguously bad, but they still ended up on the wrong side when the game ended. The Pirates rallied from a 6-2 deficit to tie the game against Heath Bell in the ninth, and that inning featured an awesome plate appearance by Steve Pearce, who laid off a number of tough breaking balls to draw a walk and keep the inning going. But their lack of a real bullpen ultimately undid them as they headed to extra innings--any team with bullpen troubles will be exposed in an 11-inning game, and in this case the Pirates were in a doubly tough spot because Joel Hanrahan, their best reliever by a mile right now, is on the shelf with elbow trouble. Anyway, if you have to rely on the likes of Jeff Karstens in a tough situation, there's a very good chance you're going to lose.

In the meantime, the Bucs' offense did the team no favors by leaving a ridiculous number of batters on base--the Bucs wrangled eleven hits and nine walks, but only scored six times. Garrett Jones hit his 20th home run of the season but, as has so often been the case for him (and I'm not bashing him for this because I don't think it represents a skill, just pointing out a fact), it was a solo job.

Whatever! I'm tired of this. Let's talk about something else. Let's talk about the word "scholarship." I come to bury that word, to attempt to remove it from Pirates-related discourse, except as it applies to draftees. For example, "Colton Cain passed up a scholarship to the University of Texas" is an acceptable use of the word. But "I don't know why Andy LaRoche is still starting, since Neal Huntington promised there would be no scholarships" is not. The attempted removal of a word sounds pretty fascist of me, I admit, but I'm not forcing anyone to stop using it, and if the tactic is good enough for an institution of higher learning, it's good enough for me.

I believe Huntington introduced the concept of a "scholarship." Unfortunately, I can't find its point of origin, because if you Google "neal huntington" and "scholarship" on the Post-Gazette's website, you get an amazing 124 results. What I took Huntington to mean or, at least, what most Pirate fans currently interpret Huntington to mean, is that under-performing players would not be given "scholarships"; that is, they would not receive playing time they did not earn on the field. 

This was a stupid thing for Huntington to have said (and not only because the "scholarship" students I knew in college were often the hardest working and most talented ones, the ones who didn't need their parents to pay their way, but I digress). The goal of a baseball team should not be to mete out rewards and punishments for its players based on how they do; it should be to win games. It's true that the former often goes hand in hand with the latter, but not always. When deciding who gets major league playing time, there shouldn't be moral considerations about the perceived quality of someone's previous play; instead, it should be one factor that should be weighed along with others. When I hear most fans dismissively use the word "scholarship," I feel like what they really want is some sort of vigilante justice based on how the fans feel someone is playing. Justice has little to do with it.

Star-divide

The fact is that top prospects, like Andrew McCutchen or Pedro Alvarez, should get scholarships, while journeymen should have to do more to prove themselves. If Alvarez comes up after tearing it up for three months at Indianapolis next year, he should play every day in the big leagues, even if he starts 5-for-50. If Ronny Cedeno gets hurt and Argenis Diaz comes up and hits 12-for-30 in his absence, the Pirates should probably send Diaz back to Indianapolis once Cedeno is healthy.

Yesterday in the comments, someone mentioned the concept of a "scholarship" in reference to the possibility that Jeff Clement could end up starting next year. Now, one can certainly express the hope that Clement will not start next year, but invoking the "scholarship" concept attempts to find a very uncomplicated kind of justice in what is actually a very complicated situation. The Pirates will have two outfield positions set with McCutchen and Lastings Milledge, while Jones has shown he should get more playing time in either the other outfield position or at first.

That leaves either an outfield spot or first base unaccounted for. There is, of course, a chance that the Pirates could seek a free agent like Rick Ankiel, but many free agents do not want to play for the Bucs, and the Pirates shouldn't want to give a free agent so much money or so many years that he interferes with the team's long term plans. If they can't find a suitable free agent, and I'd actually bet against them finding one, that leaves them looking for a trade or an internal option. Alvarez or Jose Tabata could be possibilities, but both could probably use at least a couple more months in the minors--the Alex Gordon Problem applies in Alvarez's case, and Tabata hasn't really dominated in the high minors yet.

That leaves guys like Brandon Moss, Pearce and Clement, and of that bunch, why not Clement? Moss is a fourth outfielder, and while Pearce might be a reasonable bench option, he's had an up-and-down career since 2007 and could probably be considered as much of a "scholarship" case as Clement is. (So could Moss, actually.) Clement has a first-round pedigree and a reasonably good minor-league track record. He tailed off badly after a hot start at Indianapolis this year, but that may have had something to do with the oblique strain that finally shelved him. It's not at all unreasonable to think he's a better, higher-upside choice than either Moss or Pearce. Alternately, the Bucs could platoon the lefty Clement with the righty Pearce.

Choosing Clement need not have anything to do with "scholarships." That's irrelevant. It has to do with sorting through a number of possibilities, all with pros and cons, and finding the best one for the present and future of the organization. Sometimes that means playing the guy who played best last month, or for some short span in the majors last year, or for some longer span in the minors this year. Sometimes it doesn't. Anyway, I usually get the sense that when someone is using the word "scholarship," it usually just means "The Pirates are playing a guy I don't like." Instead of using that word, make an argument. There's no doubt that the Bucs sometimes make personnel decisions I don't agree with, but that doesn't mean there's some moral dimension to it, and it simply doesn't follow that the Pirates should always use the guy who played best in whatever arbitrary timeframe or context you care to pick. So please, no more "scholarship." Let's just leave that word alone.

By the way, this post is dedicated to Neil Walker, who earlier this year complained that players like him and the great Brian Bixler were getting the shaft while players acquired by Neal Huntington coasted through. Walker didn't use the word "scholarship," but that's the concept he was invoking.

Well, it's extremely early, and of course it's still possible that Walker turns a corner, but he has begun his major league career 4-for-26. And, with his inning-ending double play with two men on in the bottom of the tenth, he's as responsible as anyone or the loss tonight. Cheers to you, Neil! May your teammates in Indianapolis next year enjoy your grousing as much as I have.

Comment 63 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Scholarships.

It seemed like whenever someone was in a slump the past two seasons, the PBC blog crowd would complain about the whole “No more scholarships” thing. There was historical precedent for bad players keeping good players on the bench when Huntington took over. In 2007, the Pirates had Nyjer Morgan starting over Nate McLouth in CF. They had Ronny Paulino starting over Ryan Doumit at C. And they had Matt Morris in the starting rotation. But I think people just took that statement and ran with it to mean that any player who wasn’t hitting .350 and on pace to hit 40+ home runs a year should be benched in favor of the next guy at AAA.

by IAPiratesFan on Sep 22, 2009 2:05 AM EDT reply actions  

Simple...

you perform…you play…you don’t perform…the team looks for someone else who may be able to perform. That’s the way it SHOULD be…but not the way it occurs in Pittsburgh. Guys come off the bench and have a good game…and go back to the bench for another 3 or 4 games. We aren’t in a pennant race…reward good work with more opportunities…not more bench time. If that appears to penalize someone that is struggling…so be it. I believe the object is to win games, correct??

Going into the Monday night game…LaRoche had a .641 OPS since the ASB…Young…had a .638 OPS in the same period. Doumit was at a sterling .677. That’s incredibly unproductive for a starting position player. At what point does the lack of production quit being ignored (900 plate appearances??) ?? It doesn’t matter who the backups are. Do we just play without a 2B until one of our A ball middle infielders is ready??

Frankly…our current outfield (Cutch, Milledge and Jones) are the only ones (position players) that should be anywhere close to having a 25 man roster position “wrapped up” for Opening Day 2010. I might give Ryan a pass due to injury. If the Pirates can find short term solutions from outside without significantly damaging or mortgaging the future…they need to do it. We don’t have ANY positions where someone has been…or is going to be…blocked in the next 2 years. You perform…you play. You don’t perform…go about finding your true life work. Keep a non-performer (or in this year’s case, a bunch of them)…just because he’s out of options?? That’s how you end up with 17 losing seasons in a row.

Bixler has played his way off the 40 man roster after the season. Pearce may not be far away from that. Walker…in his limited appearances…isn’t doing himself any good. Moss might barely stay on…depending on FA acquisition. Cruz only stays if there are no other options. The Pirates won’t eat RV’s contract (and of course, now we find out his knee has been bothering him for 6 weeks).

For the Pirates plan to succeed…they need to find diamonds in the rough…like Jones…while waiting for the youth to arrive in a few years. If you want to go 45-117 next season…by all means…go with what got you to this point this season. The current roster IS historically bad.

by Thunder on Sep 22, 2009 2:44 AM EDT reply actions  

The objective is to win as many games as possible...

…in 2012 (or whatever arbitrary year of notional contention you’d prefer). Winning games in 2009 is nice, but unrelated to that goal.

by Vlad on Sep 22, 2009 8:02 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions  

I’m just guessing, but I wonder if LaRoche is playing in the hope that another team might find him attractive, and thus a package deal with LaRoche and maybe Matt Capps.

....You'll be able to spit nails, kid. You're gonna eat lightning and you're gonna crap thunder....

by chodan11 on Sep 22, 2009 8:51 AM EDT reply actions  

He's playing because...

…he’s the best option on hand. Simple as that.

by Vlad on Sep 22, 2009 8:59 AM EDT up reply actions  

exactly…Would you rather have Laroche or Walker at 3B. Neither is hitting stellar and I think Walker is fielding a bit worse than Laroche right now. AND we have no options in the minors at AAA and Alvarez will not open with the Team next year.

by lfhlaw on Sep 22, 2009 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions  

Oh NO!

This could be the start of another Walker fiasco. Easy, based on highest level of best preformance, start Laroche. In the mean time, forget Walker as a legitimate Major Leaguer until he excells in AAA,,,,, for a season…

Right now, with Lyndon starting, develop a backup plan…in my eyes he has until next years allstar break to be ruled out. At this point, no way Walker should be considered a legit big league 3rd basemen.

Maybe the free agent search begins at 3rd. Forget Ankiel, who is available for 3rd base?

by GeneClines on Sep 22, 2009 10:18 PM EDT up reply actions  

How about...

a permanent move of Ryan Doumit to RF? Worth a try,I would think. He’s a good right fielder with an outstanding arm,and there’s a better chance of keeping him reasonably healthy and his bat in the lineup playing there. The wear and tear of not catching would almost certainly improve his offense that much more. Meanwhile,a catching platoon of Jaramillo and Diaz would not be the worst thing,either offensively or defensively.
In this scenario,Garret Jones is now free to be the regular at 1B.
A bit simplistic? Maybe. Sometimes that works best.

by havildar on Sep 22, 2009 8:59 AM EDT reply actions  

He's a horribler right fielder...

with a bat that would be below average in RF. Hell, he is not an above average hitter for a catcher this year! Doumit it not moving to RF.

by Slick1 on Sep 22, 2009 9:44 AM EDT up reply actions  

I remain skeptical...

…about Doumit being substantially more durable at a different position, insofar as at least two of his past major injuries have come while playing 1B/OF.

And as Slick notes, his bat wouldn’t have nearly the same value at the position. Effectively, it would be like starting Jaramillo or Diaz in RF.

by Vlad on Sep 22, 2009 1:25 PM EDT up reply actions  

Vlad

You make a good point.

That being said, catching in the major leagues is brutal. I had a friend who used to catch 40 or so games a summer in the Johnstown Junior Level.’

He was physically exhausted by the end of the summer. His entire body was bruised.

I’m not sure how you can catch 150 games and stay healthy at the MLB level. For someone like Doumit, that’s clearly an even bigger concern.

by Bernie6666 on Sep 22, 2009 3:17 PM EDT up reply actions  

Charlie

I agree with your points about “scholarship.” I’ve become really tired of hearing it lately. I worry we’re going to start hearing it more and more, just as we constantly have references to young men in college and pro sports as “kids.”

by patthatt on Sep 22, 2009 10:14 AM EDT reply actions  

Problem is…again…we having nothing in the minors to bring up….YET.

and Free agent wise i don’t think there’s anything out there….though I could be wrong as I haven’t heard any names brought out through the year. Plus I guess they really wanted to see Laroche play this year to see what they have.

by lfhlaw on Sep 22, 2009 12:56 PM EDT up reply actions  

And our management team has not yet proven able to trade for position players capable of playing full time in the major leagues…unless they were considered another team’s headache (Milledge and Tabata). I do not put Moss (OPS below that of all but 3 full time ML outfielders) and LaRoche (20th of 22 3B in OPS and basically average fielding) in the “capable of playing full time in the major leagues” category.

So…we’ve got 4 positions (3B, 2B, C, and either 1B or an OF slot (whichever Jones isn’t playing) where we are nowhere near even close to league average production. And one could question whether Milledge and SS (Cedeno) are at that level. So we have 6 spots that we need to improve production on. At most…the current system could improve one or two of those in the near term. (Alvarez and maybe Tabata)

Standing pat is not an option…unless the management team is willing to allow the Pirates to lose 100-110 games next year. Are they willing to do that?? And take the heat for a team that will be that awful??

by Thunder on Sep 22, 2009 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions  

I can't count Doumit

as league average until he actually plays enough to be considered a full time catcher…75 or so games doesn’t cut it. He’s had ONE season out of 5 where he’s caught 75 games (started 103 last year)…and he’d have to catch every game the rest of the season to get to 75 this year…and with a DH next week…that won’t happen.

by Thunder on Sep 22, 2009 1:23 PM EDT up reply actions  

Well, yes and no.

The opportunity cost from having a fragile starting catcher is a greater number of games started by the backup, but since Jaramillo is a pretty good backup, he mitigates that somewhat.

NL catchers, 2009: .254/.324/.384
Pirate catchers, 2009: .254/.301/.385

For the year, we’re 20 points of OBP away from average offense behind the plate. And that’s in probably the worst offensive season of Doumit’s career – if you project him to rebound in 2010, we’re probably average or better even if he stays fragile.

by Vlad on Sep 22, 2009 1:31 PM EDT up reply actions  

Except

Russel loves to hit Doumit 4th. Stack those numbers against the league averages for the 4 spot …YUK

by GeneClines on Sep 22, 2009 10:23 PM EDT up reply actions  

Doumit at #4 isn't necessarily wrong.

It’s not like we’re overflowing with good options right now.

by Vlad on Sep 23, 2009 9:36 AM EDT up reply actions  

One of the advantages of having an actual young team...

…is that you can buy some improvement at positions with young starters just by standing pat. 2010 Milledge > 2009 Milledge, 2010 LaRoche > 2009 LaRoche, etc.

It may not be true for any individual player, but in the aggregate you’ll come out ahead if you have enough of them, even without making moves.

That said, I don’t see anything particularly wrong from a team-building standpoint with losing 100+ games next year. I certainly wouldn’t trade a Grossman, say, for a mediocre established veteran in a drive for 70 wins.

by Vlad on Sep 22, 2009 1:34 PM EDT up reply actions  

I agree with the idea

that losing 100 games won’t necessarily damage the Pirates from a team building standpoint.

But…will the Pirates front office be able to stomach the outrage or apathy from Joe Fan? And will they use the downturn in attendance/revenue as an excuse to “not be able to afford” a missing piece FA when the time come??

by Thunder on Sep 22, 2009 1:54 PM EDT up reply actions  

1) How much more apathetic can the fan base get? Are there really fans who were happy to sit through the last seventeen years, but 2010 is the breaking point?

2) I guess it’s possible, but I like to think the best of people until I have a reason not to, and Nutting’s been pretty good about opening the wallet for the draft and international signings. It seems reasonable to conclude that he’d continue that if there were a FA that made sense. No way to be sure until we get there and find out, though.

by Vlad on Sep 22, 2009 2:01 PM EDT up reply actions  

Datapoint

I haven’t been to a game since June 14. In 15 years, I’ve never gone that long without going to a game, and that includes marrying, buying a fixer-upper, and having 2 kids. I love the sport, and I rarely miss a game on the radio, but I really have no interest in paying to see this team. It’s a really, really awful product on the field. I think that makes a difference – maybe not a big one, but certainly worth few hundred fans per game. Add that up and you’re talking a million or three dollars – which is actually just a drop in the bucket.

OTOH, I know that a, uh, prominent downtown law firm that just built itself a new skyscraper stopped buying food for its luxury box this year – they still own the box, but ticketholders are on their own for food. And, for the first time, boxes have gone begging this year. It’s more about the economy than the team, but I have to think that the team makes a difference.

Anyway, it’s the apathy. If this team starts ’10 with more or less this lineup intact, every story next spring will talk about the return of the worst team in at least 50 years, and there will simply be no interest in the team at all. No ticket sales, no merchandise, no season tickets…. How many years of decent play will it take to turn that around?

by JRoth95 on Sep 22, 2009 4:08 PM EDT up reply actions  

I don't disagree....

with anything you said. But it has been seventeen years and the economy sucks, and yet thru 74 dates attendance is down only 44,458 on the season, an average of 601 per game, and they are still on pace for about 1.6 million which is about where they have been most of the past ten years.

Having said all that, a lot of those tickets were bought at the beginning of the season, so next season really could be a lot worse if people don’t reup, obviously.

by David Todd on Sep 22, 2009 4:16 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yeah, I don’t think it will nosedive. Most of the attendance is already composed of diehards and dilettantes (meaning families making their annual trip or young people just looking for a night out) – neither group is really affected by the on-field product. What’s missing are dilettantes turning into diehards plus semi-diehards (like myself, I guess) making the time to go to 10 games instead of 5, or 20 games instead of 10. But the latter groups are no less likely to show up next year than they were last year or the year before or…. Well, a bit like less likely, but not 2,000 a game less likely.

I do think that the luxoboxes and high end season tickets are the big money piece that we’re not seeing – a luxobox is worth only 20-30 seats per game, but probably represents a few thou$and in income. One unused luxobox represents a few million in lost income for the season – that’s a big hit on top of generally poor attendance.

Last – gross attendance doesn’t tell you anything about where people are sitting. This is primarily a recession issue, not a Pirates-specific one, but I’m sure the average income/attendee is down a lot from 2 years ago. It’s the downside of “not a bad seat in the house.” You really don’t gain that much in experience when you go from the $9 seats to the $24 seats. The badness of the Pirates probably makes people marginally less willing to shell out for the good seats (should a night out seeing a terrible team cost $20 or $40?), but that is surely secondary.

by JRoth95 on Sep 22, 2009 4:28 PM EDT up reply actions  

Certainly

a free agent doesn’t make sense for next year at least. Heck, 3 wouldn’t put the Bucs in contention unless they were named Gibson (Bob), Ruth, and Lyman Bostock.

by GeneClines on Sep 22, 2009 10:26 PM EDT up reply actions  

The other issue here is whether spending significant money

on FAs would leave the Pirates in better financial situation from the extra attendance or worse because of the higher salaries. Let’s say they spend an extra $10 million on FA salaries for next season and that leads to 5 extra wins. I am not sure how much the Bucs net on average for an extra ticket sold but let’s say $40. So they’d need an extra 250K in attendance to pay for the extra salary or about 3K additional attendance per game.

I don’t think that the 5 extra wins would do that so they would likely be less able to afford FAs later when they might actually help us to contend. Of course, as you say, they might still use the low attendance as an excuse for not spending later, but if that is there attitude, I’m pretty sure that they could find a different excuse if they needed one. Especially if, as seems plausible, they are in worse financial condition.

by WestCoastBuc on Sep 22, 2009 2:49 PM EDT up reply actions  

Agreed

I’m not sure the Pirates are that far away from being respectable pitching wise. The bullpen needs work. But the starters are getting close.

As for the defense, I think a few moves would make us mid-range. Young is not the answer at second, for example. Moreover, you need a RF who fields better.

The big issue is finding guys who are legitimate 3, 4 and 5 hitters.

by Bernie6666 on Sep 22, 2009 3:19 PM EDT up reply actions  

New ways to lose?

They look like the same old ways to me:

1. Can’t cash in RISP.

2. Sucky bullpen.

That right there probably accounts for half our losses.

by bucdaddy on Sep 22, 2009 10:35 AM EDT reply actions  

Doumit's not.....

a horrible RF. And how do you know his bat would be “below-average” for a RF? His hitting was obviously affected by injuries this season……And don’t you think just MAYBE if he wasn’t catching,his hitting would be even better?
Doumit may not be moving to RF,but I don’t think it’s because he couldn’t handle the position,or wouldn’t be an above-average RF once he settled in.

by havildar on Sep 22, 2009 12:20 PM EDT reply actions  

Here are Doumit’s stats:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/d/doumiry01.shtml

Here are how right fielders are doing this year:

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/sortableStats?position=RF&stable=hitting&stat=AVG&dir=descending&start=1&end=50

Doumit’s career OBP is .331 which places him towards the lower end of right fielders and his career average is .271 which places him smack dab in the middle which is the definition of average. His career OPS is also below average in comparison.

I made most of my life decisions at a Foghat concert... I stand by them.

by Chester J Lampwick on Sep 22, 2009 12:35 PM EDT up reply actions  

Tiny samples, but...

…over Doumit’s career, he has a .794 OPS as a catcher (1062 PA), a .772 OPS as a 1B (112 PA), and a .789 OPS as a RF (159 PA).

An OPS in the high .700s from a RF is decidedly non-special production. An OPS in the high .700s from a catcher can make you an All-Star in the right year. We would cede a huge competitive advantage by moving Doumit to another position.

by Vlad on Sep 22, 2009 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions  

grousing?

Unless I’ve missed something, Walker made one ill-advised comment. I’m not defending his play, which has been awful, but I question why he needs to be a whipping boy for one mistake. Charlie, I find you to be a reasonable and responsible blogger in almost all instances, but you seem completely unforgiving of Walker for what he said. He’s not Milton Bradley, fer chrissake.

And regarding his play…as has been energetically pointed out in defense of many other current Pirate players not named Neil Walker, you can’t go by such a small sample size, lots of players have a tough time at first, etc etc etc.

What I’ve observed with Walker is that an awful lot of Pirate fans seem to want the local kid to fail. Why that would be, I can’t fathom.

by mocasdad on Sep 22, 2009 1:27 PM EDT reply actions  

We don't want him to fail.

We just expect him to fail, given his professional track record up to this point. If the Pirates signed my granddad to start tomorrow’s game, I’d be pulling for him with everything I’ve got, but I’d still expect him to get lit up, because the majority of the evidence in front of me at this point (he’s over 80, he had a hip replacement, he’s dead, etc.) suggests that he can’t play up to MLB standards.

The same is true for Walker. We aren’t ghouls, just realists.

by Vlad on Sep 22, 2009 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions  

And yet...

when Andy LaRoche has been a failure over 900 major league plate appearances…when us “realists” bring it up…we get told to keep waiting…things will get better with him.

We get told to believe the major league results when they contradict minor league results in one case (Jones) and ignore them in another (LaRoche).

by Thunder on Sep 22, 2009 2:00 PM EDT up reply actions  

Part of it is a function...

…of Jones’s bad results being much worse than LaRoche’s bad results, and part of it is a function of LaRoche having mitigating circumstances surrounding his bad results, while none are present for Jones.

If Jones had been coming back from a hand injury when he hit .238 in AAA in 2006, we would’ve cut him some slack for that. He wasn’t, so we didn’t. Similarly, if Jones had put up his 2008 numbers as a 23-year-old in his first look at the level, rather than a 27-year-old repeating AAA for the fourth time, he would’ve had a higher ceiling on his forward projection.

Context matters, and a certain amount of imprecision in estimates resulting from contextualization doesn’t keep contextualization from being extremely helpful.

by Vlad on Sep 22, 2009 2:07 PM EDT up reply actions  

Which is not to say...

…that LaRoche’s 2009 hasn’t been disappointing, of course. But his late-season slump shouldn’t distract from the fact that he’s up almost 200 points of OPS from his 2008, or that he’s established himself as at least a MLB-caliber player who belongs on a MLB roster, or that he’s still only 25 and probably not at his ceiling yet. It’s something to build on – we’ll see whether he’s able to do so, or not.

by Vlad on Sep 22, 2009 2:12 PM EDT up reply actions  

Laughable....

Vlad, it is comical that you point out things like “he’s up almost 200 points of OPS from his 2008.” In the post above you argue how context is important. Okay here is some context for you: In 2008 his OPS was .508 and his OPS+ was 36. Zach Duke has a career OPS of .437 in roughly the same number of at bats that LaRoche had last year.

That was one of the all-time no context stats you just presented. And I don’t know how having a career OPS+ of 72 or even 87 this year “establishes” anything. Sure there are guys who are worse in the big leagues, but that doesn’t mean Andy has established his chops yet. And as you always point out he plays a position where his bat is more important so his numbers should be adjusted down. And his career UZR/150 is 1.5 in roughly 1900 innings, so people can’t stop citing how great his glove is as a justification.

by David Todd on Sep 22, 2009 3:59 PM EDT up reply actions  

I mentioned it because...

…Thunder was talking about him as “a failure over 900 major league plate appearances”, which unfairly mushes several unlike quantities (i.e. LaRoche’s 2007, 2008, and 2009) together into one big blob.

At this time last year, there were a fair number of people arguing that LaRoche’s 2008 numbers indicated his true level of ability. His 2009, while still disappointing in light of his minor league performance, disproves that contention (which is where the “200 points” thing comes in). Even if what he is today is all that he’ll ever be (unlikely but possible), he’s at least good enough to be a useful bench player in the bigs (and yes, a 3B with an 87 OPS+ is at least a solid bench player for most teams in the league – you’re basically talking about Rob Mackowiak’s career there).

Defensively, a 3B is right in the middle of the spectrum – easier than C, SS, and 2B, but harder than LF, RF, and 1B. Thus, offensive numbers for a 3B don’t really get adjusted up or down.

by Vlad on Sep 22, 2009 4:42 PM EDT up reply actions  

I guess...

that 3 different levels of non success (LaRoche 2007, 2008, 2009) don’t equal failure…OK. If you insist.

by Thunder on Sep 22, 2009 6:29 PM EDT up reply actions  

Like I said, it's still disappointing.

But I think it’s important to recognize that there are degrees of disappointment. LaRoche’s hitting this year isn’t what we would’ve hoped, but it’s on pretty much the same level as what we were getting from starters like Bautista and Mackowiak in past years. He’s giving up about 5 points of OPS+ to them, but is a significantly better fielder than both (or at least has been to date), so it’s basically a wash.

We’ve seen much, much worse at various times in the not-so-distant past.

by Vlad on Sep 23, 2009 9:48 AM EDT up reply actions  

LaRoche’s PrOPS is also .749 this year, indicating he’s been fairly unlucky with batted balls.

by matskralc on Sep 22, 2009 4:28 PM EDT up reply actions  

LaRoche

I still think he’s going to develop some power. But obviously his minor league numbers were skewed because of the ball parks.

However, I still think he’s athletic enough to play 2b and to put up reasonable numbers for that position.

But I don’t see him develop 30 HR power and being a legit 3b.

by Bernie6666 on Sep 22, 2009 3:21 PM EDT up reply actions  

He doesn’t need 30 home runs to be a legit 3B, although more offensive production than 2009 will be necessary.

by Adam Reynolds on Sep 22, 2009 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions  

Well, of course his parks influenced his minor league line.

But even after correcting for that, he’s underperforming this season. His 2007 was worth about a .750 OPS in the majors, and that was before factoring in two extra years’ worth of development between then and now…

by Vlad on Sep 22, 2009 3:41 PM EDT up reply actions  

Vlad

The problem with statistically adjusting his minor league statistics is this: The league he played in was a hitters paradise. As a result, it’s a statistical outlier. Most statisticians would tell you that with outliers like this it is impossible to project statistics. In fact, they are educated guesses at best.

The formulas work well when the person’s home park is near the mean. The formulas well when the league is near the mean. But the farther you get from the mean, the less predictive the formulas are. I suspect that is the key factor for why LaRoche’s projections are so far off.

Essentially, it’s like taking an IQ test. If you repeatedly score 100 on an IQ test. If you take the test again, you are going to be real close to 100.

If you score 160 on an IQ test, who knows what you’ll score next time?

Outliers are essentially useless for projection. My look at LaRoche’s minor league statistics say they are outliers.

by Bernie6666 on Sep 23, 2009 10:17 AM EDT up reply actions  

No, you're wrong.

Las Vegas is a very good place to hit… and that’s why hitters in Las Vegas have a huge correction applied to their stat line. The translations of LaRoche’s Vegas season are exactly in line with what you’d expect from the translations of his non-Vegas seasons.

Just for fun, here’s LaRoche’s MLE OPSes by age/level. Vegas seasons are tagged with a *:

21, A+: .726
21, AA: .676
22, AA: .731
22, AAA: .728*
23, AAA: .749*
…and then the thumb injury.

If LaRoche’s numbers were so badly distorted by Vegas, in a way that MLEs can’t account for, why do his MLE numbers from those seasons look like perfectly normal skill growth in context with the rest of his non-Vegas career? And why didn’t the MLEs also lie for other hitters on the same roster at the same time?

A random outlier season can be hugely magnified by an extreme park factor – but LaRoche’s Vegas performances weren’t an outlier. He killed the ball throughout his entire minor league career. He put up a 1.000+ OPS in the FSL, where power hitters go to die. In the terms of your metaphor, he’s a guy who took five different IQ tests and nailed them all.

by Vlad on Sep 23, 2009 11:04 AM EDT up reply actions  

You make some good points ...

But talk to a statistician about the underlying argument. That statistical models cannot account for extremely favorable hitters ballparks (or pitchers ballparks).

I’d like to see a larger sample (say 400) of players to buy into the argument that MLE works for Las Vegas.

Looking at one player means very little. How many players have put up enormous years in Las Vegas and turned out to be duds?

Also, I’m not sure looking over his minor league statistics that I would say “he’s a guy who took five different IQ tests and nailed them all.” I think, statistically, that the numbers are much more mixed.

by Bernie6666 on Sep 23, 2009 1:49 PM EDT up reply actions  

If you wanted to run a study...

this would be a good place to start. In my experience, though, hitter MLEs aren’t significantly more or less accurate for extreme environments like Vegas than they are for neutral environments.

I’m curious as to which of LaRoche’s minor league seasons you found to be unimpressive, and why. Do you mind elaborating?

by Vlad on Sep 23, 2009 2:22 PM EDT up reply actions  

Vlad

I still do statistical work now and again. But I don’t do it like when I was in grad school. There are several other people on here with a much stronger statistical background than I have.

However, I’d be surprised if MLEs are not less accurate in extreme environments. Outliers are always more difficult to project from. Clearly, I think LV is an outlier compared with other parks.

As for his statistics, I find it interesting that he struggled (to some degree) his first year at every level with the exception of AAA.

Averages like .237 and .273 suggest that he was not dominating. I know average is just part of the examination of minor league statistics. But that’s a concern. Also, his home-road splits are a concern. That’s a quite look and response.

by Bernie6666 on Sep 23, 2009 3:17 PM EDT up reply actions  

Struggling a bit right after promotion...

…is fairly common for young hitters. It looks a bit more dramatic on LaRoche’s raw line than it might otherwise because he got a lot of midseason promotions, so his time at a level is split with most of the adjustment on one season and most of the domination on the next.

LaRoche was legitimately struggling at Vero Beach in 2004, but I think his straight-up dominance there in the first half of 2005 should satisfy concerns about that, and of course the FSL is probably the worst league for hitters in all of professional ball. Your concern about his 2005 performance in Jacksonville feels a bit more nitpicky to me, insofar as his BA was still above league average, and he was still drawing lots of walks and hitting for good power.

by Vlad on Sep 24, 2009 10:04 AM EDT up reply actions  

I agree....

with all your points mocasdad. Vlad you may not want him to fail, but it certainly appears from what Charlie wrote above that he harbors some strong resentment toward the kid. I also only saw the one comment, and while I thought it was laughably wrong and immature, how about cutting the kid a break? And then, citing one at bat from last night’s game and his 26 at bats total and finishing it off with “Cheers to you, Neil!”——I can’t imagine anyone not reading some vitriol into that. Their is no objective or thoughtful analysis, he is just slamming him.

Also is there evidence of grousing, other than one comment, or evidence that he is a bad teammate that I am unaware of?

by David Todd on Sep 22, 2009 3:48 PM EDT up reply actions  

To me, it seems less like malice...

…than schadenfreude. Who doesn’t get a little chuckle out of seeing the prideful made low? And if you’re going to strut around blowing your own horn, you have to be prepared to take a little ribbing if you can’t back up the talk.

In the long run, if a taste of failure leads Walker to re-assess his offensive approach (and his allergy to walks), it might even be a good thing.

by Vlad on Sep 22, 2009 4:56 PM EDT up reply actions  

Wagner Mateo's contract voided

The Cardinals voided the contract under which they were to pay Mateo the second highest bonus ever for a Latin American signee. A medical exam showed a possible degenerative vision problem that could affect his future as a player.

by WTM on Sep 22, 2009 4:27 PM EDT reply actions  

Would this be a good time for the Pirates to try to get him on the cheap?

I made most of my life decisions at a Foghat concert... I stand by them.

by Chester J Lampwick on Sep 22, 2009 4:29 PM EDT up reply actions  

Going from the Cards to the Bucs would be adding insult to injury.

by JRoth95 on Sep 22, 2009 4:29 PM EDT up reply actions  

Sano effect

Let’s hope this doesn’t put the Cardinals in play for Sano. We don’t need anyone driving the price up.

by Alleghenys on Sep 22, 2009 5:12 PM EDT up reply actions  

Boy, that really sucks.

Here’s hoping it doesn’t manifest.

by Vlad on Sep 22, 2009 5:32 PM EDT up reply actions  

Never looked at this until tonight...

maybe Vlad can decipher what’s going on here, if anything other than sample size issues. Realizing of course…that Jones had played 69 games before tonight…Andy 138 games. Amazingly…exactly one half. From the looks of things…they see AB with runners in scoring position at the same rate…and very close to the same rate of seeing runners on any base. Jones obviously comes up more frequently than LaRoche with the bases empty.

Men on base
Andy LaRoche .279/.364/.409 for an OPS of .773 (253 PA, 1.83 PA per game)
Garrett Jones .235/.342/.451 for an OPS of .793 (120 PA. 1.74 PA per game)

Bases empty
Andy LaRoche .221/.294/.336 for an OPS of .630 (289 PA, 2.09 PA per game)
Garrett Jones .335/.387/.683 for an OPS of 1.069 (181 PA, 2.62 PA per game)

Runners in scoring position
LaRoche .265/.351/.416 for an OPS of .767 (133 PA, 0.96 PA per game)
Jones .167/.303/.278 for an OPS of .581 (66 PA. 0.96 PA per game)

by Thunder on Sep 23, 2009 3:05 AM EDT reply actions  

It probably means nothing.

No one has ever been able to isolate “clutch hitters” in MLB from the numbers. I think that there IS a clutch ability, but that all the players who don’t have it get screened out at very low levels of the game (high school, if not sooner).

Furthermore, Jones hasn’t had much of a split in that area before this season. For his career (in the minors), he’s got a .756 OPS with the bases empty, .802 with men on, and .837 with men in scoring position.

I think it’s just normal variance, though it IS startling at first glance.

by Vlad on Sep 23, 2009 9:42 AM EDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Pittsburgh Pirates.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Mlb_photo_1367_small
Fixing the Pirate offense: Plate Discipline

Recent FanPosts

Small
Who'd of "Plunked" it? Shades of Jason Kendall
Small
Runs . . . Any way you can get them
Pirates_1908_small
gamethread vs cubs 5/26/12
Smiling_small
A little background on the offense
Insetcommodoreperry_small
Guess the Score Game 47: Cubs @ Pirates
Insetcommodoreperry_small
Guess the Score Game 46: Cubs @ Pirates
Small
A cheerful look at our offseason additions
Small
Pedro's Defensive Contributions
A_red_spider_web_on_a_black_background_0071-0911-1622-1329_smu_small
A couple guys that could help the Buccos offense
178896_499126548441_596563441_5939410_7960015_n_small
The Pirates Pitchers Have Adopted Their Own Sign: The FU!

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Yahoo_full_count

Managers

Charlie_small Charlie Wilmoth

Editors

18470r_small Vlad

Davidtodd_small David Todd

Authors

Img_1692_small WTM

Mark_profile_pic_small MarkInDallas